United States District Court

Eastern District of North Carolina

_______Division

Donna Pilch,

Plaintiff

Case No._______

vs.                                                    

Katherine Jean, Melissa Dewey Brumback and Fred Morelock,

individually and in their official capactities as Chief Counsel of the North Carolina

State Bar, and grievance committee members of the 10th Judicial Bar, respectively,

Defendants

1. Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2 which extends the

jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution.

2. Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for violations of

certain protections guaranteed to her by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution, by the defendant under color

of law in his capacity as the superior court judge in residence in the Wake County

court.

Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 states:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,

of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United

1

States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

Plaintiff brings this action against defendant pursuant to Title 42 U.S. § 1985 and

§1986, Conspiracy and action for neglect to prevent conspiracy: “Every person

who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and

mentioned in [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to

prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do

so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his

legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such

person by reasonable diligence could have prevented.”

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Title 42, § 1343. Civil rights and elective

franchise which states:

The U.S. district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by

law to be commenced by any person:

(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the

deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in

furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;

(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any

wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to

occur and power to

2

prevent;

(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the

Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of

citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;

(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress

providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.

Plaintiff raises questions of law pursuant to Title 28, § 1331 law (“federal

question”) which states that “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction

of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States.”

Judicial Immunity:

1. While a judge performing judicial functions enjoys absolute immunity, denial of

constitutional and civil rights are absolutely not a judicial function and conflicts

with any definition of a judicial function. Failure to honor the American

constitution and state constitution and statutes makes a judge’s action no longer

a judicial act but an individual act as the act represents their own prejudices and

goals.

2. Case law states that when a judge acts “ultra vires,” beyond his powers, and as a

trespasser of law; when a judge does not follow the law, he then loses subject

matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void and of no legal force or effect.

3

In a limited government, a government limited by the constitution, the violation of

a citizen’s rights should never be justified due to the overriding government’s

goals or objectives, and that no branch of the government is allowed to extend its

power beyond its legal limits.

3. The Supreme Court has rejected applying absolute immunity in circumstances

such as when a judge with jurisdiction

over criminal matters convicts a defendant of a non-existent crime, the judge has

performed a “judicial act” in “excess of his jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman 435

U.S. 349, 364 (1978); and when conspiracy to deprive a person of their

constitutional rights occurs, pursuant to 432 Dennis v. Sparks 449 U.S 24 (1980)

and Scheur v. Rhodes 416 U.S. 232 (1974).

4. In addition, judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a

judicial officer per Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984).

5. And administrative acts, such as Judge Donald Stephen’s recordkeeping

responsibility per North Carolina General Statute 7A-105 is not covered by

judicial immunity.

6. In her forwarding remarks in “The New Politics of Judicial Elections” published by

the Brennan Center at New York University, retired Supreme Court Justice

Sandra Day O’ Connor called for urgent judicial reform in states that have pay to

play judicial elections (such as North Carolina).

7. In August 201o, she wrote: “The crisis of impartiality in the judiciary is real and

growing. Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine

4

the rule of law that courts are supposed to uphold. We all have a stake in

ensuring that courts remain fair, impartial and independent. If we fail to

remember this, partisan infighting and hardball politics will erode the essential

function of our judicial system as a safe place where every citizen stands equal

before the law.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Donna Pilch is a natural person residing at 1114 Autumn Day Drive,

Morrisville (Wake County) North Carolina.

2. Defendant Donald Stephens is the Superior Court Judge in residence presiding at

Wake County Court.

STATEMENT OF CASE FOR “CLASS” OF MISDEMEANOR DEFENDANTS:

1. The Wake court’s violations of the state and federal constitutions and statutes is

systemic, on-going, and impacts a class of hundreds of others, similarly situated

to plaintiff.

2. The Wake county court is not allowing probable cause hearings for misdemeanor

cases. Per North Carolina General Statute 15A-606, a defendant must demand or

waive a probable cause hearing. The Wake County court is not enforcing this

statute.

3. The choice of whether to have a probable cause hearing is necessary because it

allows innocent defendants to be released from court in a timely manner, sparing 5

them having to incur the time, expense and emotional duress of having their

cases continued for years, culminating in a jury trial in superior court.

