The State Bar of Nevada doesn’t think it’s their job either

Complaints to the Nevada Attorney General

11/10/20 2nd complaint to the NV AG

Linked Table of Contents to Exhibits

12/4/20 NV AG rejection of complaint

Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline Complaint

Download this single-page NCJD letter. It includes all 16 attachments listed below are part of one PDF: 2012-026 NCJD NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE CASE 2021-026

ATTACHMENT 1 NV CODE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE EXCERPTS

ATTACHMENT 2 NCJD OUTLINE OF CLAIMS VS. KISHNER

ATTACHMENT 3 1/28/NCJD COMPLAINT VS. KISHNER

ATTACHMENT 4 UNHEARD MSJ VS. JIMIJACK

ATTACHMENT 5 UNHEARD MSJ VS. ALL

ATTACHMENT6 EVIDENCE STRICKEN EX PARTE

A TTACHMENT 7 NOTICE OF TOBIN- HANSEN TRUST COMPLETION OF MEDIATION

A TTACHMENT 8 4/14/19 NONA TOBIN DECL VS. NATIONSTAR

A TTACHMENT 9 3/14/19 COMPLAINT TO THE NV ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTACHMENT 10 11/10/20 2^ND COMPLAINT TO THE NV ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTACHMENT 11 EX PARTE MINUTES

ATTACHMENT 12 EX PARTE TRANSCRIPT

ATTACHMENT 13 RECORDED FRAUD BY NATIONSTAR

ATTACHMENT 14 EX PARTE 001-005 KISHNER

ATTACHMENT 15 OBSTRUCTION OF FORCED LITIGATION

ATTACHMENT 16 EX PARTE STRICKEN NOT HEARD

Link to YouTube channel Judicial Jiu-jitsu

Video 9 in the Fraud on the Court series; “Nevada state courts are rigged“

Video 6 in the Fraud on the Court series: “Failure of Nevada civil courts to address white collar crime”

What is a Lis Pendens?

Link to Lis Pendens recorded against the title of 2763 White Sage to 8/14/19

Chiesi/Quicken recorded claims on 12/27/19 while Tobin’s lis pendens were on record which gave them notice of the title disputes in litigation. Brian and Debora Chiesi bought the property from Joel Stokes knowing that Joel Stokes did not have a valid deed as Jimijack had no valid interest to transfer and that Joel Stokes had not been party to the quiet title trial against Jimijack before Judge Kishner, and that Jimijack and Nationstar concealed from the court both Joel Stokes’ 5/1/19 deed and his encumbering the property on 5/23/19 with a $355,000 personal loan from non-party Civic Financial Services. Quicken Loans encumbered the property with a new $353,500 deed of trust on 12/27/19 knowing that the property was still encumbered with the 5/23/19 Civic Financial Services $355,000 deed of trust to Joel Stokes.

12/3/20 order unfairly expunged Tobin’s lis pendens as if they had never been recorded

“Said cancellation has the same effect as an expungement of the original notice.”
lines 8-9, 12/3/20 order, recorded 12/4/20 by Quicken Loans’s and Brian & Debora Chiesi’s attorney, Brittany Wood, to cover up the duplicity of their 12/27/19 recorded claims while Tobin’s lis pendens were on record

NRS 14.010 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Recording.

NRS 14.010 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Recording.
      1. In an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon real property, or affecting the title or possession of real property, the plaintiff, at the time of filing the complaint, and the defendant, at the time of filing his or her answer, if affirmative relief is claimed in the answer, shall record with the recorder of the county in which the property, or some part thereof, is situated, a notice of the pendency of the action, containing the names of the parties, the object of the action and a description of the property in that county affected thereby, and the defendant shall also in the notice state the nature and extent of the relief claimed in the answer.
      2. A notice of an action affecting real property, which is pending in any United States District Court for the District of Nevada may be recorded and indexed in the same manner and in the same place as provided with respect to actions pending in courts of this state.
      3. From the time of recording only, except as otherwise provided in NRS 14.017, the pendency of the action is constructive notice to a purchaser or encumbrancer of the property affected thereby. In case of the foreclosure of the mortgage, all purchasers or encumbrancers, by unrecorded deed or other instrument in writing made before the recording of the notice, and after the date of the mortgage, shall be deemed purchasers or encumbrancers after the recording of the notice, and subject thereto, unless NRS 14.017 is applicable or they can show that, at the time of recording the notice, the plaintiff had actual notice of the purchase or encumbrance.
      [1911 CPA § 79; RL § 5021; NCL § 8577] — (NRS A 1969, 22; 1983, 1849; 1987, 637; 2001, 1747)
NRS 14.010

NRS 14.015 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Hearing; cancellation; bond.

