Tag: abuse of power

Violation of NCJC 2.6 as grounds for disqualification

Violation of NCJC 2.6 as grounds for disqualification

I contend that Judge Peterson violated NCJC 2.6 by

  • refusing to conduct the evidentiary hearing that was ordered for 8/18/21,
  • denying my 12/14/21 motion for an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes about the findings in the 9/10/21 and 11/30/21 orders that I allege covered up the criminal actions of my oppoenents vis-a-vis their abuse of the HOA quiet title litigation process to steal from many victims,
  • dismissing my unanswered 3/8/21 claims of Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering and my petitions for sanctions vs. Red Rock and Nationstar with prejudice without making my opponents meet their burden of proof
  • exempting my opponents from timely (NRCP 12(a)(1)(B)) filing a responsive pleading to my claims and granting an untimely, rogue motion to dismiss from a non-party.

Legal authorities supporting the proposition that a judge must allow a party to present evidence to support her case

Fact finding is the “basic responsibility” of trial courts “rather than appellate courts.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982) (quoting DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450 n.22 (1974)); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 123 (1969) (“appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide factual issues”).

Myers v. Haskins, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 51, 8-9 (Nev. App. 2022) (“evidentiary hearings are designed with this purpose in mind: to resolve disputed questions of fact. See DCR 13(6) (recognizing that disputed factual points may be resolved at evidentiary hearings); EDCR 5.205(g) (providing that exhibits attached to motions do not constitute substantive evidence unless admitted); cf. Nev. Power Co. v. Fluor III., 108 Nev. 638, 644-45, 837 P.2d 1354, 1359 (1992) (recognizing that conducting an evidentiary hearing is the only way to properly resolve questions of fact concerning whether to dismiss a party’s suit as a discovery sanction)”)

An evidentiary hearing is required to establish fraud upon the court (NRCP 60(d)(3))

Milam v. Stealth Holdings, LLC, 381 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2012) (“NC–DSH, Inc. v. Garner,125 Nev. 647, 657, 218 P.3d 853, 860–61 (2009)(providing that “[i]t is only after a proper hearing in which the fraud [upon the court] has been established by clear and convincing evidence that relief can be granted.” (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted));”)

List of filings I made that contained evidence that Judge Peterson refused to admit or consider

The list is long because, I believe, Judge Peterson unfairly refused to allow me to assert my actual claims. She kept insisting that all my claims were precluded and nothing was before her but the question of who the interpleaded funds belonged to.

I say that Steven Scow filed the interpleader action in bad faith, knowing that it was meritless and unwarranted and that neither Plaintiff Red Rock nor non-party Red Rock LLC had standing to either pursue and interpleader action nor oppose the court ordering interpleaded funds being distributed to me with interest and penalties for being wrongfully withheld for 8+ years.

My claims for Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering and petitions for sanctions were compulsory counter-claims that should have been granted as unopposed because Red Rock did not file any timely responsive pleading and non-party Red Rck LLC’s motion to dismiss was rogue, untimely, and contained exhibits which the court would have to have considered to make a claims preclusion ruling which would have nessecarily converted it to an MSJ, meaning the factual disputes would have had to have been resolved on a NRCP 56 standard and it could not have been granted as a NRCP 12(b)(5). Further, she refused my motion to amend one time under NRCP 15 for no good reason and didn’t sua spinte move for a more definitive statement if she thought it wasn’t pled to 9(b) standard. She just obviously wanted to be rid of it and me.

3/8/21 unanswered counter- & cross-claims and four requests for judicial notice of the property record, my unadjudicated claims, relevant laws and Sun City Anthem governing documents, and disputed facts in the prior court record (false evidence filed and recorded by my opponents to get the prior courts to bless the theft of my property)

Doc 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

Doc 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

Doc ID# 18 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of Relevant Unadjudicated Civil Claims and Administrative Complaints

Doc ID# 19 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and Sun City Anthem Governing Documents Germane To the Instant Action

Doc ID# 21 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of NRCP 16.1 Disclosures /Subpoena Responses from Discovery in Case A-15-720032-C and Disputed Facts in the Court Record
12/14/21 motion for an evidentiary hearing and replies to Nationstar’s and non-party Red Rock LLC’s opposition and their improper counter-motin for abuse of process and for an unwarranted vexatious litigant restrictive order against me
Doc ID# 75 Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside Orders and for Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 60(B)(3) and (D)(3), NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60 (1) and (3)

Doc ID# 80 Nona Tobin’s Reply to Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Cots Pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) and (3), NRS 18.010(2); and, Countermotion for Abuse of Process for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs

Doc ID# 81 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Nationstar’s And Wells Fargo’s Joinder And Countermotions For Attorney Fees And A Vexatious Litigant Order

12/19/22 motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar of Nevada for disciplinary action

Doc ID# 103 Tobin Motion for An Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded To The State Bar of Nevada

Doc ID# 108 Corrected Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not be Forwarded to the State Bar

Doc ID# 102 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Brittany Wood

Doc ID# 104 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed with The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Steven Scow

Doc ID# 105 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Melanie Morgan, Esq. (SBN 8215), Akerman, LLP; and Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP, and Draft Alternative Civil Action

Doc ID# 106 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Joseph Y. Hong

Doc ID# 107 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. David Ochoa, Esq. (SBN 10414) and Adam Clarkson, Esq.

Legal research question

Is a final judgment order unfairly entered if the court does not allow one side to present its opposition given that appellate courts generally defer to the district court’s findings of fact ?

Nevada courts generally defer to the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. However, a final judgment order may be unfairly entered if the court does not allow one side to present its opposition, misapplies the law, or makes findings not supported by evidence.

Several of the cases I found emphasize the importance of allowing both sides to present their cases in order to ensure a fair trial. For example, in Milam v. Stealth Holdings, LLC, the court discusses the requirement that parties be “fully heard” on an issue before a district court can grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Similarly, in Solinger v. Solinger, the court reiterates that a district court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly erroneous, and that substantial evidence is required to sustain a judgment. Other cases I found highlight the importance of correctly applying the law in order to avoid an unfair judgment. For example, in Long Valley L. D. Co. v. Hunt, the court held that a judgment must be reversed when the court misapplies a rule of law or erroneously places the burden of proof on the losing party. In KY Invs. NV v. King of Condos, Inc., the court discusses the importance of a district court providing a statement of reasons when granting summary judgment, in order to allow for meaningful appellate review.

Finally, a few cases I found emphasize the deference given to district court findings of fact on appeal. For example, in Pickens v. McCarran Mansion, LLC, the court notes that appellate courts are bound by the district court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Similarly, in Bonnell v. Lawrence, the court reiterates that the remedy for legal error is by timely motion or appeal, not by independent action for relief from judgment.

How to disqualify a judge

The Nevada Revised Statutes define the grounds and procedure for disqualification

NRS 1.230 outlines the grounds for disqualification, which include both actual and implied bias.

NRS 1.235 sets out the procedure for disqualification, including the requirement to file an affidavit specifying the grounds for disqualification.

The Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) also provides guidance

The Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) also provides guidance on when a judge should disqualify themselves. NCJC Rule 1.2 requires judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary, and NCJC Rule 2.11(A) requires judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Violating NCJC does not promote confidence in the judiciary and creates a situation where the judge’simpartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Implicated NCJC provisions in my case

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.  A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.

Rule 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 2.6.  Ensuring the Right to Be Heard.

      (A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.

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.

      (B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.

      (C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.

Rule 2.11.  Disqualification.

      (A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

      (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.

      Rule 2.15.  Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct.

(C) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.      

(D) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.

Standard of review for assessing if the grounds for disqualification are met

The standard for assessing whether a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would reach that conclusion.

The motion for disqualification must contain affidavits that meets this burden of proof that a reasonable person would also question the judge’s impartiality.

However, the burden of proof is on the movant as the judge is presumed to be unbiased.

“This court gives substantial weight to a judge’s decision not to recuse herself and will not overturn such a decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Goldman v. Bryan, 104 Nev. 644, 649, 764 P.2d 1296, 1299 (1988), abrogated on other grounds by Halverson v. Hardcastle, 123 Nev. 245, 266, 163 P.3d 428, 443 (2007). A judge is presumed to be unbiased, and “the burden is on the party asserting the challenge to establish sufficient factual grounds warranting disqualification.” Id. at 649, 764 P.2d at 1299.

Impact of a disqualification motion

In Debiparshad v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Nev. 2021), the Nevada Supreme Court outlined the requirements for disqualification under the NCJC and relevant case law.

