Judge Peterson refused to recuse herself from the decision about whether to vacate ex parte vexatious litigant restrictive order. Why?
12/19/22 Tobin motion for an order to show cause (“MOSC”) why written finding of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar to avoid Tobin having to file separate civil actions because the State Bar will not investigate the complaints without a court order that contains written findings. The MOSC was supported by Requests for judicial notice of the uninvestigated complaints and the draft civil actions that would have to be filed separately if this court declined to file
3/28/23 orderas it was adopted without notice or opportunity to oppose
Tobin’s opposition that Judge Peterson steadfastly refused to allow to be attached to the 3/28/23 order rendering it virtually impossible to appeal
Tobin’s 4/26/23 motion to disqualify Judge Peterson as her impartiality can reasonably be questioned due to improper ex parte communications and acting outside her jurisdiction and conduct in the hearings that showed she made decisions by relying solely on the misrepresentations of opposing counsels and without consideration of Tobin’s evidence. Chief Judge is requested to set aside Judge Peterson’s orders on t from the decision to set aside the orders first on jurisdictional grounds and then on Rules 59 and/or 60 misconduct of the prevailing parties.
5/3/23 Judge Peterson’s affidavit misstates the court record including misrepresenting who the parties are, stating that the case is over, the appeal period is over, but that she can be fair and handle any decisions that are remaining. Given that by refusing to recuse herself is the only way she can guarantee that her extraordinarily harsh and damaging orders against me, that prevent my title claims from ever being adjudicated based on evidence, can stand, why is she insisting on it? What’s in it for her?
5/10/23 Non-party Red Rock LLC’s opposition to my 4/26/23 motion reiterates the same false version of history that omits the fact that there has never been an evidentiary adjudication of anyone’s claims in this case ever and omits the basic fact that he filed the interpleader action in bad faith knowing that Red Rock didn’t have standing to file it, the legal standard for interpleader was not met, and I was the only person with standing to file a claim for the interpleaded proceeds since 6/3/19 before the show trial in the 1st action.
NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation; penalty.
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,
NRS 205.380 Obtaining money, property, rent or labor by false pretenses.
NRS 207.470 civil actions for damages resulting from racketeering.
1. Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by reason of any violation of NRS 207.400 has a cause of action against a person causing such injury for three times the actual damages sustained. An injured person may also recover attorney’s fees in the trial and appellate courts and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred. The defendant or any injured person in the action may demand a trial by jury in any civil action brought pursuant to this section. Any injured person has a claim to forfeited property or the proceeds derived therefrom and this claim is superior to any claim the State may have to the same property or proceeds if the injured person’s claim is asserted before a final decree is issued which grants forfeiture of the property or proceeds to the State.
4. Any civil remedy provided pursuant to this section is not exclusive of any other available remedy or penalty
NRS 207.480 Order of court upon determination of civil liability.
Plaintiff Nona Tobin repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations hereinabove inclusively as though set forth at length and in full herein.
Defendants, and each of them, misappropriated or otherwise improperly took possession of monies which belonged to or should have gone to Plaintiff.
As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff has been damaged in excess of $15,000 and in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
Defendants’ acts were committed with fraud, oppression, and/or malice, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages pursuant to NRS 42.005 in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Defendants’ acts, it has become necessary for Plaintiff to secure the services of an attorney, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover fees and costs incurred herein as damages.
The dispute is over a $436,000 Western Thrift & Loan Deed of Trust (DOT) executed by Gordon Hansen on 7/15/04. Nationstar serviced the loan beginning on 12/1/13 on behalf of an investor NSM refused to identify.
On 12/1/14, Nationstar recorded a claim that Nationstar was owed the $389,000 balance that remained outstanding after the borrowerʼs death.
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
No bank foreclosure was ever initiated on the Hansen deed of trust. Nationstar just stole it.
Neither servicing bank, (Nationstar succeeded Bank of America as servicing on 12/1/13) foreclosed on the Hansen DOT even though it was in default after Hansen died on 1/14/12.
Had Nationstar been the beneficiary of the DOT, it would have foreclosed or collected the debt by allowing the property to be sold at fair market value. NSM did not record a notice of default on the Hansen DOT.
Nationstar did not allow the property to be sold to MZK for $367,500 on 5/8/14. Nationstar did not complain when RRFS rejected its 5/28/14 super-priority offer of $1100 to close the MZK escrow.
Nationstar allowed the property to be sold for $63,100 while a $358,800 was pending lender approval .
Then, three months after the HOA foreclosed to collect $2,000 in delinquent HOA dues, NSM claimed that Bank of America gave NSM the Hansen DOT on 10/23/14.
Nationstar recorded and filed false claims and dismissed all its claims without adjudication
In February 2019, Nationstar refused to produce any documents in response to Tobinʼs RFDs and interrogatories to prove any of its claims.