4. Without probable cause hearings, innocent defendants, can and do spend up to

two years or more unlawfully held hostage in the Wake court and some, including

plaintiff, are then forced into a jury trial in superior court.

5. In addition, there are unlawful/fake court documents in use in the Wake County

court, which are not approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts, and

which obstruct justice as shown in Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s “Second Motion for

Relief.”

6. The unlawful “transfer and appeal” document allows clerks and prosecutors to

conspire to “transfer and appeal” cases from district to superior court without the

knowledge or consent of the defendant or a judge, violating due process, and Title

42, section 1983, 1985 and 1986.

7. The unlawful documents contradict the way the court system is supposed to

operate per North Carolina General Statutes, and do not require the signature of

defendants, which obstructs justice by not keeping them informed of case status.

8. And, the Automated Criminal Infraction System (ACIS) is being tampered with

unlawfully by Wake court clerks, acting in excess of their jurisdiction, per Title

18, 1030.

6

9. By unlawfully changing case status in the ACIS computer system, clerks can

cause false arrest/unlawful seizure with excessive fines, violating the 4th and 8th

amendment of the American constitution and section 23 of the North Carolina

Constitution.

10. The urgent need for correction of the ACIS computer system was revealed by the

state auditor’s June 2011 performance audit of the Administrative Office of the

Courts which revealed over $100 million in mismanaged funds, and constitutional

defects in the ACIS system. (Exhibit 4)

11. Superior Court Clerk Nancy Lorrin Freeman, a color of law official responsible for

recordkeeping, does not have a lawful recordkeeping system in effect to prevent

use of fake court documents and false arrests due to clerks’ unlawful tampering

with the ACIS system.

12. Per North Carolina General Statute 7A-112, superior court clerk Lorrin Freeman

is responsible for the Wake court’s recordkeeping.

13. Freeman continues to intentionally fail to act with reasonable diligence as

required by Title 42 to curb the recordkeeping crime despite being notified of the

urgency of such by plaintiff since February 2010.

14. Per North Carolina General Statute 7A-105, Stephens, the superior court judge in

residence is ultimately even more responsible for curbing and rectifying

recordkeeping errors, and has continuously failed to do so despite being notified

of the urgency of such since February 2010.

7

15. Thus Donald Stephens, by failing to act with reasonable diligence, conspires with

Lorrin Freeman to obstruct justice, violating Title 42, sections 1983, 1985, and

1986.

16. Federal intervention (injunctive relief) curbing the Wake court’s violations of

state and federal statutes and constitutions is urgently needed because Judge

Donald Stephens has failed to take action and a class of hundreds of defendants

are impacted.

17. Exhibit 2 details numerous violations of numerous federal statutes by other court

personnel, which impacts hundreds of defendants.

18. Injunctive relief is urgent because of “the likelihood of (continued) substantial and

immediate irreparable injury” impacting a class of hundreds of defendants, and

because of the (gross) inadequacy of remedies of state law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF (for Class)

WHEREFORE plaintiff prays this court:

1. Assembles a team of IRS, FBI and Secret Service agents to investigate the crime

described in detail in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, conduct a forensic audit, and

identify and prosecute those responsible for it.

2. Order the Wake court to require defendants to demand or waive probable cause

hearings for misdemeanor cases per North Carolina General Statute 15A-606.

8

3. Order the court to cease using the fake, unlawful “Transfer and appeal” and

“Motion to Continue” documents and to begin using lawful court documents

which are posted online at www.nccourts.org/forms.

4. Order a forensic audit of the Wake Court to identify all the persons responsible

for the financial crime detailed in “cause of action.”

5. Curb the Wake Court’s practice of arresting defendants’ for missing a court date

if they have not been found guilty of a crime, per section 23 of the North Carolina

Constitution.

6. Order the Wake Court to identify and notify the class of defendants who were

unlawfully arrested for missing a court date without being found guilty, and

refund the arrest fees with interest retroactively from the date of the arrest.

7. Order the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts to create a

Certificate of Service to provide defendants’ due process prior to a jury trial and a

lawful Motion to Continue document.

8. Order the Wake court to cease verbally telling defendants’ to “come back

tomorrow for a jury trial.”

