For those not conversant in some of the more mundane aspects of legal terminology, highlights of the Fourth Court Hearing for the Legal Case of National Alliance, Pierce, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Gliebe, et al. Defendants will be briefly presented below in layman’s terms, rather than the legal vernacular that was presented in the initial report.
*Disclaimer: Please note that if there is any discrepancy between this current “layman’s” article and the previous “legalese” article on the Fourth Hearing, then the original “precise” article governs and supersedes this current “general” article.
- Fourth Hearing took place in Virginia on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, with Defendants Gliebe, Cartwright, and Maziarka not present, nor were any non-legal representatives of the NA Corporation present.
- The following three Attorneys attended representing their respective clients:
- The Corporate Attorney for National Alliance Reform & Restoration Group;
(NARRG’s ‘general’ Attorney of Record.)
- The National Alliance Corporation Attorney;
(Williams personal Attorney who for this hearing acted via ‘special appearance’ only and not as the NA ‘general’ Corporate Attorney of Record.)
- Erich Gliebe’s personal Attorney.
- The Corporate Attorney for National Alliance Reform & Restoration Group;
*Note: In general, an Attorney who appears ‘special appearance’ is the representation by an attorney of a client in court for only that particular session of the court. A ‘special appearance’ is different from a “general appearance” in which the attorney is committed to represent the client in all future matters, hearings, and trial of the case unless he/she is allowed to withdraw or is substituted “out of” the case by the client.
- Motion 1 initiated by NARRG, was for Court Sanctions against Defendant Gliebe for failure to turn over documents requested by NARRG as part of the lawsuit Discovery process. The Judge ruled that as a result of Gliebe’s failure to submit the subpoenaed documents, Gliebe cannot submit any further documents on his own behalf in preparation for trial.
In addition, the Judge ruled that NARRG can be reimbursed by Gliebe for any added expenses incurred by having to go to third parties (external Bank records etc.) instead of Gliebe supplying these documents himself.
- Motion 2 initiated by NARRG, was for Court Sanctions against Williams’ run NA Corporation for failure to turn over documents requested by NARRG as part of the lawsuit Discovery process. The Judge ruled that the NA Corporation is a party to the lawsuit and thus as this is a corporate lawsuit must participate in the legal Discovery process by complying with the NARRG subpoena of NA corporate financial documents.
The Judge ruled that the NA Corporation has 60 days to submit all requested financial documents that were subpoenaed by NARRG.
In addition, the Judge also ruled that the NA Corporation has 21 days to file a formal legal response (‘Answer’) to NARRG’s original legal ‘Complaint’ filed Jan 2, 2014 as part of this Corporate Civil Lawsuit. NARRG’s original legal ‘Complaint’ filing contains a plethora of civil allegations of wrong-doing and complaints stemming from a myriad of instances of malfeasance, misfeasance, illegalities and irregularities.
- Motion 3 initiated by NARRG, was a Motion to Show Cause against the NA Corporation for failure to comply with a subpoena for documents issued by NARRG in July 2014 while Gliebe was Chairman. At this Hearing, the Judge ruled that the NA is officially a party to the lawsuit, and thus subject to subpoena requests by NARRG.
The Judge also issued an Order to Compel, and at this time did not rule on the Show Cause issue. In the event that the Corporation does not comply with the subpoena Discovery items ruled on in Motion 2, then Sanctions and further Show Cause orders against the NA will be available to NARRG.
- Motion 4 was a NA Corporation initiated Motion to Quash NARRG’s Discovery items of the subpoenaed financial documents that NARRG had submitted to third parties (such as Corporate Bank records). The Judge denied the NA Corporation Motion to Quash and thus NARRG will be allowed to continue all of its Discovery process unhindered until the trial.
