Corrupt public officials undermine our country’s national security, our overall safety, the public trust, and confidence in the U.S. government, wasting billions of dollars along the way. This corruption tarnishes virtually every aspect of society. Defense Attorney Michael P. Hugo has committed professional misconduct and a miscarriage of justice as he withheld exculpatory evidence of his clients actual innocence of 14-100 which are the business records he stole at the most critical point of his jury trial making these actions the block needed to keep him from overturning his case in court and continues to force an illegal conviction on his former client that must be overturned. It is my hope that he is still alive to face these charges and answer to them to correct this injustice committed against his former client. It appears that the state paid him to through the case as he flipped on his client at the most critical point of the jury trial.
On appeal in Wake County, NC; the Appellant argues that his plea was under duress, sedation, not knowing, and voluntary, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of statute 14-100, and that sentencing enhancement was improperly applied, and that his counsel was ineffective. Asking the court to hold that (1) there was an error in the sentencing of the guilty plea; (2) the Appellant's conduct clearly didn’t satisfy the statutory requirements for 14-100 as he did what the law intended him to do, and (3) Appellant's challenges to aspects of his sentence were availing the powers that be did no investigation.
As a service-connected disabled veteran, I fired office staff for nonproduction and that move led to a tangled web of woven unconstitutional and illegal actions by the powers that be. Paying salary and not increasing bottom line would drive any company into the hole. Yes, I admit. I hired the dumbest office staff in the world including my wife who was the most ignorant of all and afraid of the staff who talked about her like a dog and she ran like a scalded animal. No one was smart enough to go up the corporate ladder they just sit there and sucked up funds every Friday until I had to tell them to get the hell out, the free ride is over…
Illegal restrictions of my liberty, Unconstitutional duties of counsel, Seeking a federal investigation, and Complete exoneration of these erroneous charges....etc....
If another person's negligent conduct has caused you to suffer from emotional distress, you may be entitled to recover compensation. My defense attorney has behaved in an outrageous manner and has caused me severe emotional distress causing me to be the victim of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress .. I have a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. NIED claims are not easy to prove, so I want to contact an injury attorney since I believe the negligent acts of someone in a position of trust caused me severe emotional distress resulting into more constitutional violations and injury. intentional infliction of anguish, distress, or intimidation through verbal or non-verbal acts or denial of civil rights.
What Is Emotional Distress?
According to Medical News Today1, emotional distress is a state of mental anguish. It happens when you experience intensely negative feelings, such as worry, fear, sadness, or other mental health episodes that are so severe that they interfere with daily life. This type of stress can happen to anyone, particularly following an accident like a car accident or motorcycle crash.
Some warning signs of emotional distress include:
Common types of narcissistic manipulation include:
The tort of NIED may apply to situations where someone suffers some mental or emotional harm (shock, trauma, etc.) from the negligence of another. NIED assumes the defendant has a legal duty to use reasonable care with regard to the plaintiff. You can trigger narcissistic rage by putting the narcissist in a position of looking bad. Narcissists do not take criticism well. Gather witnesses who have seen your narcissistic ex behaving badly. This could include family, friends, co-works, teachers. Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in their victim's mind. Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain power and control over the other person, by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition.
The elements required in all states for this tort include the negligence of the defendant and the emotional injury to the plaintiff. Foreseeability Rule - The defendant must have been able to reasonably foresee that his or her actions would have caused the emotional distress. Plaintiff must establish that he or she suffered physical injury or illness as a result of emotional distress experienced directly. Plaintiff's injury must fall within the definition of "physical injury," which does not include common symptoms of PTSD, in order to qualify as a valid NIED claim. Also, the injury must appear within a short span of time after the alleged emotional disturbance.
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. Hyatt, 943 S.W.2d at 297. Although case law does not provide us with a precise definition of "extreme and outrageous," the test adopted by Missouri courts for actionable conduct is that the conduct must be "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Restatement (Second) of Torts section 46 cmt. d (1965). The defendant's conduct must be more than malicious and intentional; and liability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions. Viehweg v. Vic Tanny Intern. of Missouri, Inc., 732 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Mo.App.1987). "It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery...." Restatement (Second) of Torts section 46 cmt. h (1965). The court must determine whether an average member of the community upon learning of the facts alleged by plaintiff would exclaim "outrageous!" Viehweg, 732 S.W.2d at 213.
 Applying the elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress to the allegations in plaintiff's petition, we find that she stated a cause of action against INROADS. INROADS' behavior, as described in plaintiff's petition, was not just mean-spirited or boorish; rather its conduct reflected a calculated plan to cause plaintiff emotional harm. The alleged motive behind INROADS' conduct was retaliation for plaintiff's exposing misrepresentations by her immediate supervisor which falsely enhanced the performance of INROADS' St. Louis operation. All of the acts attributed to INROADS, taken together, were so outrageous as to be utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Plaintiff's petition stated a cause of action against INROADS for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. [FN1]
FN1. Some Missouri courts have extrapolated the standard for the negligent infliction of emotional distress to intentional infliction of emotional distress cases and required under Bass v. Nooney Co., 646 S.W.2d 765, 772-773 (Mo. banc 1983) that the emotional distress be medically diagnosable and medically significant. Hyatt, 943 S.W.2d at 297; see also Young, 664 S.W.2d at 265. If the Bass test is applicable to intentional infliction of emotional distress cases, plaintiff satisfied that test by pleading in her petition that the emotional distress she suffered was medically diagnosable and significant and required her to seek medical treatment.
Severe emotional distress is that which is substantial or enduring. It has also been defined as a kind of distress no reasonable person is expected to endure. It may consist of any highly unpleasant reaction such as fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, or worry.
To prove a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in California a plaintiff must prove that: The defendant's conduct was outrageous, The conduct was either reckless or intended to cause emotional distress; and. As a result of the defendant's conduct the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.
Plaintiff is looking for a voice that will assist him in getting back into court to once and for all put this miscarriage of justice put behind him by overturning the case, dropping the charges, and obtaining compensation for charging an innocent person for violating NCGS 14-100 when all he did was what the law allowed him to do.
The plaintiff must prove that they suffered this harm or are certain to suffer in the future as a result. $10,000,000. Emotional abuse, neglect may be more harmful long-term than physical, sexual abuse. Emotional abuse may have more harmful long-term negative effects than physical or sexual abuse, according to a 20-year study published by a team of researchers from Iowa, Australia, and Italy.