9. Order the Wake court to cease using unlawful court documents shown in Exhibit

1, which are not approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts, do not allow

for due process, violate the way the court is supposed to operate per North

Carolina statutes and which allow court clerks and prosecutors to “conspire” to

9

move cases from district to superior court without the knowledge or consent of a

defendant or a judge.

10. Order the Wake court to identify and notify victims of the unlawful “Transfer and

appeal” document and “Motion to Continue” document that they may have their

cases reviewed for procedural errors and obstruction of justice;

11. Order the N.C. General Assembly to fund the North Carolina Innocence

Commission or other, similar third party so that the victims of the unlawful court

documents can have their cases reviewed for procedural errors and obstruction of

justice;

12. Order the NC Administrative Office of the Courts to correct the ACIS computer

system to:

o Prevent court clerks from illegally changing case status and causing false arrests,

and excessive fines.

o Differentiate between court dates and jury trial dates.

o Revise the criminal codes used in ACIS to comply with the codes established by

the North Carolina General Assembly.

o Order the Administrative Office of the Courts to identify and refund defendants

who paid for a misdemeanor conviction and simultaneously performed community

service, as this constitutes double billing, and excessive costs.

10

STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL CASE: (Time line July 08-present)

(Summarized here; Detailed in Exhibit 1)

On July 27, 2008, plaintiff was a victim of false arrest/unlawful seizure when a

Morrisville, North Carolina officer arrested her in the driveway of her apartment

complex for suspected DWI, and wrote a false police report, a violation of North

Carolina General Statute 75D-7, a Class F felony.

The allegation in the police officer’s report was scientifically impossible; thus the

stop and the arrest were a violation of the 4th amendment, unlawful seizure.

A blood test was taken; however, the SBI blood test revealed a false statement

and perjury by SBI notary Joyce Davin (felonies), and defective protocol in the SBI

misdemeanor serology unit, whereas the blood sample was left at room

temperature for over three months.

Two other documents included in Exhibit 1 show that the blood sample taken may

not have belonged to plaintiff.

On October 27, 2009, Judge Jacqueline Brewer convicted plaintiff of a non-

existent crime, in district court, acting in “ultra vires” of judicial function.

On October 27, 2009, Judge Brewer conspired with the SBI by allowing the SBI’s

serology crime into evidence, violating Title 42, sections 1983, 1985 and 1986.

11

On October 27, 2009, Judge Brewer unlawfully and unconstitutionally convicted

plaintiff of a DWI misdemeanor without her knowledge, consent, plea, right to be

heard per North Carolina law, or signature, as required by court document AOC-

CR-322.

Plaintiff’s case was then unlawfully “transferred and appealed” to superior court

by an unlawful court document, and without her knowledge or consent.

Plaintiff’s district court attorney mailed her a copy of the document.

Plaintiff missed a 2/22/10 court appearance in superior court due to a court

clerk’s tampering with the ACIS computer system and certifying incorrect

information.

A clerk unlawfully, in excess of his/her jurisdiction per Title 18, section 1030,

certified conflicting court dates as correct, simultaneously, on the same day of

12/31/09.

The same clerk changed plaintiff’s case status from disposed back to pending on

that same day. Plaintiff’s case could not have been both disposed of and pending

on the same day of 12/31/09 because no proceeding occurred on that day.

Plaintiff subsequently missed a court appearance on 2/22/10 (because the ACIS

computer print out containing the court date of 2/22/10 was not certified).

12

Plaintiff was then ordered arrested and charged excessive bail by Superior Court

Clerk Nancy Lorrin Freeman on 2/26/10 for missing the 2/22/10 court date.

Plaintiff was arrested March 17, 2010 due to Superior Court Clerk Freeman’s

unlawful order for arrest, a violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution.

Freeman charged plaintiff excessive bail of $1500.00 to get out of jail. The bail

amount is excessive, a violation of the 8th amendment of the American

Constitution, because it is three times the amount of a misdemeanor DWI

conviction.

On March 15, 2010, Plaintiff released her district court attorney from

representing her because she realized that the court system was not abiding by

the state or federal laws or constitutions, and thus, in a broken system, any

counsel would be rendered ineffective.

