8/14/2019 xMotion3

1/8

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE DUE

PROCESS TO PLAINTIFF

Whereas, plaintiff has been denied due process throughout the entire period of

litigation; he does now respectfully request this court to render a summary

judgment in favor of his claims and provide the relief as requested in his originalpetition to the court.

Background

Level One Violations of Due Process

1. This process began in 2006 when the Pocahontas County Board of Education

determined that Norman Alderman should be transferred from his position in

the board office to Pocahontas County High School where he had previously

served for 17 years.

2. He had never been reprimanded; never had a blemish on his record, and had

in fact been elected Teacher of the Year by his school colleagues. In those 17

years, he had sustained annual evaluations with no black marks on record. He

was never accused of inappropriate behavior with any student, never had sex

with any student, never had sex with teacher on or off school time as other of

his colleagues had or would have during that time period.

3. He had exposed a misappropriation of public money by the superintendent

and the board treasurer involving a scheme to funnel the governorscontingency fund money through the school system to a former employee of

Senator Walt Helmick who had worked as a water bottler for Helmicks water

plant.

4. A misappropriation did occur:

WEST VIRGINIA CODE11-8-26.

Unlawful expenditures by local fiscal body.

Except as provided in sections fourteen-b, twenty-five-a and twenty-six-a

of this article, a local fiscal body shall not expend money or incurobligations:

(1) In an unauthorized manner;

(2) For an unauthorized purpose;

8/14/2019 xMotion3

2/8

(3) In excess of the amount allocated to the fund in the levy order;

(4) In excess of the funds available for current expenses.

The exhibits I am providing with this filing prove that a misappropriation occurred.

There was a cover-up by the board, the superintendent, and his secretary to hide the truthof the transaction. The prosecutor at the time had sufficient probable cause present the

matter to a grand jury and did not. The issue was alive and ongoing despite the WV

Supreme Courts conclusion that it was settled and resolved. The fraud which wasallowed with the ALJ system led to the false conclusion of the West Virginia Supreme

Court.

5. a. He had previously brought a legal action against Board President Kenneth Vancein which a 3-judge panel appointed by the West Virginia Supreme Court did grant

Aldermans citizen motion that Vance be removed from his office as Pocahontas

County Board Member. Furthermore, plaintiff had raised an issue of double-dipping regarding Vances wife who worked at PCHS and who could have been

impacted by the transfer of plaintiff back to the high school. It is noteworthy that in

the past when a question of personnel matters affected the high school that Vance

did recuse himself from the question at the time of the decision. Plaintiff contendsthat this failure of recusal was a denial of his due process rights.

b. Plaintiff contends that Kenneth Vance should have recused himself fromparticipation in the vote of termination because this previously legal confrontation

and the fact that his own wife was engaged in questionable acts with the high

school. Furthermore, Kenneth Vance had previously been involved in a lawsuit

with plaintiff regarding his constitutional right to video tape a meeting. Vance hadto apologize for his untoward actions against Alderman and to undergo First

Amendment special training by the Ethics Commission.

5. Likewise, plaintiff had unsuccessfully attempted the removal of another board

member, Ruth Taylor. Plaintiff contends that she should have recused herself for

personal reasons.

6. He had exposed the fact that one board member, Emery Grimes, the elected

representative from the Northern District was living outside his district with aconcubine, namely the former Janet May, who lived in the Central District. Said

Emery Grimes openly co-habited with this concubine and in fact had a child by her.

7. a. He had exposed the legal fact that one board member, Tommy Vanreenen, was

no longer a board member by operation of law because he had violated WV Code

18: _______ which states ___________________.

8/14/2019 xMotion3

3/8

b. This is significant because the Pocahontas County Boards Policy states that

they shall operate by Roberts Rules of Order. That nationally recognized authority

on parliamentary practice states that _______________________

c. In this particular case, as it relates to the instant matter, Tommy Vanreenen

actually seconded the motion for the termination of Norman Alderman from his position. Hence, in direct violation of accepted and majority approved board

policy, Tommy Vanreenen violated board policy, generally accepted parliamentary

procedure, and the due process rights of Norman Alderman when he seconded themotion to terminate him from his employment.

The violation of due process in summary: There was no legitimate process involved

in the termination of Norman Alderman. Emery Grimes and Tommy Vanreenen were notlegitimate members of the board. Ruth Taylor and Kenneth Vance both had personal

conflicts with plaintiff that any common sense of propriety would have removed them

from the decision process.

Level Two Violations of Due Process:

1. When plaintiff filed his grievance process, obtained an attorney, and appeared at

the Level Four hearing with Judge Denise Spatafore, the board was represented

by Greg Bailey, of Bowles, Rice, McGraff and David, a Charleston law firm.

