On May 9, still determined to obtain the judges’ names responsible for ruling on these motions, I followed up with another call to the Clerk of the Appellate Court. But this time, the experience was different. I spoke directly with Eugene Soar—the same person who previously sent the anonymous email referencing a “90-day delay” policy. He confirmed he had sent it and claimed the delay was typical, though he failed to cite any law supporting the refusal to disclose judicial identities. When I asked what statute allowed him to withhold the names, he snapped, “go find it.” I told him I had—and cited the Public Records Act, making clear the Court was withholding records I was legally entitled to. That’s when he became hostile.
He refused to provide an email address for the request, insisting it must be submitted by physical mail—even though every other agency, including the lower court, allows online submission. When I pointed out that his own staff told me the email he sent was inappropriate, he accused me of misleading them. That’s a lie—I read them the entire email. At that point, I realized this wasn’t just obstruction. This was deliberate.
The behavior didn’t match someone simply following policy. Names have been released to the press before rulings were even filed. This inconsistency, paired with Soar’s defensiveness, raised red flags. People don’t react like that unless they’re hiding something. Either the orders:
- weren’t being properly reviewed,
- weren’t being reviewed at all,
- or were being decided through backdoor favors.
Any of those options would be catastrophic for public trust.
Had Soar simply reiterated procedure calmly, I might’ve let it go. But his behavior made me dig deeper—and what I found was worse. A nearly identical pattern played out three years ago involving the same two individuals, Soar and Yopp, in a different case that also raised alarm. That’s when I knew this wasn’t just coincidence.
And that’s not all—Mr. Yopp has a pattern of manipulating appellate procedure by citing vague “health problems,” either his own or those of family members, to justify unreasonable delays. And somehow, he keeps getting away with it. I don’t think it’s because his arguments are persuasive—I think it’s because he worked at the Court of Appeals for almost two years and built relationships that carry more weight than the actual law.
As if that wasn’t enough, that same day I was cc’d on an email from Mr. Yopp to Amy Turner at the Wake County TCA office. In it, he acknowledged that the May 6 Rule 11(c) deadline had already passed and referenced the judicial inaction notice I filed the day after. He didn’t just acknowledge it—he linked to both his own motion seeking a retroactive extension and my motion to strike. Then he wrote, “I realize that Judge Eagles is busy and I’m not sending this to harass her. But she needs to know where things stand.” That kind of communication, with active motions pending before the Court of Appeals and a TRO still unresolved, felt like a backdoor attempt to influence the judge.
I formally objected to the repeated outreach—especially communications about pending matters still before the Court of Appeals—and warned that if it continued, I’d be filing a Notice of Ex Parte Interference and Procedural Manipulation. I reminded them that my Ex Parte TRO had now been pending for over a week and any ruling entered before it’s resolved would be procedurally improper given both the automatic stay from the interlocutory appeal and the expired Rule 11(c) deadline.
Then came the kicker. I received an email from Amy Turner stating the Court would now proceed with scheduling a hearing—on my Ex Parte TRO. She included a copy of the local rules, implying the delay was somehow my fault because I didn’t “notify” the Court. Let me be clear: the motion was clearly labeled Ex Parte, as required by Rule 65(b), and doesn’t require notice. I never asked for a hearing. The whole point of an Ex Parte TRO is to obtain emergency relief without notifying the opposing side—especially when time is of the essence and retaliation is likely. Scheduling a hearing contradicts the entire purpose of Rule 65(b), and worse, frames the delay as my failure when in reality, it’s judicial avoidance.
The motion was on the docket. It was properly filed. It was titled exactly as it needed to be. So for the Court to pretend they didn’t know it existed until now—only to blame me—is not just disingenuous. It’s obstruction.