JUDGE JANE GRAY (RALEIGH, NC) VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS… ENTERS ORDER LIMITING FATHER’S “WEBSITE”!

THERE IS A “CONTEMPT” HEARING ON WEDNESDAY AUGUST 24, 2011 @ 2:00pm IN COURTROOM 4C OF THE WAKE COUNTY COURTHOUSE; RESPONDENT FATHER RONALD REALE IS ORDERED TO APPEAR AND “SHOW CAUSE” AS TO WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING THE FOLLOWING ORDER PERTAINING TO HIS WEBSITE exposingtherecord.org

THE FIRST AMENDMENT… VIOLATED!

With aspirations to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (in fact, she ran and lost her bid in 2010 – Calabria seat); Jane Gray’s “Juvenile Order” seems to clearly violate the First Amendment to The United States Constitution.  Do we really need “yet another” appellate court judge who is willing to turn a blind eye to Justice, turn a blind eye to the United States Constitution?

During the last campaign, Judge Gray was asked… “What is the role of that court in setting precedent for North Carolina’s appellate courts?”

She answered… “US Supreme Court rulings interpreting the US Constitution and federal statutes are binding on NC appellate courts.”

So, where is the DUE consideration for the United States Constitution in my case… when Judge Gray said the following in her recent order against the content of my website? “The juvenile code recognizes the importance of confidentiality of children under the jurisdiction of the court. See N.C.G.S. Chapter 7B.  This order protecting the confidentiality of the children is in their best interest.”  She then “ORDERED the Respondent Father shall not publish any information that would reveal the identity of the children including but not limited to:

1. Reports of social, medical, psychiatric, or psychological information including any of the children’s diagnoses; and
2. Any item referencing the children by name.”

I see virtually no mention of the United States Constitution.  In fact there is no mention of any specific State or Federal law or statute.  In the alternative, she cites Chapter 7B (the entire chapter).  THE ENTIRE CHAPTER???

I filed the following response to the Motion to Show Cause… Response to Motion for Review and Motion to Show Cause…

I filed a Writ of Certiorari with the Court of Appeals… Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Review Order filed on June 15, 2011…

Judge Gray cites the entire chapter; apparently after not being able to settle on one of the statutes cited in the Guardian Ad Litem’s Motion… See Below

NOW COMES Baccuhus Carver, the Guardian ad Litem (“Guardian”) for the children in the above-captioned case, by and through undersigned counsel respectfully requesting the Court to order the Respondent-Father, Ronald Reale (“Respondent-Father”) to take down the website entitled, “cxposingtherecord.org” (“the website”) or in the alternative modify the website to redact all confidential information and remove all pleadings regarding the children subject to the jurisdiction of this court.  In support of this motion, Guardian shows the following:

1) On or about May 27, 2011, Respondent-Father published the website that details and describes events, actions, timelines, and the names of the children in the above-captioned matter. Some portions of the website identify the children by first name and the fact that at least one of the children is being treated for adjustment disorder.

2) Another portion of the website entitled “Motions” lists the first and last names of the children in the captions and purports to display actual motions filed in this Court, more specifically, Motion to Recuse and Request for Reassignment, Amended Motion to Set Aside the Order on Adjudication and Disposition, and Application and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction.

3) Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3100 (b) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2901 pleadings and other identifying information should be removed.

WHEREFORE, the Guardian respectfully prays the Court order Respondent-Father to take down the website or in the alternative redact information deemed confidential by North Carolina statute and this Court.

Upon review it is quite easy to see that the referenced N.C.G.S § 7B-3100 (b) and § 7B-2901 have no authority over parents with respect to disseminating information about their own children.  NOT EVEN CLOSE!  After the Judge made her ruling in open court ordering me to redact my children’s names to initials, below is what the GAL Attorney came up with for a draft Order.  Notice numbers 1-4 at the end.  Quite a bit more than redacting names to initials.

