Watch for Updates
Originally Posted August 22, 2020
By Robert Baty
YouTube personality Steve McRae has filed a civil suit, in North Carolina Business Court, against fellow YouTube personality Kyle Curtis over issues involving their joint participation in YouTube activities.
Link to On-Line Docket Record
Kyle Curtis failed to respond to a summons that was issued, and Steve McRae was able to get a default judgment which is being contested by Kyle Curtis who is claiming the “service” of the summons was defective.
The case’s current docket history is shown below in 2 screenshots.
Issue: Will The “Service” Be Upheld?
1. Steve McRae enjoys a rebuttable presumption of “service” based on an affidavit filed with the Court by his lawyer attesting to the facts that the summons was issued and delivered by certified mail as evidenced by a signed certified mail receipt.
2. The above referenced certified mail was addressed to Kyle Curtis at his parents address and was signed for by his mother.
4. Steve McRae relies on North Carolina Rule 4(j)(1)(c) in support of his claim that “service” should be upheld and the related default judgment should be preserved. Screenshot of Rule 4(j)(1)(c) is shown below.
5. Kyle Curtis has presented evidence and testimony which, if believed, demonstrates that his mother was not acting, in signing for the mail, as his “agent” as a matter of law or appointment nor was his mother’s residence any longer his dwelling place or usual place of abode.
6. In order to prevail, Steve McRae will have to overcome Kyle’s evidence and testimony and demonstrate that Kyle’s mother’s residence was Kyle’s dwelling or usual place of abode or that Kyle’s mother was acting by appointment or law as Kyle’s “agent”.
Based on the present record of which I am familiar, I think Kyle should prevail and the default judgment vacated.
One on-line reference explains the operation of Rule 4(j)(1)(c) as follows:
” Registered or Certified Mail:
Before judgment by default may be had on service by registered or certified mail, the serving party shall file an affidavit with the court showing proof of such service in accordance with the requirements of G.S. 1-75.10(4).
This affidavit together with the return receipt signed by the person who received the mail if not the addressee raises a presumption that the person who received the mail and signed the receipt was
an agent of the addressee authorized by appointment or by law to be served or to accept service of process
was a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the addressee’s dwelling house or usual place of abode. “
Related article on this site is at:
Glenn W., aka Roohif, is reported to be the one financing Steve McRae’s lawsuit against Kyle Curtis. In a tweet today, after I had posted this article, Glenn, not taking any specific exception to my analysis above, offered the following summary of his own.
Update August 24, 2020
Kyle Curtis files his latest briefing in support of vacating the default judgment:
Nate Broady’s YouTube Analysis of Kyle’s Filing:
Update August 25, 2020
Secrets, so many secrets! So they say!
Latest exchange (4 screenshots) between Steve McRae’s financier (Glenn W/Roohif) and Robert Baty via Nate Broady’s YouTube video comments section at:
3 more screenshots from the above exchange:
Update August 26, 2020
The screenshot below reflects an analysis of a case that is not a North Carolina case, but there is reason to believe the law is not substantively different and, more importantly, the reasoning reflected in the analysis is most likely the same as we might see in the McRae v. Curtis case once the Court rules on the matter.
Update September 1, 2020
Hearing scheduled for September 11, 2020:
Update September 3, 2020
Nate Broady (aka Nate the Lawyer) is advertising he will live broadcast the September 11, 2020 hearing!
Steve McRae Files Affidavit September 3, 2020
Peter J. Reilly has posted an analysis of Steve’s affidavit claims on his blog at the following link; from a guest blogger.
Update September 4, 2020
Nate Broady evaluates the McRae affidavit:
Update September 5, 2020
Update September 7, 2020
Kyle Curtis Motion to Strike Steve McRae Affidavit
Kyle Curtis brief in support of Motion to Strike Affidavit
Link to Nate Broady September 7, 2020 broadcast
Peter J. Reilly introduces his Forbes.com audience to the McRae v. Curtis litigation. OK, OK, maybe I did have something to do with that!
