Skip to content Skip to footer
Menu
Attorney Misconduct Alleged Civil Dispute Defendants DOJ / AG Office NCHRC / HUD Office of Administrative Hearings Plaintiff
Improper Defense
On June 12, DOJ attorney Joseph Finarelli—counsel for the North Carolina Human Relations Commission—filed an unsolicited memorandum opposing my Rule 60(b) motion, not to defend the agency’s conduct but to justify the Tribunal’s legal reasoning. This filing was never ordered and exceeded DOJ’s scope under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-23(a), which authorizes representation of agencies—not…
June 16, 2025
§ 1983 Claim Case Civil Dispute Federal Court Plaintiff
Emergency Renewal
On June 13, I filed an Emergency Motion to Compel Rulings and Renewed Motion for Emergency Relief, asking the federal court to finally act on my pending Rule 59(e) motion and Rule 72(a) objection—both of which remain unresolved despite increasing harm and procedural obstruction. The motion also renews my request for emergency injunctive relief under…
June 13, 2025
Civil Dispute Court Order / Judgment Judicial Misconduct Alleged NCHRC / HUD Office of Administrative Hearings Plaintiff
No Legal Ruling
On June 5, AL Judge Turrentine immediately denied my Rule 59(e) motion challenging the May 23 final decision, which I filed to correct legal and factual errors, retaliatory framing, and improper judicial notice of unrelated litigation—including an unserved federal complaint that raised serious due process and surveillance concerns. The denial falsely claimed the motion was…
June 5, 2025
Civil Dispute Court of Appeals Plaintiff State Court
Third Time’s a Charm
On May 30, I formally resubmitted my Record on Appeal along with a detailed Notice of Objection, after it had been improperly rejected twice—without any judicial order—despite full compliance with Rule 11(b) because Judge Osteen failed to rule on the 59(e) motion. My resubmission wasn’t just about compliance—it was about preserving my appellate rights and…
May 30, 2025
§ 1983 Claim Case Civil Dispute Court Order / Judgment Federal Court Judicial Misconduct Alleged
Rinse and Repeat
Judge Osteen denied my Emergency Motion for an Ex Parte TRO, claiming I hadn’t demonstrated irreparable harm or likelihood of success—despite submitting verified evidence and a detailed procedural record showing deliberate interference with my appellate rights and ongoing judicial misconduct. The ruling ignored the central issue: that orders were being issued without jurisdiction, service was…
May 27, 2025