Plaintiff appeared in superior court on 3/29/10 as directed by the bail bond

document and was told verbally to come back on May 3, 2010 for a jury trial. (No

certificate of service was provided).

Plaintiff appeared in court on May 3, 2010 and made a motion for dismissal for

lack of evidence and for the court’s errors and constitutional violations.

Plaintiff’s motion was denied by the presiding judge, and plaintiff proceeded to

represent herself in a jury trial. A mistrial occurred early into the proceedings,

when a juror became ill.

13

Superior court clerk Nancy Lorrin Freeman mailed plaintiff a notice to appear for

a second jury trial on August 2, 2010, using a fake/unlawful court document and

failing to address the constitutional issue of double jeopardy, or the other

numerous recordkeeping errors reported to her by plaintiff by fax and by

voicemail since February 2010.

Plaintiff appeared in Wake Superior Court on August 2, 2010 and was told by an

assistant DA to “come back tomorrow for a jury trial.”

Plaintiff returned on August 3, 2010 and again, made a motion for dismissal due

to lack of evidence and the court’s constitutional violations. The presiding judge

denied the motion. Plaintiff refused to have a second jury trial, and then the

judge escorted plaintiff to the court clerk’s office to pay fines.

Plaintiff never pled guilty or signed the AOC- CR-322 court document pertaining

to guilt.

Plaintiff was charged for someone else’s DWI conviction by court clerk “SLM.”

Plaintiff’s case number was 08-CR-045381, but was charged for case number 08-

CR-045291.

On August 3, 2010, Plaintiff paid $589.50 for someone else’s conviction by court

clerk “C91SLM.”

14

On August 3, 2010, Plaintiff was ordered to surrender her driver’s license to the

court. This constituted unlawful seizure of her property because the court

convicted an innocent defendant.

On August 16, 2010, plaintiff delivered a motion for relief to Donald Stephens and

District Attorney Colin Willoughby, documenting the court’s errors and

constitutional violations.

District Attorney Willoughby did not respond to plaintiff’s motion for relief.

On August 24, 2010, Wake court superior court judge in residence Donald

Stephens unlawfully, unconstitutionally, and with either gross negligence or

malice that “shocks the conscience,” denied plaintiff’s Motion for Relief which

detailed numerous violations of the state and federal constitutions and statutes

that occurred in the Wake court, and ultimately resulted in an unlawful

misdemeanor DWI conviction on August 3, 2010 which has harmed plaintiff

personally, professionally and financially. (Exhibit 1).

If Stephens had applied reasonable diligence required by Title 42, he would have

seen that the police report was false, scientifically impossible, and that the blood

evidence was defective, and that he should have reported the SBI notary Joyce

Davin to the DA Colin Willoughby for investigation.

The two years of unlawful and unconstitutional court activity and violations of

state and federal statutes and constitutions are detailed in Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s

15

second motion for relief, which was delivered to Judge Donald Stephens and

District Attorney Colin Willoughby on June 13, 2011.

Prayer for Relief (Personal)

Plaintiff was unlawfully and unconstitutionally convicted of a DWI misdemeanor in

district court on October 27, 2009 and then again in superior court on August 3,

2010 due to numerous violations of state and federal constitutions and statutes

detailed in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, by judges and court clerks acting under color

of law and failing to apply reasonable diligence.

Due to systemic, long-term constitutionally defective recordkeeping by superior

court clerk Nancy Lorrin Freeman, an unconstitutional conviction caused by

Judge Jacqueline Brewer and the cover-up of both by Judge Donald Stephens,

plaintiff has been unlawfully and unconstitutionally prosecuted, deliberately, and

with gross negligence, reckless indifference to her constitutional rights, or with

malice that “shocks the conscience.”

