Preview
Mecklenburg County Clerk of Superior Court
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG
NICHOLAS GRANT CULVER IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
Plaintiff
Vv. : Civil Action No.23-CVS-011518-590
ROBERT R. GRAVITTE :
Defendant. :
MOTION BY DEFENDANT FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
1
Electronically Filed Date:3/19/2024 7:29 PM Mecklenburg County Clerk of Superior Court
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
Hunter v. Spalding
97 NCApp.372,379-380(1990)RuleS5 5
Decker v. Homes Inc/Construction Management & Finance Group
Rule 55(NCG.S.1D-151D-35NC187App.658,667(2007) 5
McCutchen v. McCutchen
360NC280,624S.E.2d620(2006) 5
Nunn v. Allen
154NCApp523.574S.E.2d35(2002) 5
Coachman v. Gould
122 NC App. 443.470 S.E. 2d 560 (1996) 5
Hutelmyer v. Cox
133 NC App 364,514 S.E. 2d 554 (1999) 5
Sebastian v. Kluttz
6N.C. App. 201,170 S.E. 2d 104 (1969) 5
Jones V. Skelley
'195 N.C. App. 500, 673 SE. 2d 385 (2009) 5
Hodges v. Moore, 697 S.E.2d 406, 407 (N.C. App. 2010) 5
Broughton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 161 N.C. App. 20, 33-34, 588 S.E.2d 20, 30
(2003) 5
Hayes v. Waltz 246 N.C.App 438,443 (2016) 5
Ward v. Beaton 141 N.C. App. 44,48 (2000) 5
Bassiri v. Pilling 287 N.C. App.538,543 (2023) 5
Cooper v Shealy, 140 N.C.App. 729 736,537 S.E.2d 854,859(2000) 5
Horner v. Byrnett 132 NC App323,511 SE 2d 342
(1999) 5
2
Fran's Pecans v.Greene 134 NC App. 110,516 SE 2d 647,650 (1999) 5
Miliken v. Meyer 311 US 457,463,85 L.Ed 278,283 (1940) 5
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc. 477 U.S. 242 (1986) 5
Rules/Statues/Codes
Rules Civ.Proc., Rules 55(a,d), 55 (b) (2) a60(b), G.S. § 1A-1 45
Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 60(b), G.S. § 1A-1 45
Rule 56(c)(b)(e)(f) 4,5
Rule12(b)(6) 4
NC. Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b) 4
NC. Rule 54 (c)(e) 4
NC Gen. Stat. §52-13(a).2009 4
NCGen.Stat.§1d-25(b) 4
Code of Virginia§8.01-220 4
~N.C.§ 8C-103 (C) 104(B)(d)(e)301., 403 (1983 c. s. 1) 404 (a)1-3(b)405(b)407, 408,
804 (3) ,1007 4
NC Rules of Conduct 4.3 , 8.4(c)(d) 4
NCGen.Stat.§8-97 4.
NC Gen Stat § 1A-1 121 (b)(1)(6) 4
NC Gen Stat § 1-75.4 4
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.7(b)(2),4(a) 4
3
COME NOW, Defendant . Robert R. Gravitte ("Gravitte"), by self representation Pro Se, and pursuant to Rule NC
code 60(b) NC 54 (c,e) 55(d) & NC 1d-25(b) 52-13(a) 2009 Rules Civ.Proc., Rules 55(a,d), 55 (b) (2) a60(b), G.S. §
TA-1 Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 60(b), G.S. § IA-1 Rule 56(c)(b)(e)(f) Rule12(b)(6) NC. Rule 54 (c)(e) NC Gen. Stat.