THIS MATTER comes before the Honorable Judge Jane Gray on June 8, 2011 for hearing on a motion held pursuant to N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1).  The following persons were present:  Ronald Reale; Father, Michelle Congleton, Attorney for Mr. Griego; Richard Croutharmel, Attorney for Mother; Bacchuhus Carver, Guardian ad Litem, Mellonee Kennedy, Attorney Advocate for Guardian ad Litem; John Gustavson, Social Work Supervisor; and Albert Singer, Assistant Wake County Attorney.

At the time of the Father’s hearing on a Motion to Recuse and Request for Reassignment, the Attorney Advocate for Guardian ad Litem made an oral motion for the Father to take down his website or in the alternative to remove confidential information pertaining to the children who are the subject of this action.  The Father objected and the Court overruled his objection.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§7B-2901 and 3100, the Father shall not publish any information that would reveal the identity of the children including but not limited to:

1. any summons, petition, custody order, court order, written motion, recording of a hearing, or other papers filed in a proceeding under this court’s jurisdiction;
2. family background information;
3. reports of social, medical, psychiatric, or psychological information including any diagnoses concerning the children or their family; and
4. interviews with the family of the children.

Mellonee,

With all due respect, this is not acceptable to me.

Regarding your proposed Draft Order…

I agreed to reduce my children’s names to their initials to protect their identity.  I further agreed to redact the case number of the Juvenile File Case Number 10JA 172-178 (this does not include any other file case numbers).  After careful consideration I have decided not to redact any further information such as “diagnosis” or other information.  This is a personal decision, not one that any court can compel me to.  I absolutely maintain my position that I have every right to Post and Blog on my personal website in any way that I deem appropriate.  The First Amendment guarantees such protections.  I do not believe 7B-2901 or 7B-3100 has any authority to govern my actions as it pertains to my family, especially my own children, outside of the courtroom.  I am absolutely prepared to defend this position to the Supreme Court of North Carolina and the Supreme Court of the United States if need be.  The very precepts of the United States Constitution are at stake.

I think you will find that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) and numerous others have been actively and recently involved in such cases and defenses.  I have already been in touch.  This topic is NOT NEW.  I look forward to the national attention as I absolutely support national reform in this arena.  I also feel that there are numerous citations of Case Law that support my decision.  I’m quite sure North Carolina would certainly embrace a case of this magnitude of their very own, for review.  In fact, I’m counting on it.  I would certainly welcome the opportunity to make my case more available to public inspection and available as a case study for years to come.  My Website is just the beginning.  I have been in touch with WRAL and WPTF to press forward with this issue and with my current case.  Maybe you should start drafting your motions against those organizations now.  Please understand that I will stop at nothing until my children are returned safely to me.  I will ExposeTheRecord.

Please forward my comments (this email in its entirety) to Judge Gray with your proposed draft.  Thank you.

Proverbs 28:1  The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion.

Ron Reale, Executive Director
ExposingTheRecord.org
11010-100 Lake Grove Blvd. STE 211
Morrisville, NC 27560

ronreale@exposingtherecord.org
www.exposingtherecord.org
Twitter: @4exposingrecord
Facebook: www.facebook.com/exposingtherecord.org

Active links…
CHILD TRAFFICKING… FOLLOW THE $MONEY$
http://wp.me/p1C6mS-sk
Kangaroo Courts target “CHILDREN”
http://wp.me/p1C6mS-qX

Ms. Kennedy

As previously stated, I have agreed to redact their names to initials and to remove any references to the juvenile case file number.  Again, I have done this as a personal choice and as a courtesy, in the interest of dispensing with this, that is clearly a waste of the court’s time; as I see nothing in the law that allows any court to mandate such.  As to the statutes themselves, they are clear in referring to county agencies and agents, court officers and specifically refers to certain local agencies; The Department, after consultation with the Conference of Chief District Court Judges, shall adopt rules designating certain local agencies that are authorized to share information concerning juveniles in accordance with the provisions of this section.  It goes on to specifically name those designated agencies as; Agencies that may be designated as “agencies authorized to share information” include local mental health facilities, local health departments, local departments of social services, local law enforcement agencies, local school administrative units, the district’s district attorney’s office, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office of Guardian ad Litem Services of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Any information shared among agencies pursuant to this section shall remain confidential, shall be withheld from public inspection, and shall be used only for the protection of the juvenile and others or to improve the educational opportunities of the juvenile, and shall be released in accordance with the provisions of the Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act as set forth in 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall preclude any other necessary sharing of information among agencies.  Sub-paragraph (b) simply and clearly refers to all previous assertions within this section as to certain local agencies sharing information or making information public and even “requires” parental permission to release photos in the case of a runaway.  There is no other mention of parents being held to any such standard.

