Every Document. Every Date. Organized for Review.

Why it matters: **October 7, 2026 - Youngs Seek Supreme Court Intervention Over Judicial Bias, Restricted Court Access, and Alleged Procedural Violations**

James and Tahnee Young submitted a Petition for Supervisory Writ and Alternative Writ of Mandamus to the North Dakota Supreme Court, requesting the disqualification of Judge Cherie L. Clark and appointment of an independent judge to address unresolved issues involving their foreclosure and September 16, 2026 sheriff's sale.

The petition identifies serious concerns regarding Judge Clark's characterization of an earlier court filing. The Youngs contend that the judge materially misrepresented their arguments when seeking to have them declared vexatious litigants, despite the underlying court documents addressing different legal issues.

**Restricted Access to the Courts:** After being designated vexatious litigants, the Youngs were required to obtain judicial permission before submitting additional court filings. Judge Clark subsequently denied their applications to file motions requesting her recusal and challenging the sheriff's sale.

**Supreme Court Denial and Public Transparency Concerns:** Because of these restrictions, the Youngs were also required to request permission from the North Dakota Supreme Court to file their supervisory writ. The Supreme Court denied that application, preventing the proposed petition from being accepted for ordinary filing and consideration on its merits.

According to the Youngs, because the application was denied, the underlying petition and its supporting evidence are not publicly visible on the court's docket. They contend that this effectively conceals significant allegations and documentary evidence from public view, making it more difficult for citizens to examine the judicial conduct and procedural irregularities they have raised.

**Why This Matters:** The Youngs argue that the combined effect of the vexatious-litigant designation, repeated denials of permission to file, and restricted public access to their proposed filings has effectively silenced their attempts to obtain independent judicial review.

They believe these procedural barriers have shielded disputed judicial actions from meaningful scrutiny while preventing the public from seeing the evidence supporting their allegations.

**The central concern is transparency and accountability: How can the public independently evaluate allegations of judicial misconduct when the documents presenting those allegations are prevented from becoming part of the publicly accessible court record?**

Why it matters: **September 24, 2026 - Youngs Challenge Sheriff's Sale Over Alleged Failure to Provide Legally Required Notice**

Following the September 16, 2026 foreclosure sale of their home, James and Tahnee Young submitted a 39-page Motion to Vacate and Set Aside the Sheriff's Sale, alleging that MidFirst Bank failed to comply with North Dakota's legal notice requirements.

**Key Evidence:** The court's own docket lists "Tahnee R. Higgins" and "Tahnee R. Young" as separate defendant entries. MidFirst previously mailed notices separately to both names in August 2024. However, for the September 2026 sheriff's sale, MidFirst combined the names into a single mailing. The Youngs question whether this satisfied the legally required notice procedures.

**Forced to Request Permission to File:** Because Judge Cherie L. Clark had initiated proceedings that resulted in the Youngs being designated vexatious litigants, they were required to submit a separate application asking the court for permission to file their motion. This meant that even an emergency challenge to the sale of their home could not proceed through ordinary filing procedures without prior judicial approval.

**Judicial Bias and Fairness Concerns:** The application was subject to review by Judge Clark, the same judge whose impartiality the Youngs had repeatedly challenged. According to the Youngs, Judge Clark denied permission to file the motion, preventing a hearing on the alleged sale-notice violations.

The Youngs question the fairness of allowing a judge accused of bias to determine whether their legal challenges may even be filed. They believe this arrangement creates a serious conflict between judicial accountability and homeowners' access to the courts.

**Why This Matters:** The Youngs were not asking the court to reconsider the original foreclosure judgment. They sought an independent examination of whether the September 16 sheriff's sale complied with North Dakota law, including the notice requirements addressed in Principal Residential Mortgage, Inc. v. Nash, 2000 ND 21.

**The central concern:** Homeowners facing the loss of their property were required to obtain permission from the very judge whose impartiality they questioned before they could obtain judicial consideration of their challenge to the sheriff's sale.

Why it matters: James and Tahnee Young submitted a 13-page Motion for Stay to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Case No. 20260313, requesting temporary relief from the July 31, 2026 order designating them vexatious litigants.

**Restricted Access to Justice:** The order requires the Youngs to obtain judicial permission BEFORE filing additional court documents while representing themselves. The Youngs argued that these restrictions created unnecessary delays in addressing urgent legal matters, including their challenge to the September 16, 2026 sheriff's sale and their request for Judge Cherie L. Clark's recusal.

**Problems at the Clerk's Office:** The motion describes a September 18 incident in which James Young encountered resistance and confusion while attempting to submit a recusal motion and the required application for permission to file. Multiple court employees became involved before the documents were accepted. The Youngs argued that these administrative obstacles were particularly harmful during their limited statutory redemption period.