(“In Towbin Dodge, we noted that NCJC Rule 2.11, which requires a judge to “disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” does not contain a procedural mechanism for enforcement. Id. at 257, 259, 112 P.3d at 1067, 1069. We specified the procedure for moving to disqualify a judge pursuant to NCJC Rule 2.11, explaining that, as with an affidavit filed under NRS 1.235, a motion to disqualify under NCJC Rule 2.11 must include the facts upon which the disqualification is based and must be referred to another judge for decision. Id. at 260-61, 112 P.3d at 1069-70; see also Turner v. State, 114 Nev. 682, 687, 962 P.2d 1223, 1226 (1998) (applying, without discussion, the NRS 1.235 procedural requirements to a motion to disqualify under both the statute and the NCJC). ”)

Debiparshad v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 71, 8 (Nev. 2021) 
How Debiparshad and Towbin Dodge support my case is two-fold:

1) the subject judge (Peterson in my case) can take no further action in the case until the motion to disqualify is resolved, and

2) the disqualification decision must be made by another judge.

This comes as positive news since it would be unreasonable to anticipate Judge Peterson recusing herself now, after 2+ years of ruling against me without any factual or legal justification. This includes her recent actions at an improperly noticed hearing held ex parte, where she issued an unwarranted vexatious litigant bench order against me in absentia, which was converted into a final judgment denying all my motions without notice, good cause, or an opportunity for opposition.

Why this drastic action is necessary rather than just filing an appeal

The order submitted on March 28, 2023, was composed in a manner that made obtaining a precise understanding of the facts and law nearly unattainable for the reviewing court. The judge followed the common practice of having opposing counsel draft the order, resulting in significant misrepresentation of material facts and legal matters. Appellate courts assume that the facts are unchallenged if the order states as such, and no opposition is present within the record.

My previous losses have occurred under these circumstances, where orders are written to suggest that the evidence and the law support the opposing argument.

My motion is timely to void all A-21-828840-C orders

My motion is timely to void all Judge Peterson’s orders as new grounds emerged due to the refusal to allow the 3/28/23 order to accurately reflect that it was issued ex parte without notice, just cause or an opportunity to ppose.

“[I]f new grounds for a judge’s disqualification are discovered after the time limits in NRS 1.235(1) have passed, then a party may file a motion to disqualify based on [Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2 ] as soon as possible after becoming aware of the new information.”

Towbin, 121 Nev. at 256, 112 P.3d at 1067.

Judge Peterson’s impartiality canreasonably questioned be as these provisions of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct are alleged to have been violated.

The required affidavit with supporting evidence will be filed first to the Commission on Judicial Discipline as it has a Nevada Constitutional mandate to ensure that the Nevada judiciary complies with the NCJC.

Rule 1.2.  Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary.  A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Rule 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 2.6.  Ensuring the Right to Be Heard.

      (A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.

Rule 2.7.  Responsibility to Decide.  A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification is required by Rule 2.11 or other law.

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.

      (2) A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge, if the judge gives advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be solicited, and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received.

      (3) A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities, or with other judges, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter.

      (4) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to settle matters pending before the judge.

      (5) A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when authorized by law to do so.

      (B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.

      (C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.

      (D) A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate supervision, to ensure that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.

      Rule 2.11.  Disqualification.

      (A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

      (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.

      Rule 2.15.  Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct.

      (A) A judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.

      (B) A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.

      (C) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.

      (D) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.

Standard for Review

Other jurisdictions offer guidance on the standard of review as well

In evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the reviewing court should inquire into a variety of factors including, but not limited to, the nature of the judge’s conduct, the tone and demeanor of the judge, the scope of the judicial conduct in the context of the length and complexity of the case and issues therein, the extent to which the judge’s conduct was directed at one side more than the other, and the presence of any curative instructions, either at the time of an inappropriate occurrence or at the entry of the final order. When the issue is preserved so that the true facts are known and a reviewing court determines that the judge’s conduct pierced the veil of judicial impartiality, the court may not apply harmless-error review. Rather, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

A-21-828840-C orders are void

If the judge is disqualified because judicial impartiality can be reasonably questioned,

“Disqualification occurs when the facts creating disqualification arise, not when disqualification is established.”); see also Hoff v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 79 Nev. 108, 110, 378 P.2d 977, 978 (1963) (“That the actions of a district judge, disqualified by statute, are not voidable merely, but void, has long been the rule in this state.”); Frevert v. Smith, 19 Nev. 363, 11 P. 273 (1886) (“[T]he general effect of the statutory prohibitions … [is] to render those acts of a judge involving the exercise of judicial discretion, in a case wherein he is disqualified from acting, not voidable merely, but void.”). ”

Debiparshad v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 71, 9-10 (Nev. 2021)

9/10/2021 Doc ID# 43 “Order & Judgment On Plainiff (Sic) Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s Motion To Dismiss Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim And Petition For Sanctions And Defendants/ Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgement And Motion For Sanctions”

11/30/2021 Doc ID# 70 Order Clarifying Sept. 10th, 2021 Order and Mooting Notice of Default and Motion to Strike

11/30/2021 Doc ID# 71 Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion to Reconsider of Order Dismissing Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions and Defendant/ Counter-claimant Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Sanctions

5/25/2022 Doc ID# 88 Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing To Set Aside 9/10/21 Order And 11/30/21 Orders Pursuant To NRCP 60(b)(3)(Fraud) And NRCP 60(d)(3)(Fraud On The Court) And Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Pursuant To EDCR 7.60(1) And (3), NRS 18.010(2); And, Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s 12/28/21 Countermotions For Abuse Of Process and Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion For A Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin And denying For Attorney Fees And Costs

1/9/2023 01/09/2023 Order Doc ID# 115 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motin to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs

1/16/2023 Doc ID# 117 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs

What allegations of attorney misconduct were made against Steven Scow, the attorney for Red Rock Financial Services?

Complaint summary as filed to the State Bar online on 3/1/22

Link to 12/19/22 Request For Judicial Notice of 346-page verified, evidence-backed, uninvestigated (pending court order) complaint to the State Bar and 50-page draft civil complaint requesting a court order for written findings of attorney misconduct (that will be necessary if this court does not refer the matter to the State Bar for investigation)

This resulted in me being declared a vexatious litigant and a restrictive order being entered against me without notice or a chance to oppose.

Link to PDF of 3/28/23 order filed without notice or opposition

I have tried unsuccessfully repeatedly for the last few weeks to get my opposition attached to the order so it is accurate enough for appeal.

  • Image gallery image
  • Image gallery image
  • Image gallery image
  • Image gallery image

HOA attorneys and managers fail in their fiduciary duty to the HOA

HOA attorneys and managers are by law fiduciaries to the HOA that employs them. However, they routinely act in their own self-interest rather than solely and exclusively in the interest of the HOA.

The HOA homeowners are the intentional third-party beneficiaries of the CC&Rs contract in that the HOA exists for the purpose of maintaining the common areas, the community lifestyle and the property values of for the common good of the HOA membership at large.

The attorney and the manager are agents. They have no authority over the Board. Anything they assert over the Board is usurped, and that is the problem.

SB 417 will exacerbate the problem of attorneys and other agents enriching themselves by improper control over HOA Boards

My experience shows HOA attorneys lie with impunity to the courts now. The State Bar Assosication does not enforce the ethical codes of conduct. The Nevada Supreme Court thinks that’s okay. The judges let them write orders that misrepresent the facts, the evidence and the law.

Why should NRED or the Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities be any different? Why investigate any homeowner’s complaints ever?

Adam Clarkson already has the Ombudsman in his pocket

…Or else, how has he kept my complaints from being heard by the Commission for Common Interest Communities for the last six years?

After all, it has been enough for the past six years for the NRED to not investigate my complaints and the Ombudsman not to refer them to the Commission SOLELY because Adam Clarkson, the Community Association Institute lobbyist and Sun City Anthem’s debt collector and attorney, says I’m are just a “bad person” and not the kind that should be allowed to serve on the Board of Directors because I complained about things like how much over market the manager is paid?

Link to unanswered 9/2/17 NRED Form 514a

Link to my unanswered 1/31/18 Affidavit regarding Clarkson’s denial of records request related to Sandy Seddon’s salary that I filed with Investigator Christina Pitch who was assigned to investigate three NRED Form 530s. (If SB 417 is passed, it will be legal for Clarkson to deny this request and legal for NRED to refuse to investigate it. But then, the homeowner can be criminalized and threatened with high-cost litigation for even asking.)

9/7/17 NRED Form IA 530 re Interference with the Recall election was resolved by NRED’s very thoughtful 8/8/18 letter below.

9/7/17 NRED Form IA 530 re Clarkson’s declaring my elected seat on the Board vacant “by operation of law” rather than by the mandatory NRS 116.31036 removal election was resolved by NRED’s very thoughtful 8/8/18 letter below.