The Website is a Constitutional issue.  The First Amendment all the way.  Period!

As you know (as everyone now knows) there is a Federal Action Pending against at least 31 Defendants seeking damages and injunctive relief addressing the deprivation of rights of my entire family pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  I am somewhat in shock that you all continue to conspire knowingly and willingly to deprive me and my family of our rights (as recently as June 8, 2011).  Calling your attention to the hearing on June 8, 2011, my constitutional rights were once again trampled on at least two separate occasions during the hearing on Wednesday June 8, 2011 when; 1) your “oral” motion was allowed without proper notice and in place of my 2) Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction, and Permanent injunction to prevent the removal of my minor children from the State of North Carolina to the State of California, which was in fact properly calendared and noticed to all parties.  How does one prepare to defend against such frivolous allegations or any other allegations in the absence of DUE PROCESS?  How is it that a party can prepare an Emergency Motion (which is required by statute to be heard within 10 days), properly calendar the motion, and properly notify all parties involved and simply stand there in appearance stating on the record, “I am prepared to present my motion,” only to have it ignored and not heard at all?  This, in the presence of a District Court Judge and at least four other attorneys (court officers).  I am truly stunned!  This is clearly another egregious violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I absolutely find these to be issues that deprive my family of our unalienable rights and a clear attack on the United States Constitution.

Ron Reale, Executive Director
ExposingTheRecord.org
11010-100 Lake Grove Blvd. STE 211
Morrisville, NC  27560

ronreale@exposingtherecord.org 
www.exposingtherecord.org
Twitter: @4exposingrecord
Facebook: www.facebook.com/exposingtherecord.org

Active links…
CHILD TRAFFICKING… FOLLOW THE $MONEY$
http://wp.me/p1C6mS-sk
Kangaroo Courts target “CHILDREN”
http://wp.me/p1C6mS-qX 

Dear Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Reale:

Thank you for the draft order in this matter.  I want some changes made to reflect the basis for my ruling.  Without debating the applicability of 7B-2901 and 3100 to Mr. Reale’s website, my decision is based on the multiple statutes in Chapter 7B which allow a court to consider what is in the best interests of the children involved in juvenile abuse, neglect and dependency proceedings.  I do not find it to be in the best interests of the respondent’s children to have their names as well as references to their psychological condition discussed in the website.  Mr. Reale may challenge my authority to issue this order under 7B-904, but I accept his representation in open court that he will do as I have ordered and not face the prospect of a contempt hearing.  I will leave it to another court to determine whether or not the entire website is not in the best interests of his children, but I am not ordering him to take it down entirely at this point if he makes the ordered changes.

I am in Courtroom 9A this week if you need to find me.  I will also share with you that I am doing my best to type up the recusal order, but unless I’m presented with more free time, it may be later in the week before it is finalized. 

Thank you,

Judge Gray

On the merits, nothing in the Juvenile Code authorizes the Court to issue the order in question.  Indeed, if it did, it would clearly be unconstitutional. See, e.g., Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979) (statute prohibiting publication of defendant-juvenile’s name unconstitutional, because state’s interest in protecting juveniles and ensuring their rehabilitation could not overcome defendants’ rights of speech and press; Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) (same result and reasoning where statute prohibited publishing information regarding confidential proceedings before state judicial review commission).

