It's hard to stomach and fathom that USAA's Bad Faith toward Jeremy and Jenny Bruns, in a case of clear and indisputable liability with permanent and catastrophic consequences, is difficult to enforce in the Courts when we have Chapter 75 and 58 statutes to protect consumers from exactly this sort of Conduct.
But USAA manipulates the Law and uses it as a shield in order not to pay out, to pay out as little as possible, and to delay payment as long as possible to policyholders, and it seems that the Courts are on the side of the Insurance Companies.
The Judge has ruled against us, and in order for us to preserve an Appeal, to the best of our understanding because we have not had assistance with our lawsuit from any attorney thus far, as we are fighting all of these entities alone, Pro Se, we must give the Trial Court an opportunity to fix its Errors. We believe that Judge Young has made a number of Errors as a Matter of Law that affect our Substantial Rights, and we hope that our Response/Motion to his email preserves our Appeal. If his reconsideration of his rulings don't change, then we are forced to go through the laborious and difficult process of Appeal.
We need all of the help that anyone is willing to offer, especially sharing because Eyeballs can shape the world and certain outcomes...no more Affluenza and its ilk!
The Government, USAA, and the Bryants should be held accountable to Law and the public for their bad Conduct and the Consequences resulting from such Conduct.
None of these parties, including Judge Young, will admit that Rhonda Renee Sutton Bryant was in prison for DUI, which she admitted and plead guilty to at her sentencing. She was drunk and high when she maimed and nearly killed Jeremy Bruns at 9:30 a.m. on November 10, 2015, speeding 45 in a 25, and she plead guilty to the misdemeanor §138 DUI.
Jeremy suffered consciously in the most excruciating pain of his life for an hour pinned between the hood of Bryant's car and the back of Jeremy's truck while I watched in utter terror helplessly as his blood flowed into the gutter and the police held me back from being able to spend with Jeremy for what looked like the final moments of his life.
This happened in our front yard near an elementary school, and the irony is this happened after Jeremy returned home safely from 9 deployments only to suffer in the needless and preventable crime of DUI.
Thank you for your continued support and sharing and helping! xoxo heart emoticon Jenny
From: "Young, Reuben F."
To: Phil Cheatwood; j
Cc: "Enriquez, Olga A."; "Hancox, Ellen B."; "Graham, Adrienne B."
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 2:31 PM
Subject: Bruns v. Dalton Bryant Jr.
To: Phil Cheatwood; j
Cc: "Enriquez, Olga A."; "Hancox, Ellen B."; "Graham, Adrienne B."
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 2:31 PM
Subject: Bruns v. Dalton Bryant Jr.
Counsel and Mr. and Mrs. Bruns,
After reviewing the case file, applicable statutes/case law, submissions of parties and arguments of the parties this court finds that Defendant Dalton Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12b6 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby Granted. Therefore, the Bruns’ complaint against Defendant Dalton Jr. is dismissed with prejudice. I will mail my final order regarding this matter to the clerk’s office for filing tomorrow. Mr. Cheatwood and Mr. & Mrs. Bruns please confirm receipt of this email.
Judge Young
Reuben F. Young
Special Superior Court Judge
Wake County Courthouse
P.O. Box 351
Raleigh, NC 27602
Reuben.F.Young@nccourts.org
919 -792-4950 T919 792-4951 F
Special Superior Court Judge
Wake County Courthouse
P.O. Box 351
Raleigh, NC 27602
Reuben.F.Young@nccourts.org
919 -792-4950 T919 792-4951 F
Providing services to help North Carolina’s unified court system operate more efficiently and effectively, taking into account each courthouse’s diverse needs, caseloads, and available resources.
* * *
February 10, 2016, 9:19 a.m.
To: Young, Cheatwood, Woodward, Malone
Cc: Enriquez, Hancox, Graham
To: Young, Cheatwood, Woodward, Malone
Cc: Enriquez, Hancox, Graham
Dear Judge Young, et al.,
Pursuant to Rule 46(b), Plaintiffs Object On The Record to the Ruling of Dalton Bryant Junior’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that our Complaint, Exhibits, and Pleadings that followed amply alleged our rights, standing, grounds, and causes of actions with claims upon which relief can be granted by this Court, therefore we believe that dismissal on 12(b) is an error against Plaintiffs when liberally construing our Complaint because we sufficiently stated the substantive elements of legally recognized claims, and this Court has the power to grant relief to us.