2. But Bailey did not have a valid contract with the board to represent them in ahearing before the Grievance Board ALJ. In fact, his contract specifically stated

that he WOULD NOT REPRESENT THE BOARD in court or at a grievance

hearing without special authority. Hence, Bailey was practicing law withoutauthority. Judge Denise Spatafore as we will show shortly made an incredible

decision not to permit plaintiffs access through discovery to Baileys contract

which would have permitted plaintiff to challenge his presence in the courtroomthat day. Hence, a violation of due process!!

3. a. Secondly, Judge Denise Spatafore failed to disclose that she herself was

practicing law without a license due to the fact that she had rendered herself out

of compliance with state law which specifically requires that an ALJ must taken

continuing legal education courses during her tenure as an ALJ. In other words,Spatafore had no more jurisdiction to hear this case than Santa Claus would have

had.

b. This came to light two years after in September 2008 when the West Virginia

Grievance Board suspended her for failure to comply with the requirements of the

West Virginia State Bar. She along with another woman was suspended fromhearing cases. Again we have a failure of due process. Plaintiffs have a

reasonable expectation that their cases will be heard by a qualified and bona fide

ALJ. The law presumes that those requirements by the board are legitimate

qualifiers for one to serve as an administrative law judge in the State of West

8/14/2019 xMotion3

4/8

Virginia. Had plaintiff had a bona fide and qualified ALJ she might well have

intellectually comprehended the matters of labor law as they passed before her in

review at the hearing. In the instant, case she was not trained properly (asrequired by the state bar) to deal with the questions at hand. (We are including a

memorandum related to the question of continuing legal education. Hence, the

violation of my due process rights.

4. The Question of Res Judicata: This is a legitimate question as raised by the court

in a previous hearing and it has not fallen on deaf ears.

Res Judicata demands that there be a valid judgment rendered by a court of

competent jurisdiction. The fact is that the West Virginia Supreme Court has

heard this case on appeal from the board. It chose to reverse the decision of abona fide Circuit Judge, Irene Berger in favor of the unqualified ALJ, Denise

Spatafore. But that does not in itself remediate the question of due process.

The Board itself has raised the question of a finding of facts. Such finding offacts is an essential part of the judicial process and cannot be ignored. West

Virginia law establishes a process that is due the plaintiff as it pertains to fact-finding. We would argue that the fact-finding by an unqualified ALJ again is no

more qualified that Santa Claus rummaging through his toy sack. Because Ms.

Spatfore had failed to educate herself current labor law, she was unable to render

a sound decision regarding the facts of the case.

An example serves well in this case: Spatafore refused discovery for Baileys

legal contract with the board and plaintiffs request for a public document, theminutes of a board meeting. These are illustrative of the general level of

disingenuous intellectual ability of this unqualified, inadequate trained ALJ.

Spatafore has a track record for her decisions against plaintiffs. In Pocahontas

County alone, she had never rendered in decision in favor of a plaintiff. We

conducted a statistical study of ALJs across the state of West Virginia and itconfirmed that the ration of denials versus granted decisions is approximately 9 to

1 in favor of boards. This alone should raised concern in the judicial system

because it is far and wide beyond the statistical levels of probability. The

legislature is constantly monitoring this process and in fact last year revised thesystem to a point.

The current grievance system has some inherent flaws which we believe will notpass judicial review should this matter come to court. First of all, the system as

revealed in the most recent dispute over the two ALJs utilizes a round-robin

system of review. This means that the hearer of the facts is not necessarily thesole determiner of the validity of the facts. Persons who have never participated

in the fact-finding process suddenly find themselves reviewing the actions of the

fact-finder. This unseen, closed door group of reviewers consistently find in favor

of boards of education. It would be like having a jury trial but half the jurors are

8/14/2019 xMotion3

5/8

in another room and are not allowed to hear the testimony. That is why we

referred to the process as a star chamber, an ancient and discredited process

from the Dark Ages.

Secondly, the system has a built-in device for ensuring that legal decisions of the

ALJs are approved by higher authority. The will and pleasure provision ofthe ALJs hiring ensures that there is a higher level monitor in the system who

expects compliance with a predetermined norm, in this case a high ration of

denials to granted decisions. Whether or not there is a predetermined dictate maybe up to question but the statistics will show that in Grievance decisions, the

employees chances of winning are about 9 to 1 and that is by the Grievance

Boards own statistics.

If an ALJ doesnt toe-the-mark they are fired. And this actually happened with

one ALJ, Tom Gilghooy. He recently settled with the Board over his termination.

There were published reports that some employees had felt that he ruled too much

in their favor and was terminated. The question that came forth in the Grievanceprocess was that he claimed that he was terminated because he questioned the

legal bona fides of Spatafore and Gould. Since that was settled we may neverknow!