On 3/8/19, Nationstar recorded that it rescinded its 12/1/14 claim that it got its interest from Bank of America, and then two hours later recorded that it had Wells Fargoʼs undisclosed power of attorney to give Nationstar the authority to assign Wells Fargoʼs non-existent interest to Nationstar.
Nationstar produced no proof that it owned the Hansen DOT during two lawsuits over the validity of the HOA sale.
All the evidence Nationstar entered into the record actually proved the opposite, but it was never subjected to judicial scrutiny Nationstar.
The real owner of the Hansen DOT would have supported Tobinʼs efforts to void the sale so the DOT would not have survived as it the sale had never happened.
Tobin and Nationstar were initially aligned to get the court to void the HOA sale until Nationstar learned that it would be impossible to foreclose on Tobin since Tobin had put it into the record that she had documents that could prove NATIONSTAR did not have the standing to foreclose.
Nationstarʼs covert deal with Joel Stokes was solely to prevent the Court from conducting an evidentiary hearing that would have exposed the inconvenient truth that neither Nationstar nor Stokes could prove their claims.
Nationstar was excused from trial by saying all claims had been resolved by Nationstar-Jimiack settlement.
The HOA wrongly foreclosed, but not without Nationstarʼs assistance.
The banks could have stopped the HOA from foreclosing by recording a Notice of Default (NRS 116.31162(6)).
The HOA sale should have been cancelled when BANAʼs agent tendered $825 on 5/9/13 to cure the nine months that were then delinquent.
The HOA sale would have been avoided if the serving banks had not prevented four escrows from closing as escrows instructions were to pay the HOA whatever it demanded.
The HOA sale would have been avoided if Nationstar had not rejected the 5/8/14 $367,500 www.auction.com sale to MZK Properties.
Nationstar, the servicing bank that is supposed to be a fiduciary, acting on behalf of the investor, turned a blind eye to an 8/15/14 HOA sale for 18% of the $367,500 www.auction.com sale price that Nationstar had just rejected.
NATIONSTAR does not hold the original Hansen promissory note.
NSM 258-259 is a COPY of the Hansen promissory note that Nationstar entered into the record to trick the Court.
NSM does not have Hansenʼs original note, but NSM tried to conceal that fact by disclosing a COPY in NSM 258
3/27/17 NSM filed a DECL that misrepresents its servicing bank record to deceive the court that NSM had no proof it owned the DOT
All Nationstar’s and Bank of America’s recorded actions affecting the Hansen deed of trust are fraudulent
All Nationstar’s disclosures in discovery were deceptive and fraudulent
Wells Fargo did not assign anything to Nationstar.
Page 7 is Morgan’s totally deceptive ploy to obfuscate the fact that Nationstar has no valid claim to be the beneficiary.
Servicing banks (those that handle the paperwork on behalf of the “beneficiary” who is the investor to whom the debt is actually owed).
The dispute with Nationstar is not because Nationstar wrongly foreclosed on the Hansen deed of trust.
The dispute is caused by:
Both BANA & Nationstar obstructing multiple fair market value, arms-length sales, approved by the Hansen Estate.
Nationstar’s letting the HOA foreclose without notice for 18% of the $367,500 www.auction.com sale that Nationstar had just rejected, and then
After the Hansen DOT was extinguished by the HOA foreclosure, Nationstar lied on the record about being owed the $389,000 outstanding balance on Hansenʼs DOT.
According to NRS 107.28, (2.) A trustee under a deed of trust must not be the beneficiary of the deed of trust for the purposes of exercising the power of sale pursuant to NRS 107.080, but Nationstar claimed to be both the beneficiary and the trustee – when it was neither – and reconveyed the property to Joel Stokes on 6/3/19 to steal the house from Nona Tobin
The Clark County Recorderʼs Office Property Record shows NSM began recording conflicting claims on 12/1/14, more than three months after the HOA sale.
Nationstar lied in its 1/11/16 complaint to say that some unspecified entity had assigned its interest to Nationstar on 2/4/11
BANA & NSM recorded 11 claims regarding the Hansen DOT, but neither ever recorded a Notice of Default, the mandatory condition precedent to the trusteeʼs executing the power of sale on behalf of the beneficiary.
No bank has the right to confiscate a property without foreclosing by following the notice and due process steps defined in NRS 107.080, as amneded by AB 284 (21011), Nevada’s anti-foreclosure fraud law.
Concealed from Judge Kishner the 5/1/19 deed from Jimijack to Joel Stokes recorded before the 6/5/19 quiet title trial to determine if Jimijack had a title claim that was superior to Nona Tobin’s title.
7. Covered up crimes
Civil Conspiracy with Melanie Morgan to make a fraudulent side deal to obstruct Nona Tobin’s access to a fair, evidence-based adjudication of her claims.
Covered up the many false claims recorded to title
Hong’s combined court filings from 2016-2020 were all in opposition to Nona Tobin’s claims being heard. All were unwarranted, abusive, and obstructed the administration of justice by suppressing evidence and lying to the court.