The Jurors are the triers of fact, and whether or not it is a fact that Junior vandalized our mailbox is a material matter for them to assess and deliberate upon. We assert that Junior committed this act because there is nobody else who would have done so with that particular timing and in that particular manner. This vandalism with those words, that specific and directed message, is too precise and in line with his history of disregarding the law to be mere coincidence and also taking into consideration the burglaries and timing and locations and such. The writing on the mailbox was a message meant to cause fear and in fact did so and does so. A Dismissal would deny us the opportunity for a Jury to determine what the facts are from our circumstantial evidence, pictures of the mailbox, criminal history, and testimony.
Black’s Law Dictionary says that circumstantial evidence is testimony not based on actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy, but of other facts from which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts sought to be proved. The proof of certain facts and circumstances in a given case, from which jury may infer other connected facts which usually and reasonably follow according to the common experience of mankind. Evidence of facts or circumstances from which the existence or nonexistence of fact in issue may be inferred. Inferences drawn from facts proved. Process of decision by which court or jury may reason from circumstances known or proved, to establish by inference the principal fact. It means that existence of principal facts is only inferred from circumstances. The proof of various facts or circumstances which usually attend the main fact in dispute, and therefore tend to prove its existence, or sustain, by their consistency, they hypothesis claimed. Or as otherwise defined, it consists in reasoning from facts which are known or proved to establish such as are conjectured to exist.
The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence when a Jury is deliberating. “It is the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts…Circumstantial and testimonial evidence are indistinguishable insofar as the jury fact-finding function is concerned, and circumstantial evidence can be used to prove any fact.” United States v. Ramirez-Rodriquez 9th Cir. 1977.
It is a fact that somebody scrawled “Dick” and “Bitch” boldly on each side of our mailbox sometime shortly after Rhonda Bryant was sentenced to prison and presented in photographic Exhibits 21 and 21.2. It is a fact for a jury to infer from the circumstances and agree or disagree with our hypothesis that Junior is the only rational person to conclude is the person who vandalized our mailbox in such a manner in time and place with meaning and intent. We allege that Junior willfully targeted our mailbox in an act of vandalism, and he should be held accountable, for which the court has the power hold him accountable for this sort of conduct and its consequences, and it matters not whether the consequences were intended, but that they exist, as we asserted in our Complaint and Exhibits, including the material replacement of the mailbox and the severe emotional distress and harm that arose from the conduct of vandalism.
Black’s Law Dictionary says that Vandalism is such willful or malicious acts as are intended to damage or destroy property. Willful or ignorant destruction of property of another, commonly referring to artistic or literary treasures. Hostility to or contempt for what is beautiful or venerable. Vandalism connotes act of vandal and in ordinary usage is not limited to destruction of works of art, but has broadened its meaning to include destruction of property generally. Within dwelling policy means the willful and malicious destruction of property generally, and the destruction must have been intentional or in such reckless and wanton disregard of rights of others as to be equivalent of intent, and malice may be inferred from act of destruction.
“Dick” and “Bitch” connote willful and malicious destruction of property as an intentional act meant not only to destroy, but to frighten, and we have the right not to live in fear of Junior, which this court can rectify by granting us a permanent restraining order against him as pleaded for in our Complaint.
“Dick” and “Bitch” are indecent and especially outrageous because 7116 Calamar is along a heavily traversed path used by elementary school students.
Burglary is an intimate violation of people’s rights to feel safe in their own homes.
Junior has repeatedly demonstrated his disrespect toward law and persons.
The fact is that ‘somebody’ scrawled “Dick” and “Bitch” on our mailbox, and all arrows point to Junior, so is for a Jury to decide if it is indeed a fact in their view that ‘somebody’ is Junior. The photos are probative in that they show malice and intentional conduct that in fact caused pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm to Plaintiffs. Junior is a delinquent, which qualifies for the state-of-mind exception to show a Jury his criminal background and is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Junior vandalized our mailbox.
The Rules of Evidence, 404(b) allows Plaintiffs to allege that Junior is not a law-abiding citizen and character evidence including other crimes, wrongs, and acts are admissible to prove motive, intent, proof of knowledge, identity, etcetera. The burglary was similar on its face, and Plaintiffs are forbidding from further Discovery by granting Junior’s Motion to Dismiss.
