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.

McRae v Curtis COMPLAINT

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?

My Analysis:

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. “

(End excerpt.)


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:

Kyle Curtis Reply Brief 08242020

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

McRae 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

Curtis Motion to Strike 09062020

Kyle Curtis brief in support of Motion to Strike Affidavit

Curtis brief in support of motion 09062020

Link to Nate Broady September 7, 2020 broadcast

Peter J. Reilly introduces his audience to the McRae v. Curtis litigation.  OK, OK, maybe I did have something to do with that!

Link to Peter’s article


Update September 9, 2020

McRae submits 2 affidavits

Benjamin Potts Affidavit McRae v Curtis 09092020

Megan Joyce Affidavit McRae v Curtis 09092020

Postal Bar Code Information (referenced in Joyce affidavit above)

McRae also filed this opposition to motion to strike:

McRae Response to Motion to Strike 09092020

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!

Curtis Motion to Strike 09102020

Curtis Brief in Support of Motion 09102020

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

(Begin Text)

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!

(End Text)

Update September 14, 2020

Kyle Curtis notice and affidavit!

Curtis Notice 09142020

Curtis Affidavit 09142020

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 08242020

Kyle Curtis affidavit of July 28, 2020!

(includes February 5, 2020 affidavit)

Curtis 07282020 Affidavit

Kyle Curtis affidavit of September 14, 2020!

Curtis 09142020 Affidavit

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:,_Rule_4.pdf

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.

Kyle Curtis Motion to Withdraw 10222020

The Depositions

Benjamin Potts Deposition

Deposition of Kyle Curtis

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

McRae v Curtis ORDER 10262020

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.

Mine prevailed.

Update October 28, 2020

Steve McRae v. Robert Baty – Rule 4(j2)(2)

Link to North Carolina State Rule 4(j2)(2):,_Rule_4.pdf

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:,_Rule_4.pdf

Latest exchange with Answers in Reason


Update November 5, 2020

McRae anticipaaaaaation!

The peanut gallery as well!

Steve McRae appparently thinks the folks won’t notice, so he is going to keep telling us nothing new has posted to his docket.

Update November 7, 2020

Surfing around a bit, I found this on who appears to be Kyle Curtis’ mother.  I don’t recall hearing of this before.

Seems Kyle’s parents filed bankruptcy during all of this!

Claude and Susan Curtis Bankruptcy

Update November 10, 2020

Update November 11, 2020

Big Announcement from McRae, but I hope no one tries holding their breath for that live broadcast featuring his lawyer.

Update November 11, 2020

This reference shows that the North Carolina Appeals Court, as I do, recognizes a distinction between the agents referenced in Rule 4(j2)(2) and those with whom a person lives.

Update November 12, 2020

From Steve McRae’s FaceBook Page

Update November 20, 2020

The Court has issued a couple of ORDERs in the case, but my server will not yet let me view them.

It’s working now, and I got the ORDERs:

Order Granting Leave to Withdraw as Counsel 11202020

McRae Curtis ORDER 11202020

Update December 6, 2020

While we wait on where the Court goes from here, how about a walk down memory lane.  The following link is to a broadcast by “Nate the Lawyer” in August of 2019 before the firestorm started over the lawsuit between McRae & Curtis.  I think it makes out a pretty good case that maybe McRae was playing games with the show and income, perhaps illegally.  Maybe things backfired and he wound up with nothing from the show.

Update December 11, 2020

Interesting claims coming from Steve McRae this morning, but it doesn’t seem to do anything to explain why he wanted Kyle Curtis to hold his income as if he was trying to hide it from someone for some reason, with some success.


McRae adds the following to his Twitter page, rather than actually deal with the details!

Update January 21, 2021

In December 2020 a motion to intervene and to dismiss was filed by a 3rd party in the McRae v. Curtis case.  Since it was not filed electronically, it apparently will not appear in the on-line docket record.  Since it was filed by a 3rd party, pro se, it will likely not be given any consideration by the Court, but it might be interesting to see what, if any, notice the Court might give it.  The last action by the Court was in November 2020 and “we” are still waiting to see what the Court is going to do about advancing the McRae v. Curtis case and/or the possible criminal implications in light of Kyle Curtis actions in the case.

