On April 10, 2025, after I was forced to file a notice of delay ruling on my motion after a week of stalling. The Tribunal issued an order denying my Motion for Reconsideration, but the order itself was riddled with misstatements, selective reasoning, and improper framing. It claimed my motion didn’t cite the proper rule, even though I clearly referenced Rule 60(b) and multiple controlling legal standards. It dismissed my procedural objections without acknowledging that Respondent failed to file the required memorandum of law per the March 21 order, and falsely claimed their response met that standard—despite it lacking any actual legal analysis. The judge also wrongly interpreted my motion to disqualify the DOJ as a claim that they represented me individually, instead of the clear institutional conflict of interest under Rule 1.7(a)(2) that I outlined in detail. Worse, the order ignored the evidentiary violations I raised—specifically that DOJ submitted a hearsay affidavit from someone with no personal knowledge, in direct conflict with Rules 602, 802, and 403 of the Rules of Evidence.
Despite denying reconsideration, the judge did grant my objection to the April 16 hearing and agreed to rule based solely on the record. But instead of doing so promptly—as with prior motions that were resolved in 24 hours—the Tribunal delayed the ruling up to 45 days. That discretionary delay, coming only after I asserted due process concerns, reinforced a pattern of unequal treatment and raised doubts about the neutrality of the proceeding.
In response, I filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, laying out every procedural failure committed by the NCHRC: missing mandatory deadlines under state and federal law, failing to investigate key claims of retaliation and disability discrimination, relying on hearsay, excluding critical medical documentation, and narrowing the investigation without notice. I cited 24 C.F.R. §§ 103.200, 100.204, and HUD Handbook 8024.01, along with NC Gen. Stat. § 41A-7(e) and § 150B-33(b)(9). I also cited precedent that directly distinguished my case from others DOJ relied on—proving that this was not a challenge to the outcome, but to the illegal process that led to it. I requested judgment as a matter of law, and asked the tribunal to declare the determination procedurally void, with no legal weight.