The reason I’ve laid out this entire timeline is so you can see the sheer volume of misconduct I’ve had to navigate—while learning the law, keeping my filings in compliance, working full-time, taking care of two dogs, and constantly trying to stay one step ahead of people who have far more power and institutional support than I do.
I’ve had to restart therapy just to keep my head above water and not go completely insane. This has been nine straight months of gaslighting by multiple agencies, and all I’ve been looking for is one person willing to uphold their oath and apply the law with integrity. What makes this so much harder is that, aside from maybe two small procedural errors on my end—which didn’t cause violations or invalidate anything—I’ve been extremely careful and accurate under an enormous amount of pressure. Meanwhile, every single filing from the other side—starting from the first motion to dismiss filed by the previous attorney—has either been defective, misleading, or based on outright misrepresentation. That pattern has only continued, and no one in authority has stepped in to stop it.
Because of that, I’ve become extremely defensive. I’ve had zero tolerance for the kind of dismissiveness and manipulation I’ve now also encountered in this administrative proceeding. In this contested case hearing, every motion I filed has been met with a 24-hour response order, even on things that should have been resolved easily. But when I filed my motion for reconsideration, the tribunal sat on it for a full week until I finally pushed them to act. When I filed my motion for summary judgment, I specifically asked the judge to stay consistent and order the DOJ to respond within 24 hours. She didn’t. And because I didn’t know what was going on, and I knew time was running out, I filed a Notice of Federal Filing—not to override the tribunal’s jurisdiction, but to put them on notice that further inaction could lead to more harm and possibly expose them to liability under federal law, including the Rehabilitation Act and § 1983.
That same day, the DOJ filed their response—finally. But rather than address the legal points I raised, the attorney started off by accusing me of filing without discovery or affidavits, even though I’m not required to submit affidavits when the facts are well-documented and backed by records already submitted. His “memorandum of law” was filled with misstatements and distortions of both fact and law. He claimed that the NCHRC isn’t required to conclude its investigation within 100 days, even though I never said that was the violation—what I said was that they failed to notify me about the delay after I repeatedly asked, which is a separate violation under the law.
He also claimed retaliation isn’t a protected basis under the North Carolina Human Relations Commission’s process—even though it’s clearly listed on HUD’s website and referenced in multiple fair housing cases. Then he asserted that I didn’t provide certified documentation, ignoring the fact that I attached direct email communications with NCHRC staff, which confirm the very evidence I said they excluded. I’m not required to depose someone or notarize government emails to prove they’re real—especially when the issue isn’t authenticity, but their failure to consider them.
But what disturbed me the most is that he argued that even if NCHRC violated their legal obligations and failed to investigate my claims properly, I still haven’t shown “substantial prejudice” or harm. That statement alone is deeply troubling. If a government agency tells you your claims of discrimination and retaliation aren’t even worth investigating—and then that decision is used to discredit you in court—that is harm. It’s reputational harm, legal harm, and emotional harm. The idea that harm only counts if it’s physical or financial is an alarming misreading of both the law and basic principles of justice.
And it’s coming from the Department of Justice—an agency that’s supposed to protect civil rights. That response wasn’t just legally flawed—it was ethically concerning, and it only reinforces the question of how many bad-faith attorneys are tolerated in this system, and why.