NRS 14.015 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Hearing; cancellation; bond.
      1. After a notice of pendency of an action has been recorded with the recorder of the county, the defendant or, if affirmative relief is claimed in the answer, the plaintiff, may request that the court hold a hearing on the notice, and such a hearing must be set as soon as is practicable, taking precedence over all other civil matters except a motion for a preliminary injunction.
      2. Upon 15 days’ notice, the party who recorded the notice of pendency of the action must appear at the hearing and, through affidavits and other evidence which the court may permit, establish to the satisfaction of the court that:
      (a) The action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon the real property described in the notice or affects the title or possession of the real property described in the notice;
      (b) The action was not brought in bad faith or for an improper motive;
      (c) The party who recorded the notice will be able to perform any conditions precedent to the relief sought in the action insofar as it affects the title or possession of the real property; and
      (d) The party who recorded the notice would be injured by any transfer of an interest in the property before the action is concluded.
      3. In addition to the matters enumerated in subsection 2, the party who recorded the notice must establish to the satisfaction of the court either:
      (a) That the party who recorded the notice is likely to prevail in the action; or
      (b) That the party who recorded the notice has a fair chance of success on the merits in the action and the injury described in paragraph (d) of subsection 2 would be sufficiently serious that the hardship on him or her in the event of a transfer would be greater than the hardship on the defendant resulting from the notice of pendency,
Ê and that if the party who recorded the notice prevails he or she will be entitled to relief affecting the title or possession of the real property.
      4. The party opposing the notice of the pendency of an action may submit counter-affidavits and other evidence which the court permits.
      5. If the court finds that the party who recorded the notice of pendency of the action has failed to establish any of the matters required by subsection 2, the court shall order the cancellation of the notice of pendency and shall order the party who recorded the notice to record with the recorder of the county a copy of the order of cancellation. The order must state that the cancellation has the same effect as an expungement of the original notice.
      6. If the court finds that the party who recorded the notice of pendency of the action has established the matters required by subsection 2, the party opposing the notice may request the court to determine whether a bond in an amount to be determined by the court would provide adequate security for any damages which the party who recorded the notice might incur if the notice were so cancelled and the party opposing the notice did not prevail in the action. If the court determines that a bond would provide adequate security, the party opposing the notice may post a bond or other security in the amount determined by the court. The court shall then order the cancellation of the notice of pendency and shall order the party opposing the notice to record with the recorder of the county a copy of the order of cancellation. The order must state that the cancellation has the same effect as an expungement of the original notice.
      (Added to NRS by 1979, 982; A 1981, 1891; 1987, 638)
NRS 14.015

NRS 14.017 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Transferability of property after withdrawal or cancellation.

NRS 14.017 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Transferability of property after withdrawal or cancellation.
1. Upon the withdrawal of a notice of the pendency of an action affecting real property, or upon the recordation of a certified copy of a court order for the cancellation of a notice of the pendency of such an action with the recorder of the county in which the notice was recorded, each person who thereafter acquires an interest in the property as a purchaser, transferee, mortgagee or other encumbrancer for a valuable consideration, except a party to the action who is not designated by a fictitious name at the time of the withdrawal or order of cancellation, shall be deemed to be without knowledge of the action or of any matter, claim or allegation contained therein, irrespective of whether the person has or at any time had actual knowledge of the action or of any matter, claim or allegation contained therein.
2. The purpose of this section is to provide for the absolute and complete transferability of real property after the withdrawal or cancellation of a notice of the pendency of an action affecting the property.
NRS 14.017

What is racketeering as it relates to Nona Tobin’s case?

NRS 207.360 “Crime related to racketeering” defined.

NRS 207.360 “Crime related to racketeering” defined. [Effective July 1, 2020.] “Crime related to racketeering” means the commission of, attempt to commit or conspiracy to commit any of the following crimes:
           9. Taking property from another under circumstances not amounting to robbery;
      18. Grand larceny;
      29. Perjury or subornation of perjury;
      30. Offering false evidence;
      35. Any violation of NRS 205.377;
      (Added to NRS by 1983, 1495; A 1989, 18, 160; 1991, 124, 161; 1997, 493; 1999, 2642; 2001, 1100; 2003, 2951; 2005, 79; 2009, 144; 2011, 173; 2013, 2434, 3697; 2017, 511; 2019, 2632, 4443, effective July 1, 2020)
NRS 207.360

Multiple false claims to title have increased penalties

NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation; penalty.

NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation; penalty. [Effective through June 30, 2020.]
      1. A person shall not, in the course of an enterprise or occupation, knowingly and with the intent to defraud, engage in an act, practice or course of business or employ a device, scheme or artifice which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person by means of a false representation or omission of a material fact that:
      (a) The person knows to be false or omitted;
      (b) The person intends another to rely on; and
      (c) Results in a loss to any person who relied on the false representation or omission,
Ê in at least two transactions that have the same or similar pattern, intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents within 4 years and in which the aggregate loss or intended loss is more than $650.
      2. Each act which violates subsection 1 constitutes a separate offense.
      3. A person who violates subsection 1 is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.
      4. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order a person who violates subsection 1 to pay restitution.
      5. A violation of this section constitutes a deceptive trade practice for the purposes of NRS 598.0903 to 598.0999, inclusive.
      6. As used in this section, “enterprise” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 207.380.
      (Added to NRS by 2009, 143; A 2011, 168)
NRS 205.377

Recording false claims to title is a crime in Nevada

NRS 205.395 False representation concerning title; penalties; civil action.

1. Every person who:
      (a) Claims an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property in a document that is recorded in the office of the county recorder in which the real property is located and who knows or has reason to know that the document is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid;
      (b) Executes or notarizes a document purporting to create an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, that is recorded in the office of the county recorder in which the real property is located and who knows or has reason to know that the document is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid; or
      (c) Causes a document described in paragraph (a) or (b) to be recorded in the office of the county recorder in which the real property is located and who knows or has reason to know that the document is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid,
Ê has made a false representation concerning title.
      2. A person who makes a false representation concerning title in violation of subsection 1 is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
      3. A person who engages in a pattern of making false representations concerning title is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 3 years and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, or by a fine of not more than $50,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
      4. In addition to the criminal penalties imposed for a violation of this section, any person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. This penalty must be recovered in a civil action, brought in the name of the State of Nevada by the Attorney General. In such an action, the Attorney General may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
      5. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the owner or holder of the beneficial interest in real property which is the subject of a false representation concerning title may bring a civil action in the district court in and for the county in which the real property is located to recover any damages suffered by the owner or holder of the beneficial interest plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The owner or holder of the beneficial interest in the real property must, before bringing a civil action pursuant to this subsection, send a written request to the person who made the false representation to record a document which corrects the false representation. If the person records such a document not later than 20 days after the date of the written request, the owner or holder of the beneficial interest may not bring a civil action pursuant to this subsection.
      6. As used in this section:
      (a) “Encumbrance” includes, without limitation, a lis pendens or other notice of the pendency of an action.
      (b) “Pattern of making false representations concerning title” means one or more violations of a provision of subsection 1 committed in two or more transactions:
             (1) Which have the same or similar pattern, purposes, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics;
             (2) Which are not isolated incidents within the preceding 4 years; and
             (3) In which the aggregate loss or intended loss is more than $250.
      [1911 C&P § 441; RL § 6706; NCL § 10394] — (NRS A 2011, 338, 1748; 2015, 1358)
NRS 205.395

The P.U.D. RIDER must be enforced to protect HOA homeowners from corporate corruption.

The banks deceived the Courts about the “F. Remedies” contract term in the Planned Unit Development Rider.

This scheme isn’t just how Nationstar stole a house from me.

This is the same ploy that many, many banks have used to steal many, many houses from HOA homeowners.

It works because the HOA debt collectors conspired with the corrupt attorneys/lenders to conceal the existence of the PUUD Rider Remedies from the owners and from the courts.

Nationstar knew the PUD Rider remedy limits, but misrepresented it.

Nationstar disclosed the Hansen deed OF TRUST as NSM 141-162.

The Planned Unit Development Rider Remedies F was disclosed as NSM 160. In the 2004 Recorded documents, it is numbered 2004 021 RECORDED.

it is the featured image of this blog and it is pictured again below.

If a lender pays late HOA dues, the ONLY recovery is the amount paid with interest charged at the note rate.

PUD rider remedies f. provides that lenders are contractually authorized only to add delinquent HOA assessments to the outstanding loan balance and add interest at the note rate (here 6.25%).

Lenders are prohibited from using the tender, offer or payment of delinquent assessments, rejected or not, as a de facto foreclosure to confiscate an owner’s property without due process.

Nationstar disclosed the PUD Rider Remedies section so ignorance cannot be an excuse when Nationstar filed its duplicitous 2/12/19 joinder in order to get rid of the owner without foreclosing.

Nationstar was not ever owed Hansen’s debt

Nationstar disclosed that it does not hold the origInal note by disclosing a copy as NSM 158-160.

NSM’s copy of the note shows Nationstar, Wells Fargo and bank of Amercia are not in the chain of title of endorsements.

Criminal penalties must be applied.

All recorded assignments of the Hansen DEED OF TRUST that culminated in Nationstar reconveying the Hansen DEED OF TRUST to Joel Stokes, an individual, on 6/3/19, were false claims to title in the meaning of NRS 205.395.

Evidence in this case has been submitted to administrative enforcement agencies

Violations of NRS 205.395, NRS 207.360, and other statutes in this particular case are documented in 11/10/20 complaint to the Nevada Attorney General (See TOC of AG exhibits), 12/16/20 complaint to the Mortgage Servicing Division (See TOC 12/16/20 complaint), NCJD 2021-026,

The pattern of racketeering by financial institutions is well documented nationwide.