9/7/17 NRED Form IA 530 re Clarkson’s spearheading bullying, retaliation, and harassment was resolved by NRED’s very thoughtful 8/8/18 letter below.

8/8/18 NRED’s dismissal of the three Form 530s without prejudice, ignoring the Form 530 and ignoring Clarkson’s obstruction of the legitimate access to information about employee salaries.

SB 417 and vexatious litigant restrictive order are a two-prong approach to take away all my rights

Vexatious litigant restrictive order limits my rights to NRS 116.4117 civil action

3/28/23 The court declared that my filings requesting written finding of attorney misconduct be forwarded to the State Bar against HOA, debt collector, real estate speculator and bank attorneys were vexatious and so I am prohibited from filing any civil action against any defendant for any cause of action until I get approval from the Chief Judge.

4/26/23 I filed a motion to disqualify the judge and set aside the order. There will be a hearing on 5/25/23 @ 10 AM

These should be viewed through an anti-SLAPP lens

SB 417 is designed to limit my free speech, to continue to restrict my rights to serve on the HOA Board by giving Clarkson firepower

Clarkson ordered me to cease and desist asking about Sandy Seddon’s salary, is that what this SB 417 change fixes?

What benefit does a lack of transparency give to anyone other than overpaid managers and attorneys? Why, if the HOA exists for the benefit of the owners, does adding a charge to the owners to provide information in email or electronic format make sense?

Failed in good faith to respond? Refused in good faith to provide? Seriously?

Why is this written only in one direction? Why isn’t’ it written to be bilateral? Why isn’t the attorney, manager of Board member prohibited from retaliating against anybody?

Clarkson regularly tries to shut down the blogs that don’t support Sandy Seddon. Here’s how SB 417 is designed to silence criticism when strong arm tactics like cease & desist letters fail:

Accuse the blogger of defamation, regardless of whether she is speaking the truth. Force her to pay attorneys to defend herself.

Clarkson has unlawfully kept me off the Board for six years already. Now he’s changing the law to make it legal.

The Ombudsman is supposed to be for the Owners in common interest communities – not the fixer for the attorneys and managers

Court records and documentary evidence to support motion to disqualify Judge Peterson

On 4/26/23, I filed a motion to disqualify Judge Jessica K. Peterson from this case pursuant to NRS 1.230 and NCJC 2.11 on the grounds of actual and implied bias. Judge Peterson, without notice, good cause or an opportunity to oppose, entered a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me on March 28, 2023.

This order was originally issued, unbeknownst to me, at an ex parte hearing held on 2/2/23, at which time, two of my unopposed motions that were scheduled to be heard on 2/28/23, were denied in my absence, after Judge Peterson told the attorneys for Nationstar and Red Rock that they didn’t need to file the required written opposition (EDCR 2.20(e)) to my pending motions because she was going to deny them anyway.

Substantial evidence backing the order is thoroughly documented and hyperlinked in this blog. However, the utilization of a newly available artificial intelligence significantly streamlines and clarifies the data.

CaseText Transcript Analysis assesses the implied bias or a lack of judicial impartiality

Over the past four years, I’ve been a subscriber to a legal research service available on casetext.com. On March 15th, 2023, I upgraded to a tier called Co-counsel, which features an OpenAI-powered document analysis tool. I employed it to evaluate Judge Peterson’s perceived impartiality during court hearings by supplying a set of questions for each session. Find the links below for the responses pertaining to all A-21-828840-C hearings.

August 19, 2021 Casetext Transcript Analysis

November 16, 2021 Casetext Transcript Analysis

January 19, 2022 Casetext Transcript Analysis

July 7, 2022 Casetext Transcript Analysis

February 2, 2023 Casetext Transcript Analysis ex parte hearing

Hyperlinks to all filed A-21-828840-C case documents and 2023 communications with court regarding EDCR 2.20(e), EDCR 2.23(b), NCJC 2.9, and requests to add opposition

