The purpose of cbvsthem.org is to share documents related to Courtney Brown v. Fabialbert Rodriguez (2024), a Domestic Violence Protection Order case heard in Cabarrus County, North Carolina on October 25, 2023.

Note from the Plaintiff:

A trial court judge – who expressed desire to speed up my case so he could go to lunch – decided I was a liar after I was asked whether I loved the person who had assaulted and abused me. 

When I responded that I loved this person but still needed protection because he kept showing up to my house uninvited, sexually assaulting me, and threatening further bodily harm to me, the judge decided it’s not possible to both love and fear an abuser.

I immediately filed an appeal because it was unjust to falsely accuse me of dishonesty. Especially in written form by a United States judge, being called a liar has negative repercussions.

I also appealed to hold our trial court system accountable. My appellate attorney easily found flaws in the trial court and we hoped to send the case back to trial or at least remand the decision. The interactions I had with Cabarrus County Court leading up to the trial, including Concord Police, magistrate, clerk of court, and several judges, reeked with biased protection and coordination for the Defendant. 

The North Carolina Court of Appeals unfortunately upheld the trial court’s ruling: 

In its written order, the trial court found “Plaintiff was dishonest during her testimony. After expressing her devotion and love ․, [Plaintiff] then made a decision to proceed on old allegations that appeared to have no imminent threat of harm.” Therefore, the trial court concluded that “Plaintiff's credibility did not survive cross[ ]examination,” and she “failed to prove grounds for issuance of a domestic violence protective order.” 

In its closing paragraph, the court of appeals references Hensey v. Hennessy:

We affirm the trial court's denial of the order since there was competent evidence to support its findings of fact, and its conclusions of law were proper in light of such facts. See Hensey, 201 N.C. App. at 59, 685 S.E.2d at 544.

But neither the judge nor the appellate courts referenced any evidence to support their findings.

Hensey v. Hennessy:

When the trial court sits without a jury [regarding a DVPO], the standard of review on appeal is whether there was competent evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact and whether its conclusions of law were proper in light of such facts. Where there is competent evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact, those findings are binding on appeal.

I ask sincerely to those referencing the Court of Appeals Decision to also read the Trial Transcript and my domestic violence protection order requests from the Case Documents pages of this website. A full timeline of events and further supporting evidence will be available on the site soon, but is available on request – just fill out the form below.

I hope my case is not referenced unjustly to protect another abusive individual, but rather used for some change in law or procedure that would make what happened to me – being unjustly called a liar and being denied safety without considering all facts – inadmissible in any court. 

For truth and accountability in our justice system,

Courtney