What happened next was almost impossible to process in real time because of how chaotic and unlawful it was. After filing my emergency motion for disqualification, the court “rejected” it using a form letter that claimed the motion “cannot be addressed as an emergency.” There is no rule, no statute, and no authority anywhere in North Carolina law that permits a court to refuse review of a disqualification motion on that basis. Yet the rejection letter checked a box marked “Other” and wrote in that excuse by hand. The document appears in the record and shows that the only stated reason for rejecting the motion was that “this type of motion can not be addressed as an emergency” .
The situation became even more disturbing because for an entire day the Trial Court Administrator’s Office insisted Judge Williams signed the rejection. My emails from September 22 show exactly that. I asked them directly whether the motion had been routed correctly because it could not legally go back to Williams. The TCA told me to check the portal for “a response from a District Court Judge” and implied that Williams had already addressed it. Later that morning, when I finally obtained the letter, it was indexed under Judge Williams’ name. My email to the TCA explains this plainly and asks why the motion was routed to a disqualified judge. I also explained that rejection itself exceeded judicial authority because a presiding judge cannot act on his own disqualification motion. Those communications appear in the record and show how I had to document every step just to confirm who had touched the motion .
Only after I pointed out that assigning the rejection to Williams was unlawful did they suddenly reverse course. Later that afternoon, I received an email stating that “the indexing of the letter was incorrect” and that the clerk had “corrected” it to reflect a different judge. That correction appeared only after I raised the issue of judicial misconduct and ADA violations. My emails from the afternoon of September 23 show my response, explaining that routing the motion to Williams could not be explained away as mere indexing error because the motion itself had been sent to him despite the disqualification notice already on record. None of this should have happened at all, and the sudden shift in the court’s story only reinforced that the handling was not an innocent mistake. It was obstruction in real time, and I had to monitor every move because they kept changing their explanation whenever I pointed out the legal consequences.
At the same time, the press access issue spiraled into its own separate problem. I had submitted a Rule 15 media request five days earlier, followed up twice, and received no response. My Notice of Improper Routing documents that I had proof the messages were opened, yet no legal authority was ever provided for denying public or press access. When the media office finally responded, they said Judge Williams denied the request outright without citing any legal basis. My follow-up email invoked the First Amendment and the Richmond Newspapers line of cases and explained that a judge cannot arbitrarily bar recording of a public WebEx hearing. Those messages appear in the record and show how I had to extract even a basic response from the court .
By this point the pattern was undeniable. Orders were hidden. Motions were misrouted. The court claimed a disqualified judge acted on a motion, then changed its story. A rejection letter invented a limitation that does not exist. Press access was ignored. ADA accommodations were denied. Every hour brought a new violation that I had to document in real time just to preserve the record. The volume of work required to protect my rights was staggering, and none of it should have been necessary in a functioning judicial system and still had a hearing to get through.