I filed three major documents today—my response to David Yopp’s motion to dismiss, a supplemental to my renewed emergency TRO, and a notice of intent to seek mandamus if this Court continues to sit on my pending motions. My TRO supplement lays out new evidence that the North Carolina Court of Appeals has been issuing anonymous clerk-authored orders, including the July 1 dismissal of my state appeal, in direct violation of due process. Legislative counsel has now admitted this is “well known” among attorneys and justified only by “internal policy”—not law. My review of 2023–2025 appellate dismissals shows a sharp post-election shift to uniform “three-judge panel” language without naming a single judge, disproportionately harming pro se litigants. I also exposed the conflict of interest in the writ of prohibition panel that included Judge Carolyn Flood, a former longtime colleague of Yopp’s.
My mandamus notice warns that if the Court doesn’t act on my Rule 59(e) and TRO motions, I will take it to the Fourth Circuit. The federal court’s inaction has already allowed the very harm I warned about—an unconstitutional dismissal now being used as ammunition against me in this case. At this point, further delay isn’t just procedural—it’s enabling ongoing violations and shielding systemic fraud.
In my response to David Yopp’s motion to dismiss, I exposed it for what it is—a reputational attack masquerading as a legal argument. His filing is riddled with misrepresentations, unfounded personal attacks, and deliberate distortions of my claims, in clear violation of professional ethics. Rather than address the constitutional violations and documented misconduct that brought this case to federal court, Yopp accuses me of “fantastical beliefs” and tries to portray me as unstable. These tactics mirror the same pattern I faced in state court filings, reinforcing the evidence that his actions are part of a coordinated effort to undermine my credibility and avoid accountability.
I dismantled his arguments point by point, showing how his own prior statements—including a February email threatening this exact procedural trap—prove his knowledge and participation in the events leading to my § 1983 claim. His recycled Rooker-Feldman and “private actor” defenses collapse under the facts: this case isn’t about re-litigating state court outcomes, but about the denial of constitutional rights through a system-wide abuse of process. Yopp’s motion is not only legally deficient—it’s a textbook example of using the federal docket as a weapon to intimidate and discredit a litigant who refuses to back down.