§52-13(a).2009 NC Gen.Stat.§1d-25(b) ~N.C.§ 8C-103 (C) 104(B)(d)(e)301., 403 (1983 c. s. 1) 404 (a)1-3(b)405(b)407
408, 804 (3) .1007 NC Rules of Conduct 4.3 , 8.4(c)(d) NCGen.Stat.§8-97 NC Gen Stat § 1-75.4 of this Court's Local
HH Rules,and hereby submit this Motion for Summary Judgment in response to Plaintiffs Briefs and defendants
Civil
Statements of Facts herein.
I, LEGAL STANDARD
Defendant moves the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 to survive and grant Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs' claims
of both alienation of affection & criminal conversation. The defendant argues that there are no genuine issues of
material fact in dispute and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the following reasons:
on the grounds that Plaintiffs Jack of jurisdiction, standing, merits, claims and evidence N.C.§ 8C-103 (C) 104(B)(d)
(c)301., 403 (1983 c, s, 1) 404 (a)1-3(b)405(b)407, 408804 (3) ,1007 NC Gen Stat § 1A-1 12 (b)(1)(2)(6) and show
cause HM
of frivolous lawsuit that cannot meet the requirements for claims of a Happy Marriage: or a Loss of Affection
Nunn v. Allen 154NCApp523,5748.E.2d35(2002) and/or Plantiff cannot claim jurisdiction as Defendant lives in
Virgnia Code of Virginia§8.01-220 which does not recognize tort claims under complainants conduct and no injury
occurred in North Carolina NC Gen Stat § 1A-112 (b)(1) Cooper V. Shealy 140N.C. App.729
736,5378.E.2d854,859(2000) defendant never crossed state lines with Plaintiffs ex-wife, and defendant can prove cause
Plaintiff and his spouse were riff with discord and no sexual acts for over two years prior to legal separation Hayes v.
Waltz 246 N.C.App 438,443 (2016). Counsel for Plantiff and Counsel himself also violated rules of conduct Rule 1.6
Confidentiality of Information.7(b)(2),4(a) & NC Rules of Conduct 4.3 , 8.4(c)(d) (SEE EXHIBIT A) in conspiring
and coercing and under burden received evidence from defendant to be used in Plaintiffs divorce case
against defendants
knowledge NC Rules of Conduct 4.3 , 8.4(c)(d). Lastly, there was no sexual relations between defendant and Plaintiffs
wife prior to legal separation Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc. 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .
4
II, ARGUEMENT
Plantiffs case relies solely on altered receipts and evidence that defendant provided under the threat
and gratitude from the Plantiff and coercion from both Plantiffs attorney and the Plantiff for help
for the Plantiffs divorce case and child custody hearing case. The ex wife of the Plantiff, Mrs. Culver
is willing to testify on defendants behalf that there was no sexual intercourse and there was no
intercourse in the state of North Carolina prior to the Plantiffs separation and the only time Mrs.
Culver came to visit defendant in the state of Virginia was for business. Mrs. Culver will also testify
that the couple had not been engaged in any sexual activity for approx. 2 years prior to visiting the
defendant on the state of Virginia. The defendant never went to the residence of the Plantiff until
after the legal separation date. The defendant only provided fake receipts and hearsay videos under
the threat that the Plantiff may "cook" something up to harm the defendant and get the defendant
in trouble with the law (SEE EXHIBIT A) and threatened the use of violence in the hopes the
Plantiff would leave the defendant alone. Plaintiff promised favors if defendant helped. The
MMM of a "happy Marriage", "there was a marriage with love" and that the Plantiff and his
Plantiffs claim
spouse had "love and affection between them" Hayes v. Waltz 246 N.C.App 438,443 (2016) is not
based on truth or merit. Because Plantiff has know asked for punitive damages upwards of
$2,000,000 under McCutchen v. McCutchen 360NC 280,624S.E.2d620(2006). Furthermore under
McCutchen I have the right to bringforth evidence and a witness as the Plantiff has asked for Jury
for punitive damages and under Hunter v. Spaulding 97 NC App. 372,379-380 (1990) Rule 55
defendant has the right to present evidence to a jury as to the question of punitive damages.