PDF LINKCOURT RECORD
2/3/2021Doc ID# 1 Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure
02/03/21Doc ID# 2 Complaint for interpleader
02/03/21Doc ID# 3 Electronic Summons for Nona Tobin, as an individual and as trustee for the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08
2/9/2021Doc ID# 7 Notice of Department Reassignment
2/17/2021Doc ID# 8 Affidavit of service-Republic Services
2/17/2021Doc ID# 9 Affidavit of service- Wells Fargo
2/17/2021Doc ID# 10 Affidavit of service Nona Tobin, as an individual via attorney John Thomson
2/17/2021Doc ID# 11 Affidavit of service-Nona Tobin as trustee of the Hansen Trust via attorney John Thomson
2/17/2021Doc ID# 12 Affidavit of service-Nationstar
2/17/2021Doc ID# 13 Disclaimer of interest – Republic Services
3/8/2021Doc 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
3/15/2021Doc 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
3/22/2021Doc ID# 16 Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure for Nona Tobin an Individual
3/22/2021Doc ID# 17 Nona Tobin’s Third-Party Complaint 1. Abuse Of Process; 2. Racketeering (NRS207.360(9)(18) (29)(30) (35); NRS 207.390, NRS 207.400(1)(2); 3. Fraud NRS 205.330, NRS 205.360, NRS 205.372, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.395, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175; 4. Restitution And Relief Requested Exceeds $15,000 5. Exemplary And Punitive Damages Pursuant To NRS 42.005, NRS 207.470(1)&(4) 6. Sanctions Pursuant To NRCP 11(b)(1-4); NRPC 3.1, 3.3, 3.4,3.5(b), 4.1, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, 8.3, 8.4 vs. Steven B. Scow; Brody R. Wight; Joseph Hong; Melanie Morgan; David Ochoa; Brittany Wood
4/4/2021Doc ID# 18 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of Relevant Unadjudicated Civil Claims and Administrative Complaints
4/7/2021Doc ID# 19 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and Sun City Anthem Governing Documents Germane To the Instant Action
4/9/2021Doc ID# 20 Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Answer to Red Rock Financial Services’ Complaint for Interpleader (NRCP 22)
4/9/2021Doc ID# 21 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of NRCP 16.1 Disclosures /Subpoena Responses from Discovery in Case A-15-720032-C and Disputed Facts in the Court Record
4/12/2021Doc ID# 22 Nona Tobin’s Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin
4/14/2021Doc ID# 23 CNONCD A-21-828840-C.pdf
4/15/2021Doc ID# 24 Counter-Claimant & Cross-Claimant Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment vs. Counter-Defendant Red Rock Financial Services and Cross- Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC & Wells Fargo, N.A. and Motion for Punitive Damages and Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.401(1) and/or NRS 42.005
4/16/2021Doc ID# 25 CLERK’s notice of hearing Tobin motion for an order to distribute on 5/18/21
4/16/2021Doc ID# 26 A-21-828840-C.pdf Clerk’s Notice of Nonconforming Document and Curative Action
4/16/2021Doc ID# 27 CLERK’s notice of hearing Tobin MSJ and petition for sanctions 7:39AM
4/16/2021Doc ID# 28 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions
4/16/21Doc ID# 29 CLERK’s notice of hearing Non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion to dismiss
4/26/2021Doc ID# 30 Nona Tobin’s Opposition to Red Rock Motion to Dismiss Tobin’s Counter-Claims and Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or (4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.40(1), NRS 42.005
4/26/2021Doc ID# 31 Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Limited Opposition to Defendant Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds
4/27/2021Doc ID# 32 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s rogue Joinder to Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Limited Opposition to Defendant Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds
4/29/2021Doc ID# 33 Red Rock Financial Services’ Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment
5/3/2021Doc ID# 34 Wells Fargo, N.A. And Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Joinder To Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s Motion To Dismiss Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim And Petition For Sanctions
5/4/2021Doc ID# 35 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Nationstar’s & Wells Fargo’s Opposition To Tobin’s Motion To Opposition To Tobin’s Motion To Distribute Proceeds And To Their Untimely Joinder To Red Rock’s Motion To Dismiss And Tobin’s Reply To Support Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgment Vs. Nationstar & Wells Fargo
5/5/2021Doc ID# 36 Wells Fargo, N.A. And Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Joinder To Red Rock Financial Services’ Opposition To Nona Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgment
5/9/2021Doc ID# 37 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Red Rock’s Joinder To Nationstar’s & Wells Fargo’s Opposition To Tobin’s Motion To Distribute Proceeds
5/9/2021Doc ID# 38 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Red Rock’s Opposition To Motion For Summary Judgment And Motion To Amend Third Party Complaint
5/11/2021Doc ID# 39 Non-Party Red Rock LLC’s Rogue Reply In Support Of Its Motion To Dismiss Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim And Petition For Sanctions
6/22/2021Doc ID# 40 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE – JOHN THOMSON FOR NONA TOBIN
6/26/2021Doc ID# 41 STIPULATION AND ORDER – MOVE EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO 8/18/21by stipulation, changed manually by the court to 8/19/21
7/27/2021Doc ID# 42 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF STIPULATION AND ORDER – MOVE EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO 8/19/21
8/19/2021Casetext.com Co-counsel OpenAI-enabled transcript analysis of the 8/19/21 hearing utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of bias against Tobin and to summarize the hearing
8/19/2021Transcript of Proceedings 8/19/21
9/10/2021Doc ID# 43 “ORDER & JUDGMENT ON PLAINIFF (SIC) RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s COUNTERCLAIM AND PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AND DEFENDANTS/ COUNTERCLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS”
9/10/2021Doc ID# 44 Notice of Entry of Order & Judgment granting non-party Red Rock LLC’S rogue Motion to Dismiss Tobin’s Counterclaim, Petition for Sanctions And Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgement against counter-defendant Red Rock
9/15/2021Substitution of Attorneys for Tobin from John Thomson to Taylor Simpson, Suzanne Carver, P. Kerr Sterling
10/8/2021Motion for Reconsideration
10/11/2021Notice of Hearing Motion for Reconsideration
10/12/2021[49] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Third-Party Claims Without Prejudice
10/13/2021Doc ID# 50 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice
10/13/2021Doc ID# 51 Notice of Entry of Order
10/21/2021Doc ID# 52 Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for Reconsideration
10/22/2021Doc ID# 53 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s rogue Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions
10/29/2021Doc ID# 54 Tobin Reply in Support
11/9/2021Doc ID# 55 Notice of Change of 11/16/21 Hearing of all matters from 10 AM to 8 AM. Bluejeans link provided. Parties were asked to contact the court if unavailable.
11/9/2021Doc ID# 56 Susan Carver Motion for Withdrawal as Tobin’s attorney oral argument requested
11/9/2021Doc ID# 57 DECLARATION OF NONA TOBIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER ENTERED SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
11/10/2021Doc ID# 58 Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time
11/10/2021Doc ID# 59 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing Tobin motion for reconsideration on 11/16/21 @ 10 AM
11/10/2021Doc ID# 60 Nona Tobin’s Three-Day Notice of Intent to Take Default vs. Wells Fargo, N.A. as to Tobin’s Cross-Claims Filed on March 8, 2021
11/10/2021Doc ID# 61 Tobin Notice of Intent to Take Nationstar’s Default
11/11/2021Doc ID# 62 Akerman Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Nationstar and Wells Fargo
PNG #62 shows Akerman knew it had to get out because Nationstar and Wells Fargo were in default for never answering my 3/8/21 cross-claims. 362 also show that Nationstar claims here to be the servicer for Wells Fargo which contradicts its claims on different dates. The exit and the fact that there was no IAFD and no SUBT shows Wells Fargo did not hire them and maybe Nationstar didn’t either.
11/12/2021Doc ID# 63 Clerk’s Notice of 12/15/21 Hearing of Carver’s motion on Order Shortening Time
11/14/2021Doc ID# 64 Declaration of Nona Tobin In Support Of Motion For P. Sterling Kerr To Withdraw As Counsel To Allow Her Return To Pro Se With No Hearing – PNG #64 show
11/15/2021Doc ID# 65 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing the Akerman Motion to Withdraw on 12/22/21
11/15/2021Doc ID# 66 Nationstar and Wells Fargo’s Motion to Strike Tobin’s notice of intent to take their default for failure to file a timely (NRS 12(a)(1)(B)) responsive pleading to my 3/8/21cross-claim and petition for sanctions. Note that on 5/3/21 Akerman did file an untimely (EDCR 2.20(d)) joinder to non-party Red Rock LLC’s rogue and untimely ((NRS 12(a)(1)(B)) motion to dismiss and also note that since Akerman never filed a mandatory counterclaim for the interpleaded proceeds for either of the banks (NRCP 13(a)(1)) the banks should have filed a disclaimer of interest and withdrawn from the case in February 2021 and not obstructed my asserting my claim for funds in which they have no interest.
11/15/2021Doc ID# 67 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing
11/16/21Casetext.com Co-counsel OpenAI-enabled transcript analysis of the 11/16/21 hearing utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of bias against Tobin and to summarize the hearing
11/16/2021Doc ID# 74 Recorders Transcript of Hearing Re: Defendant/ Counterclaimant’s Motion for Reconsideration 11/16/21
11/17/2021Doc ID# 68 Order to Withdraw as Attorney of Record
11/19/2021Doc ID# 69 Notice of Entry of Order
11/30/2021Doc ID# 70 Order Clarifying Sept. 10th, 2021 Order and Mooting Notice of Default and Motion to Strike
11/30/2021Doc ID# 71 Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion to Reconsider of Order Dismissing Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions and Defendant/Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Sanctions
11/30/2021Doc ID# 72 Notice of Entry of Order Clarifying September 10, 2021 Order And Mooting Notice of Default and Motion to Strike
11/30/2021Doc ID# 73 Denial of Motion to Reconsider
12/14/2021Doc ID# 75 Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside Orders and for Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 60(B)(3) and (D)(3), NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60 (1) and (3)
12/14/2021Doc ID# 76 Notice of Hearing
12/28/21Doc ID# 77 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s rogue Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60 (d)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3), NRS 18.010(2); and, Countermotion for Abuse of Process; For a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