**Request for Temporary Relief:** The Youngs were not asking the Supreme Court to overturn the foreclosure judgment or undo the completed sheriff's sale through this motion. They requested a temporary suspension or modification of the filing restrictions so they could submit time-sensitive motions while their appeal was pending.

**Supreme Court DENIED:** According to the Youngs, the North Dakota Supreme Court DENIED the renewed motion, leaving the filing restrictions in place.

**Why This Matters:** The Youngs contend that requiring homeowners to seek permission before presenting urgent legal challenges creates significant barriers to judicial review. They question the fairness of maintaining these restrictions while the statutory redemption period continues to run and unresolved concerns about judicial impartiality and foreclosure-sale procedures remain.

**The Central Concern:** The Youngs asked for temporary access to ordinary court filing procedures so their legal challenges could be considered before critical deadlines expired. The Supreme Court DENIED that relief, leaving them subject to the same permission requirements they were appealing.

Why it matters: **September 18, 2026 - Youngs Seek Judge Clark's Recusal Over Alleged Judicial Bias and Misrepresentation of Court Filings**

James and Tahnee Young submitted a Motion for Recusal and Disqualification requesting that Judge Cherie L. Clark be removed from their foreclosure case and replaced with an impartial judge.

**Key Evidence:** The Youngs identified several troubling actions, including Judge Clark initiating proceedings to designate them vexatious litigants just seven days after they challenged her handling of the case. They also presented docket evidence that they contend demonstrates Judge Clark materially misrepresented their earlier motion, describing it as another challenge to the mortgage assignment when the filing specifically addressed enforcement of the promissory note.

The motion also raised concerns about court orders the Youngs reported never receiving and the judge's subsequent rejection of their objections.

**Forced to Request Permission:** Because Judge Clark's actions led to the Youngs being designated vexatious litigants, they were required to submit an application requesting permission to file their recusal motion. That application was reviewed by Judge Clark herself, the same judge whose impartiality they were challenging.

**Judge Clark Denies the Request:** According to the subsequent court proceedings, Judge Clark denied permission to file the motion, preventing the Youngs' allegations from receiving consideration through the requested recusal proceeding.

**Why This Matters:** The Youngs contend that the court's own docket reveals material contradictions between their actual filings and Judge Clark's descriptions of those filings. They believe requiring the challenged judge to control whether their recusal motion can proceed creates serious concerns about judicial impartiality, transparency, and meaningful access to the courts.

**The central question:** How can homeowners obtain independent review of alleged judicial bias when the judge whose conduct is being challenged also determines whether their request for that review can be filed?

Why it matters: **September 17, 2026 - Youngs Appeal Court Order Restricting Their Right to File Legal Documents**

James and Tahnee Young filed a 29-page Opening Brief with the North Dakota Supreme Court, Case No. 20260313, challenging the July 31, 2026 order that designated them vexatious litigants and required them to obtain court permission before filing additional legal documents.

**Key Evidence - Alleged Misrepresentation by Judge Clark:** The Youngs argue that Judge Cherie L. Clark materially mischaracterized their earlier motion as another attempt to challenge the mortgage assignment. However, they point to Docket #239, which expressly addresses different legal questions involving enforcement of the promissory note, the allonge, and signature authority. Despite their written objections identifying this distinction, the disputed characterization remained in the final order.

**Denied an Opportunity to Be Heard:** Presiding Judge Steven E. McCullough denied the Youngs' request for a hearing and signed the statewide filing restriction, substantially adopting Judge Clark's proposed findings without expressly resolving the disputed characterization.

**Questions About Judicial Impartiality:** Judge Clark initiated the vexatious-litigant proceedings on July 17, 2026, just seven days after the Youngs filed a motion challenging her handling of their case. The Youngs contend that this timing, combined with the disputed findings, raises concerns about retaliation and judicial fairness.

**Same-Day Retirement Announcement:** On July 31, 2026, Judge McCullough signed the restrictive order and a separate letter announcing his retirement, effective November 1, 2026. The Youngs question whether their objections received sufficiently independent consideration before the order was entered.

**Why This Matters:** The resulting order requires both homeowners to obtain judicial approval before filing new litigation or documents in existing North Dakota proceedings while representing themselves. The Youngs argue that these restrictions have substantially interfered with their ability to challenge foreclosure procedures, seek judicial recusal, and protect their home.

**The Central Question:** Should homeowners face statewide restrictions on accessing the courts when the findings supporting those restrictions contain specifically disputed factual characterizations and their request for a hearing was denied?

The Youngs ask the North Dakota Supreme Court to vacate the July 31, 2026 pre-filing order and restore their ability to submit legal filings without the additional permission requirement.