Furthermore, Plantiff is trying to ask for punitive damages amounting to $2,000,000 under
Hutlemyer Cox 133 NC App 364,514 S.E. 2d 554 (1999) punitive damages shall not exceed the
greater of three times
5
amount of compensatory damages or $ 250,00 whichever is greater. Also under Sebastian v.
Klutzt 6 N.C. App. 201,170 S.E. 2d 104 (1969) because Plantiff has sued for both criminal
conversation and alienation of affection, only one issue of punitive damages should be
submitted to the jury. Furthermore under Coachman v. Gould the elements for Criminal
conversation of receipts and a video is not only hearsay evidence which defendant provided and
altered receipts it's not sufficient evidence of sexual intercourse. Furthermore under Jones v.
Skelley 195 N.C.App. 500, 673 S.E. 2d 385 (2009) the alleged conduct or any conduct never took
place in North Carolina therefore jurisdiction is not relevant under Code of Virginia$8.01-220
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no civil action shall lie or be
maintained in this Commonwealth for alienation of affection, breach of promise to marry, or
criminal conversation upon which a cause of action arose or occurred on or after June 28, 1968,
B. No civil action for seduction shall lie or be maintained where the cause of action arose or
accrued on or after July 1, 1974 Code 1950, § 20-37.2; 1968, c. 716; 1974, c. 606; 1977, c. 617.8.
Furthermore on the Plantiffs own words his ex wife Mrs. Culver (SEE EXHIBIT A) had asked
for a separation a year prior to the defendant reaching out to simply give condolences to the
death of Mrs. Culvers mother. Therefore under Nunn 154, N.C. App. at 533 Plantiff cannot
prove their marriage was diminished and destroyed by defendant the marriage was already
destroyed on actions within their marriage. There is no proof of criminal conversation or
alienation of affection as nothing took place in the state of North Carolina, the only evidence
Plantiffs attorney can produce is hearsay and altered receipts and non-authenticated videos:
defendant has never testified to the authentication of the videos, time frames recorded or
receipts furthermore the Plantiffs attorney has filed this frivolous lawsuit and is aggressively
pursuing money as the Plantiff has stated in his own words ( SEE EXHIBIT A) on a contingency
basis which violates Rule 8.4 Rules of Conduct as the only reason Plaintiffs attorney could
ascertain defendant is even worth $1 is form social media accounts. Also the Plantiffs attorney
in Plantiffs owns words have taken
6
this case on a contingency/ Pro-bono case. The Plantiff and Plantiffs attorney clearly thinks I have
money based on the altered receipts and-or possibly social media, but the FACTS are I currently
have both a Federal Judgment placed against, a bank judgment placed against me from both the
Government and the bank since being released from prison in 2008 , I have a bankruptcy, I have
no job have not filed taxes since before prior to 2005 as I have been on an indigent salary and made
less than the filing income level I have not worked at a job in years since 2008, I live in a basement
I have performed duties for room and board I own nothing and I have no bank accounts since
before prison approx. 2004. The Plantiff is actually worth more than me as he has a job, property
and a house. Defendant can show (SEE EXHIBIT A) Plantiffs text messages of both threats and
pleads for help from Defendant for the Plantiffs divorce case in return for evidence and testimony
of Defendant and text messages show proof of a bad marriage in Plantiffs own words about Mrs.
Culver asking for a separation 1 year prior to her mothers death and 1
year prior to when
defendant reached out with condolences and text messages about the child services being called.
Mrs. Culver also told the defendant she and her husband had not has sexual relations for 2 years
and that she was going to leave the Plantiff which she will testify to. Mrs. Culver has already
provided this testimony at her divorce hearings. Defendant will be bringing forth Mrs. Culver as a
witness for the defendant to testify the exact testimony on her divorce hearing that no sexual
intercourse took place nor did defendant ever come to see Plantiffs wife until after they were
legally separated nor has defendant ever seen Plantiff in person or at any child hand offs.
