Judge Osteen denied my Emergency Motion for an Ex Parte TRO, claiming I hadn’t demonstrated irreparable harm or likelihood of success—despite submitting verified evidence and a detailed procedural record showing deliberate interference with my appellate rights and ongoing judicial misconduct. The ruling ignored the central issue: that orders were being issued without jurisdiction, service was defective, and deadlines were being manipulated to force procedural waiver.
In response, I filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment under Rule 59(e), citing clear errors of law and fact, the misapplication of precedent, and the Court’s failure to address my core request—disclosure of the unnamed judicial actors whose concealed rulings have obstructed my ability to seek declaratory relief. I also asked him to choose what kind of legacy he wanted to leave behind. Did he want to be known as the judge that defended his friends or one that defended justice?