10 Reasons why to sanction Joseph Hong

1. Lied to the court

2. Sued the wrong party

3. Met the judge ex parte

4/23/19 HEARING AFTER JUDGE KISHNER CALLED MELANIE MORGAN TO SHOW UP

4. Concealed material facts

5/23/19 Stokes $355,000 deed of trust was misrepresented as Jimijack-Nationstar settlement of all claims

5. Concealed conflicts

Ownership interest in F. Bondurant LLC

6. Dumped defective deed

Fraudulent conveyance

NRS 205.330  Fraudulent conveyances.  Every person who shall be a party to any fraudulent conveyance of any lands, tenements or hereditaments, goods or chattels, or any right or interest issuing out of the same, or to any bond, suit, judgment or execution, contract or conveyance, had, made or contrived with intent to deceive and defraud others, or to defeat, hinder or delay creditors or others of their just debts, damages or demands; or who, being a party as aforesaid, at any time shall wittingly and willingly put in use, avow, maintain, justify or defend the same, or any of them, as true and done, had, or made in good faith, or upon good consideration, or shall alien, assign or sell any of the lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods, chattels or other things before mentioned, conveyed to him or her as aforesaid, or any part thereof, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

      [1911 C&P § 430; RL § 6695; NCL § 10382] — (NRS A 1967, 502)

NRS 205.330
Jimijack’s deed was inadmissible per NRS 111.345
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

Joel & Sandra Stokes and or Joseph Hong and/or Robert Goldsmith recorded false claims on 6/9/15, 6/9/15, 12/1/15, 5/1/19, 5/23/19, 5/28/19, 7/24/19, 12/3/19, 12/27/19, and 12/27/19 and aided and abetted false claims to be recorded on 6/3/19, 6/4/19, 7/10/19, 7/17/1912/27/19, 2/6/20, 2/6/20,  and 12/4/20, 2/5/21, and 2/12/21.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Joseph Hong (NV Bar #5995) filed written false statements, filed frivolous unsupported harassing pleadings, knowingly made false verbal statements, made fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts, concealed/failed to disclose material facts, conspired with others, received proceeds, on these dates, 6/9/15 DEED, 6/16/15, 8/12/15, 10/16/15, 6/14/16, 8/30/16, 9/29/16 RTRAN, 12/5/16, 12/20/16 RTRAN, 3/13/17, 3/13/17, 3/13/17, 12/5/18,  3/25/19, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 4/15/19, 4/22/19, 4/23/19 minutes,  4/23/19 RTRAN, 4/23/19 RTRAN annotated, 4/25/19 RTRAN, 5/1/19 DEED, 5/3/19, 5/21/19, 5/23/19 Agreement, 5/24/19, 5/29/19 video, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 6/3/19 RTRAN, 6/3/19 video, 6/5/19, 6/5/19 video, 6/5/19 RTRAN, 6/5/19 video, 6/6/19 RTRAN, 6/24/19, 6/28/19, 8/7/19, 8/13/19, 9/3/19 RTRAN, 9/3/19 video, 6/25/20, 7/1/20,  8/3/20 annotated,, 8/11/20 video, 8/11/20 RTRAN, 10/8/20, 10/8/20 annotated, 10/16/20 OST, 10/16/20 NEO, 10/29/20 RTRAN, 10/29/20 video, 11/3/20 video, 11/3/20 RTRAN

8. Abused innocent parties

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.

9. Burden of proof not met

10. Prior pattern of deceit

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, 221983, 18491987, 6372001, 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, 18911987, 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

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
ATTACHMENT 7 NOTICE OF TOBIN- HANSEN TRUST COMPLETION OF MEDIATION
ATTACHMENT 8 4/14/19 NONA TOBIN DECL VS. NATIONSTAR
ATTACHMENT 9 3/14/19 COMPLAINT TO THE NV ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTACHMENT 10 11/10/20 2ND 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

2004061100055476/11/04 DEED Marilyn to Gordon Hansen in divorce
2004072200035077/22/04 DEED OF TRUST this is the loan that is the subject of years of litigation (Herein “Hansen DOT”
2004081700022848/17/04 RECONVEYANCE after Gordon & Marilyn’s $55,000 2nd DOT from Wells Fargo was paid off
2004083100075638/31/04 SUBSTITUTION/RECONVEYANCE when Gordon & Marilyn’s 7/31/03 $310,600 1st DOT from City First mortgage was paid off
200409010007297HOMESTEAD 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.

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 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 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 0 RECORDED, and it is pictured below.

Terms of the Hansen deed of trust recorded on 7/22/04

$436,000 loaned on 7/15/04

Due in full on 8/1/2034, 30-year fixed @ 6.25%

Borrower: Gordon B. Hansen, an unmarried man

Lender: Western Thrift & Loan, MERS as nominee for the beneficiary

Trustee: Joan H. Anderson

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. 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 of delinquent assessments, rejected or not, as a de facto foreclosure without due process.

Nationstar disclosed the PUD Rider Remedies section was disclosed as NSM 160 so ignorance cannot be an excuse.

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 :

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
ATTACHMENT 7 NOTICE OF TOBIN- HANSEN TRUST COMPLETION OF MEDIATION
ATTACHMENT 8 4/14/19 NONA TOBIN DECL VS. NATIONSTAR
ATTACHMENT 9 3/14/19 COMPLAINT TO THE NV ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTACHMENT 10 11/10/20 2ND 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.