When considering compensatory and punitive financial damages requested in

Exhibit 3 and below, plaintiff asks the court to consider:

the harm caused by the defendant’s conduct,

the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct,

the duration of the conduct,

16

defendant’s awareness and intent of wrongful conduct, pursuant to County of

Sacramento v. Lewis 523 U.S. -118 S. Ct 1708 (1998). The Court defined

“shocking conduct” as a violation of the 14th amendment when a person

demonstrates “intent to harm or worsen (a defendant’s) legal plight.”

conspiracy to conceal wrongful conduct,

the existence and frequency of similar past conduct,

the profitability of the wrongful conduct,

the impact defendant has on thousands of other cases by failing to discipline

Lorrin Freeman and court clerks acting in excess of their jurisdiction,

the impact of other Wake county court personnel conduct on hundreds of others

as detailed in Exhibit 2,

curbing and deterring future misconduct by defendant and court clerk personnel

detailed in Exhibit 2.

Plaintiff has been harmed intentionally and affected personally, professionally and

financially and seeks compensatory and punitive damages detailed in Exhibit 3.

Plaintiff has lost 2.5 years of marketing work due to being unable to focus on her

career due to the on-going case in the Wake county court. Instead, Plaintiff spent

the past 2 years lobbying the General Assembly, U.S. Senators and federal

legislators for legislative reform of the judicial system, and gathering intelligence

17

for the IRS criminal investigation unit in order to curb the Wake court crime.

(Exhibit 2).

Plaintiff is a marketing professional whose market value has been $100,000 per

year since 2006.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory financial damages of $250,000 in lost career income.

Plaintiff lost 2 years of work as a pharmacy technician at Rite Aid, a second part-

time job, due to the unlawfully on-going DWI case and seeks compensatory

damages of $20,000.

Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested twice; first by a Morrisville police officer who

wrote a false police report, violating North Carolina General Statute 75D-7, false

testimony, a Class F Felony; and second, when superior court clerk Lorrin

Freeman ordered plaintiff arrested unlawfully and with excessive bail for missing

a court date.

Plaintiff missed court date of 2/22/10 because a court clerk tampered with the

system, changed court dates and did not certify the correct court date as being

“true” (Exhibit 1). Plaintiff seeks $100,000 in punitive damages for each false

arrest. ($200,000)

Plaintiff was forced to represent herself in a jury trial on May 3, 2010. If a

probable cause hearing had occurred as required by North Carolina General

Statute 15a-606, plaintiff would have been spared this horrific ordeal.

18

Plaintiff seeks $100,000 in punitive damages for an unconstitutional jury trial on

May 3, 2010, because the presiding judge was unable to unravel the court’s

recordkeeping or distinguish between real and fake court documents.

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for damage to her career and reputation. As of

June 2011, The ACIS computer system incorrectly states her case disposition as

guilty of a misdemeanor DWI, convicted by Judge Jacqueline Brewer on 10/27/09.

The computer record was obtained for plaintiff from LexisNexis by a prospective

employer.

Plaintiff seeks $100,000 for damage to her reputation pursuant to Wisconsin v.

Constantineau 400 U.S. 433 (1971). The Supreme Court held that the labeling of

a person as an alcoholic is a badge of disgrace, and notice and an opportunity to

be heard is essential prior to publicly posting a person’s name in conjunction with

such. In this case, where the superior court clerk deliberately failed to correct the

court’s recordkeeping errors, and Judge Stephens, to whom she reports, failed to

provide relief, is even more harmful and horrific.

Plaintiff requests removal of her name from the ACIS computer system.

Plaintiff requests that the state of North Carolina pays for her to attend law

school in North Carolina so that she can become a federal prosecutor who

prosecutes color of law officials for financial crime and constitutional violations.

(The crime occurring in the Wake court is systemic, and there are 100 counties in

North Carolina, all of which use the constitutionally defective ACIS computer

system, thus there is a need for prosecutors to curb the statewide crime). 19

Plaintiff seeks $4,000 reimbursement from the Wake court due to unlawful fines

and fees plus the cost of using public transportation since August 3, 2010, due to

the court’s unlawful seizure of her property, her driver’s license;

Plaintiff requests return of her driver’s license.

Plaintiff has to walk 4 miles each way to obtain public transportation and thus the

unlawful seizure of her property, her driver’s license has caused needless

hardship. Plaintiff did not obtain a “limited privilege” driver’s license because

plaintiff is not guilty, and because she did not want to become a target again for

another false police report.

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages of $100,000 for unlawful seizure of her property,

her license, a preventable loss that has caused unnecessary hardship.

