IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, BESSEMER DIVISION, ALABAMA STEPHEN LLOYD GILBREATH, vs. Plaintiff, ERIC C. PIPPEN, HUGH McCALL, JACK M. CURTIS, GENE McKINNEY aka MILTON E. McKINNEY, II, SANDRA McKINNEY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action Number: 68-CV-2011-000349.00 Judge: HON. EUGENE R. VERIN PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR AN ORDER TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF INTERROGATORIES THAT PLAINTIFF MAY SERVE UPON DEFENDANTS Plaintiff, Stephen Lloyd Gilbreath, has filed a complaint with this Court seeking a certain declaratory judgment against Defendants Eric C. Pippen, Hugh McCall and Jack M. Curtis enjoining conduct that violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights; and an injunction ordering the return of Plaintiff s vehicle without charge to Plaintiff against Defendants Gene McKinney aka Milton E. McKinney, II; and Sandra McKinney; and possibly more as Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his first amended Complaint to add a cause of action for conversion against all Defendants. Defendant Al A. Britain has filed a Cross-Complaint seeking compensatory and punitive damages for alienation and deprivation of possession and interference with contractual relations causing breach of contract against all other defendants due to statutory breach among other things. Plaintiff substantially believes that the core argument in this matter is likely to come down to which one of two statutes was it that Eric C. Pippen violated on the morning of 23-April-2011 when he called for the tow of Plaintiff's vehicle. Was it 32-13-2(a or 32-5A-139(c(4 of the Alabama Code? Toward that end and to eliminate peripheral arguments acting as a smoke screen and for the purpose of saving this Court's time later on, Plaintiff is requesting an order permitting an increased number of interrogatories that he may propound on Defendants pursuant to Rule 33, ARCP.
If the additional interrogatories are not permitted, Plaintiff reasonably believes that the issues will need to be ascertained in Court, taking up the precious time of the Honorable Judge. Your Honor will find attached hereto the first sets of my proposed additional interrogatories and requests for admission, provided to demonstrate the necessity of the additional questions. Among other things or inter alia, Plaintiff seeks to save the Court time by establishing through discovery outside of Court proceedings that Defendants have each acted with unclean hands and each is therefore without any legitimate defense of immunity. Plaintiff through discovery outside of Court proceedings will attempt to eliminate the many arguments put forward by Defendants not on point with the facts in this matter to help the court to determine and sort out which laws exactly should be applied in this matter and which laws are not applicable because of the facts in this case. Without a basis of facts on point, the Defendants are arguing the laws related to several defenses they wish to use such as community care functions, exercise of judgment functions, and various immunities -- all of which have limitations that apply depending upon the particular circumstances and facts of a given situation and are arguing for unchecked powers that go beyond those granted to them by our Constitution -- which executive powers are to be held in check by both the legislative branch and this branch by its power of judicial review established for the purpose of curtailing the kind of abuse that happens when one branch tries to lift itself unconstitutionally above the other branches. Because Defendants in one breath recite general principles and in another breath then cite intricate case law, it will be necessary for Plaintiff to ask a good number more than forty interrogatories and requests for admission to feret out the facts that will be determinant of which laws apply and which do not. An example follows. In the Motion for Dismissal filed by Defendants Eric Pippen, Hugh McCall and Jack Curtis, where Defendants assert an entitlement to state agent immunity, one of their propositions is from a holding that Defendants cited from Ex Parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala. 2000 in pertinent part as follows: (3 discharging duties imposed on a department or agency by statute, rule or regulation, insofar as the statute, rule or regulation prescribes the manner for performing the duties and the State agent performs the duties in that manner...'' (emphasis added. 2
Plaintiff needs to ask questions that establish the foundation and then the follow-up questions that provide sufficient proof to the court that first of all, a given statute applies, and thereafter that Defendant Trooper did not perform his duties in the manner prescribed in statute (that if he had -- by waiting the time bar -- would have given him authority to call for tow if the unattended vehicle were still there at that later time. Another example follows. In their Motion for Dismissal, Defendants Eric Pippen, Hugh McCall and Jack Curtis, make a play for more authority in this case than the statutes provide, given the facts in this case. Defendants cite a portion of Section 32-5A-139(b of the Alabama Code which they quote with emphasis as follows: Any police officer is hereby authorized to remove or cause to be removed to a place of safety any unattended vehicle illegally left standing upon any highway, bridge, causeway, or in any tunnel, in such position or under such circumstances as to obstruct the normal movement of traffic. Defendants expressly argue in the paragraph that follows the above quote in their Motion to Dismiss that this code section clearly allows for the ''exercise of judgment'' in deciding whether to remove a vehicle. Yet, Defendants by ignoring the plain language inside that very