IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POCAHONTAS COUNTY WEST VIRGINIA

Norman Alderman
Petitioner Pro Se

Vs. Civil Action No.: 08-C-29

Pocahontas County Board of Education

Respondent

MOTION REQUESTING THAT THE COURT CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY

HEARING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY ON THE PART OF
LAW AND IRVINE.

Background

1. Plaintiff, Norman Lee Alderman comes this day to present his request that the
Pocahontas County Circuit Court to grant an amended cause of action related to the tort of
perjury. In the instant case, the statements made by Alice Irvine and J. Patrick Law were
false and untrue and had the effect of denying Plaintiff’s allegations that he presented a
true and accurate accounting of their misappropriation of funds.

2. Such perjurious actions misled the Administrative Law Judge Denise Spatafore and
caused her to disregard the veracity of Plaintiff’s claims thereby resulting in a ruling
against Plaintiff for his claims of relief. The consequence of these perjurious actions have
resulted in approximately $11,000 worth of attorney fees and denial of plaintiff’s rights to a
fair hearing in the administrative law hearing. Furthermore, the perjury has resulted in
nearly three years of plaintiff’s life with no job.

3. Documentation: The following material is excerpted from the transcript of the

grievance hearing July 26, 2006 as transcribed by Skidmore Transcription Service (304-
539-1485). Defendants have a copy of this transcript via the record. This transcript is a
part of DOCKET NO. 06-38-142.

Testimony of Alice Irvine: (Emphasis added by Plaintiff)

“No, but he presented documents that were, he presented a warrant, an electronic warrant
transfer to the Board of Education alleging that I had misappropriated twenty five
hundred dollars, but the warrant that he presented was a twenty five hundred dollars warrant
that pertained to the Reading First Program.” Tr. p. 117

Testimony of J. Patrick Law: (Emphasis added by Plaintiff)

“What we looked at as we looked through the documents, we saw on one

hand a document that had to do, which was presented to us that was
presented as evidence that there had been a twenty-five thousand dollars
 sent, or an electronic transfer of twenty-five thousand dollars for actually
another grant. It didn’t have anything to do with the golf team. It was a
grant that was provided to the school. TR p. 23

Mr. Bailey: (The attorney for the board) “So the record is clear, you said
twenty-five thousand dollars?

J. Patrick Law: “Twenty-five hundred dollars. A twenty-five hundred dollar

warrant was presented to the Board and that had nothing to do with the golf
team. It had to do with a Reading First grant. So there was some information
that we were being provided that wasn’t correct.” Tr. p. 23-24

4. The fraud and subsequent perjury: This was a clear misrepresentation of the facts in
the matter. It had the effect of misleading the ALJ into thinking that Plaintiff had his
allegations wrong.

5. The “Reading First” statement served as a “red herring” to divert the ALJ’s attention
from the unlawful misappropriation of money. And it was effective.

6. The Board went on to submit the matter to the state superintendent’s office for
validation of their actions. This was a tacit admission that they knew they were wrong and
that Plaintiff’s allegations was true and proper.

7. Plaintiff can prove that there was indeed a misappropriation of public funds and that he
was punished with termination because he exposed this crime. Plaintiff wishes to present
such evidence in court for a jury to hear and decide on the truthfulness of his allegations.

8. The Kanawha County Circuit court found “that Mr. Alderman’s speech was protected
speech” WV Supreme Court No. 33922

9. The WV Supreme Court quotes the ALJ as follows:

“In the instant case, the undersigned cannot find that [Mr. Alderman’s[
conduct constituted protected speech. The evidence in this case establishes
that [Mr. Alderman] did, in fact, make his comments without consideration
of the fact that they may or may not be false.”

10. The “evidence” relied on by the ALJ was that Mr. Alderman had submitted erroneous
information and had failed to substantiate his statements--thus the fruit of the fraud.

11. The court discusses the Pickering case and says:

Consequently, some general restrictions on a public employees right to free

speech were recognized in Pickering. First, speech, to be protected, must be
made with regard to matters of public concern, Second, statements that are
made “with the knowledge [that they]…were false and with reckless
disregard of whether [they were] …false or not,” are not protected. 391 U.S.
at 569, 88 S.Ct. at 1735, 20 L.Ed. 2d at 817. …
12. By denying the truth of Mr. Alderman’s allegations of misappropriation the WV
Supreme Court concluded that:

“…the issue of thievery and misappropriation arose from an allegation of the use of
the money for the golf team. The issue had been properly raised at a previous Board
meeting and had already been through a full investigation with a finding of no
impropriety. Mr. Alderman was fully aware of this final resolution as he was the
person who properly raised the issue and followed through the investigation on a
statewide level…Because the issues were resolved and unsubstantiated, they were no
longer asserted by Mr. Alderman as a matter of public concern…” p. 18

13. Irvine’s and Law’s perjury led the ALJ to conclude that his allegations were false
when in reality they were absolutely true. P. 20

“As found by the ALJ, Mr. Alderman’s comments were made without consideration
of the fact that they may or may not be false, are not protected. As found by the
ALJ, Mr. Alderman’s’ comments were made without consideration of the fact that
they may or may not be false. The issue of the golf money had been resolutely
decided by an investigation. “

Plaintiff’s Note:

1. I filed a complaint on this matter May 26, 2006. A state police officer conducted an
investigation and submitted it to prosecuting attorney Walt Weiford who never moved on it
nor did he report back to me the results of the investigation.

2. When Donna Price Meadows came into office, I renewed my request for an
investigation. She has reviewed the police report and requested a special prosecutor for the
matter. I am currently waiting for the Prosecuting Attorney’s Institute to nominate a
special prosecutor and for the court to appoint that person. I am seeking charges of
misappropriation amounting to embezzlement under the laws of the state of West Virginia.

3. The prosecuting attorney has assured me that I have a good case and I believe that we
will be able to obtain an indictment of Law and Irvine. An indictment and subsequent
conviction will lay to rest the question of my truthfulness which has been full and complete
in this entire matter.

4. I believe that I have a right under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to
petition my government for a redress of grievances and to validate my allegations in a
court of law and wish to do so before a Pocahontas County jury.

Included Exhibits: I am including selected copies of the investigation by WV State

Policeman, Hershman. The prosecuting attorney has the original paperwork.

Sent to:
Respondent’s Attorney
Chip E. Williams, #8116
Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan,
Brown & Poe, PLLC
600 Neville Street, Suite 201
Beckley, West Virginia 25801

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

Signed: ______________________________________

Norman Lee Alderman, Pro Se

HC 82, Box 223a
Marlinton, WV 24954
normanalderman@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 22, 2009

Norman Lee Alderman

Signed: _____________________________________
April 24, 2009