(Within four years of residing in North Carolina, plaintiff was a victim of 2 false

police reports). The second instance occurred on 4/20/10 when plaintiff had a side

by side collision with a car. The driver, Kristi, called her husband, a police officer.

The officer plaintiff phoned and Kristi’s husband, spoke in secret away from the

accident scene. When they returned, the officer said the accident “was probably

plaintiff’s fault.”

The Raleigh Police Internal Review Board refused to investigate the officer’s

misconduct and when contacted by plaintiff and ABC- TV news, Raleigh Mayor

Meeker and City Manager Russell Allen stated that they refused to establish a

civilian review board. (Exhibit 6)

20

Plaintiff seeks $100,000 in punitive damages from the city of Raleigh, a

municipality, pursuant to City of Oklahoma v. Tuttle. Due to reckless indifference

to the federally protected rights of citizens, by city leaders Mayor Meeker and

City Manager Russell Allen, there is no civilian review board to protect citizens

against police misconduct. It is the duty of Raleigh city leaders Meeker and Allen

to train, supervise and discipline police officers, and they have publicly stated that

they refuse to do so on ABC- TV. (Exhibit 6)

Plaintiff seeks $2,000 punitive reimbursement from the Wake court for her

district court attorney fee. Counsel was rendered ineffective by the court’s

systemic and continued refusal to honor court procedure, and the state and

federal statutes and constitutions.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory reimbursement of fees associated with this filing

($350.00)

Finally, plaintiff seeks $2 million dollars in punitive damages, after taxes, for the

unlawful and unconstitutional conviction on 10/27/09 by Judge Jacqueline Brewer,

who convicted an innocent defendant of a non-existent crime, a second unlawful

conviction on 8/3/10, the gross recordkeeping errors by Lorrin Freeman, and the

deliberate conspiracy cover-up of such, that “shocks the conscience,” by Donald

Stephens.

In the case of County of Sacramento v. Lewis, (523 U.S. -118 S. Ct 1708 (1998),

the Supreme Court defined “shocking conduct” as a violation of the 14th

21

amendment when a person demonstrates “intent to harm or worsen (a

defendant’s) legal plight.”

Per Smith v. Wade 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983), a plaintiff may be awarded punitive

damages against an individual defendant “when the defendant’s conduct is shown

to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless and callous

indifference to the federally protected right of others.”

Donald Stephens had the authority to provide relief if he had used reasonable

diligence and abided by the state and federal laws and constitutions that a person

acting under color of law is supposed to honor and uphold.

The total amount of compensatory and punitive financial damages that plaintiff

seeks is $4,464,525. plus a state-sponsored scholarship to attend law school in

North Carolina.

The State of North Carolina, a sovereignty, failed to protect plaintiff and the class

of others similarly situated from the horrific, systemic constitutional violations

described herein.

In Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court provided an

important exception to the 11th Amendment sovereign immunity States enjoy: the

Stripping Doctrine.

Plaintiff respectfully requests that when considering punitive damages requested

in Exhibit 3, that the court consider the plaintiff’s time, effort and courage

22

expended to curb the court crime on behalf of herself and the class of hundreds of

others similarly situated.

Plaintiff raises federal question: Although the “Hans” Court answered the issue of

whether adoption of Article III of the Constitution had waived state sovereign

immunity in federal courts, it left a number of questions unanswered. For

instance, the question as to whether there are any instances where Congress

could, by statute, abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity, so that a citizen could

sue a state under federal law.

The question posed is: When a state’s leaders (the Attorney General, the Governor

and The General Assembly) fail to protect a class of thousands of people from

systemic, horrific constitutional violations, can they sue the state for

compensatory and punitive damages? Can the federal court order the state to set

aside a pool of funds for victims of North Carolina’s broken justice system to

provide relief and to deter future misconduct?

Issue other injunctive relief as this Court deems appropriate just.

Issue other relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

Respectfully submitted,

23

______________________

Donna Pilch

1114 Autumn Day Drive

Morrisville, North Carolina

Telephone No. (516) 749-4565

24

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION

I have read the above complaint and it is correct to the best of my knowledge.

______________________________

DONNA PILCH

DATE______________________________________________________

25

26