Judges are expected to promote confidence in the judiciary by performing fairly and impartially

Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) provisions implicated in my motion to disqualify Judge Peterson.

Rule 1.1.  Compliance With the Law.  A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.     

Rule 1.2.  Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

 2.2.  Impartiality and Fairness.  A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.

 Rule 2.9.  Ex Parte Communications.

      (A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending or impending matter, except as follows:

      (1) When circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, which does not address substantive matters, is permitted, provided:

             (a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and

             (b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication and gives the parties an opportunity to respond.

The standard of review is if a reasonable person knowing the facts would agree that Judge Peterson should be disqualified from the case.

I contend that Judge Peterson did not treat me fairly or promote confidence in the judiciary by specific actions or inactions. Each example will be presented separately along with hyperlinks to the documentary evidence.

8/19/21 Judge Peterson did not end the meritless interpleader action in my favor in 2021. She left it hanging for two years and wrongly dismissed my other legitimate claims with prejudice without considering the evidence or the law.

02/03/212Doc ID# 2 Complaint for interpleader
3/8/202114Doc ID# 14 Nona Tobin’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Answer And Counter-Claim vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Cross-Claims Vs. Nationstar Mortgage LLC And Wells Fargo, N.A., And Motion For Sanctions vs. Red Rock Financial Services And Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and/or Nationstar Mortgage dba Mr. Cooper Pursuant To NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005
4/12/202122Doc ID# 22 Nona Tobin’s Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin

2/17/202113Doc ID# 13 Disclaimer of interest – Republic Services
3/15/202115Doc ID# 15 Request for Judicial Notice
Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Complete Official Clark County 2003-2021 Property Records for APN 191-13-811-052

4/9/202120Doc ID# 20 Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Answer to Red Rock Financial Services’ Complaint for Interpleader (NRCP 22)

On 8/19/21, she refused to hear and decide my motion to grant me the $57,282.32 excess proceeds from the 8/15/14 HOA sale of late fiance’s home, plus interest at the Nevada legal interest rate when these things were undisputed at that time:

  1. I was the only party who had timely filed a claim for the proceeds
  2. I was the only party who had ever filed a civil claim for the proceeds.
  3. Nevada law (NRS 116.31164(3)(c ) required those proceeds be distributed in the manner proscribed in the statute after the sale in 2014.
  4. All fees that the statute allowed Red Rock to collect Red Rock had collected before the $57,282.32 was declared “excess” as shown on page 3, #10 “In connection with the foreclosure sale, the Association was paid the money it was owed, and RRFS was paid its fees and costs incurred in collecting the debt as allowed by contract and Nevada law. After paying these costs, RRFS was left with funds of $57,282.32.”
  5. Red Rock’s statement in the complaint on page 3, #12, is provably false and rendered the entire interpleader action to be meritless and unwarranted and filed for an improper purpose.“Records in Clark County, Nevada indicate that there are several potential liens and other debts secured by the Subject Property belonging to the defendants in this action. RRFS believes these debts exceed the amount currently in the possession of RRFS.”
  6. Records in Clark County for the property, APN 191-13-811-052, in their entirety were provided to the court in a request for judicial notice that I filed on 3/15/21 and hand-delivered in 3-ring binders to the court on the 11th floor of the Phoenix Building on or about 5/11/21, show exactly that the liens of all the named defendants except me as an individual were released June 3, 2019 or before and so it was impossible for this to have been an innocent mistake. An interpleader action requires the multiple competing interests and potential mu