Why it matters: **August 26, 2026 - Youngs Demand Independent Investigation Into Six Missing Court Orders and Alleged Court Clerk Failures**

James and Tahnee Young submitted a 17-page formal administrative complaint to North Dakota Court Administrator Chris Iverson, Cass County Clerk of Court Brittany LaDetter, and State Court Administrator Sally A. Holewa, requesting a comprehensive investigation into serious concerns about court notification procedures and the accuracy of official court records.

**Six Court Orders Reportedly Never Received:** The Youngs identified six court orders across two separate Cass County cases that the official dockets indicated had been mailed, but which they maintain were never received. Five involved their MidFirst Bank foreclosure case, and one involved a separate court proceeding.

**Court Records Versus Actual Mailing:** The Youngs challenged whether the documents were ever physically mailed. They emphasized that a docket entry stating an order was mailed does not independently establish that it was printed, placed in an envelope, given postage, and delivered to the United States Postal Service.

**Unanswered Court Records Request:** The complaint also identifies an earlier July 22, 2026 records request, Docket #272, seeking information about multiple foreclosure execution orders. According to the Youngs, the court provided no acknowledgment, explanation, or requested records.

**Demand for Independent Investigation:** The Youngs requested preservation of mailing records, Odyssey electronic audit trails, postage records, employee activity logs, and other evidence. They specifically asked that the investigation be conducted or supervised by someone not personally involved in the disputed mailing procedures.

**Serious Due Process Concerns:** The Youngs contend that failing to receive court orders prevented them from responding to judicial directives, meeting deadlines, and protecting their legal rights. These concerns are particularly significant because Judge Cherie L. Clark denied their Motion for Reconsideration partly on the ground that no returned mail appeared in the docket.

**Why This Matters:** If court documents were recorded as mailed but were never actually sent, homeowners could lose important legal rights without knowing that deadlines or court requirements existed. The Youngs are demanding documented proof of what occurred, rather than relying solely on statements in the electronic docket.

**The Central Question:** Can homeowners receive fair treatment and meaningful due process when official court records indicate that orders were mailed, yet multiple orders across separate cases were reportedly never received?

The complaint seeks transparency, preservation of evidence, written investigative findings, and corrective action. It documents the Youngs' allegations and investigation requests, not a completed finding that court employees failed to mail the orders.

UPDATE AS OF OCTOBER 12, 2026 THERE HAS BEEN NO UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATORS. COMPLETE SILENCE.

Why it matters: **July 31, 2026 - Judge McCullough Signs Order Restricting Youngs' Court Filings on the SAME Day He Announces His Retirement**

On July 31, 2026, Presiding Judge Steven E. McCullough signed an order designating James and Tahnee Young as vexatious litigants, requiring them to obtain judicial permission BEFORE filing additional documents in North Dakota court proceedings while representing themselves.

**The SAME-DAY Retirement Announcement:** On that very same date, Judge McCullough signed a four-page letter to North Dakota Governor Kelly Armstrong announcing his retirement, effective November 1, 2026.

In his retirement letter, Judge McCullough emphasized the importance of ensuring that litigants' RIGHTS are honored. Yet, on the SAME day, he approved an order restricting the Youngs' ability to file motions and seek judicial relief without prior permission.

**DENIAL of a Requested Hearing:** The Youngs had requested an opportunity to challenge the vexatious-litigant designation at a hearing. According to their subsequent court filings, Judge McCullough DENIED that request and entered the pre-filing restrictions.

**Why This Matters:** The Youngs contend that the order substantially restricted their ability to defend their home, challenge alleged procedural violations, and seek independent review of Judge Clark's conduct. They question the fairness of imposing these restrictions without granting their requested hearing, particularly when the judge signed the order on the same day he announced his retirement.

**The central concern:** Judge McCullough publicly emphasized protecting litigants' rights while simultaneously approving restrictions that the Youngs believe deprived them of meaningful access to the courts.

The Youngs believe the timing and consequences of these actions raise serious questions about judicial fairness, due process, and accountability.

Why it matters: On June 19, 2025, James and Tahnee Young filed a Judicial Notice informing the District Court that MidFirst Bank had FAILED to respond to their Motion to Vacate Summary Judgment.

The Youngs argued that MidFirst's failure to respond after the bankruptcy stay was lifted warranted a ruling in their favor and dismissal of the foreclosure action.

Additional Concern - Unequal Filing Deadlines: The Youngs contend that MidFirst was fully aware of its 30-day Supreme Court response deadline and the scheduled District Court hearing, including the hearing date and time. Despite this knowledge, MidFirst allegedly failed to submit its Supreme Court response brief within the required 30 day period and was subsequently allowed approximately 72 additional days.

Why This Matters: The Youngs question whether court filing deadlines were enforced consistently between the parties. They argue that MidFirst received substantially more time to respond despite knowing its obligations, raising concerns about equal treatment and procedural fairness.

Why it matters: Letter From Midfirst Banks Lawyer - Citing FDCPA - This letter is evidence that they are acting under this Federal Law.