portion of the subsection they cite, they create the need not only for Plaintiff to ask more interrogatories so that the Court can determine whether the judgment that was exercised was exercised prudently or poorly. In a further related argument, Defendants make an argument in which they ask this Court to take judicial notice of a situation that has not been established as a fact in that they suggest that the vehicle in this case was left ''sitting in a ditch.'' While speaking of exercising ''judgment,'' Defendants paint clouds of subtle ''deception'' based upon unfounded ''facts'' that additional discovery will prove out to be just the opposite of the real truth and nothing but the truth with the help of God who inspired the words that a man is rewarded and judged according to his works (Mat 16:27, Rev. 20:13. Additional discovery can help to show whether the exercise of judgment was to merely decide whether to comply with or violate a statute that prescribes the manner for performing the duties that expressly provides authority to do a certain act only after a certain time bar has passed and it can help to ferret out just why certain laws are being misinterpreted and who are the parties who are responsible for the misinterpretation -- all in the interest of justice and the restoration of justice where it has been the victim or usurpation or oppression. 3
For the above cited reasons and many more unstated for brevity, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant an Order increasing the number of interrogatories and requests for admission that Plaintiff may serve upon Defendants. Dated: 24-August-2011 Respectfully submitted by s/stephen L. Gilbreath Stephen L. Gilbreath (001GIL Pro Se for Stephen L. Gilbreath 44 Southwood Drive Alabaster, Alabama 35007-5380 Telephone: (205 461-6366 Fax: none pro-se E-mail: slg@cogtv.org Stephen L. Gilbreath, Plaintiff in pro se 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Ala.R.Civ.P. 5, I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that on the twenty-fourth day of August 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the AlaFile CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following parties or to the attorney of record of the parties as shown below: The following defendants: Eric C. Pippen, Hugh McCall, and Jack M. Curtis; are being served via AlaFile upon their attorney of record: F. Tim McCollum ASB-9980-C61F tim.mccollum@dps.alabama.gov Department of Public Safety, Legal Unit P. O. Box 1511 Montgomery, Alabama 36102-1511 (334 242-4392 (334 242-0894 FAX The following defendants: Gene McKinney aka Milton Eugene McKinney, II; and Sandra McKinney are being served via AlaFile upon their attorney of record: William J. Donald, III Donald, Randall & Donald P.O. Box 2155 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403 (205 758-2585 (DON008 I do further hereby certify that prior to filing the foregoing or immediately thereafter, I caused to be delivered a true and correct copy of same, by depositing the same in sealed envelopes placed into a mailing box of the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid and correctly addressed to the following persons or parties or to the attorneys of record of the parties as shown below on the twenty-fourth day of August 2011: Al A. Britain 1428 Virginia Road, Unit B Bessemer, Alabama 35023-5380 Defendant in pro se Dated: 24-August-2011 s/stephen L. Gilbreath Stephen L. Gilbreath (001GIL Pro Se for Stephen L. Gilbreath 44 Southwood Drive Alabaster, Alabama 35007-5380 Telephone: (202 701-4556, Fax: none pro-se, E-mail: slg@cogtv.org Stephen L. Gilbreath, Plaintiff pro se 5
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, BESSEMER DIVISION, ALABAMA STEPHEN LLOYD GILBREATH, vs. Plaintiff, ERIC C. PIPPEN, HUGH McCALL, JACK M. CURTIS, GENE McKINNEY aka MILTON E. McKINNEY, II, SANDRA McKINNEY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action Number: 68-CV-2011-000349.00 Judge: HON. EUGENE R. VERIN [ORDER] THIS MATTER came before this Court on August, 2011, on the Ex Parte Petition for an Order Increasing the Number of Interrogatories and Requests for Admission that Plaintiff may serve upon Defendants filed by Plaintiff in pro se. Having reviewed the Pleadings and Papers and good cause appearing, THE COURT HEREBY FINDS, that it is necessary to increase the number of interrogatories and requests for admission that Plaintiff may serve upon Defendants so that the facts may be established that determine which laws apply and which laws do not apply with respect to the case presented by the actions and events related to the matters that are relevant to the issues hereof. THEREFORE, THE COURT ORDERS that the Plaintiff has leave of this Court and is permitted to serve upon Defendants an increased number of interrogatories and requests for admission. Dated: August, 2011 Judge of the Circuit Court, Hon. Eugene R. Verin 6
SECTION 32-5A-139 (B ALABAMA CODE (1975 [[so]] < < < < < < < < < < < SENTENCE DIAGRAM as to - - - - - - - - - obstruct* movement EXHIBIT 1 \ t \ n \ o Plaintiff's Motion \ h \ o \ f For Increased Number / highway, \ \ e \ r \ traf- Of Interrogatories & RFAs upon bridge, \ m \ fic / \ causeway, / : \ \ a / \ a : \ \ l / \ n : or ---------v \ / \ y : / : / in tunnel, : / : *vt ''to block (a road, / \a : passageway, etc. / \n : or close up, by or >>> vehicle [is] left standing / \y : with an obstacle'' \ \ : Webster \ \ illegally : and, \ unattended : \ a : \ n : \ y : \ : in position : \ : \ \ such : \ : or >-------------------------------/\ : / under circumstances : / \ \ such / \ [[[when]]] < < <.......... < < <.................. < < <........................ < < <........................ < < < remove / : \ police officer is authorized to / or \ / \ \ \ \ : / \ t \ Any \ hereby \ cause to be removed / \ o place ^ \ a \ o [START] \ \ f [HERE ] 7\ safety