The Mayor Stan Anthony Lawsuit for defamation:
After the defamatory statements made by Shelby Mayor Stan Anthony were published in the Shelby Star, Mr. Willie Green sent numerous messages to Mayor Stan Anthony and the other Shelby City Council members requesting clarification of their statements, a retraction and offers to settle the matter in a fair and equitable manner. No retraction or even a reply was ever made by anybody from the City of Shelby leadership.
Then, and only then did Mr. Willie Green file a lawsuit in “Small Claims” Court against Shelby Mayor Stan Anthony in order to hopefully force Anthony to retract his false and defamatory statements and settle the matter. Anthony refused. The Small Claims Court Magistrate Judge dismissed the case stating the case was too complicated for her expertise to make a proper ruling on. Mr. Green raised the case to the District Court level and Mayor Stan Anthony raised it to the Superior Court level. Mayor Anthony is represented by a taxpayer paid attorney, Martha Thompson. Mr. Green is paying his own legal bills.
Following the Rick Howell failed attempt to get his defamation lawsuit dismissed, before having to answer Mr. Green’s complaint, on the ground of immunity; Shelby Mayor Stan Anthony tried a different approach, for the very same reason-to avoid having to testify under oath, by filing a Motion for Summary Judgement in accordance with Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Both Motions for Dismissal and Motions for Summary Judgement are commonly and unethically used and abused by governmental agencies against private individuals who are paying for their own legal representation. Although such improper court filings as introducing frivolous actions for the purpose of delay and to increase the costs of litigation are violations of Rule 11 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil, it is almost universally done by governmental agencies as Rule 11 violations make tons of money for lawyers and judges are lawyers too. All totally “in on” the concept of making money for lawyers.
The Hearing on Mayor Stan Anthony’s Motion for Summary Judgement:
It is a long-standing lawful right in the United States of America and North Carolina that all public trial and hearings are open to the public. No questions asked. Such a right for public hearings is a part of the US Constitution’s established purpose of NOT having to TRUST governmental agents to do their jobs properly and lawfully, but to allow the public to access all trials and hearings in order to maintain a system of “Checks and Balances” over the power of corruption that often surfaces when governmental actors remain in office too long. It is the old saying that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The “sunshine” of public attendance tends to limit such an accumulation of power and the attendant increase of corruption before the public votes to remove the corrupted governmental agent. From dog catcher all the way up to Judges. Even Supreme Court Judges can be removed by impeachment.
However, the recent advent of the Coronavirus Pandemic has given rise to many opportunities to remove many established “rights” from members of the public. Judges too have found the opportunity to remove public attendance from public hearings. “Virtual” hearings it is called. Technical improvements such as ZOOM, WebX and other means of communication have provided the technical means of holding court hearings while also denying the pubic from attending.
Of course, Zoom, WebX etc. have the capability of being recorded, saved and be made available to the public as public records. All totally compliant with longstanding “rights” of “checks and balances.” But, Cleveland County Courts, under the administration of Senior Superior Court Forrest Donald Bridges have seen fit to use “Virtual Hearings” as a method of exclusion of the public from otherwise public hearings.
Such is the situation with Shelby Mayor Stan Anthony’s September 21, 2020 virtual hearing regarding his “Motion for Summary Judgement” in Mr. Willie Green, doing business as 5-Star Athletic Development vs Stan Anthony. My Public Records Request to the NC Courts to view that WebX held hearing has not been provided and it appears clear that it will NOT be provided. It also appears that Judge Bridges and the NC Courts have gone to these Virtual Hearings and not recorded and saved the Videos as a Public Record. Such a clear, purposeful and corrupt abuse of power is unacceptable. According to me and MY interpretation of Public Records laws.
It seems that all the public has to go on is the Judge’s Order that is associated with that Public Hearing where the public was excluded. Court Orders still have to be filed as paper documents and filed with the Clerk of Court. In this instance, the opportunity to attend the public hearing that I was excluded from is not necessary to form a public opinion on whether the Court Order is corrupt or not. The Court Order signed by Judge Forrest Donald Bridges on October 6, 2020 and filed with the Clerk of Court on October 7, 2020 is clear as a bell under an inspection by an average citizen. The Ruling is Corrupt obviously planned to be corrupt. Actually, it is almost too corrupt and may be purposefully so, such that an Appeals Court will most likely overturn it. Which would be a Rule 11 Violation on Judge Bridges’ part. Anyway, let’s get along with analyzing Judge Bridges’ Order. A full copy will be attached at the end of this article. The Case Number is 20-CVS-585.
The Order signed by Judge Forrest Donald Bridges on October 6, 2020.
The heading of Judge Bridges’ October 6, 2020 Order is ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT. It is a one-page document and we will go one paragraph at a time.
First Paragraph:
THIS CAUSE COMING ON to be heard before the Honorable Forrest D. Bridges at the September 21, 2020 Cleveland County civil superior term of court, upon motion of Defendant, through counsel, for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure;
This first paragraph is mostly informational, except for Rule 56.
Rule 56 basically says in order to succeed in a motion for summary judgment, a movant (Mayor Stan Anthony) must show
1) that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and
2) that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
“Material fact” refers to any facts that could allow a fact-finder to decide against the movant. North Carolina Rue 56 says that Material facts should NOT be established by the Judge holding the hearing under Rule 56.
According to the NC School of Government, the record must be viewed by the Court in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment is sought. Which, in this case is Mr. Willie Green doing business as 5-Star Athletic Development.
The NC School of Government also says: When entering an order on a summary judgment motion, the trial court should not include findings of fact, even if a party requests them pursuant to Rule 52. The court’s task is to determine only whether genuine issues of material fact exist, and not to decide those facts one way or the other.
Read on:
The Second Paragraph says:
And the court (Judge Bridges), after hearing arguments of counsel for the parties and having considered the Pleadings, the proffered discovery, affidavits and matter of public record for which judicial notice is hereby taken, and having considered the law, finds that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law;
After reading this paragraph and considering the fact that discovery is NOT finished, that Mayor Stan Anthony has refused, in his answer to Mr., Green’s lawsuit as well as discovery questions, to actually answer anything. Every question regarding points of fact have been objected to in Anthony’s responses under some hopeful loophole that Anthony’s lawyer, Marth Thompson, can pin a legal “Hail Mary” to. There has been no evidence subject to cross examination produced by the Mayor. Anthony’s affidavit produced by Walt Scharer certainly appears to be perjury that was suborned by Anthony and Thompson. Scharer’s affidavit that he told Anthony that he told Mr. Green to get a contingency had been shot through with holes, modified when Mr. Green proved the statements were false and the modified affidavit that was filed with the Clerk of Court had defects that would require additional modification. Truth, when modified is not the truth anymore. So how can Judge Bridges fall for such s that.
Judge Bridges states that he considered the law-but neglected to tell us what law he was considering. Yes, Rule 56 is a law. Yes, Rule 56 allows a Motion for Summary Judgement to be filed and upheld under the proper circumstances. But, take for instance, the legal definition of Defamation is a tort and against the law. And the elements of Defamation that are included above. No matter how bad, wrong, hurtful to a reputation a statement may be, TRUTH is the perfect defense. NOWHERE does Mayor Stan Anthony provide truth as his defense. Loophole, only loopholes to the law are all you hear from Mayor Stan Anthony. Nowhere does Judge Forrest Donald Bridges mention truth in this paragraph of his ruling or in any other paragraph. Truth is the only material fact that shows whether or not Mayor Stan Anthony deserves a Summary Judgement in this matter. And, truth is totally absent in Anthony’s pleadings as well as Judge Bridges’ Court Order.