12/29/2021Doc ID# 78 Insufficient Notice of Appearance “Aaron D. Lancaster, Esq., of Troutman Pepper LLP, will appear as Counsel for Defendant, Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC.”
No IAFD. No SUBT. No Signature from Wells Fargo, Nationstar, or Akerman.
“Gary Schnitzer, of Kravitz Schnitzer Johnson Watson & Zeppenfeld, Chtd., the office of which is located within the State of Nevada at 8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200, Las Vegas, Nevada 89123, has agreed to serve as the Designated Attorney for service of papers, process, or pleadings required to be served on the attorney, Aaron D. Lancaster, Esq., including service by hand delivery or facsimile transmission, as Troutman Pepper LLP does not maintain an office in the State of Nevada.”
12/29/2021Doc ID# 79 Wells Fargo and Nationstar’s Joinder to Defendant Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60 (b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60 (b)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to EDCR 7.60 (1) and (3) NRS 18.010 (2); and Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
1/10/2022Doc ID# 80 Nona Tobin’s Reply to Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Cots Pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) and (3), NRS 18.010(2); and, Countermotion for Abuse of Process for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
1/10/2022Doc ID# 81 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Nationstar’s And Wells Fargo’s Joinder And Countermotions For Attorney Fees And A Vexatious Litigant Order
1/11/2022Doc ID# 82 Notice of Change of Hearing
1/14/2022Doc ID# 83 Order Granting Akerman s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC
1/19/2022Doc ID# 84 Notice of Entry of Order Granting Akerman s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC
1/19/22Casetext.com Co-counsel OpenAI-enabled transcript analysis of the 11/16/21 hearing utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of bias against Tobin and to summarize the hearing
1/24/2022Doc ID# 85 Recorders Transcript of Hearing Re: 01/19/22
4/26/2022Doc ID# 86 Notice of Appearance No IAFD. No SUBT. No authorization by Nationstar or Wells Fargo. Aaron Lancaster notices begin “VANESSA M. TURLEY, of Troutman Pepper LLP, is admitted and authorized to practice in this Court, and will appear as Counsel for Defendant, Wells
Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC.”
5/25/2022Doc ID# 88 Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing To Set Aside 9/10/21 Order And 11/30/21 Orders Pursuant To NRCP 60(b)(3)(Fraud) And NRCP 60(d)(3)(Fraud On The Court) And Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Pursuant To EDCR 7.60(1) And (3), NRS 18.010(2); And, Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s 12/28/21 Countermotions For Abuse Of Process & Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion For A Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin And denying For Attorney Fees Costs
5/25/2022[89] Notice of Entry of Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing To Set Aside 9/10/21 Order And 11/30/21 Orders Pursuant To NRCP 60(b)(3)(Fraud) And NRCP 60(d)(3)(Fraud On The Court) And Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Pursuant To EDCR 7.60(1) And (3), NRS 18.010(2); And, Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s 12/28/21 Countermotions For Abuse Of Process and Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion For A Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin And denying For Attorney Fees Costs
5/30/2022[90] Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30, 2021 and May 25, 2022
5/30/2022Doc ID# 91 Exhibits To Second Amended Motion For An Order To Distribute Interpleaded Funds With Interest To Sole Claimant Nona Tobin And Motion For Attorney Fees And Costs Pursuant To NRS18.010(2) And EDCR7.60(b)(1) And (3) And Motion To Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices Of Entry Of Orders Entered On 11/30/21 And 5/25/22
5/31/2022Doc ID# 92 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing
6/13/2022Doc ID# 93 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for An Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds With Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30, 2021 and May 25, 2022; and Renewed Countermotion for Abuse of Process; For a Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
6/21/2022Doc ID# 94 Reply to Non-Party Red Rock LLC’s Opposition to Tobin’s Second Amended Motion For An Order To Distribute Interpleaded Funds With Interest To Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(B)(1) and (3)
6/22/2022Doc ID# 95 Nona Tobin’s Reply to Non-Party Opposition to Motion To Correct Notices Of Entry Of Three Orders
6/27/2022Doc ID# 96 Response to Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s Countermotion for a Restrictive Vexatious Litigant Order Against Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and Nona Tobin’s Counter-Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order
6/30/2022Doc ID# 97 Notice of Appellate Decision
7/7/2022Casetext.com Co-counsel OpenAI-enabled transcript analysis of the 11/16/21 hearing utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of bias against Tobin and to summarize the hearing
8/29/2022Doc ID# 98 Notice of Tobin Petition For Writ Of Prohibition And Or Mandamus
9/23/2022Doc ID# 99 Amended Notice of the Filing of a NRAP 40 Motion for Rehearing of Petition for a Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus
10/5/2022Doc ID# 100 Motion for Rehearing Petition for Writ of Prohibition and /or Mandamus
11/28/2022Doc ID# 101 Notice of NRAP 40a Petition For En Banc Reconsideration 85251
12/19/2022Doc ID# 102 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Brittany Wood
12/19/2022Doc ID# 103 Tobin Motion for An Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded To The State Bar of Nevada
12/19/2022Doc ID# 104 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed with The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Steven Scow
12/19/2022Doc ID# 105 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Melanie Morgan, Esq. (SBN 8215), Akerman, LLP; and Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP, and Draft Alternative Civil Action
12/19/2022Doc ID# 106 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Joseph Y. Hong
12/19/2022Doc ID# 107 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. David Ochoa, Esq. (SBN 10414) and Adam Clarkson, Esq.
12/20/2022Doc ID# 108 Corrected Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not be Forwarded to the State Bar
12/20/2022Doc ID# 109 Clerk’s Notice of 2/2/23 Hearing of Doc #102, Tobin’s 12/19/22 RFJN vs Joseph Hong uninvestigated complaint vs. Brittany Wood and draft civil action that will be necessary if this court chooses not to act
12/20/2022Doc ID# 110 Clerk’s Notice of 2/2/23 Hearing of Doc103 Tobin’s 12/19/22 MOSC why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar
12/20/2022Doc ID# 111 Clerk’s Notice of 2/2/23 Hearing of Doc #106, Tobin’s 12/19/22 RFJN vs. uninvestigated complaint vs. Brittany Wood and draft civil action that will be necessary if this court chooses not to act
1/3/2023Doc ID# 112 1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded to the State Bar And 2) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Counter-Claims / Cross-Claims vs. Red Rock, Nationstar and Wells Fargo
3) Motion to Modify Grounds for Tobin’s Petitions for Sanctions vs. Red Rock and Nationstar to Include NRS 357.040(1(a),(b),(i), and NRS 199.210, NRS 205.0824 and NRS 205.0833, and NRS 41.1395 And
4) Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order (as amended on 1/3/23)
It allowed the attorneys to walk away and put the entire cost onto Red Rock and Nationstar. It also moved the punitive damages from being payable to me to being payable to the State of Nevada through the courts via the false claims act without me having to file a whistleblower action.
1/3/2023Doc ID# 113 Red Rock Response to Tobin Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded to the State Bar.
#
1/6/2023Doc ID# 114 Clerk’s Notice of 2/8/23 Hearing in Chambers of #113 Tobin’s 1/03/23 motions
1/9/202301/09/2023 Order Doc ID# 115 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
1/10/2023Notice of Entry of Order Doc ID# 116
1/16/2023Doc ID# 117 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
1/17/2023Doc ID# 118 Notice of Entry of Corrected 1/9/23 Order amended solely to correct the 1/9/23 order to state that Tobin had responded, refused to sign for the reasons identified in the opposition attached to the corrected order. PNG # 118 shows neither 1/9/23 nor 1/16/23 were “restrictive orders” as misrepresented in the 3/28/23 order.
1/17/2023Doc ID# 119 Red Rock Financial Services’ Response/Opposition to (1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not be Forwarded to the State Bar; (2) Motion to Withdraw Tobins Counter-Claims and Cross-Claims vs. Red Rock, Nationstar and Wells Fargo; (3) Motion to Modify Grounds for Tobin’s Petitions for Sanctions vs. Red Rock and Nationstar to include NRS 357.0401(a), (b), (i) and NRS 199.210, NRS 205.0824 and NRS 205.0833, and NRS 41.1395; and (4) Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order
1/23/2023Doc ID# 120 Tobin 1/23/23 Motion to Reconsider 1/16/23 Order and Renewed Motion to Strike Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Rogue Filings PNG # 120 shows my good faith intent to resolve the matter without appeal and without the court acting outside its jurisdiction and without forcing a multitude of additional cases to address the number of attorneys who had lied to the court to cover up the criminal activities of their clients.
1/24/2023Doc ID# 121 Clerks’ Notice of 2/28/23 Hearing Tobin Motion to Reconsider 1/16/23
Order and Renewed Motion to Strike Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Rogue
Filings. Note this would result in adopting Tobin’s unopposed 6/27/22 judgment order.
1/24/2023Doc ID# 122 Wells Fargo and Nationstar’s Joinder to Red Rock Financial Services’ Response//Opposition to (1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded to The State Bar; (2) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Petitions For Sanctions VS. Red Rock, Nationstar to Include NRS 357.0401(A), (B), (I) and NRS 199.210, NRS 205.0824 and NRS 205.0833, and NRS 41.1395; and (4) Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order
1/31/2023Doc ID# 123 Tobin’s Reply to Red Rock’s Opposition to Tobin’s Four 1/03/23 Motions to Amend Final Order
2/2/2023Casetext.com Co-counsel OpenAI-enabled transcript analysis of the 11/16/21 hearing utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of bias against Tobin and to summarize the hearing
2/2/2023Minutes published on the court website that were NEVER SERVED on the parties inaccurately describe that Judge Peterson was alone in Chambers at 11:15 AM when she denied the Tobin’s 1/23/23 motion to reconsider “- The Court having advanced this hearing to 2.-02-23 and following review of the papers and pleadings on file herein, COURT ORDERED, Defendant Nona Tobin’s Motion to Reconsider 1/16/23 Order and Renewed Motion to Strike Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Rogue Filings, DENIED.” Note that these motions were on the docket for 2/28/23 by CNOH Doc No. 114 and Judge Peterson actually denied these motions at a hearing that was held ex parte after Tobin requested on 1/23/23 that it be vacated as moot. See PNG 230123 request to vacate.