Should Norman Alderman lose his career and his future while the Grievance

System is in this state of flux? That is the question at hand!

I continue that the Grievance Process is fouled up in West Virginia. We,

employees, are not getting Due process from the Grievance System. And it is

for this reason that I as a terminated employee turn to Judge James Rowe forjustice.

JURISDICTION TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The court has an obligation to do justice. A judge has an obligation to do justice.

This has been a constant theme of my three year battle with the PocahontasCounty Board of Education and Pocahontas County in general. I hold to the

religious principle that when a person knows to do right and refuses to do rightthat they are wrong.

The Ted Stevens Case: In that most recent case, Senator Ten Stevens lost his

race for senate and in part because he was accused of a crime strategically right at

the time of his campaign. But when the judge probed the matter he discoveredthat the prosecution hadnt played fair. And he, the judge ordered a special

prosecutor to investigate the matter. This proves conclusively to me that a judge

has the authority to investigate the integrity of the judicial process. If they dont,what hope have we?

8/14/2019 xMotion3

6/8

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge on Tuesday set aside the

conviction of Republican former Sen. Ted Stevens while excoriating the

case's prosecutors.

A courtroom sketch shows ex- Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens at Tuesday

proceedings, where he said he had "new hope."

District Judge Emmet Sullivan also appointed an independent,nongovernment attorney, Henry Schuelke III, to investigate possible

misconduct by the government lawyers who prosecuted the 85-year-old

former senator from Alaska.

"In nearly 25 years on the bench, I've never seen anything approaching the

mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case," Sullivan said.

In October, Stevens was found guilty of seven counts of lying on Senate

ethics forms. He lost his bid for re-election in November to DemocraticchallengerMark Begich, then mayor of Anchorage.

In December, an unnamed FBI whistle-blower accused prosecutors of

withholding evidence from the defense. The whistle-blower reported thatsomeone with the government had an inappropriate relationship with Bill

Allen, an oil industry executive who was the government's key witness.

The Ben Wilfong Case: Right here in Pocahontas County we have a sheriffs

deputy on administrative leave because of allegations that he falsified informationto prove that he had paid a bill for which he was being sued in magistrate court.As it turned out the documentation that he provided under oath were checks that

were written on a bank that didnt exist by that name at the time they were

written. He may well have ended his career in law enforcement because of this.

But when this falsification was pointed out by the plaintiff in the matter,magistrate Kersener-Vanover personally submitted a subpoena ducs tecumto the

bank to determine the validity of the testimony in her court. In other words, when

she suspected foul play, she took it upon herself to validate the integrity of the

testimony in her own court. And I applaud her for her courage and truth-seeking.

This is what I am asking this court to do, seek the truth about the testimony in this

case. I have openly contended that there has been fraud committed on the courts

at the grievance level, at the circuit court level, and even at the Supreme Courtlevel. Where will the intervention take place to determine the truth of the

testimony? I am asking it to begin in the Pocahontas County Circuit Court!

http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Mark_Begichhttp://topics.cnn.com/topics/Mark_Begich

8/14/2019 xMotion3

7/8

It is totally unfair for the question ofRes Judicata to be raised until the validity of

the testimony is tested under oath and the opportunity to cross-examine the

witnesses regarding their testimony under oath.

RELIEF REQUESTED

I will not back the court into a corner in this matter. All I ask is due process. I

am totally confident that I can and shall prevail in a court wherein truth is

presented in the absence of fraud.

I am requesting an evidentiary hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction.

Whether that be the Pocahontas County Circuit Court or a remand to the ALJ

process, that is a decision I leave to the court. I can assure you that the next ALJthat I face will be completely and totally vetted by me personally. I will not trust

the system to do the job because it is woefully certain that they will not vet their

own employees.

Due Processthat is the operative phrase!!!

Sent to:

Respondents Attorney

Chip E. Williams, #8116Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan,

Brown & Poe, PLLC

600 Neville Street, Suite 201Beckley, West Virginia 25801

I certify that I have mailed a copy of this document to the above and included a copy inthe Circuit Court of Pocahontas County on this day April 22, 2009

Signed: ______________________________________

Norman Lee Alderman, Pro Se

HC 82, Box 223a

Marlinton, WV 24954normanalderman@yahoo.com

304-799-7374

I certify that I have mailed a copy of this document via first class mail to the above and

included a copy to the Circuit Court of Pocahontas County on this day April 24, 2009

mailto:normanalderman@yahoo.commailto:normanalderman@yahoo.com

8/14/2019 xMotion3

8/8

Norman Lee Alderman

Signed: _____________________________________

April 24, 2009