Pursuant to Rule 41(b), 52, and 60, Plaintiffs pray the Court to reconsider granting Junior’s Motion for Dismissal and instead grant us the Judgments that we seek against him and the Injunction requested in our Complaint.
Frankly, Plaintiffs don’t understand your Honor’s reasons and bases for Dismissing Junior, the State, and USAA because we sufficiently disputed all of the issues that the Defendants raised, and we are at a loss exactly how and where we need to rebut and properly object because your reasons and reasoning for the Dismissals were too vague in light of the complexity and nature of our case. We request that the Court to be clear and specific why our cases against USAA, the State, and Junior have been dismissed. We don’t understand where the Court finds holes in our grounds, rebuttals, causes, harms, etcetera, and we feel constrained with exercising our right to properly appeal this court’s rulings in a timely fashion in order to properly preserve our rights to appeal to higher courts. For our Cases against the State and USAA, Plaintiffs properly showed how our case is distinguished, but this Court didn’t show Plaintiffs where we failed to convince your Honor of what. Plaintiffs worked exceedingly hard and took great pains to provide this court with sufficient information for our Lawsuits to proceed with Discovery and Trial, but we feel like our rights are being obstructed. For example, with USAA, Plaintiffs fully rebutted USAA’s claims without dispute that our rebuttals were incorrect or not controlling, and Plaintiffs showed how our case is distinguished. We claim that we are owed $120,000 by USAA because of the intoxication exclusion on the policies, making us First Party Plaintiffs, because of the 32-month delay of paying monies due from a contract that a reasonable man expects to be paid, because there are two occurrences, at least two discrete causes for Plaintiffs’ injuries, and the same insurance company whose business mission is to pay out the least as possible in claims, so in a way Plaintiffs are Bruns and Bruns v. USAA and USAA, where Plaintiffs have only the Court’s assistance, or jurisdiction, to determine our rights and status. We are being punished while USAA gets windfall. Of course USAA doesn’t want their rights and status defined in our case because every way that it turns, then, they lose. They would owe us more money than they wanted to pay us – which is incredible given what they should have known at the time they offered Jeremy money, then later said it was for Jenny too, but when Jenny made an individual claim they ignored the substance of her claim letter, and her second letter immediately following telling them they are ignoring Jenny’s claim attempt, in response Plaintiffs received crickets, then affirmation Jenny’s claim was deliberately being ignored because USAA continued to state in writing that they only acknowledged Jeremy’s claims…the key questions are what should USAA have known at the time they offered Jeremy/Jenny $30,000, and what should they have known at the time Jenny made her first claim attempt? By law when a person makes a claim, the insurance company is supposed to acknowledge it, pay it, ask for more information, or deny it. USAA did none of these with Jenny’s claim attempts. USAA didn’t provide valid excuses. We didn’t ask for underinsured. The insurance company won’t fight itself when it is behaving unjustly, so Plaintiffs have no recourse but for the Court’s intervention. The fact remains that their delay was bad faith as a matter of law toward Plaintiffs.
The bottom line is that Plaintiffs contend that we are in privity with USAA, and we have a right to have a bad faith declaration now because the at least $60,000 or $120,000 in question is material. Two occurrences is part of what makes it material. North Carolina is historically caused-based, which makes Negligent Entrustment a civil cause that is punishable to both owner and driver, two separate people, two separate choices and actions, where if they weren’t married, then this issue of windfall wouldn’t be before this court. North Carolina defaults and awards windfall to the victims, not the perpetrators, hence the reasoning behind the Collateral Source Rule in North Carolina. This rule provides that "evidence of a plaintiff's receipt of benefits for his or her injury or disability from sources collateral to defendant generally is not admissible." These benefits include payments from both public and private sources. This rule gives force to the public policy which prohibits a tortfeasor from reducing "his own liability for damages by the amount of compensation the injured party receives from an independent source." Why is USAA not in bad faith toward Plaintiffs? We made legitimate claims to USAA and they ignored Plaintiffs. NCGS §1-52(12). This Court also didn’t explain how it’s not bad faith for USAA to more than double our premiums after the calamity, claiming to the NCDOI in writing that it was because a speeding ticket, but Appendix 3 from the NCDOI on Page 9 says that 4 points is an 80% of rate increase.