Note that there are no minutes regarding the vexatious litigant restrictive order. There are no minutes that of the ex parte hearing at all. There are no minutes that show the three items that were on the docket were acted on, i.e. Docs. 102, 103, and 106,12/19/22 MOSC and the RFJNs for Wood and Hong.
2/2//2023I did not anticipate that the court would so aggressively deprive me of the most minimum due process that could be reasonably expected, especially when so unreasonably restricting my fundamental rights to access to any impartial tribunal, and yet it got progressively worse until by April the court was neither accepting nor rejecting just ignoring and letting time pass.
AS to the 2//2/23 ex parte hearing, it was completely improper and unnoticed.
1. I did not receive a phone call that the court claims was made to me from the ex parte hearing. I do not have any record that I missed such a call. I received no voice mail from the court. Like everything I say, I can say it under oath. I don’t know who at the court can.
2. I requested on 1/23/23 that the 2/2/23 hearing be vacated as moot.
3. The court did not address the three unopposed items actually docketed for 2/2/23. Neither Joseph Hong nor Brittany Wood were present for the hearing that was supposed to be about the motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar and the RFJN of my uninvestigated complaints vs. them. There are no minutes that the court denied this, but when (2/21/23) I turned in a proposed order granting my 12/19/22 MOSC as unopposed, I was ordered to stop and threatened with an order to show cause why I shouldn’t be held in contempt.
2/2/2023Minutes published on the court website that were served See PNG 230202 4:44PM minutes notice served on the parties inaccurately describe Judge Peterson denied Tobin’s 1/03/23 four motions in chambers alone (scheduled to be decided on 2/8/23 by CNOH #114) when actually these motions were denied at a hearing that was held ex parte after Tobin requested on 1/23/23 that it be vacated as moot. See PNG 230123 request to vacate. Why were Steven Scow or Vanessa Turley to be present when the RFJN about them were not on the docket, and Turley’s motion for Nationstar for a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me, filed on 1/24/23, shouldn’t have been considered without considering my opposition, that I timely filed, four hours after the ex parte hearing I didn’t know about. See Doc No. 125 filed a 3:46 PM
2/2/2023Doc ID# 124 Declaration of Steven B. Scow in Support of Attorneys’ Fees Awarded to Red Rock Financial Services
2/2/2023Doc ID# 125 Tobin’s Reply to Nationstar’s Opposition and Vexatious Litigant Motion
2/10/2023Gmail Tobin to DC8inbox and opposing counsels entitled “Order filed pursuant to EDCR 2.23(b)” as time to file written opposition had passed so pursuant to ECCR 2.23(b) I filed an order granting unopposed 6/27/22 and 1/23/22 motions (EDCR 2.20(e))
2/10/2023Proposed order filed granting unopposed 6/27/22 and 1/23/22 motions (EDCR 2.20(e))
2/12/2023Doc ID# 126 Tobin Opposition To Scow Declaration ISO Attorney Fees
2/15/2023Gmail from court returned Tobin’s proposed order as it had been denied ex parte
2/16/23Gmail Scow to Tobin to say that court asked him to prepare the order from the 2/2/23 ex parte hearing
2/16/23Proposed order denying all Tobin’s motions even if unopposed
2/16/23Court returned Order without a reason specified
2/16/23Gmail Tobin to court resubmitting proposed order showing why not denying her motions was an abusive means to prevent appeal.
2/16/23Gmail court to Tobin resubmission returned within 20 minutes
2/16/2023Doc ID# 127 Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements
Red Rock Financial Services’ Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements as Supplement to Declaration of Steven B. Scow
2/20/2023Doc ID# 128 Reply to Opposition
Tobin Reply in Opposition to Red Rock 2/16/23 Memo of Fees and Costs
2/21/23Gmail Tobin to court submitting Tobin’s 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Proposed order granting 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Gmail Court to Tobin threatening an order to show cause why not to be held in contempt for submitting draft order per EDCR 2.23(b) granting 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Gmail Tobin to court submitting Tobin’s 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Proposed order granting 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Gmail Tobin to Assistant Bar Counsel Pattee begging him to voluntarily lift the onerous requirement to get a court order with written findings before the State Bar Ethics & Disciplinary panels will investigate to enforce the rules of professional conduct. I tried to impress upon him that without the support of the State Bar and the other administrative enforcement agencies the citizens of Nevada do not have a chance in the courts against the big monied interests who pay attorneys who are willing to lie and cheat to win. I got no response. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt.
2/21/202310:41 AM Court to Tobin “The next submission into OIC will result in the court
issuing an order to show cause as to why you should not be held in contempt.”
2/21/23Gmail Court to Tobin threatening an order to show cause why not to be held in contempt for submitting draft order per EDCR 2.23(b) granting 12/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)
2/21/23Gmail 9:59 AM Tobin to court entitled “Order granting Tobin’s 1/19/22 MOSC pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e)” explaining that the court minutes say that the court denied my motion to withdraw the unopposed 12/19/22 MOSC
2/21/23Proposed order submitted pursuant to EDCR 2.23(b) to adopt as unopposed per EDCR 2.20(e) . there were no minutes that my 12/19/22 MOSC why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar was denied on 2/2/23
3/3/2023Doc ID# 129 Court Recorders Invoice for Transcript Ex parte 2/2/23 hearing
2/2/2023 recording fee and transcript
3/3/2023Doc ID# 130 Recorders Transcript of 2/2/23 ex parte unnoticed Hearing was added to court record on 3/3/23
3/3/2023Doc ID# 129 Court Recorders Invoice for Transcript Ex parte 2/2/23 hearing
2/2/2023 recording fee and transcript
3/3/2023Doc ID# 130 Recorders Transcript of 2/2/23 ex parte unnoticed Hearing was added to court record on 3/3/23
3/24/202311:53AM Gmail from Steven Scow’s legal assistant giving me the proposed order out of the ex parte hearing that was delivered to the court at the same time. I didn’t open this Friday afternoon email until Monday since I expected I would have the normal ten days to review or oppose or sign off as to form and content as is standard practice under EDCR.
3/27/23I only had an opportunity to read through the proposed order on Monday and I used the MS word editor to track my comments, but I had guests visiting from out of the country.
3/28/2023Order Declaring Nona Tobin a Vexatious Litigant, Order Denying Defendant Nona Tobin’s: (1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for Order to Show Cause why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should no be Forwarded to the State Bar; (2) Moton to Withdraw Tobin’s Counter- Claims and Cross-Claims vs Red Rock, Nationstar and Wells Fargo/ (3) Motion to Modify Grounds for Tobin’s Petitions for Sanctions vs Red Rock and Nationstar to Include NRS 357.404(1)(A), and NRS 199.210, NRS 205.0824 and NRS 205.0833, and NRS 41.1395 and (4) Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order and Order Denying Defendant Nona Tobin’s: Motion to Reconsider 1/16/23 Order and Renewed Motion to Strike Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Rogue Filings
3/28/2023Doc ID# 132
Notice of Entry of Order
3/28/2023Order Declaring Nona Tobin a Vexatious Litigant, Order Denying Defendant Nona Tobin’s: (1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for Order to Show Cause why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should no be Forwarded to the State Bar; (2) Moton to Withdraw Tobin’s Counter- Claims and Cross-Claims vs Red Rock, Nationstar and Wells Fargo/ (3) Motion to Modify Grounds for Tobin’s Petitions for Sanctions vs Red Rock and Nationstar to Include NRS 357.404(1)(A), and NRS 199.210, NRS 205.0824 and NRS 205.0833, and NRS 41.1395 and (4) Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order and Order Denying Defendant Nona Tobin’s: Motion to Reconsider 1/16/23 Order and Renewed Motion to Strike Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Rogue Filings
3/28/2023Doc ID# 132
Notice of Entry of Order
3/28/23230328 gmail I sent an email to the court requesting 30 days to write an opposition considering that Scow got 50 days to draft an rder that was imposed unfairly ex parte for no just cause. but I got no answer.
3/28/23230328 gmail 11.02 The court acknowledged receipt that it was submitted to the dept. 8.
3/31/233/31/23 11:59 I submitte the first wo page I noticed were missing from the edited version of the order zi had submitted on 3/28/23 w my request for 30 days with the expectation that it would have been attached to the order as my opposition to the 1/9/23 order was attached to thit and became the 1/1623 order.. That didn’t happen in either case. The 3/28/23 order continuted uncorrected .proposed order
4/5/23230405 3.52 PM gmail to ccourt entitled corrections to 3/28/23 order to attach opposition erroneously or intentionally omitted. The court ignoed it . Did not respond.corrected 230328 I re submitted a
4/5/23230405 original plus corrected order to attach my ipposition is 52-pages. see the PNG.Sig pg. It shows the extreme difference in perspective between how I see this dispute and how Judge zzpeterson sees it. I see that my claims have never been heard on their merits and I am fighting constantly to get my evidence before a judge. Judge Peterson thinks I am judge beating a dead horse religating the same old thing that I derserve to keep losing.
4/13/23on 4/13/ I resubmitted the 4/5/23 corrections230405 corrected 23032 I didn’t hear anything from the court fofrom 4/523 to 4/13/23 so I re-submitted it and said i can;t appeal this order without my oppposition noted in the record more clearly,
4/13/234/13/23 6:06 PM Gmail Court to Tobin Proposed Order has been submitted. my resubmission was immediately acknoeldged by the court’s chatbot rsponder, but nothing ever came from Dept. 8 after 3/28/23.
4/19/234:00 PM Tobin to Clerk for Chief Judge ‘Could you please tell me if Judge Weise has seen this?
4/19/23230419 4.00 pm six days lay I contacted the clerk of the Chief Judge and ssked if my proposed corrections to the order had been seen by the Chief Judge.
4/20/23Apr 20, 2023 at 3:14 PM Gmail Tobin to Court The response came back the next day saying that the Chief judge was only responsible for reviewing a filing if Iinitiated a complaint , but any filing into the case was Dept. 8’s responsibility.
4/20/23230420 3.20 pm court ack so I resubmitted it to Dept 8 and predictabily it has been ignored ever since.

