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 acknowledge the stay and take the case off calendar. He filed the motion anyway. That same evening, I received a surprising settlement offer from Anna—her first ever offer of monetary compensation. The amount was $3,000, which, after nine months of harassment, baseless accusations, and procedural abuse, didn’t reflect a genuine attempt at resolution. In exchange, I was expected to withdraw my appeal and waive substantial rights. The offer felt more like a strategic move than a good-faith resolution.
The next day, the judge issued an order removing the trial date but refused to recognize the automatic stay and did not formally rule on the motion to continue—effectively granting the defense what they wanted while avoiding accountability for their ongoing procedural violations. In addition the order demanded an in-person hearing notice for judicial settlement of the record, scheduled at the courthouse. Nearly all hearings now take place remotely via Webex, especially those that aren’t trials. I found it troubling that I was being asked to appear in person for what should have been a five-minute administrative hearing—particularly given my prior requests to have matters handled in writing or remotely due to PTSD and anxiety stemming from this prolonged and hostile process.
This marked the third time I requested a reasonable accommodation, though I did not formally use those words in every instance. I had already disclosed my condition during small claims and in my complaint against the magistrate to the Chief District Court Judge and in my motion for Exceptional Case Status.
Denying the accommodation and forcing an in-person appearance under these circumstances raises serious concerns under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After filing my objection and notifying the trial court administrator that I would not attend in person, she acknowledged that the judge had reviewed my objection but moved forward with the hearing anyway. She offered a remote option only after I pushed back, but opposing counsel responded by stating that he would oppose any such request, insisting that I appear in person—framing it as wanting me to “be heard,” which felt dismissive and manipulative given the broader context of his conduct in this case. I ultimately filed the motion to request a remote hearing, which was granted, but I’ve kept certain things in reserve as a safeguard.
One of my biggest concerns about these filings to continues relates to a claim opposing counsel made —referencing the death of an aunt in Warsaw, Missouri on March 27. That detail struck me as unusual because it had never come up in our communications. While I acknowledge that not every family death is public or formally memorialized, I did some extensive research to try to verify the event—I strong skill of mine. It was not out of cruelty or retaliation, but out of concern about potential misrepresentation, given the repeated use of misrepresentation in court filings.
Despite extensive searching, including funeral home records in a small town with only one such provider, I found no public record, obituary, or listing that confirmed the claim despite his aunt in that area being recognized as a special person in the community.
While I fully acknowledge that I may be wrong—and if so, I offer my sympathies—my concern is rooted in the broader pattern of behavior I’ve experienced from opposing counsel, which has made it difficult to discern truth from tactic. That lack of trust isn’t personal—it’s a consequence of the way this case has been handled from the beginning. I haven’t notified the court of this yet because I feel it will fall on deaf ears.
I declined the settlement offer and will describe that sequence in the next section, as the terms and timing of the offer suggest further retaliation and pressure tactics. I don’t understand why they continue to operate this way unless they genuinely believe they’re above the law. And every time the court is made aware of what’s happening and chooses not to act, it moves from passive oversight to active participation, violating judicial conduct standards in the process.