Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Denial of Clarity – Current (SC)

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 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

Appealing to the Court of Appeals

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…

Read more

Sanctions

The defendants filed an opposition to my Writ of Prohibition, mischaracterizing the facts, minimizing my appeal as nothing more than dissatisfaction with “routine orders,” and falsely claiming I filed an amended complaint without leave of court—despite the fact that the court had already denied their motion to strike it. Their response was riddled with misleading…

Read more

Obstructed Discovery

Despite the case being under interlocutory appeal and discovery already being implicated in the review, opposing counsel served discovery responses that were riddled with boilerplate objections, irrelevant denials, and evasive answers. Nearly every interrogatory was met with blanket claims of irrelevance, undue burden, or privilege—without a proper privilege log—and in some cases, they objected and…

Read more

Amended Rule 2.1 Order

On January 30, 2025, Chief District Court Judge Eagles denied my motion to have the case designated as an exceptional civil case under Rule 2.1, stating that the claims weren’t complex and there weren’t enough parties to warrant the designation—even though this was the very same case where defendants were allowed to delay proceedings to…

Read more