Mike Kosovo’s Testimony in opposition to SB 417

SB 417- Testimony in opposition, Senate JudiciaryCommittee Tuesday April 11, 2023

My name is Mike Kosor. I strongly oppose SB 417. I serve as one of only two elected directors on mydeclarant controlled Master Board of a nearly 9,000 units community.

Senators, we should be seeking to ADVANCE board transparency, especially where boards are declarantcontrolled, and ENCOURAGE greater participation of owners in their HOAs. THIS BILL DOES THE OPPOSITE.

Prohibitions on defamatory statement is appropriate and long a violation of NRS. But as written, this bill (sec 2 & 3) will allow the association to determine what they consider defamatory and ultimatelyprovide the association the ability to censor free speech based on opposing positions from that of theboard (or declarant when appropriate). This section of NRS 116 was intended (in 2013 when added) toprovide the Division and Commission powers to protect homeowners from bulling, “out of control” HOAcorporate boards and management companies. Existing civil laws dealt with owner misconduct- amisdemeanor. What is now proposed creates as new crime and flips the protection on its head. It is anassault on First Amendment rights, an end-run of Nev anti-SLAPP laws, and generally works to chillowner opposition to the governance of their communities- not to mention a rainmaker for attorneys and management companies.

We have association attorneys routinely writing cease and desist letters to homeowners based onopposition to board actions made in person and/or on social media, most all of which are baseless and used simply to intimidate. They do not file litigation because 1) a vote of owners is righty required andmore importantly, 2) most all actions would be thrown out as baseless. But the threat of action -baseless or not- is the chilling element. If they could, as this bill attempts to permit, side-stepping theowner vote requirement or by using proxies, the chilling effect would be extensive and immediate – using the purse of owners.

I have been a victim of a defamation action- the first legal action of my life (Olympia v Kosor). It was 5years, A Neveda Supreme Court ruling, and nearly 7 figures in attorney fees, even when invoking Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law. While the developer lost its battle with me (the Court finding the action “quintessential SLAPP”), the developer and his appointed board won the war. My neighbors dare not benext. But they did subsequently elect me to represent them. I am a retired USAF Colonel and fighter pilot, with combat experience in the first Gulf War. This experience, defending the attacks by thisdeveloper on my family’s financial future, was in total the most stressful experience of my life.

I am uncertain as to the viability of the Division (or Commission) protecting the fundamental right of free speech and to perform the needed due process of law, censorship of communications in social media,work place violence, civil disobedience, etc., this bill could levy on it. Do you really want the Division orvolunteer directors susceptible to the influence of mangers and declarants involved here?

A second anti-transparency effort of the bill is it seeks to charge “actual” cost to inspect documents. Allcommunity managers are paid to provide the record keeping services for the association as part of theirbase fee. Any cost incurred in providing that service they are already made whole. Sec 1 of this billallowing for the “actual” (undefined and arbitrary) payment, is a doubling of the payment. It is inconsistent with other regulated charging for record inspections, will demand even moreassociation policies, and is totally inappropriate. This is simply, at best, a windfall subsidy to communitymanagers at the expense of the homeowners with a right to access community records. Ormore likely, it provides an ugly tool for association or managing agents so inclined to use cost barriers to chill transparency.

Sec 4 weaponizes the NRED complaint process to remove and ban “abusers” for up to 10 years fromserving on a board for a little as filing a “misleading” complaint (among other not well-defined offenses).

If “misleading” was a punishable standard for attorney’s filing civil litigation, we would most likely have a server shortage of litigators. In any case, in comparison, a convict out of probations can run for public office after only 4 years.

Sec 5 phrasing is nonsensical and adds ambiguity. An allegation of a violation is by definition a violationunder the condition of the hypothesis -“assuming it is true”. It would add an extra step to the complaint process and would take an already flawed complaint process, where the Division is not accountable forits decisions. It would make the process even more opaque, permitting a case closure at the outset before the Ombudsman is involved. Denying owners accesses to a Commission hearing leaves owners no recourse but costly litigation, where deep pockets and “influencers” have a huge advantage.

Lastly, had the CIC Task Force, specifically enacted by 2019 legislation to better bring HOAlaw changes for approval, been used as intended (not completely void for over 2 1/2 years) much if not all could have been avoided.

This is a bad bill all around. Please, do not pass.

Michael Kosor, Colonel, USAF Ret.Director, Southern Highlands Community AssociationMikekosor.com

HOA homeowners, protect your rights! Stop SB 417.

Contact your State representatives to oppose SB 417.

Link to contact info for the Nevada Legislators.

Complaints against Sun City Anthem attorneys have not been investigated

My daunting experience from 2017 until now strongly attests to the fact that Community Association Institute (CAI) lobbyists – attorneys representing HOAs, HOA debt collectors, and HOA managers – already wield excessive power for their own self-interest. This negatively impacts both the HOAs and the homeowners, to whom they owe a fiduciary duty.

My 8/16/17 notice of intent to complain vs. Sun City Anthem attorney Adam Clarkson was on the 8/24/17 A.M. closed session Board agenda.

Link to 30-page PDF notice of intent to complain about Adam Clarkson’s bullying to the State Bar

My 8/14/17 notice of intent to complain vs. Clarkson alleged bullying, abuse of privilege, concealing records, misrepresentations and conflicts of interest.

My 8/11/17 notice of intent to complain vs. Sun City Anthem general manager Sandy Seddon and community association manager Lori Martin, also on the 8/24/17 morning closed Board agenda, has never been investigated or resolved by NRED.

Link to the PDF of the 23-page notice of intent to file a Form 514a complaint against a community association manager
Clarkson refused to let me put the notice of intent on the agenda on in the Board book despite the requirements of NRS 116.31087

I had another notice of intent to file NRED complaints against Clarkson, the managers, and the other Boardmembers, but Clarkson would not let it be placed in the Board book. Link to PDF 8/10/17 notice of intent to file the Form 530 re harassment and retaliation shown below.

I prepared an 8/24/17, 2-page settlement offer to replace the 8/10/17 notice of intent, but that was unilaterally rejected by Clarkson without me being allowed to place it in the Boardbook.
This controlling what goes into the official record so the facts are misrepresented is a critical part of the problem.

In my professional life, I administered a local government civil service system for about 8,000 FTEs. There is no way the records under my control were ever mishandled the way I have observed that Adam Clarkson and Sandy Seddon have manipulated, concealed and even falsified the records at Sun City Anthem.

Page 1 of 2-page settlement offer to set aside the 8/10/17 notice of intent to file a form 530 that Clarkson refused to allow me to put in the 8/24/17 Board Book even though I was an elected member of the HOA Board and four of the other six Board members were currently fcacing petitions for a NRS 116.31036 election for their removal.
Page 2 of 2-page settlement offer to set aside the 8/10/17 notice of intent to file a form 530 that Clarkson refused to allow me to put in the 8/24/17 Board Book even though I was an elected member of the HOA Board and four of the other six Board members were currently fcacing petitions for a NRS 116.31036 election for their removal.

Clarkson retaliated against me by falsely accusing me of profiting from my elected Board seat and declaring absurdly that my seat was “vacant by opertion of law”

Link to PDF of Clarkson’s 8/24/17 letter falsely accusing me of placing matters before the Board from which I could make a profit from my Board position and declaring that, absent an NRS 116.311036 removl election, he could declare my elected board seat vacant without any due process.

Clarkson changed the election procedures so he can “vet” candidates for the Board. He has sent me a rejection letter every year.

Each year there are progressively more outrageous reasons for declaring that I am ineligible to run for or serve on the HOA Board.

Here are the links to Clarkson’s annual “notices of ineligibility”:
  • 2023 Notice of Ineliegibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board
  • 2022 Notice of Ineligibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board
  • 2021 Notice of Ineligibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board
  • 2020 Notice of Ineligibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board
  • 2019 Notice of Ineligibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board
  • 2018 Notice of Ineligibility to run for or serve on the SCA Board

On 12/19/22 I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar

Link to PDF of the filed motion for an order to show cause
Neither of the SCA attorneys, David Ochoa of Lipson Neilson nor Adam Clarkson, filed any opposition to the motion for an order to show cause nor did they show up for the hearing nor did they do anything. Must be nice to feel that incinvible.

The complaint against the SCA attorneys was verified and fully supported by evidence as shown in the exhibits linked below:

324604 – 4733 22-081953/6/22 BAR COMPLAINT VS. DAVID OCHOA EXHIBITS A-D  
33 33.1 33.24734 – 4847 22-08196 22-08198BAR COMPLAINT VS. OCHOA EXHIBITS E, E-1, E-2, 3-3 AND F  
344848 – 5046 22-08199BAR COMPLAINT VS. OCHOA EXHIBITS G, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, H, ONLINE COMPLAINT RECEIPT
David Ochoa is named because he was the litigation attorney representing the HOA’s insurance company and protecting the HOA’s former agent, Red Rock finacial Services, that conducted the disputed foreclosure in 2014, but make no mistake, Adam Clarkson’s fingerprints are all over this fraudulent misrepresentation to the court and concealing the HOA’s official records that had probative value to my case.
The exhibits show that the attorneys produced falsified documents to the court when there was no benefit to the HOA to do so, but did it to cover up the wrongdoing of the former agents.