UPDATE February 2, 2021

McRae v. Curtis ORDER

McRae v. Curtis ORDER February 2, 2021

Update February 10, 2021

Steve McRae loads up the Court in his continuing effort to “Get Kyle Curtis” and get him put in prison.

Status Report

McRae Status Report 02102021


McRae Motion for Order to Show Cause 02102021


McRae Brief 02102021

Update March 15, 2021

That “community” tried to make a big deal out of the Westbrook v Paulson federal case.  An ORDER to day was entered DISMISSING the case as requested by Paulson.

Westbrook v Paulson Dismissal 03152021

YouTube Discussion of DISMISSAL by Nate the Lawyer at:

Update April 20, 2021

A new ORDER in the McRae v. Curtis case was issues yesterday, April 19, 2021!

McRae v Curtis ORDER 04192021

Update April 27, 2021

Kyle Curtis reappears in a live broadcast with UniRock, and he discusses things!

Update May 6, 2021

McRae v. Curtis gets new judge!

McRae v Curtis gets new judge 05062021

Update May 11, 2021

Looks like Kyle maybe didn’t get notice of the hearing today?

Kyle Curtis Return of Service 05112021

Update May 13, 2021

New ORDER, new hearing on civil contempt issue!

Order on Amended Motion to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing May 13 2021

Update May 28, 2021

Hearing continued until June 25, 2021!

McRae v Curtis Order Continuing Hearing to 06252021

Update June 27, 2021

It appears Kyle didn’t show for the hearing and his arrest, or attempted arrest, may be coming soon.  “Nate the Lawyer” broadcasts his latest commentary on the case as it appears to be coming to an end.

Update July 1, 2021

Show Cause Order June 30, 2021

McRae v Curtis Show Cause Order 06302021

Kyle Curtis Arrest Warrant June 30, 2021

Kyle Curtis Arrest Warrant 06302021

Update July 25, 2021

On July 19, 2021 another ORDER for ARREST of Kyle Curtis was issued.

Kyle Curtis ORDER for ARREST 07192021

ORDER behind above warrant and scheduling of August 13, 2021 hearing:

Kyle Curtis Show Cause Order 07192021

Update July 29, 2021

Another Delay!

Continuance in McRae v Curtis 07272021

Screenshot of Above Order

Update August 10, 2021

Part I of an interview with Kyle Curtis coming up in a few minutes at:

Update August 30, 2021

Twitter is abuzz with claims that Kyle Curtis has been arrested.

Update August 31, 2021

UniRock reported that Kyle got out of jail!

Update September 1, 2021

Is he, or isn’t he?

I don’t know!

Looks like the McRae v. Curtis warrant caught up with Kyle, while still in jail, and his bond has been increased; making it a little harder for him to bond out.

Update September 2, 2021

Steve McRae claims to have the video of the alleged assault and knows others who are responsible besides Kyle!

Update September 7, 2021

It’s been commonly reported that Glenn Williamson (aka Roohif) has been financing Steve McRae’s antics.  Glenn appears to have dropped out of social media recently and his alleged wife has picked it up and started posting about the matter.  It appears Glenn is now involved in divorce proceedings.

Here are some of her tweets on Twitter, in no particular order.

Update September 22, 2021

Reports are that Kyle Curtis made bail and has been released.

Update October 7, 2021

Hearing Scheduled for October 7, 2021

McRae v Curtis Hearing Scheduled for October 15 2021

Update October 19, 2021

No big deal.  Kyle given time to obtain counsel and hearing has been rescheduled to November.

McRae v Curtis Order of 10192021

Update January 7, 2021

McRae voluntarily dismisses the case against Curtis!

McRae Dismisses his case



Steve McRae v. Kyle Curtis – “Service” — No Comments

Leave a Reply

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>