On July 3, I filed a Motion to Vacate and for Protective Supervisory Relief after the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an order on July 1 dismissing my entire appeal and taxing me $364.25 in costs. The order included no legal reasoning, no citation to any rule, and—most importantly—no judicial signature. I believe…
While finalizing my response in the Court of Appeals, I also had to address new developments in my federal case. The North Carolina Attorney General formally appeared on behalf of the judges and Clerk Soar and filed a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss instead of answering the complaint, relying heavily on immunity defenses and abstention…
I filed a detailed Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions in COA 25-521, calling it procedurally defective, legally unsupported, and clearly retaliatory. The filing laid out a broader pattern of misconduct involving both opposing counsel and the North Carolina Court of Appeals, including improper rejections of my filings, unsigned and possibly unauthorized judicial…
On June 17, David Yopp filed a retaliatory and misleading Motion for Sanctions in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, attempting to frame my compliance with Rule 11(b) as sanctionable, despite the trial court’s failure to meet its deadline under Rule 11(c). His motion omitted key facts—like my timely May 7 notice of judicial inaction—and…
On June 12, DOJ attorney Joseph Finarelli—counsel for the North Carolina Human Relations Commission—filed an unsolicited memorandum opposing my Rule 60(b) motion, not to defend the agency’s conduct but to justify the Tribunal’s legal reasoning. This filing was never ordered and exceeded DOJ’s scope under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-23(a), which authorizes representation of agencies—not…
On June 13, I filed an Emergency Motion to Compel Rulings and Renewed Motion for Emergency Relief, asking the federal court to finally act on my pending Rule 59(e) motion and Rule 72(a) objection—both of which remain unresolved despite increasing harm and procedural obstruction. The motion also renews my request for emergency injunctive relief under…
I decided to provide one more chance for ALJ Turrentine to correct her ruling as it wasn't untimely, didn't require a trial, and wasn't a second motion for reconsideration.
I also informed her that her ruling is being used as evidence in pending 1983 claim and will be added as a party if she…
June 6 felt like the weight of institutional resistance pressed in on every front. I filed a supplement to my Rule 59(e) motion documenting new evidence that the Eastern District had improperly disclosed my unserved ex parte TRO to outside parties—an action that became clear when it was cited in the OAH’s May 23 Final…
June 5 was another infuriating example of how process is being used to obstruct rather than facilitate justice. Magistrate Judge Auld denied every pending motion I had filed: my urgent request to strike his prior orders, my motion for alternative service, and both the CM/ECF and recusal motions—despite the fact that the docket had shown…
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…