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 for the Record on Appeal, with a warning that my appeal would be dismissed if I didn’t pay within ten days. There was no judicial order authorizing this charge, and nothing in the appellate rules permits automatic dismissal under these circumstances. It was an unregulated threat, issued by Clerk Eugene Soar—who is a named defendant in my pending federal civil rights case.
This wasn’t just bureaucratic overreach—it was retaliatory. The record had only been filed after two improper rejections and under protest, with a pending injunction explicitly seeking to stop further interference. The timing made the intent clear.
On June 10, I filed two responses: a Motion for Refund, seeking reimbursement of $90 in unauthorized docketing fees related to my writ filings—which by rule are not supposed to incur additional motion fees—and a formal Notice of Retaliation and Lack of Judicial Transparency. The notice documented the $10 docket fee threat, the delay in providing my receipt, the sudden printing invoice, and the fact that Clerk Soar, without judicial authority, imposed a ten-day dismissal deadline never sanctioned by law or rule. I demanded that no further fees or threats be issued without a signed judicial order and warned that any further abuse would be used as evidence in the federal case. These aren’t isolated errors—they’re part of a broader pattern of obstruction, designed to exhaust me and discourage accountability.
Also on June 10, I submitted a formal media request for the names of the judges who ruled on nine anonymous orders issued between April 10 and May 14, 2025, in COA Case No. P25-113. I cited News & Observer v. Poole, 330 N.C. 465 (1992), asserting the information is public and refusal to disclose it—without legal authority—could support § 1983 claims for denial of press access, due process, and ADA rights. I gave a publication deadline of June 13 and clarified that deflecting the request to the Court of Appeals was not valid without formal directive. After two deflective responses, my request was ignored entirely, even though I had copied Sharon Gladwell, Director of Communications.