January 5th, 2025

Overview
The document is a legal motion filed by Michael Anderson, a pro se plaintiff, seeking to strike a scheduled hearing, stay proceedings, and address various procedural irregularities in a case involving multiple defendants in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas.

Summarize the grounds for the motion to strike

The motion to strike filed by Michael Anderson, the pro se plaintiff, is based on the following grounds:

1. *Vacated Prior Pleadings and Default Status**: The plaintiff argues that the responsive pleadings filed by the defendants were vacated by the court, leaving the defendants in a state of "Total Legal Default."

2. **Lack of Standing and Oppressive Scheduling**: The plaintiff contends that the defendants, being in default, lack standing to proceed with the 57 motions scheduled for January 21, 2026. He also claims that scheduling such a large number of motions against a medically fragile pro se litigant is oppressive.

3. **Pattern of Backdating and Rule 79 Violations**: The plaintiff alleges that the Clerk's Office created approximately 500 blank docket entries, enabling retroactive insertion and backdating of filings to "cure" the defendants' default status.

4. **Parallel Dockets**: The plaintiff claims that the maintenance of dual dockets (Common Pleas vs. Master-in-Equity) has fragmented and manipulated the record, depriving him of meaningful appellate review.

5. **Unauthorized Filings**: The plaintiff asserts that certain filings were made by individuals who were not recognized as attorneys of record at the time, rendering those filings null and void.

6. **Fraudulent "Shadow Filings" and Mail Tracking**: The plaintiff alleges that defense counsel mailed documents to him that were not recorded with the Clerk, creating "shadow filings." He provides USPS tracking numbers as evidence of his timely responses to these filings.

7. **Due Process Violations**: The plaintiff argues that the November 4, 2025, hearing violated his due process rights as it was held while he was recovering from a stroke and when one of the defendants, Gloria Brown, was absent.

8. **Pending Supreme Court Writs**: The plaintiff notes that the South Carolina Supreme Court is reviewing jurisdictional and procedural irregularities in the case under a Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition.

Based on these grounds, the plaintiff requests the court to strike the January 21, 2026, hearing, stay all further proceedings, preserve and correct the docket, vacate the November 4, 2025, ruling, and take judicial notice of the supplemental addendum and exhibits provided.