The more my case moves along in state court, and every time something happens, I have to ask myself, is this real life? Am I living in some kind of water down version of John Grisham novel where the actions being taken are so ridiculous and strange that it goes beyond normal life? Because every time the court risks their reputation, or the opposing party does, it’s not done subtly. It’s done so blatantly wrong that the average person can see something isn’t right.
On May 6, the trial court missed the mandatory deadline to issue a Rule 11(c) judicial settlement order for my appellate record, despite the hearing taking place on April 28 and a promised ruling by April 29.
Because of this judicial inaction, I filed a formal Notice of Judicial Inaction on May 7, stating my intention to finalize and docket the Record on Appeal under Rule 11(b), while reiterating my concerns over the troubling lack of response to my emergency Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under Rule 65(b). These motions are typically ruled upon within 24-48 hours due to their urgent nature, yet a week later, there’s been no indication the court has even reviewed my filing.
On the same day, Mr. Yopp filed an improper motion with the Court of Appeals, requesting a retroactive extension of time for the trial court to enter a settlement order that contained factual errors. This motion also sought to prevent me from filing the Record on Appeal. The hypocrisy in his actions is overwhelming, and more false statements have been highlighted.
I believe this filing was his attempt to record his objections, which he included as an exhibit, tainting the appeal process. He cited Rule 27, which specifically states that the trial court is the only one that can rule on this matter, and it was 20 days past the deadline to even request it.
Furthermore, he filed this motion under a writ that has already been ruled on and is closed. Additionally, he continues to include Judge Davidian in all these motions, which is improper and can be seen as an attempt to influence a judge.
In response, I promptly filed a Motion to Strike their improper filing and documented the extensive procedural irregularities and persistent misuse of appellate processes. I also highlighted ongoing denial of reasonable accommodations due to my disability, clearly laying out how opposing counsel’s actions continue to escalate the harm caused by judicial inaction.
As if the chaos wasn’t enough, my public records requests for the judges’ names were denied because the AOC claimed they weren’t the custodians of the records. I called the COA again, requesting the names once more, and asserting that there’s no law that allows them to withhold them. She informed me that I would have to speak with the clerk, Eugene Soar, for the information, and I left him a voicemail.
At the same time, Mr. Yopp’s motion was accepted in the record. I also received an anonymous automated email with a bizarre link to a 3-year-old press release explaining the supposed 90-day judicial name delay policy.
When I reached out to the Court of Appeals Clerk’s Office to inquire about the sender of the email, they denied any knowledge of it. They firmly asserted that they would never send such an email and firmly believed it was likely spam. However, when I informed her that the email explicitly stated it was generated from the NC Court of Appeals, she responded by saying it was highly unusual and that I should simply disregard it. She further emphasized that if someone genuinely wanted to contact me, they would have done so directly. Despite her assurances, I was resolute in my decision to not ignore the email.
N.C. R. App. P. 27. Computation and Extension of Time.
(c) (1) Motions for Extension of Time in the Trial Division.
The trial tribunal for good cause shown by the appellant may extend once, for no more than thirty days, the time permitted by: (1) Rule 7 for a transcriptionist to deliver a transcript; and (2) Rule 11 or Rule 18 for service of the proposed record on appeal. Motions for extensions of time made to a trial tribunal may be made orally or in writing and without notice to other parties and may be determined at any time or place within the state. Motions made under this Rule 27 to a court of the trial division may be heard and determined by any of those judges of the particular court specified in Rule 36 of these rules. Such motions made to a commission may be heard and determined by the chair of the commission; or if to a commissioner, then by that commissioner