After the hearing I immediately filed my Notice of Exceeding Authority because the judge’s conduct on September 25 went far outside the limits of judicial power. My notice documented how he ordered supplemental briefing on a motion that was already barred under Rule 12G and Rule 12H and how he ignored the February 17 written order that made the motion to dismiss moot. The notice makes this clear in the opening paragraphs, where I explained that by demanding further briefing instead of applying the existing order, the court exceeded its authority and created a procedural trap that directly harmed my constitutional rights. The notice states plainly that a judge cannot rewrite the procedural posture simply to give one party a second chance at a motion already decided and already barred by law .
Because the judge forced me into briefing despite my objections, I complied and filed my reply on September 28. The reply sets out the rule violations and the black letter law that should have ended the motion entirely. On page one I explained that Judge Davidian already ruled on the combined strike and dismissal motion in February and that Rule 58 makes the written order controlling. I cited the controlling appellate cases that establish that once reduced to writing and entered, the order is final and cannot be re-argued. On pages two and three I detailed the Rule 12G and Rule 12H bars, explained the rule against successive motions to dismiss, and outlined how the defense was attempting to recycle arguments already rejected. The reply also addressed Yopp’s attempt to shift the burden onto me to supply published case law, reminding the court that judges are presumed to know the law and that litigants do not serve as law clerks. Every point was grounded in established precedent and directly refuted the arguments the court insisted on revisiting.
The judge gave Yopp until September 30 to file his brief, yet he never does. Instead, he emailed it to the Trial Court Administrator at 4:59 PM and asked her to forward it to the judge. His email shows that he claimed he served me “via eCourts and mail,” but no such filing exists in the docket and I didn’t receive that service. The only record is the email itself. The message shows him addressing the TCA directly, attaching the brief, and saying “When you have time, please send the brief to Judge Williams.” This was not a filing. It was an attempt to bypass the record again.
The multiple-page brief he attached, which contains their full legal argument, was never formally filed. The record shows that the only timestamped entries around that date were my filings. No brief from the defendants ever posted to the court system. .
So I was forced to brief a motion that the judge had no authority to revive, while Yopp never filed the brief he was ordered to submit. He instead emailed it privately to staff, which is improper, barred, and a repeat of his previous ex parte attempts. This left the record entirely unbalanced. I complied with the order under protest because I needed the record preserved. He did not comply at all.