Defendant has never laid eyes or personally seen Plantiff face to face. Defendant will also bring
forth evidence from both Mrs. Culver's testimony and police reports and child services reports that
both the police and child services were called to the marital home on multiple occasions also
per
Plantiffs own admissions to the defendant (SEE EXHIBIT A) . Furthermore, Rule 4.2 restricts a
lawyer's communications with persons represented by counsel. At the time, Plaintiffs attorney
knew defendant had counsel and still spoke with defendant and emailed defendant information
7
Rule 4.3 restricts a lawyer's communications with unrepresented persons. Furthermore, all communications by a lawyer
are subject to Rule 4.1's prohibition on knowingly making a false statement INEM fact or law to a third person
of material
and to Rule 8.4(c)'s prohibition on conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer. Plantiffs attorney knew his client was talking to me and befriending me
and defendant was guided by Plantifffs attorney to gather information. Furthermore, Plantiff was enticing defendants by
threats of placing drugs in Plantiffs house or car and pleads of gratitude and promises for help and bodily threat of
harm (SEE EXHIBIT A). Defendant has factual history with the law and wanted no further actions or possible chances
of Plantiff trying to possibly trap defendant in a crime has merit based on Plantiffs own words so defendant had hope
by supplying information to the Plantiff and Plaintiffs attorney even thought was altered and not true that the Plantiff
would simply leave the defendant alone. During the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about
the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the
matter,
unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or by court order. Rule
4.2(a),
Rule 4.2 contributes to the proper functioning of the legal system by protecting a person who has chosen to be
represented by a lawyer in a matter against possible overreaching by other lawyers who are participating in the matter,
interference by those lawyers with the client-lawyer relationship and the uncounseled disclosure of information relating
to the representation.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, by self-representation, request that this Court grant Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, reprimand of Plantiffs counsel Brian North and/or dismiss Plantiffs Complaint with
prejudice, and for all other relief this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert Reid Gravitte
By Self-Repres tion
/s/
7722 Shadowcreek Terrace
Springfield, VA 22153
Preview
Mecklenburg County Clerk of Superior Court STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG NICHOLAS GRANT CULVER IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION Plaintiff Vv. : Civil Action No.23-CVS-011518-590 ROBERT R. GRAVITTE : Defendant. : MOTION BY DEFENDANT FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT 1 Electronically Filed Date:3/19/2024 7:29 PM Mecklenburg County Clerk of Superior Court TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Hunter v. Spalding 97 NCApp.372,379-380(1990)RuleS5 5 Decker v. Homes Inc/Construction Management & Finance Group Rule 55(NCG.S.1D-151D-35NC187App.658,667(2007) 5 McCutchen v. McCutchen 360NC280,624S.E.2d620(2006) 5 Nunn v. Allen 154NCApp523.574S.E.2d35(2002) 5 Coachman v. Gould 122 NC App. 443.470 S.E. 2d 560 (1996) 5 Hutelmyer v. Cox 133 NC App 364,514 S.E. 2d 554 (1999) 5 Sebastian v. Kluttz 6N.C. App. 201,170 S.E. 2d 104 (1969) 5 Jones V. Skelley '195 N.C. App. 500, 673 SE. 2d 385 (2009) 5 Hodges v. Moore, 697 S.E.2d 406, 407 (N.C. App. 2010) 5 Broughton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 161 N.C. App. 20, 33-34, 588 S.E.2d 20, 30 (2003) 5 Hayes v. Waltz 246 N.C.App 438,443 (2016) 5 Ward v. Beaton 141 N.C. App. 44,48 (2000) 5 Bassiri v. Pilling 287 N.C. App.538,543 (2023) 5 Cooper v Shealy, 140 N.C.App. 729 736,537 S.E.2d 854,859(2000) 5 Horner v. Byrnett 132 NC App323,511 SE 2d 342 (1999) 5 2 Fran's Pecans v.Greene 134 NC App. 110,516 SE 2d 647,650 (1999) 5 Miliken v. Meyer 311 US 457,463,85 L.Ed 278,283 (1940) 5 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc. 477 U.S. 242 (1986) 5 Rules/Statues/Codes Rules Civ.Proc., Rules 55(a,d), 55 (b) (2) a60(b), G.S. § 1A-1 45 Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 60(b), G.S. § 1A-1 45 Rule 56(c)(b)(e)(f) 4,5 Rule12(b)(6) 4 NC. Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b) 4 NC. Rule 54 (c)(e) 4 NC Gen. Stat. §52-13(a).2009 4 NCGen.Stat.§1d-25(b) 4 Code of Virginia§8.01-220 4 ~N.C.§ 8C-103 (C) 104(B)(d)(e)301., 403 (1983 c. s. 1) 404 (a)1-3(b)405(b)407, 408, 804 (3) ,1007 4 NC Rules of Conduct 4.3 , 8.4(c)(d) 4 NCGen.Stat.§8-97 4. NC Gen Stat § 1A-1 121 (b)(1)(6) 4 NC Gen Stat § 1-75.4 4 Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.7(b)(2),4(a) 4 3 COME NOW, Defendant . Robert R. Gravitte ("Gravitte"), by self representation Pro Se, and pursuant to Rule NC code 60(b) NC 54 (c,e) 55(d) & NC 1d-25(b) 52-13(a) 2009 Rules Civ.Proc., Rules 55(a,d), 55 (b) (2) a60(b), G.S. § TA-1 Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 60(b), G.S. § IA-1 Rule 56(c)(b)(e)(f) Rule12(b)(6) NC. Rule 54 (c)(e) NC Gen. Stat. §52-13(a).2009 NC Gen.Stat.§1d-25(b) ~N.C.§ 8C-103 (C) 104(B)(d)(e)301., 403 (1983 c. s. 1) 404 (a)1-3(b)405(b)407 408, 804 (3) .1007 NC Rules of Conduct 4.3 , 8.4(c)(d) NCGen.Stat.§8-97 NC Gen Stat § 1-75.4 of this Court's Local HH Rules,and hereby submit this Motion for Summary Judgment in response to Plaintiffs Briefs and defendants Civil Statements of Facts herein. I, LEGAL STANDARD Defendant moves the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 to survive and grant Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs' claims of both alienation of affection & criminal conversation. The defendant argues that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the following reasons: on the grounds that Plaintiffs Jack of jurisdiction, standing, merits, claims and evidence N.C.§ 8C-103 (C) 104(B)(d) (c)301., 403 (1983 c, s, 1) 404 (a)1-3(b)405(b)407, 408804 (3) ,1007 NC Gen Stat § 1A-1 12 (b)(1)(2)(6) and show cause HM of frivolous lawsuit that cannot meet the requirements for claims of a Happy Marriage: or a Loss of Affection Nunn v. Allen 154NCApp523,5748.E.2d35(2002) and/or Plantiff cannot claim jurisdiction as Defendant lives in Virgnia Code of Virginia§8.01-220 which does not recognize tort claims under complainants conduct and no injury occurred in North Carolina NC Gen Stat § 1A-112 (b)(1) Cooper V. Shealy 140N.C. App.729 736,5378.E.2d854,859(2000) defendant never crossed state lines with Plaintiffs ex-wife, and defendant can prove cause Plaintiff and his spouse were riff with discord and no sexual acts for over two years prior to legal separation Hayes v. Waltz 246 N.C.App 438,443 (2016). Counsel for Plantiff and Counsel himself also violated rules of conduct Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.7(b)(2),4(a) & NC Rules of Conduct 4.3 , 8.4(c)(d) (SEE EXHIBIT A) in conspiring and coercing and under burden received evidence from defendant to be used in Plaintiffs divorce case against defendants knowledge NC Rules of Conduct 4.3 , 8.4(c)(d). Lastly, there was no sexual relations between defendant and Plaintiffs wife prior to legal separation Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc. 477 U.S. 242 (1986) . 4 II, ARGUEMENT Plantiffs case relies solely on altered receipts and evidence that defendant provided under the threat and gratitude from the Plantiff and coercion from both Plantiffs attorney and the Plantiff for help for the Plantiffs divorce case and child custody hearing case. The ex wife of the Plantiff, Mrs. Culver is willing to testify on defendants behalf that there was no sexual intercourse and there was no intercourse in the state of North Carolina prior to the Plantiffs separation and the only time Mrs. Culver came to visit defendant in the state of Virginia was for business. Mrs. Culver will also testify that the couple had not been engaged in any sexual activity for approx. 