On June 17, David Yopp filed a retaliatory and misleading Motion for Sanctions in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, attempting to frame my compliance with Rule 11(b) as sanctionable, despite the trial court’s failure to meet its deadline under Rule 11(c). His motion omitted key facts—like my timely May 7 notice of judicial inaction—and falsely claimed my resubmitted Record on Appeal was “improper,” using misstatements of Rule 9(d), Odyssey service, and other procedural rules to mischaracterize my filings and intentions. The filing painted me as defiant and reckless in order to prejudice the appellate court, despite the fact that I had followed the rules, documented the timeline, and preserved my rights.
This was not a good-faith legal argument—it was personal and strategic retaliation. The motion came just days after Yopp was served in my federal civil rights lawsuit, which names both him and Clerk Eugene Soar for their roles in procedural manipulation and retaliation. It’s the third coordinated attempt to dismiss my appeal through irregular means and suggests an ongoing effort to intimidate me into silence.
However, in turn, what Yopp actually did was provide written evidence that allows me to now name Anna De Santis in my § 1983 claim. Yopp had threatened this tactic months earlier, on February 13, 2025, stating in an email:
“My objections to the purported automatic stay are based on well-established law. In addition, in full candor, and subject to discussions with my clients, I’ll be requesting sanctions against you for filing a meritless and premature appeal, causing significant delay in resolution of this matter.”
This email shows that the strategy to frame me for sanctions and dismiss my appeal was premeditated. It confirms that Anna was not only aware of this plan but was an active participant in a coordinated effort to trap me in procedural confusion—a pattern that supports her inclusion in the federal civil rights claim.
In response, I filed a Motion to Disqualify both Yopp and Soar, citing clear conflicts of interest, due process violations, and ethical concerns. Yopp’s filing isn’t just procedurally defective—it’s evidence of the same misconduct I’ve been documenting for months. By filing this sanctions motion in the shadow of my federal suit, Yopp only confirms the basis of my claims: that this case is no longer about law, but about coordinated efforts to shut me down.