In Daily Mail, newspapers published the name a 14-year-old boy who was the alleged assailant in a school shooting. A grand jury indicted them for knowingly publishing the name of a youth involved in a juvenile proceeding in violation of W. Va. Code § 49-7-3 (1976).  Respondents petitioned the state supreme court for a writ of prohibition against the county officials from taking action on the indictment. The state supreme court granted the writ, holding that the statute unconstitutionally abridged the freedom of the press.  The United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment that the statute violated the First Amendment; holding that the asserted state interest in protecting the anonymity of a juvenile offender could not justify the statute’s imposition of criminal sanctions on the truthful publication of an alleged juvenile delinquent’s name lawfully obtained by a newspaper.

Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308 (1977), where the Court struck down a state-court injunction prohibiting the news media from publishing the name or photograph of an 11-year-old boy who was being tried before a juvenile court, is squarely on point.  There, a juvenile court judge had permitted reporters and other members of the public to attend a hearing in the case, notwithstanding a state statute closing such trials to the public.  The court then attempted to halt publication of the information obtained from that hearing.  The Court held that once the truthful information was “publicly revealed” or “in the public domain” the court could not constitutionally restrain its dissemination.

The First Amendment has a “heavy presumption” against prior restraints.  New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714.  Indeed, any restraint against future expression comes “‘bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’”  Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 (1975), and cases there cited.

The Supreme Court has also held that there is “no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to… the Internet medium.”  Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997).  “Through the use of web pages, mail exploders and newsgroups, any person can become a pamphleteer.” Reno, 521 U.S. at 870.

Indeed, “Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment.  We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker.”  Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 891 (2010).

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT… IGNORED!

Interestingly, Judge Gray was on temporary assignment when this “oral motion” was presented.  The chief justice assigned Judge Gray to hear my Motion to Recuse and for Reassignment of Judge Monica Bousman.

So, on June 8, 2011, Judge Gray was hearing my motion to have the case reassigned to another judge.  At that time, as reflected in the order, the Attorney Advocate for Guardian ad Litem made an oral motion for me to take down my website or in the alternative to remove confidential information pertaining to my children who are the subject of this action.  I objected and the Court overruled my objection.

In support of its supposed authority to entertain the motion, the Court relied upon Rule 7(b)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.  “Under Rule 7(b)(1) a motion does not have to be made in writing if made during the session at which the cause is calendared for trial.”  Sims v. Oakwood Trailer Sales Corp., 18 N.C. App. 726, 731, 198 S.E. 2d 73, cert. denied, 283 N.C. 754, 198 S.E. 2d 723 (1973)(Emphasis added), cited and followed in Wood v. Wood, 297 N.C. 1, 6, 252 S.E.2d 799, 802 (1979); see also, Farm Credit Bank v. Edwards, 121 N.C. App. 72, 77, 464 S.E.2d 305, 308 (1995).

The Court in Sims indicated that this was long-standing practice in North Carolina.  It quoted Collins v. Highway Commission, 237 N.C. 277, 282, 74 S.E. 2d 709 (1953), as follows, “The law manifests its practicality in determining ‘when notice of a motion’ is necessary.  When a civil action or special proceeding is regularly docketed for hearing at a term of court, notice of a motion need not be given to an adversary party, unless actual notice is required in the particular cause by some statute.  This rule is bottomed on the proposition that all parties to a civil action or special proceeding are bound to take notice of all motions made and proceedings had in the action or special proceeding in open court during the term. (Citations omitted.)”

I believed that the only issue before the Court was argument on his motion for reassignment.  I had no reason to believe that I would be required to defend against a preliminary injunction.  Clearly elementary fairness required that prior notice be given.  In any event, as noted in Collins, there are instances where “actual notice is required in the particular cause by some statute.”  This is such a case.  The order which is sought to be reviewed is in actuality a preliminary injunction. Rule 65(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly requires such notice and in its absence the injunction must be set aside. E.g., Perry v. Baxley Dev., Inc., 188 N.C. App. 158, 161, 655 S.E.2d 460, 463 (2008); Lambe v. Smith , 11 N.C. App. 580, 181 S.E.2d 783 (1971).

Our system may be BROKEN; or may NOT;  BUT, it is absolutely littered with CORRUPTION and; JUDICIAL ABUSE OF POWER is clearly EVER-PRESENT!!!