2 years prior to visiting the defendant on the state of Virginia. The defendant never went to the residence of the Plantiff until after the legal separation date. The defendant only provided fake receipts and hearsay videos under the threat that the Plantiff may "cook" something up to harm the defendant and get the defendant in trouble with the law (SEE EXHIBIT A) and threatened the use of violence in the hopes the Plantiff would leave the defendant alone. Plaintiff promised favors if defendant helped. The MMM of a "happy Marriage", "there was a marriage with love" and that the Plantiff and his Plantiffs claim spouse had "love and affection between them" Hayes v. Waltz 246 N.C.App 438,443 (2016) is not based on truth or merit. Because Plantiff has know asked for punitive damages upwards of $2,000,000 under McCutchen v. McCutchen 360NC 280,624S.E.2d620(2006). Furthermore under McCutchen I have the right to bringforth evidence and a witness as the Plantiff has asked for Jury for punitive damages and under Hunter v. Spaulding 97 NC App. 372,379-380 (1990) Rule 55 defendant has the right to present evidence to a jury as to the question of punitive damages. Furthermore, Plantiff is trying to ask for punitive damages amounting to $2,000,000 under Hutlemyer Cox 133 NC App 364,514 S.E. 2d 554 (1999) punitive damages shall not exceed the greater of three times 5 amount of compensatory damages or $ 250,00 whichever is greater. Also under Sebastian v. Klutzt 6 N.C. App. 201,170 S.E. 2d 104 (1969) because Plantiff has sued for both criminal conversation and alienation of affection, only one issue of punitive damages should be submitted to the jury. Furthermore under Coachman v. Gould the elements for Criminal conversation of receipts and a video is not only hearsay evidence which defendant provided and altered receipts it's not sufficient evidence of sexual intercourse. Furthermore under Jones v. Skelley 195 N.C.App. 500, 673 S.E. 2d 385 (2009) the alleged conduct or any conduct never took place in North Carolina therefore jurisdiction is not relevant under Code of Virginia$8.01-220 A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no civil action shall lie or be maintained in this Commonwealth for alienation of affection, breach of promise to marry, or criminal conversation upon which a cause of action arose or occurred on or after June 28, 1968, B. No civil action for seduction shall lie or be maintained where the cause of action arose or accrued on or after July 1, 1974 Code 1950, § 20-37.2; 1968, c. 716; 1974, c. 606; 1977, c. 617.8. Furthermore on the Plantiffs own words his ex wife Mrs. Culver (SEE EXHIBIT A) had asked for a separation a year prior to the defendant reaching out to simply give condolences to the death of Mrs. Culvers mother. Therefore under Nunn 154, N.C. App. at 533 Plantiff cannot prove their marriage was diminished and destroyed by defendant the marriage was already destroyed on actions within their marriage. There is no proof of criminal conversation or alienation of affection as nothing took place in the state of North Carolina, the only evidence Plantiffs attorney can produce is hearsay and altered receipts and non-authenticated videos: defendant has never testified to the authentication of the videos, time frames recorded or receipts furthermore the Plantiffs attorney has filed this frivolous lawsuit and is aggressively pursuing money as the Plantiff has stated in his own words ( SEE EXHIBIT A) on a contingency basis which violates Rule 8.4 Rules of Conduct as the only reason Plaintiffs attorney could ascertain defendant is even worth $1 is form social media accounts. Also the Plantiffs attorney in Plantiffs owns words have taken 6 this case on a contingency/ Pro-bono case. The Plantiff and Plantiffs attorney clearly thinks I have money based on the altered receipts and-or possibly social media, but the FACTS are I currently have both a Federal Judgment placed against, a bank judgment placed against me from both the Government and the bank since being released from prison in 2008 , I have a bankruptcy, I have no job have not filed taxes since before prior to 2005 as I have been on an indigent salary and made less than the filing income level I have not worked at a job in years since 2008, I live in a basement I have performed duties for room and board I own nothing and I have no bank accounts since before prison approx. 