National banking associations’ corrupt business practices were revealed in :

12/7/20 national settlement agreement and consent order,
its 8/17/18 settlement and release,
the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement and consent judgment for Bank of America,
the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement and consent judgment for Wells Fargo.

The PUD Rider is just their special trick reserved for screwing HOA homeowners.

Fraud on the Court

Video playlist in this blog

Video 1 “Judicial Jiu-jitsu is fraud on the court”

Video 2 “Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof”

Video 3 “Nationstar lied about being owed $389,000”

Video 4 “Nationstar plays the I.O.U. trick to steal from Nona’s house”

Video 5 “Nationstar kept changing its story to cover up the lies”

Video 6 “Failure of Nevada civil courts to address white collar crime”

Video 7 “Specific evidence against Nationstar”

Video 8 “How Nationstar and Jimijack tricked the court”

Video 9 “Nevada state courts are rigged”

Video 1 in the fraud on the court series: “Judicial Jiu-jitsu is fraud on the court”

Video 2 in the Fraud on the Court series “Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof”

Video 3 in the Fraud on the Court series; “Nationstar lied about being owed $389,000”

Video 4 in the Fraud on the Court series; “Nationstar plays the I.O.U. trick to steal from Nona”

Video 5 in the Fraud on the Court series; “Nationstar kept changing its story to cover up the lies”

Video 6 in the Fraud on the Court series: “Failure of Nevada civil courts to address white collar crime”

Video 7 in the Fraud on the Court series: “Specific evidence against Nationstar”

Video 8 in the Fraud on the Court series: “How Nationstar and Jimijack tricked the court“

Video 9 in the Fraud on the Court series; “Nevada state courts are rigged“

The manipulation of this court forced a complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline which is now pending.

NCJD 2021-026

2012-026 NCJD NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE CASE 2021-026

ATTACHMENT 1 NV CODE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE EXCERPTS

ATTACHMENT 2 NCJD OUTLINE OF CLAIMS VS. KISHNER

ATTACHMENT 3 1/28/NCJD COMPLAINT VS. KISHNER

ATTACHMENT 4 UNHEARD MSJ VS. JIMIJACK

ATTACHMENT 5 UNHEARD MSJ VS. ALL

ATTACHMENT6 EVIDENCE STRICKEN EX PARTE

A TTACHMENT 7 NOTICE OF TOBIN- HANSEN TRUST COMPLETION OF MEDIATION

A TTACHMENT 8 4/14/19 NONA TOBIN DECL VS. NATIONSTAR

A TTACHMENT 9 3/14/19 COMPLAINT TO THE NV ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTACHMENT 10 11/10/20 2^ND COMPLAINT TO THE NV ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTACHMENT 11 EX PARTE MINUTES

ATTACHMENT 12 EX PARTE TRANSCRIPT

ATTACHMENT 13 RECORDED FRAUD BY NATIONSTAR

ATTACHMENT 14 EX PARTE 001-005 KISHNER

ATTACHMENT 15 OBSTRUCTION OF FORCED LITIGATION

ATTACHMENT 16 EX PARTE STRICKEN NOT HEARD

12/16/20 verified complaint vs. Nationstar to the Nevada Mortgage Lending Division provides 692 pages of evidence supporting Nona Tobin’s claim of mortgage servicing fraud.

Request for Judicial Notice 2004 Property Record

2004 001-026 RECORDED

200406110005547	6/11/04 DEED Marilyn to Gordon Hansen in divorce
200407220003507	7/22/04 DEED OF TRUST this is the loan that is the subject of years of litigation (Herein “Hansen DOT”
200408170002284	8/17/04 RECONVEYANCE after Gordon & Marilyn’s $55,000 2nd DOT from Wells Fargo was paid off
200408310007563	8/31/04 SUBSTITUTION/RECONVEYANCE when Gordon & Marilyn’s 7/31/03 $310,600 1st DOT from City First mortgage was paid off
200409010007297	HOMESTEAD Declaration by Gordon Hansen, an unmarried man

What to note about the 2004 record

7/22/04 HANSEN DEED OF TRUST IS THE KEY DISPUTE.

This is the heart of the fraud by the banks and their attorneys, aided and abetted by HOA attorneys and debt collectors.

Key Issue:

The Hansen DOT was securitized out of existence immediately on origination. No lender holds the original promissory note.

No debt was endorsed to any lender in this dispute.

Nationstar’s claims to be owed the deceased borrower’s $389,000 debt, outstanding since 2011, are lies.

Nationstar’s recorded claims and false statements to three Nevada district courts and to two Nevada courts of Appeals and to the Nevada Supreme Court for the corrupt purpose of stealing a debt it was not owed.