Motion to Intervene: Denied on Arrival
Date: November 12, 2025
On November 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Intervene in the contempt proceeding initiated by attorney Kyle T. Manderfeld. The motion sought to correct multiple factual misrepresentations in his November 10 filing, including the claim that Plaintiff's public-record website violated the HRO and the assertion that "private images" had been uploaded.
The Motion to Intervene asked the district court to permit Plaintiff to address the allegations, submit responsive argument, and clarify the scope of the HRO-particularly in light of the fact that the order was already under appellate review.
Same-Day Denial
The district court denied the motion the very same afternoon. No hearing was scheduled. No review of the substantive arguments occurred. The denial contained no explanation beyond the statement that intervention was "not permitted."
This outcome is notable because the contempt motion was based entirely on claims about Plaintiff's conduct, yet the court barred Plaintiff from responding in the court where the allegations were made.
Appellate Conflict
The denial also generated an immediate procedural conflict. The underlying HRO-and the very language Manderfeld relied upon-was already on appeal, and the Court of Appeals would later issue guidance on November 19 indicating the necessity of clarifying the district court's reasoning.
Despite this, the district court took no steps to pause, stay, or coordinate its response with the appellate process, effectively allowing a contempt proceeding to advance based on an order that was not only disputed but now under direct appellate review.
The Cascade Begins
The denial of intervention set the tone for the next seven days. The following morning, Judge Nicole Starr signed a sudden hearing notice-one that was not mailed for five more days-and the Court of Appeals intervened shortly thereafter. These events collectively form the core of the November 10–19 cascade now under federal investigation.