2004. The Plantiff is actually worth more than me as he has a job, property and a house. Defendant can show (SEE EXHIBIT A) Plantiffs text messages of both threats and pleads for help from Defendant for the Plantiffs divorce case in return for evidence and testimony of Defendant and text messages show proof of a bad marriage in Plantiffs own words about Mrs. Culver asking for a separation 1 year prior to her mothers death and 1 year prior to when defendant reached out with condolences and text messages about the child services being called. Mrs. Culver also told the defendant she and her husband had not has sexual relations for 2 years and that she was going to leave the Plantiff which she will testify to. Mrs. Culver has already provided this testimony at her divorce hearings. Defendant will be bringing forth Mrs. Culver as a witness for the defendant to testify the exact testimony on her divorce hearing that no sexual intercourse took place nor did defendant ever come to see Plantiffs wife until after they were legally separated nor has defendant ever seen Plantiff in person or at any child hand offs. Defendant has never laid eyes or personally seen Plantiff face to face. Defendant will also bring forth evidence from both Mrs. Culver's testimony and police reports and child services reports that both the police and child services were called to the marital home on multiple occasions also per Plantiffs own admissions to the defendant (SEE EXHIBIT A) . Furthermore, Rule 4.2 restricts a lawyer's communications with persons represented by counsel. At the time, Plaintiffs attorney knew defendant had counsel and still spoke with defendant and emailed defendant information 7 Rule 4.3 restricts a lawyer's communications with unrepresented persons. Furthermore, all communications by a lawyer are subject to Rule 4.1's prohibition on knowingly making a false statement INEM fact or law to a third person of material and to Rule 8.4(c)'s prohibition on conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer. Plantiffs attorney knew his client was talking to me and befriending me and defendant was guided by Plantifffs attorney to gather information. Furthermore, Plantiff was enticing defendants by threats of placing drugs in Plantiffs house or car and pleads of gratitude and promises for help and bodily threat of harm (SEE EXHIBIT A). Defendant has factual history with the law and wanted no further actions or possible chances of Plantiff trying to possibly trap defendant in a crime has merit based on Plantiffs own words so defendant had hope by supplying information to the Plantiff and Plaintiffs attorney even thought was altered and not true that the Plantiff would simply leave the defendant alone. During the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or by court order. Rule 4.2(a), Rule 4.2 contributes to the proper functioning of the legal system by protecting a person who has chosen to be represented by a lawyer in a matter against possible overreaching by other lawyers who are participating in the matter, interference by those lawyers with the client-lawyer relationship and the uncounseled disclosure of information relating to the representation. WHEREFORE, Defendant, by self-representation, request that this Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, reprimand of Plantiffs counsel Brian North and/or dismiss Plantiffs Complaint with prejudice, and for all other relief this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, Robert Reid Gravitte By Self-Repres tion /s/ 7722 Shadowcreek Terrace Springfield, VA 22153