Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

A Smear Campaign

On May 23, Administrative Law Judge Karlene Turrentine of the NC Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order that didn’t just deny my contested case—it weaponized my other case in an attempt to discredit me entirely. The ruling wasn't grounded in facts, legal precedent, or the specific procedural violations I raised. It read more like…

Read more

Judicial Stonewalling

The more my case moves along in state court, and every time something happens, I have to ask myself, is this real life? Am I living in some kind of water down version of John Grisham novel where the actions being taken are so ridiculous and strange that it goes beyond normal life? Because every…

Read more

Denial of Clarity

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…

Read more

Motion to Compel or Recuse

Today, I filed a Motion to Compel Entry of Order before the NC Office of Administrative Hearings, requesting a prompt ruling on my pending Motion for Summary Judgment (filed April 15, 2025). Under state law and OAH rules, the motion should have been decided without a hearing, yet no action has been taken—despite prior motions…

Read more

Motion to Continue Misconduct

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…

Read more

Request for Judicial Review

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…

Read more