It should be stated that Defendant Jayne Cartwright, who now serves as NA Corporation Secretary under the current Chairman Williams, was formerly Treasurer of the NA Corporation while Gliebe was Chairman, and thus legally had direct financial responsibility for any past financial mismanagement and potential illegal wrongdoings that may become evident as a direct result of NARRG’s ongoing continuing legal efforts.
Note that in NARRG’s opinion, the main reason for the NA Corporation in attempting to Quash the Discovery of third party (such as Corporate Bank) subpoenaed financial documents is that they are scared as to what these subpoenaed financial documents will reveal. From all indications, it appears to fit the hypothesis that Williams is in effect protecting Gliebe, but for what reason? Despite it’s best efforts otherwise, Williams’s NA Corporation appears to be following the old adage, ‘you can run but you cannot hide’. NARRG is determined to prove this true thru its Discovery process and eventual trial. May truth and justice prevail!
As a legal sidebar, it should be noted that NARRG has successfully served the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with a subpoena for documents relating to the financial records of the NA Corporation that they appear to have in their current possession. Those readers that have been keeping up with the progress of this lawsuit, may remember that due to Williams’ ineptitude in keeping sensitive confidential NA membership and financial records under “lock and key” have allowed this information to be released to the SPLC, and thus made public worldwide via the SPLC website.
On the contrary, under a NARRG run NA Corporation, effective corporate risk management safeguards would be in place to prevent such an occurrence from happening. Williams’ run NA Corporation on the other hand continues to blunder on with ongoing embarrassing media relations such as the Strom’s/Williams’s continuing connection to twice government informant and convicted self-confessed murderer Frazier Glenn Miller, a long time personal friend of Williams.
In the July 2015 NA Bulletin, Williams made the following wild claim:
“Rumor has it that the Virginia Court has had enough of this now irrelevant case, too, and wants the former members [NARRG plaintiffs], who have no standing to begin with, to quit wasting the court’s time.”
Williams’s claim was patently false on all accords. Williams can literally eat crow on this false prediction and false propaganda.
After all how can Williams and company claim that NARRG’s lawsuit against the original three NA officers and Board of Directors (which includes Jayne Cartwright) is irrelevant, when Williams himself handpicks Jayne Cartwright to stay on with the NA and NVB as both an officer and Board of Director! If Jayne Cartwright had been doing her corporate fiduciary duty as NA Treasurer, Gliebe and others would have not gotten away with the now obvious financial debacle that has been displayed in the SPLC and other media circuses, all to the determinant of the NA.
How can Williams claim that he has moral authority to govern the NA Corporation when it has been publicly revealed that under his current administration (upon the written advice of Williams’s Indiana Attorney), purportedly had the NA Corporation withhold tax information from the IRS of past unreported income? Some could say that it appears that as a result of this ill-conceived stonewalling, the NA, Jayne Cartwright and perhaps Will Williams himself may have to suffer the consequences and potential wrath of a full blown IRS investigation, all due to his own wrong doings. If in fact the SPLC article’s images of purported NA financial documents are what they appear to be, then where there’s smoke there’s fire.
In this legal case it appears that Williams’s Indiana Attorney may be calling the shots as far as Williams legal strategy has been so far. If this is the case, then this may be why Williams’s personal Virginia Attorney at the Fourth Hearing appeared for the first and only time as the NA corporate Attorney by special appearance, and not as the NA general corporate Attorney of Record. If this Virginia Attorney does not continue on with other future hearings, then Williams at that point would be forced to find another Virginia corporate Attorney to represent the NA Corporation interests at the trial.
In the same vein, by all indications Defendant Gliebe who until recently had been acting “bailiwick” as Pro Se (that is officially representing himself without an attorney), may very well had been utilizing Williams’s Indiana Attorney for legal advice and counsel. As Williams himself has stated publicly, Williams had been in contact with Gliebe (and some say collusion with) since before NARRG filed its lawsuit on January 2, 2014. Thus there are good indications that Gliebe was utilizing outside legal advice from an attorney, and that attorney may very well have been Williams’s Indiana Attorney.