Notice, Application by Defendants to Use Deposition of Witness at Trial and Affidavit of Representative Charlie Brady Hauser
Working File
July 26, 1983

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Pugh v. Hunt Motion Pro Hac Vice; Order, 1982. 756e2dbb-d792-ee11-be37-6045bddb811f. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/548dc511-b426-4f48-acd3-5e977ed43ad7/pugh-v-hunt-motion-pro-hac-vice-order. Accessed May 22, 2025.
Copied!
finds Hf Emil; Claudine: RUFUS L. EDMISTEN @epmment Hf 3111511” ATTORNEY GENERAL _ P. 0. BOX 629 RALEIGH 27602 March 26, 1982 Honorable J. Rich Leonard, Clerk United States District Court Eastern District Federal Building _ Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Re: Ralph Gingles, et al., V. Rufus Edmisten, et al., Civil No. 81-803-CIV-5 Alan V. Pugh, et al., V. James B. Hunt, Jr., etc., et al., Civil No. 81-1066-CIV—5 ’ Dear Mr. Leonard: 'Enclosed please find, for filing, four copies of Answer to Second Supplement to Complaint. Please mark one copy "Filed" and return the same to me in, the enclosed, stamped envelope. Thank you for your usual cooperation. Very truly yours, RUFUS L. EDMISTEN ATTORNEY GENERAL JWJR:ew Enclosures IN THE FOR THE E RALPH GINGLES, et a1 Plaintiffs VS. RUFUS EDMISTEN, etc. I Defendants. The Complaint, upon which relief ca The Defendants allegations containe follows: 1. The allegat effect that the Cour Second Supplement to that give the Court j 28 U.S.C. 51331 and as supplemented, 31343 and 42 U.S.C. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA RALEIGH DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 81-803-CIV-5 ANSWER TO SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT et al, VVVVVVVVVV FIRST DEFENSE fails to state a claim n be granted. SECOND DEFENSE in the above-captioned action answer the i in the Second Supplement to Complaint as ions contained in Paragraph 105, to the t has jurisdiction over the claims in the Complaint pursuant to the same statutes urisdiction over the original Complaint, §l973c, are admitted. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 105. 2. The allegati 3. With respeci following an objectic pursuant to SS of the repealed the October, House of Representati Laws of 1981 and the lina Senate contained With respect to those which allege that the the Session Laws of l intended as a respons gations are specifica : to Paragraph 107, ons contained in Paragraph 106 are admitted. it is admitted that n by the United States Department of Justice Voting Rights Act, the General Assembly 1981 apportionment of the North Carolina ves contained in Chapter 1130 of the Session July, 1981 apportionment of the North Caro- in Chapter 821 of the Session Laws of 1981. allegations contained in Paragraph 107 repeal of Chapter 1130 and Chapter 821 of 981 was brought about by, or was in any way e to, the filing of this action, those alle- lly denied. 4. The allegations contained in Paragraph 108 are admitted. 5. The allegations contained in Paragraph 109 are denied. 6. The allegations contained in Paragraph 110 are denied. 7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 111 are admitted. 8. The allegations contained in Paragraph 112 are denied. 9. The allegations contained in Paragraph 113 are denied. 10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 114 are admitted. 11. The allegations contained in Paragraph 115 are denied. 12. The allegations contained in Paragraph 116 are denied. 13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 117 are admitted. 14. The allegations contained in Paragraph 118 are denied. 15. The allegations contained in Paragraph 119 are denied. 16. With respect to Paragraph 120, it is admitted that the Plaintiffs' attempt to base a claim on §2 and S5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the extent that tA differ from the re 17. The alleg 18. With resp Plaintiffs' attemp 51983 to enforce t clause of the Four ment to the United §l981. To the ext graph 122 differ f denied. 19. The alleg 20. The alleg 21. The alleg 22. The alleg 23. The alleg 24. The alleg 25. It is adm States Department¢ Act, the North Car as amended, 42 U.S.C. S1973 and §l973c. To e allegations contained in Paragraph 120 sponse herein, those allegations are denied. ations contained in Paragraph 121 are denied. -ct to Paragraph 122, it is admitted that t to found a claim for relief on 42 U.S.C. he Thirteenth Amendment, the equal protection teenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amend- States Constitution and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ent that the allegations contained in Para- rom the response herein, those allegations are ations contained in Paragraph 123 are denied. ations contained in Paragraph 124 are denied. ations contained in Paragraph 125 are denied. ations contained in Paragraph 126 are denied. ations contained in Paragraph 127 are denied. ations contained in Paragraph 128 are denied. itted that following an objection by the United 3f Justice pursuant to S5 of the Voting Rights Dlina General Assembly repealed Chapter 894 of the Sessions Laws of 1981, which was the July, 1981 Apportion- ment of North Carclina's Congressional districts. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 129 which allege that the repeal of Chapter 894 was brought about by, or was in any way intended as a response to, the filing of this action, those allegations are specifically denied. 26. The allegations 27. The allegations 28. The allegations 29. The allegations 30. The allegations are denied. contained in Paragraph 130 are denied. contained in Paragraph 131 are admitted. contained in Paragraph 132 are denied. contained in Paragraph 133 are denied. contained in your second Paragraph 133 31. It is admitted that Plaintiffs attempt to found their claim for relief on the Fourteenth Amendment and to bring their action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §l983 to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amend- ment, and the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu- tion, 42 U.S.C. S1981, and §2 and §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, tions contained in response herein are denied. 42 U.S.C. S1973 and §l973c. All allega- Paragraph 134 which are inconsistent with the WHEREFORE, Defendants having fully answered each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs' Second Supplement to Complaint, and having set forth their defenses in their earlier pleadings, pray that this Court deny the relief requested and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. Respectfully submitted this the élé; day of March, 1982. RUFUS L. EDMISTEN ATTORNEY GENERAL Aég', A%/%é:/€%f/// Jav . WaIlace,“U / D-onty Attorney eneral for Legal Af airs Attorney General's Office Norflh Carolina Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Telephone: (919) 733-3377 Attorney for Defendants Norma Harrell Tiare Smiley Assistant Attorneys General John Lassiter Associate Attorney General Jerris Leonard Kathleen Keenan Jerris Leonard & Associates, P.C. 900 17th Street, N.W. Suite 1020 Washington, D. C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 872-1095 .«° b,‘ .5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Answer to Second Supplement to Complaint upon Plaintiffs' attorneys by placing a copy of said Pleading in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid, addressed to: J. Levonne Chambers Leslie Winner Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas, Adkins & Fuller, P.A. 951 South Independence Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Jack Greenberg James M. Nabrit, III Napeoleon B. Williams, Jr. 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 This the ézé' day of March, 1982. _, / Jam waééégeffigéégéff / /