Today was the deadline for defendants to respond to my amended § 1983 complaint. Judicial defendants, through Special Deputy Attorney General Elizabeth O’Brien, asked for 20 more days to respond, citing a change in counsel and the service for Judge Turrentine. This was granted despite violation of the local rule she referenced.
But the real bombshell came from David Yopp’s filing—a motion to dismiss filled with personal attacks, mischaracterizations, and outright distortions of my claims. He recycled the same Rooker-Feldman and “private actor” arguments he’s been hinting at for months, but laced them with language portraying me as delusional, vexatious, and unable to understand the law. His brief even accuses me of “fantastical beliefs of nefarious collusion” while ignoring the documented evidence that led me to name him and Anna in the first place.
It’s clear his strategy isn’t legal—it’s reputational, relying on misrepresentation and unfounded personal attacks in violation of professional ethics, designed to paint me as unstable so the court can sidestep the actual constitutional violations.
Methods like this are supposed to be highly frowned upon in federal court and threaten penalty to the state bar. This filing was a replication of what I’ve dealt with in state filings, making me believe that attorney Delaney wasn’t the one who wrote this but that Mr. Yopp wrote it himself. It will be interesting to see how Judge Osteen reacts to this considering previous orders he has issued against other attorneys’ misconduct have been harsh.