deluca v. cooper materials

48
NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY FRANCIS X DELUCA, Plaintiff V. ROY COOPER, in his capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COMPLAINT Plaintiff, complaining of the Defendant, allege and say: 1. Francis X Deluca is a citizen and resident of Wake County, North Carolina. He had paid and pays state and local taxes, including income tax and sales tax, each of which is used to suppo the public schools of Noh Carolina. 2. Plaintiff Francis X Deluca has standing as a taxpayer to prevent a diversion of funds which are committed by the Constitution to the public schools of Noh Carolina. Goldston v. State, 361 NC 26, 637 S.E.2d 876 (2006). 3. By Agreement dated July 25, 2000, Michael Easley, then the Attorney General of North Carolina, entered into an agreement with Smithfield Foods Inc. and its subsidiaries, Brown's of Carolina, Inc., Carroll's Foods Inc., Murphy Farms Inc., Carroll's Foods of Virginia, Inc. and Quaer M Farms Inc. An unsigned copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as exhibit A. 4. Pursuant to that agreement, Smithfield Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries agreed to pay North Carolina and deliver to the Attorney General of North Carolina up to $2 million per year based upon the number of hogs they produced. On information and belief, in the years embraced within the prayer for relief that payment in 2014 was $1.9 million; in 2015 the amount was $1.8 million; in 2016 the amount was $2.0 million. 5. Pursuant to the Agreement the Attorney General has distributed these sums to grant recipients for Supplemental Environmental Programs (SEP). These funds have been so distributed since inception of the Agreement and as recently as August 2016. 6. In North Carolina School Board Association et al vs. Moore 359 NC474, 614 DRAFT

Upload: others

Post on 27-Dec-2021

5 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

NORTH CAROLINA

WAKE COUNTY

FRANCIS X DELUCA, Plaintiff

V.

ROY COOPER, in his capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA

Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, complaining of the Defendant, allege and say:

1. Francis X Deluca is a citizen and resident of Wake County, North Carolina.

He had paid and pays state and local taxes, including income tax and sales tax, each of

which is used to support the public schools of North Carolina.

2. Plaintiff Francis X Deluca has standing as a taxpayer to prevent a diversion of

funds which are committed by the Constitution to the public schools of North Carolina.

Goldston v. State, 361 NC 26, 637 S.E.2d 876 (2006).

3. By Agreement dated July 25, 2000, Michael Easley, then the Attorney General

of North Carolina, entered into an agreement with Smithfield Foods Inc. and its

subsidiaries, Brown's of Carolina, Inc., Carroll's Foods Inc., Murphy Farms Inc., Carroll's

Foods of Virginia, Inc. and Quarter M Farms Inc. An unsigned copy of the Agreement is

attached hereto as exhibit A.

4. Pursuant to that agreement, Smithfield Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries agreed

to pay North Carolina and deliver to the Attorney General of North Carolina up to $2

million per year based upon the number of hogs they produced. On information and

belief, in the years embraced within the prayer for relief that payment in 2014 was $1.9

million; in 2015 the amount was $1.8 million; in 2016 the amount was $2.0 million.

5. Pursuant to the Agreement the Attorney General has distributed these sums to

grant recipients for Supplemental Environmental Programs (SEP). These funds have

been so distributed since inception of the Agreement and as recently as August 2016.

6. In North Carolina School Board Association et al vs. Moore 359 NC474, 614

DRAFT

Page 2: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 3: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 4: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 5: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 6: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 7: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 8: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 9: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 10: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 11: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 12: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 13: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 14: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 15: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 16: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 17: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 18: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 19: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 20: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 21: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 22: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 23: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 24: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 25: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 26: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 27: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 28: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 29: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 30: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 31: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 32: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 33: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 34: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 35: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 36: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 37: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 38: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 39: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 40: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 41: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 42: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 43: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 44: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 45: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 46: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 47: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT

Page 48: DeLuca v. Cooper Materials

DRAFT