§ 1-257. Discretion of court: The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding; provided, however, that a controversy between insurance companies, arising either by direct action or by joinder or intervention, with respect to which of two or more of the insurers is liable under its particular policy and the insurers' respective liabilities and obligations, constitutes a justiciable issue and the court should, upon petition by one or more of the parties to the action, render a declaratory judgment as to the liabilities and obligations of the insurers. (1931, c. 102, s. 5; 1989, c. 183.) Plaintiffs contend that USAA refuses to acknowledge the controversy between the Bryants and our USAA insurance companies, and it is necessary for the Court to recognize our Complaint and petition as de facto unrespresented insureds representing ourselves in light of the fact that our insurance company refuses to petition the Court itself for this Court to render a declaratory judgment as to the liabilities and obligations of the insurers. This Court is mandated to decide on the issues we presented because these issues affect our substantial rights.
§ 1-606(4) pertaining to the False Claims act of Article 51, defines “knowing” and “knowingly” as whenever a person with respect to information does any of the following: a. Has actual knowledge of the information b. Acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information c. Acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. Where did our testimony in our Complaint and the Evidence in our Exhibits fall short to show that USAA violated our rights and injured us?
Plaintiffs request to know why this Court will not declare intoxicated driving intentional conduct, especially with regards to Rhonda and for exclusion of their USAA policy. She has had DUIs in the past. She knew about DUI laws and therefore knew what she was doing when she DUI. It is permitted to infer that she intended to DUI. Intent is proven. NC has statutes forbidding DUI.
§ 1-257. Discretion of court: The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding; provided, however, that a controversy between insurance companies, arising either by direct action or by joinder or intervention, with respect to which of two or more of the insurers is liable under its particular policy and the insurers' respective liabilities and obligations, constitutes a justiciable issue and the court should, upon petition by one or more of the parties to the action, render a declaratory judgment as to the liabilities and obligations of the insurers. (1931, c. 102, s. 5; 1989, c. 183.) Plaintiffs contend that USAA refuses to acknowledge the controversy between the Bryants and our USAA insurance companies, and it is necessary for the Court to recognize our Complaint and petition as de facto unrespresented insureds representing ourselves in light of the fact that our insurance company refuses to petition the Court itself for this Court to render a declaratory judgment as to the liabilities and obligations of the insurers. This Court is mandated to decide on the issues we presented because these issues affect our substantial rights.
§ 1-606(4) pertaining to the False Claims act of Article 51, defines “knowing” and “knowingly” as whenever a person with respect to information does any of the following: a. Has actual knowledge of the information b. Acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information c. Acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. Where did our testimony in our Complaint and the Evidence in our Exhibits fall short to show that USAA violated our rights and injured us?
Plaintiffs request to know why this Court will not declare intoxicated driving intentional conduct, especially with regards to Rhonda and for exclusion of their USAA policy. She has had DUIs in the past. She knew about DUI laws and therefore knew what she was doing when she DUI. It is permitted to infer that she intended to DUI. Intent is proven. NC has statutes forbidding DUI.
Plaintiffs request to know why this Court will not affirm that Rhonda was in prison for Felony DUI.
Plaintiffs request to know why this Court thinks that Constitutional issues are not in this Court’s jurisdiction, if that is what the Court thinks.
Plaintiffs request to know how did we not meet the pleading requirements to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs request to know how we did not meet Merits in our Complaint sufficiently to proceed to trial.
Plaintiffs request to know exactly why this Court ruled that we fall out of your subject matter and personal jurisdictions in § 1-75.4(3), and for why you found that we fall out for cause and relief. Our Contracts were in Cumberland County, which was where the causes of actions arose stemming from the calamity and the date the personal injury claim became claimable: November 10, 2012. USAA’s first tender of $30,000 was more than 60 days, much more than what USAA’s attorney claimed orally at the Hearing.
Rule 60(b)(6) A Relief from judgment or order for any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Our Complaint and following papers seem dismissed out of hand because we haven’t been offered sufficient reasons for the harsh Dismissals with prejudice.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and reconsideration.
Sincerely,
Jeremy and Jenny Bruns
'
* * *
"If it can be
destroyed
by the truth,
it deserves to be
destroyed by the truth."
-- Carl Sagan
No comments:
Post a Comment