What happened next in the state case was another escalation that showed exactly how far the court was willing to go to block my access. The order on my motion to reconsider was entered on September 18 but it was never served, never emailed, never posted to the eCourts portal, and it did not contain any certificate of service. I only discovered its existence by accident, hours later, when I checked the docket to download stamped copies for my federal filings. When I clicked the link there was nothing available to view. The order had been set to private which meant the public portal showed the entry but not the document. This was the third time this had happened to me. It violated Rule 5(a) and Rule 5(a2) and it violated Title II of the ADA because proper access to orders is part of providing reasonable modifications. My emergency motion to disqualify described this exact issue in detail. On page one the motion states that the September 18 order was never served and was not available for download on the public docket despite my attempts to obtain it through the Trial Court Administrator and the Clerk’s Office .
The order itself repeats the same pattern of misstatements that had been appearing in the earlier rulings. It minimizes my ADA accommodation request by labeling my disability as merely “alleged” and claims I provided no evidence even though the court already had multiple filings documenting my ADA-protected conditions. On page one it mischaracterizes my motion and denies it on grounds the law does not require, while also asserting that I raised issues not “properly scheduled” despite the fact that all motions had been on the docket for weeks and the judge had a legal duty to review them before ruling. The order confirms the denial of my request for reconsideration but does so without meaningful engagement with the record, without acknowledging the unopposed nature of my Motion to Strike, and without any reference to the conflict issues I raised earlier in my notices .
When I contacted the court the next morning to request the missing order, I had to email the Trial Court Administrator and the Clerk a second time because no one responded to the first request. The email shows me explaining that the order had been entered but not served, that no certificate of service existed, and that the docket still contained no accessible copy. I made clear that this was not the first time this had occurred and that I had filed formal notice documenting the obstruction. The follow-up email an hour later shows me pointing out that the order was still hidden, that it violated service rules, and that I had already notified the Fourth Circuit about the pattern. I even had to explain that I use email tracking because they were opening my messages repeatedly without responding. That correspondence appears in the record and shows exactly how I had to beg the court to comply with basic procedural requirements that should have been automatic .
My Notice of Obstruction and Due Process Violations documents the broader pattern. It states on page seven that this was the third time an order was not properly served and that each instance coincided with rulings that were improper on their face or issued in violation of my rights. It also explains that the absence of service deprived me of any opportunity to strike Yopp’s unauthorized opposition or respond before the judge ruled. The notice makes clear these were not isolated mistakes. They formed a repeating sequence of failures by the court to provide access, transparency, and procedural fairness. It identifies the lack of service, the hiding of orders, and the failure to post them publicly as deliberate obstruction and violations of my ADA rights. This section of the notice spells out how every barrier was used to disadvantage me, how each irregularity aligned with Yopp’s improper filings, and how each step undermined my ability to litigate and protect myself against ongoing abuse from both the attorney and the court itself .
At this point the amount of work I was forced to do just to obtain a copy of an order was absurd. I had to monitor the docket manually, file emergency notices, email administrators multiple times, document every irregularity, and create evidence of conduct that should never happen in any functioning court. The denial of ADA accommodations, the hidden orders, the missing certificates of service, and the refusal to notify me of rulings all combined into one clear reality. The court was not acting as a neutral arbiter. It was acting as an obstacle.