Deja Rodnique Jarrel Williams

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
IN RE: 	CASE NUMBERS
21-01840-5-DMW and
DEJA RODNIQUE JARREL WILLIAMS 	22-01251-5-DMW
DEBTOR 	CHAPTER 13
ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEBTOR
This matter comes before the court upon the August 4, 2025 Order to Appear and Show
Cause, requiring Deja Rodnique Jarrel Williams (“Debtor”) to appear before the court to explain
her apparent fabrication of an Order of this court,1 and why sanctions should not be imposed
against her. The court conducted a hearing in Raleigh, North Carolina on August 20, 2025. The
Debtor appeared pro se, and Kirstin Gardner, Esq. appeared for the United States Bankruptcy
Administrator. Upon a review of the case dockets and consideration of the evidence presented,
the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. 	This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157, and the court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 151, 157, and 1334. The court has the authority to hear this
1 The Order (“Fabricated Order”) that is the subject of this hearing is attached to this Order.
____________________________________
David M. Warren
United States Bankruptcy Judge
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 22 day of October, 2025.
______________________________________________________________________
Case 21-01840-5-DMW Doc 51 Filed 10/22/25 Entered 10/22/25 13:01:51 Page 1 of 7

2
matter pursuant to the General Order of Reference entered August 3, 1984 by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
2. 	The Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case, Case Number 21-01840-5-DMW, on August
16, 2021, and the court dismissed that case on January 5, 2022, because the Debtor failed to make
payments under her proposed Chapter 13 Plan. The court reopened the case on August 1, 2025 to
consider the current matter.
3. 	The Debtor also filed a Chapter 13 case, Case Number 22-01251-5-DMW, on June
9, 2022, and the court automatically dismissed that case on July 26, 2022 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
521(i), because the Debtor failed to provide documents required by 11 U.S.C. § 521(a). The court
reopened the case on August 1, 2025 to consider the current matter.
4. 	On behalf of Hairoin Inc (“Hairoin”),2 the Debtor filed a pro se Chapter 11 petition
on February 27, 2025, and that case was dismissed on March 17, 2025, because Hairoin failed to
obtain counsel, failed to pay the filing fee and failed to file documents required by 11 U.S.C. §
521(a).
5. 	Upon examination by Ms. Gardner, the Debtor testified that she obtained the
Fabricated Order using the Fiverr iPhone application. She asked if the graphic designer
“marketplace” could create a letter stating that the bankruptcies “did not belong to [her].” She
believed that the vendor, obtained through the Fiverr marketplace and who created the Fabricated
Order, was located in Pakistan. She paid $15.00 for the Fabricated Order and received it within a
day.
2 Hairoin operates or formerly operated a hair salon. The Debtor identified herself as President of Hairoin
on its bankruptcy petition.
Case 21-01840-5-DMW Doc 51 Filed 10/22/25 Entered 10/22/25 13:01:51 Page 2 of 7

3
6. 	The purpose of obtaining the Fabricated Order was to facilitate the lease of a
commercial property to be used for a hair salon.3 After the leasing agent, Jessica Inman of Venterra
Realty, reviewed the Debtor’s credit report that included the prior bankruptcy filings, the Debtor
attempted to explain that the court had dismissed the bankruptcy cases; however, according to the
Debtor, Ms. Inman could not lease the commercial property to the Debtor (or her entity) because
of the bankruptcies appearing on the Debtor’s credit report.
7. 	After receiving the Fabricated Order, the Debtor tendered the Fabricated Order to
Ms. Inman who would not accept the Fabricated Order, because, according to the Debtor’s
testimony, that document could not be “validated.”
8. 	The Debtor, who holds degrees in Chemistry and Public Health from the University
of North Carolina at Greensboro and North Carolina Central University, admitted that she knew
the Fabricated Order was not authentic, and she intended to use the Fabricated Order to obtain the
commercial lease.
9. 	This court has previously dealt with similar violations. In In re Wilds, the debtor,
in a closed Chapter 7 case, undertook to change the language in the filed Discharge of Debtor. In
re Wilds, No. 15-00040-5-DMW (Bankr. E.D.N.C. June 21, 2016). Ms. Wilds changed the caption
of the document to “Reopening of Debtor” along with other modifications to the official Order;
however, the name and the signature block of the presiding judge were not altered. Id. In addition,
Ms. Wilds prepared a letter to accompany the modified Order and copied, scanned or forged the
signature of her attorney’s staff member with other corroborating details on the attorney’s
letterhead. Id. The purpose, according to Ms. Wilds, was to gain leverage in a pending domestic
action with her ex-spouse. Id. The court revoked Ms. Wilds’ discharge and referred her case to
3 It is unknown if the hair salon was Hairoin.
Case 21-01840-5-DMW Doc 51 Filed 10/22/25 Entered 10/22/25 13:01:51 Page 3 of 7