Link to Peter’s Forbes.com article
Update September 9, 2020
McRae submits 2 affidavits
Postal Bar Code Information (referenced in Joyce affidavit above)
McRae also filed this opposition to motion to strike:
Early reports from Kyle’s sympathizers indicate the evidence is indicative that Kyle forged documents to try and build his case and that “he’s done for”.
We will see, maybe, come Friday.
Update September 10, 2020
Curtis files motion to strike Potts and Joyce affidavits!
Rumor is that the hearing has been continued to Wednesday of next week. We will see. Meanwhile, Steve McRae is fighting back, via YouTube.
Below is the continuance ORDER
Statement from Kyle Curtis
Hello everyone. I’m going to make this statement in regards to the past few days events. On advice of my counsel I won’t be commenting further until after Monday when the facts will be filed with the court along with the evidence for the things I am saying here.
Ben’s allegations – the unnotarized testimony given by Ben is completely false.
Following this statement I am including two screenshots of our conversation about this from two days ago where I ask why he’s accusing me of forging things and giving him the exact place we were when he signed.
The screenshot he included doesn’t provide the rest of the conversation, which is misleading.
Ben, being aware of the case and what Steve and his supporters were saying, was being facetious. Mimicking something they would say.
In my filing, the entire conversation will be included to show clearly that it doesn’t reflect what he was saying. I have the payments sent to him for rent, the internet bills, and our conversations discussing decorating, setting up an office etc. that will match the dates I claimed to live there.
Ben is angry with me because of a date I went on, which was saturday, and then Sunday morning he was making his accusations.
This is not a coincidence.
I wouldn’t put it past Roohif offering to … for his unnotarized testimony. Roohif has also sent emails to my employer trying, unsuccessfully, to get me fired from my job as well.
These pathetic, sad attempts to intimidate me will only end up costing him in the end. I will be making the courts aware on Monday of these tactics, along with his statements about dragging out filings until I can’t afford it to show just how deplorable this “human” being is On the Discover bar code thing.
I will be contacting Discover to release the date that my address changed and to whatever else the court needs to verify those statements.
I am paperless so everything comes online except for the agreement when I opened the account which came to my original address and the only thing I can guess is that the code was generated when I opened the account initially bc the agreement had to be sent physically and that my address was simply updated when I changed that information, with no need to update a bar code that wouldn’t be send out.
I understand that this is just conjecture, but I will be having Discover verify that which is why a continuation of the case was necessary.
I apologize for not being around, but with Ben and the contacts to my work myself and my attorney thought it was best to remain in the background until these facts are submitted.
Uni has my consent to discuss these things as he sees fit and I look forward to being able to once again talk regularly with you all.
Love and miss you guys!
Update September 14, 2020
Kyle Curtis notice and affidavit!
Update September 16, 2020
It appears the Court is going to have Curtis and Potts deposed before deciding the “service” issue and expressed considerable concern about the possibility of “fraud upon the Court” due to the competing claims.
Link to live Court broadcast:
Analysis by “Nate the Lawyer” & others:
Nate took the above video to “private” status to avoid the prospect of violating the prohibition against recording the proceedings. Another analysis, an “aftershow”, can be found at:
Steve McRae, in his own broadcast after the hearing today, was promoting the notion that today’s event was a win for him and was prophesying a win once the judge makes the call after reviewing depositions which are to be scheduled. However, even in Steve’s own broadcast, he had a dissenting voice. I agree with this dissenting opinion as to the result that might be reasonably be expected. We will see.
Time Marked Link to Comments
Update September 18, 2020
Update September 19, 2020
“Nate the Lawyer” had more to say this morning at:
The above originated from:
I don’t find it conclusive in support of the claim that Steve knew Kyle’s mother’s address was no longer Kyle’s address at the time Kyle’s mother signed for the summons at her address.
