David Yopp, on behalf of Anna De Santis and De Santis Rentals, filed a motion for entry of default in state court, claiming I never responded to their amended counterclaim from March 14. What he left out is that the filing was made after the 5:00 p.m. electronic service deadline and is therefore deemed served…
State Court
I filed a detailed Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions in COA 25-521, calling it procedurally defective, legally unsupported, and clearly retaliatory. The filing laid out a broader pattern of misconduct involving both opposing counsel and the North Carolina Court of Appeals, including improper rejections of my filings, unsigned and possibly unauthorized judicial…
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…
On June 9, I called the Court of Appeals after not receiving a receipt for a $10 docket fee I paid in person five days earlier—an unnecessary fee in the first place, given I had already paid the full appeal bond. That same day, I was suddenly issued an invoice for $355.25 in printing costs…
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 12 felt like a coordinated ambush. I had just finalized and served my Record on Appeal, filed a Motion to Identify the judicial panel behind recent appellate rulings, and submitted a formal Notice objecting to the record’s prior rejection—all actions taken in good faith to preserve my appellate rights and expose procedural manipulation. But…
The trial court has not ruled on my ex parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under Rule 65(b), filed May 3, despite its emergency nature and the constitutional violations detailed in the filing.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals denied my Emergency Motion for Clarification and Protection of the Appellate Record, reinforcing concerns that the appellate…
The day after opposing counsel submitted his misrepresentation-filled response to the Supreme Court, I had no choice but to act. On May 2, I filed three motions—one in the trial court, one in the Court of Appeals, and one in the Supreme Court. Each was necessary for a different reason, but together they told the…
On Monday morning, I appeared promptly at 9:00 AM for the scheduled hearing. There was no movement or acknowledgement for the first 14 minutes—even though the clerk confirmed I was present. That immediately raised concerns. This wasn’t a stacked calendar day—it was just my hearing. I knew the opposing party was physically at the courthouse,…
On the same day I filed my federal complaint, I received an email from Mr. Yopp stating that he intended to file a motion to continue the trial and asking what date I preferred. I responded by reiterating that under the automatic stay, it wasn’t my responsibility to propose dates—it was the court’s obligation to…