The trial court has not ruled on my ex parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under Rule 65(b), filed May 3, despite its emergency nature and the constitutional violations detailed in the filing.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals denied my Emergency Motion for Clarification and Protection of the Appellate Record, reinforcing concerns that the appellate…
The day after opposing counsel submitted his misrepresentation-filled response to the Supreme Court, I had no choice but to act. On May 2, I filed three motions—one in the trial court, one in the Court of Appeals, and one in the Supreme Court. Each was necessary for a different reason, but together they told the…
On Monday morning, I appeared promptly at 9:00 AM for the scheduled hearing. There was no movement or acknowledgement for the first 14 minutes—even though the clerk confirmed I was present. That immediately raised concerns. This wasn’t a stacked calendar day—it was just my hearing. I knew the opposing party was physically at the courthouse,…
On the same day I filed my federal complaint, I received an email from Mr. Yopp stating that he intended to file a motion to continue the trial and asking what date I preferred. I responded by reiterating that under the automatic stay, it wasn’t my responsibility to propose dates—it was the court’s obligation to…
By April 21, 2025, just six days before trial and with no clear ruling from the North Carolina Supreme Court on my discretionary review petition, I had exhausted nearly every state-level option to enforce the automatic stay and stop what I believed to be an escalating pattern of retaliatory abuse of process. The trial court…
On April 17, 2025, I filed a Petition for Discretionary Review with the North Carolina Supreme Court under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-31, asking them to review multiple rulings by the Court of Appeals that denied my Writ of Prohibition, Motion for Sanctions, and Motion for En Banc Rehearing. The petition outlined how the Court…
On April 16, 2025, the defendants filed a Request for Judicial Settlement of the Record on Appeal under Rule 11(c), but their request went far beyond what the rule permits. Rule 11(c) allows the trial court to resolve disputes over the narrative of the record—factual disagreements or clarifications about what happened procedurally—not to decide what…
On March 5, I properly served the Proposed Record on Appeal through the Wake County Superior Court’s Odyssey eFile and eServe system. Under Rule 26(c) and Rule 11(b), that triggered the 10-day clock for objections, making opposing counsel’s deadline April 4. I never heard from him, so on Monday, April 7, around noon, I served…
After I filed a detailed Motion for Sanctions and a Motion for Leave to Reply in the Court of Appeals, opposing counsel doubled down by responding in a hostile, condescending tone—continuing to misrepresent both the procedural record and the law. Their response to my Motion for Sanctions accused me of filing premature appeals for the…
On March 14, 2025—despite the automatic stay being in effect—opposing counsel filed a new Motion to Dismiss and an Answer with Counterclaims, all while fully aware that jurisdiction had shifted to the Court of Appeals. This was not only improper under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-294, but procedurally abusive.
The motion to dismiss was…