The September 25 hearing was the biggest waste of my time thus far. Not only should it had not happened, but it was pushed to last in the docket AGAIN and they tried kicking out the witnesses unless they gave their full names, which isn’t allowed.
It began with Yopp filing a “corrected” motion for entry of default the night before the hearing because the original motion he filed in August was never signed, which meant the hearing on that motion could not legally proceed under Rule 11 or Rule 6. His own filing confirms this. In the certificate of service he admits that the motion sitting on the docket for nearly two months “appears to be unsigned” and that he was only filing the corrected version on September 24 to fix the omission under Rule 11 . That alone should have automatically removed the motion from the calendar because an unsigned motion is null and cannot be heard without five days’ notice. I raised that at the hearing repeatedly because under Rule 6 the newly filed version could not be heard that day.
Yet despite that, the judge refused to remove it from the docket and insisted on proceeding. He also began the hearing by stating he would limit everything to one hour even though four separate motions were pending and the record reflected extensive procedural irregularities that needed to be addressed. As shown in the transcript, he acknowledged that Yopp wanted to “bring up the motion to recuse,” but I corrected that immediately because it was not a motion to recuse. It was a motion for disqualification, which is mandatory and cannot be decided by the challenged judge.
From the beginning, the court’s handling of the disqualification issue violated every basic principle of due process. I asserted under oath that the court had not reviewed the record, that I had not been served with the order on my motion for reconsideration, and that the order had been hidden from the docket. I also explained the ADA violations, including how forcing me into an unnecessary hearing without legal basis constituted harassment, emotional distress, and financial harm. The judge dismissed all of that and stated that he had “set a precedent” of never allowing the media to record hearings, as if personal preference overrides constitutional law. The transcript shows the moment he said he “does not allow the media in the court proceedings” and insisted that was precedent, not law. I confronted him on that because a policy cannot override First Amendment rights.
When I raised the unsigned motion issue and the Rule 6 violation, the judge confirmed on the record that the motion was indeed unsigned and “not properly noticed.” He then ruled that the motion for entry of default could not be heard that day. But instead of ending the matter, he stated that Yopp could simply re-notice it later. This ignored the fact that a default cannot be entered at all while a motion to dismiss is pending, and it ignored that the motion to dismiss itself was invalid, duplicative, and already ruled on in February.
The hearing became even more irregular when the judge ruled on my motion for disqualification despite acknowledging that he had not reviewed affidavits, that he was not familiar with the underlying matters, and that he was the target of the motion. The transcript records him saying “I have ruled that I’m not disqualified.” A judge cannot make that determination under North Carolina law. That statement alone shows he proceeded outside judicial authority.
What followed next was a tangle of contradictions. The judge ruled that the default motion was not properly noticed but then moved to address the motion to dismiss, even though the motion to dismiss hinged entirely on whether Judge Davidian had already ruled on it in February and whether the defendants’ answer and counterclaim were timely. I raised Rule 12G, Rule 12H, and the case law showing that a party cannot file a second motion to dismiss after the first has been decided. I cited the controlling appellate decisions, and the transcript shows I laid out the authorities clearly. Yopp’s response was that he was “not trying to be rude” but wanted to present his interpretation of the February hearing, even though he offered no evidence or transcript, only hearsay about what he claims happened.
The judge repeatedly said he could not determine what happened in February, yet he still refused to dismiss the motion to dismiss outright. Instead he carved out a third option: he allowed Yopp to submit a written brief to re-argue the motion to dismiss, even though the judge knew I had already argued the legal bar under Rule 12G and even though allowing a written brief is functionally allowing a re-argument of a motion that cannot legally be reheard. The transcript captures this clearly when the judge stated “I will allow that the parties submit briefs on this issue” and then, after I objected, he said again “I am allowing him to file a brief.”
This was improper for several reasons. First, a judge cannot authorize a written brief to support a motion that is procedurally barred. Second, it allows one party to gain an advantage by supplementing arguments outside the hearing. Third, it requires me to respond to something that should never exist. Finally, it showed the judge did not understand the difference between a motion that is legally barred and one that needs more information.
At the very end of the hearing, when I exercised my right to preserve the record by stating that I would be adding him to my federal claim for violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the judge responded with “I’m looking forward to that.” That exchange is in the transcript and reflects the lack of neutrality and the dismissive tone that permeated the entire proceeding.
The hearing should never have happened. The signed motion was filed the night before. The unsigned motion was null. Rule 6 required five days’ notice. The judge had no authority to rule on his own disqualification motion. The press-access denial had no legal grounding. The ADA violations were ignored. And even after acknowledging the procedural defects, the judge allowed Yopp to file a brief to re-argue a motion he had no standing to bring.
This hearing was not a judicial proceeding. It was a forced performance designed to move the case forward at my expense, without regard for law, procedure, or constitutional protections.