Update September 21, 2020
Steve and Cheshire are live on YouTube ranting on about the case. Maybe they can win it. Maybe not. Regardless, I found these comments worthy of note for now.
I don’t believe Steve honestly reports the incident below:
The following comments show Steve’s hypocrisy when compared to the tantrum he threw in my FaceBook group:
Link to related article on this site about Steve’s tantrum in my FaceBook group:
Here is the August 24, 2020 affidavit of Kyle Curtis which I believe Steve McRae, Cheshire, and others are misrepresenting!
Kyle Curtis affidavit of July 28, 2020!
(includes February 5, 2020 affidavit)
Kyle Curtis affidavit of September 14, 2020!
Then there is this; Steve McRae and his people refuse to call Susan Curtis a liar or declare her affidavit a forgery. It’s quite cowardly of them in my opinion.
Time marked link to comments illustrated below:
Screenshot of notarization of above affidavit added October 6, 2020:
September 22, 2020: Steve McRae’s money man Glenn Williamson doesn’t think Susan’s affidavit is a forgery.
Update September 22, 2020
From the other day, showing Glenn W. (the millionaire paying Steve McRae’s expenses) and I do agree on one thing, though he may change his mind later.
I don’t think Kyle said what Glenn W. claims he said!
Steve McRae’s money man Glenn Williamson misrepresents the legal presumption of service!
The actual presumption on that point is noted below:
UniRock is now reporting that Benjamin Potts has a deposition scheduled for next week. It is not known whether he will show up, “take the 5th”, or answer truthfully the questions put to him.
Link to UniRock’s Broadcast
Update September 23, 2020
Steve McRae, his money man Glenn Williamson, Cheshire, and others get together for a dramatic reading of the official transcript of the recent hearing, with commentary along the way.
Link to Video
McRae v. Curtis – The Transcript – An Analysis
Briefly, I find the judge indicating he has enough to find “service” defective, but will withhold a final decision until after the depositions are considered. If the judge determines that “service” was effective, watch out Kyle.
Update October 4, 2020
“Nate the Lawyer” announces he will reduce his coverage of the melodramic flurry of fluff that has become the story of McRae v. Curtis; limiting his reporting to the official story as reflected in the Court proceedings and substantive developments such as they may be.
(Go to link above for attached video clips.)
Update October 22, 2020
Things not looking good for Kyle Curtis. His lawyer filed a motion to withdraw.
Update October 25, 2020
UniRock/RockaLot posted a video today explaining, from his point of view, what has been secretly going on the last several months; causing all the present distress.
“Steve McRae and Kyle Curtis Both Rip Off The Community To Get Revenge On Each Other over Non Seq”
Update October 26, 2020
Today’s Court Order
The Court notices Kyle Curtis he has until November 5, 2020 to provide more information as was suggested in his deposition and to respond to his lawyer’s motion to withdraw.
Steve McRae’s prophecy failed.
Update October 28, 2020
Steve McRae v. Robert Baty – Rule 4(j2)(2)
Link to North Carolina State Rule 4(j2)(2):
Link to article illustrated in screenshot below:
Update October 30, 2020
Today I had a Twitter exchange involving Steve’s money man Glenn Williamson and Steve (others I mostly ignored). Following screenshots should reflect the substance of that which deals with the North Carolina Rule 4(j)(2)(2).
Someone from Steve’s peanut gallery showed up to do what “they do” and accuse me of being nuts. I responded, and my response is what Glenn is responding to below.
After a little more banter, not reflected above, Glenn posted this:
Update November 3, 2020
A simple edit to the article on the Answers in Reason website where the anonymous article was posted would have resolved a simple matter without controversy. Whether it is edited or not, however, I win.
Link to FaceBook page thread where exchange has been taking place:
Link to on-line text of N.C. Rule 4:
Latest exchange with Answers in Reason