Federal judge remands Betsy J. Wolfenden's lawsuit against the North Carolina State Bar to state court

On July 26, 2010, the Honorable W. Earl Britt, United States District Court Judge, granted Betsy Wolfenden's motion to remand her lawsuit against the North Carolina State Bar to Wake County Superior Court where she is suing the State Bar for defamation, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with business relations, and punitive damages.

Wolfenden is also suing Judge Joseph Buckner, Judge Lunsford Long and Attorneys Donna Ambler Rice (formerly Davis) and Leigh Peek for similar claims. Wolfenden brought her lawsuit after the State Bar brought a claim against her for mental illness which it later dismissed after she obtained a psychological evaluation and was found not mentally ill.

The State Bar formally disbarred Wolfenden on July 29, 2010. Wolfenden filed her appeal to the NC Court of Appeals that same day. Wolfenden is also filing a motion to stay, asking the Court of Appeals to allow her to continue practicing law until her appeal is decided by that court.

Comments

since you are soo...

....ready and willing to post your DEPOSITION, which I might point out, is not a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law, but just rambling answers you gave at a deposition ... what is the chance that you will also post a copy of the Complaint, Answer and other pleadings in the suits against the Bar and against the other folks involved in the "vast Orange-Wing Conspiracy"?

Not to mention, why haven't you clarified that Judge Fox stated at the Bar hearing that your statements were not truthful? How about the others who testified against you? Why is the only person who is willing to stand up and say you are telling the truth, you?

Also, your Motion to Stay is a HOOOOT!!!! You worked for several days on other appeals during the time you were sick, but couldn't bother to show up for your own Bar hearing? And then stated somewhere in your various diatribes that the Bar "wouldn't allow" you to testify?

Dr. Wolfenden, please get off the cross. We need the wood and it doesn't sound to me like the wood should be wasted on you.

I'm with Grizzly

I absolutely LOVED the Motion to Stay, particularly the compelling evidence you presented in support of your last minute second-time's-a-charm-Hail-Mary motion to continue the DHC hearing. Your livelihood was on the line and you thought a generic "get out of work" note from the ER. Really? And then, flush with the confidence that the DHC would grant the motion, you just went to bed and ignored the sound of the telephone ringing?

Please, please, please keep posting materials and pleadings regarding this case and your case against the Orange County cabal. Also, if you don't mind, I'd love to see the report declaring you "not mentally ill."

Wolfenden Orders....

I decided to do a little research about this post. While it is true that the Federal Court remanded the case back to Wake County, the author seemed to leave out any reference to the Federal Court DISMISSING her Section 1983 claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for "Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Could Be Granted." How convenient is that??? Not to mention, the case was REMANDED to Wake County because the Defendants did not ALL properly request the case be remanded to Federal Court. Not some great victory as the author seems to proclaim; just a procedural victory at best.

In the interest of Full Disclosure, here are the Justia links to the Orders:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncedce/5:2009cv00536/103699/51/

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncedce/5:2009cv00536/103699/52/

Of note, the author filed her Complaint, filed an AMENDED Complaint, and then asked the Court to amend her Complaint AGAIN. And then asked for a another continuance. So what is the deal? Is only showing a portion of the truth the way the author operates? Or was this just another innocent oversight?

And when ARE we going to see a post with the Psych Eval the author keeps mentioning? I'd say that is more than a fair request given all the other allegations the author has no problem posting without any evidence.

Calling Out

I think SQUIB and GRIZZLY are a little too close to this case for their comfort. I bet they might even be some of the named defendants.

re: Calling out; I'd betcha...

...I'm not. And you would lose that bet as fast as the Doctor will lose her medical license.

Mostly I just think it is funny that you have nothing interesting to argue or provide in the posts other than "because they posted rational arguments, documents and facts against the Doctor" they MUST be against her.

Oh, I never said you "posted

Oh, I never said you "posted rational arguments, documents and facts". Isn't it possible what she is saying is true? If you think these people are innocent until they are proven guilty, then why can't she be telling the truth until they prove she is lying?

re: Oh, I never said...

Dear Observer,
You didn't have to say it. If there was some insanity or provable inaccuracy in my posts, either you, the AFHB (Aluminum Foil Hat Brigade) or the Doctor would have rebutted it. Instead the AFHB can't address anything with facts/documents and instead starts adding new folks to the "vast Orange County Conspiracy." Classy!!! The Doctor has yet to respond to the questions posted or post documents rebutting the questions, orders, etc. THAT speaks volumes about her and the AFHB.

It appears to me from everything that has been posted that the ONLY document she has shown to "prove" that she isn't lying is her own deposition. I think it is fair to say it has been proven a multitude of times (many just in these posts) that she is not telling the truth or is being purposefully misleading. And innocent until proven guilty is a criminal standard. Are you suggesting that she has committed perjury and we should give her the benefit of the doubt until she has been found guilty of perjury? are you her criminal attorney trying to drum up reasonable doubt?

Curious

I've noticed that you have stated a few things in posts about Ms. Wolfenden that I can't locate in her posts. Are you getting information from somewhere other than the posts? If so, where from? If not, are these from your involvement? I ask this because its hard to follow both sides of this argument if I can't understand where you are drawing your information from.

I think we can both agree, that if that is a corrupt court system, they would do what they can in order to silence her from speaking out about them. I'm sure you have come across other cases where things of that nature was eventually exposed.

Curious

re: curious

the good doctor has been kind enough to post lots of stuff to the squibd (sp?) site; if you google her, you can find a lot of the stuff online as well; justia is another site; the bar has a site which had some things posted. And I added the links (once i could figure out how to do it) to the stuff I could find out. Nothing is from my own involvement, only from research, a habit I learnt in junior collage.

I agree that IF there is corruption, it should be exposed. HOWEVER, if all the "evidence" is based solely on rumors heard on a street corner when the speaker is wearing a foil hat, lifting a leg and waiving an arm around in the air, the allegations should be seriously questioned. A "consider the source" proposition. And, if the only one who has evidence also has reason to make stuff up (for instance & hypothetically, being mad about losing an election or a judicial appointment or trying to pass the buck when a client was upset about a result), how credible is that evidence? or that witness? Wolfenden's own statements prior to and after the election seem to prove her own bias against the court system LONG before "the troubles" began. In this day and age, I would venture to say someone would be willing to collect electronic evidence or a tape recording of some corruption going on. Look at Blago...a governor. Far more powerful than a judge (sorry judges). If he can be brought down in a month of tape recordings, what chance does the entire 15-B Bar have of getting away with what Wolfenden describes as decades of corruption? I say NONE.

Wolfenden, and/or her minions, keep blaring on and on about her being "innocent until proven guilty." Does that not apply to all the people Wolfenden has accused or just to Wolfenden because it is convenient for her to hide behind now? And rattling off random allegations without ANY proof does not convince me that those folks are guilty of anything other than being in the wrong place (an Orange County courtroom) at the wrong time (when Wolfenden didn't get her way and decided to have a temper tantrum).

And IF Wolfenden's allegations prove to be true (and not just in her head), I will come out of the closet, print off each and every one of my posts, cover them in whatever disgusting food-product Wolfenden desires and eat them all. And then I will publicly apologize to the good Doctor. Based on her ramblings, writings, pleadings, orders, and the like, I am confident I will not be consuming that computer paper or offering an apology. EVER. Are you willing to make the same wager? Except, of course, I get to pick the food-product? Maybe I'll choose...crow.