4
the United States Attorney for criminal prosecution for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 157, 505 or other
statutes. Id.; In re Wilds, No. 15-00040-5-JNC (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Apr. 11, 2017). The United States
District Court sentenced Ms. Wilds to probation for three years with the first ninety days to be
served on house arrest. United States v. Wilds, No 5:17-CR-343-1-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 2018).
10. 	In In re Purdy, Ms. Purdy created a letterhead template bearing the Chapter 13
trustee’s office and description and forged the trustee’s signature evidencing permission by the
trustee for the Purdys to incur mortgage debt to purchase residential property. In re Purdy, No. 19-
04614-5-DMW, 2023 WL 2938052 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2023), aff’d sub nom. Purdy v.
Burnett, 772 F. Supp. 3d 662 (E.D.N.C. 2023), aff’d, No. 23-2283, 2025 WL 1513606 (4th Cir.
May 28, 2025). Ms. Purdy took these actions after the court had rejected that request during her
Chapter 13 case. Id. The court dismissed the Purdys’ case with a five-year bar on refiling for Mr.
Purdy and a ten-year bar on refiling for Ms. Purdy. In re Purdy, No. 19-04614-5-DMW, (Bankr.
E.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2023). On appeal the United States District Court affirmed the dismissal, and
upon further appeal the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the order from the United States
District Court. 	In addition, Ms. Purdy was sentenced to two months in prison followed by
probation of three years. United States v. Purdy, No. 5:24-CR-133-1D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 2024).
11. 	Although the Debtor expressed sincere remorse for her premediated actions, the
court can hardly distinguish the facts in the instant case from Wilds and Purdy. 	The Debtor’s
actions taken for personal monetary gain, regardless of the circumstances, cannot be condoned by
the court.
12. 	Under the circumstances of this case, a substantial temporal bar on filing
subsequent petitions is appropriate. After three unsuccessful attempts at reorganization of her
personal and business affairs, the Debtor resorted to fraudulent activity to improve her chances of
Case 21-01840-5-DMW Doc 51 Filed 10/22/25 Entered 10/22/25 13:01:51 Page 4 of 7

5
obtaining a commercial lease. If not for Ms. Inman’s inquisitive nature, the fraud may have been
successful. The court recognizes the Debtor’s appearance before the court and her apology, but as
cited in this Order, other parties committing similar fraud have received severe sanctions.
13. 	The sanction for the Debtor’s actions will be a five-year bar to any future
bankruptcy filing by the Debtor, personally or on behalf of any entity in which the Debtor has an
affiliation or ownership interest, and a $1,500.00 civil fine to be paid to the Clerk of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the cost of processing this matter.
14. 	Even if the prohibition on filing subsequent petitions constitutes a sanction that
should be analyzed generally under the objective “no fair ground of doubt” standard of Taggart v.
Lorenzen, 587 U.S. 554 (2019), the Debtor had no objectively reasonable basis to believe that her
obtaining the Fabricated Order was permissible in any way.
15. 	This matter will be referred to the United States Attorney for consideration of
prosecution for any violation of federal law that may have occurred by the Debtor; now therefore,
It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
1. 	The Debtor be, and hereby is, barred from filing a petition under any chapter of the
United States Bankruptcy Code in any federal district, either personally or on behalf of any entity
in which the Debtor has an affiliation or ownership interest, for a period of five years from the date
of this Order;
2. 	The Debtor shall pay to the Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court a civil fine
of $1,500.00 within thirty days of the date of this Order;4 and
4 Upon an appropriate motion, the court will consider additional time for the Debtor to pay this fine.
Case 21-01840-5-DMW Doc 51 Filed 10/22/25 Entered 10/22/25 13:01:51 Page 5 of 7

6
3. 	The Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court is requested to forward a copy of
this Order to the United States Attorney for consideration of prosecution for any violation of
federal law that the Debtor may have committed.
END OF DOCUMENT
Case 21-01840-5-DMW Doc 51 Filed 10/22/25 Entered 10/22/25 13:01:51 Page 6 of 7

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
IN RE: 	CASE NO. 22-01251-5-DMW
21-01840-0-DMW
DEJA RODNIQUE JARREL WILLIAMS 	CHAPTER 13
DEBTOR
ORDER VACATING BANKRUPTCY AS FILED IN ERROR OR FRAUDULENTLY
This matter having come before the Court upon motion of the debtor, and the Court
having reviewed the pleadings, evidence, and arguments presented, and having determined that the
Chapter13 petition was filed:
Without the debtor’s knowledge, consent, or authorization, Or as a result of fraud or clerical
error, AND THE COURT FINDING good cause exists under Rule 9024 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate the filing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition filed in this case on [08/16/2021,
06/09/2022] is hereby declared void ab initio and is VACATED in its entirety.This case shall be
treated as if it were never filed, and any record of the filing shall be corrected accordingly.
The Clerk is directed to update the docket and records of the Court to reflect that this case was filed in
error/fraudulently and has been vacated by order of the Court. The debtor and/or their authorized
representative may provide this Order to credit reporting agencies or other interested parties for the
purpose of correcting any public records or credit information that may have been impacted by the
erroneous filing.
____________________________________
David M. Warren
United States Bankruptcy Judge
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 29 day of May 2025
______________________________________________________________________
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
END OF DOCUMENT
Case 21-01840-5-DMW Doc 51 Filed 10/22/25 Entered 10/22/25 13:01:51 Page 7 of 7