EXHIBIT A Obstructed settlement mandated by CC&Rs XVI

EXHIBIT B Obstructed litigation and appeal

EXHIBIT C Misrepresented and suppressed evidence

EXHIBIT D Concealed HOA Official Records

EXHIBIT E Disclosed false and falsified records

EXHIBIT E-1 Disputed facts in Red Rock foreclosure files Ochoa disclosed as SCA 176-643

EXHIBIT E-2 Examples of false evidence

EXHIBIT E-3 Red Rock foreclosure file…d and disclosed as SCA 176-643

EXHIBIT F Filed non-meritorious claims

EXHIBIT G Concealed that there were no HOA Board authorizations of any foreclosure in meetings complaint with NRS 116.31083 and NRS 116.31085

EXHIBIT G-1 Legal limits on closed HOA Board meetings were concealed or misrepresented

EXHIBIT G-2 SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws

EXHIBIT G-3 SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014

EXHIBIT G-4 SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosures by Red Rock Financial Services or any other debt collector

EXHIBIT G-5 No valid HOA Board action authorized the sale and so the action is voidable

EXHIBIT H More disputed facts in meritless MSJ and order entered on 4/18/19

EXHIBIT H-1 Analysis of similarities with a Spanish Trail case shows that this case is not a one off; it is part of a corrupt pattern and practice where HOA attorneys aid and abet corrupt co-conspirators steal HOA homeowners’ property without notice or due process and allow banks to collect on debts they are not owed and debt collectors to refuse to distribute the excess proceeds from the sales in the manner proscribed by law.

Link to 12/19/22 Request For Judicial Notice of 481-page verified, evidence-backed, uninvestigated (pending court order) complaint to the State Bar and 78-page draft civil complaint requesting a court order for written findings of attorney misconduct.

The separate civil action (Link to separate PDF) will be necessary because the A-21-828840-C court chose not to issue a court order for the Sun City Anthem attorneys to show cause why written findings should not be forwarded to the State Bar for investigation).

This will ultimately be a huge waste of judicial resources because separate complaints will have to be filed against attorneys for Red Rock, for the the real estste speculators and for the banks as they all perpetrated fraud on the court for their own unjust profut, but their crimes were quite different.

Neither SCA attorney responded to the NRCP 11c safe harbor letter I sent them in November. Neither refuted any of the allegations of misconduct alleged in the complaint or produced any verified evidence to refute the verified enidence that supports my claims. Neither filed any

This resulted in me unfairly, without just cause, being declared a vexatious litigant at an improper, unnoticed, ex parte 2/2/23 hearing I learned of two weeks after the fact.

Instead of issuing an order for the attorneys to show cause why written findings shouldn’t be forwarded to the state Bar, the judge denied that motion and declared me a vexatious litigant for filing the motion at all. No wonder the attorneys didn’t bother to respond.

On 3/28/23, a restrictive order was entered against me without notice or a chance to oppose.

Link to PDF of 3/28/23 order filed without notice or opposition

I have tried unsuccessfully repeatedly for the last few weeks to get my opposition attached to the outrageously-inaccurate order so it is at least accurate enough for appeal.

No response has come from the court for five days.

  • Image gallery image
  • Image gallery image
  • Image gallery image
  • Image gallery image

HOA attorneys and managers fail in their fiduciary duty to the HOA, and the courts are not holding them to any standard.

HOA attorneys and managers are by law fiduciaries to the HOA that employs them. However, they routinely act in their own self-interest rather than solely and exclusively in the interest of the HOA.

The HOA homeowners are the intentional third-party beneficiaries of the CC&Rs contract in that the HOA exists for the purpose of maintaining the common areas, the community lifestyle and the property values of for the common good of the HOA membership at large.

The attorney and the manager are agents. They have no authority over the Board. Anything they assert over the Board is usurped, and that is the problem.

SB 417 will exacerbate the problem of attorneys and other agents enriching themselves by improper control over HOA Boards

My experience shows HOA attorneys lie with impunity to the courts now. The State Bar Assosication does not enforce the ethical codes of conduct. The Nevada Supreme Court thinks that’s okay, and it’s not its job either. The judges let the attorneys write orders that misrepresent the facts, the evidence and the law. The people of Nevada are simply stuck with a dysfunctional court system,

If SB 417 is approved, Nevadans in HOAs will witness NRED continuing to appease CAI lobbyists, while inadequately addressing the concerns of HOA homeowners in need of a channel to resolve their grievances.

Adam Clarkson has had the Ombudsman in his pocket for years.

…Or else, how has he kept all SCA homeowner complaints from being heard by the Commission for Common Interest Communities for the last six years?

After all, it has been enough for the past six years for the NRED to not investigate my complaints and the Ombudsman not to refer them to the Commission SOLELY because Adam Clarkson, the Community Association Institute lobbyist and Sun City Anthem’s debt collector and attorney, says I’m are just a “bad person” and not the kind that should be allowed to serve on the Board of Directors because I complained about things like how much over market the manager is paid?

Whose interests are being served?

What about NRED not investigating the “loss” of two pages of 22 signatures from the recall petition for Bob Burch? It is patently ridiculous to claim that attending the vote count was adequate when the issue was that he wasn’t on the ballot because two pages were “lost”.

Link to PDF of the complaint

Two pages of signatures were not courted and so Bob Burch was not not the recall ballot.

Showing up for the vote count for the other three with three attorneys from Clarkson’s office (that the homeowners paid) was the Ombudsman’s way of closing the case without investigation.

The determination that the election was valid was completely goundless since attending the vote count was completely irrelevant to the complaint.
Link to unanswered 9/2/17 NRED Form 514a

Link to my unanswered 1/31/18 Affidavit regarding Clarkson’s denial of records request related to Sandy Seddon’s salary that I filed with Investigator Christina Pitch who was assigned to investigate three NRED Form 530s.

If SB 417 is passed, it will be legal for Clarkson to deny a request for informstion about why the manager is paid more than $100,000/year more than her job is valued, and it will be legal for him a continue to write contracts for her that do not contain the provisins required by lawfor community association management contracts, and it will be legal for him to keep the contracts that the puppet Board members aopt in closed session secret from the members, and it will be legal for NRED to refuse to investigate it. But then, the homeowner can be stigmatized and threatened with high-cost litigation for even asking.

9/7/17 NRED Form IA 530 re Election Interference with the Recall election was resolved by NRED’s very thoughtful 8/8/18 letter below.

9/7/17 NRED Form IA 530 re unlawful removal from elected Board seat by Clarkson’s declaring my elected seat on the Board vacant “by operation of law” rather than by the mandatory NRS 116.31036 removal election was resolved by NRED’s very thoughtful 8/8/18 letter below.

9/7/17 NRED Form IA 530 re Harassment, Retaliation Clarkson’s spearheading bullying, retaliation, and harassment was resolved by NRED’s very thoughtful 8/8/18 letter below.

8/8/18 NRED’s dismissal of the three Form 530s without prejudice, ignoring the Form 530 and ignoring Clarkson’s obstruction of the legitimate access to information about employee salaries. Link to 8/8/18 NRED letter PDF.

SB 417 gives power to the wrong people and takes it away from the ones who need it.

Do not let it pass.

On 12/19/22, I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar

Attorneys for Sun City Anthem, Red Rock Financial Services, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and several real estate speculators were named.

Link to PDF

Table summarizes the uninvestigated allegations of attorney misconduct

Doc. No.Uninvestigated Ethics Complaints to the State Bar of Nevada
22-081892/23/22 Verified Bar Complaint Vs. Melanie Morgan, Akerman LLP Morgan aided and abetted Nationstar to collect on a debt it was not owed from Tobin who did not owe it by misrepresentation, concealing and suppression of evidence, stipulated dismissal of claims without adjudication, unfair removal of Tobin as an Individual party on false pretenses, fraudulent side deal with non-party Joel Stokes, misrepresented as the Nationstar-Jimijack settlement & improper Ex Parte communications with 1st judge Pages 4045-4154
22-081902/28/22 Wright Finley Zak LLP Verified Bar Complaint WFZ filed Nationstar’s original meritless & conflicting claims to be the beneficiary owed the debt from the deed of trust extinguished by the 8/1/14 sale, the lie that caused six years of litigation that aided and abetted Nationstar to abuse the HOA quiet litigation process to collect a debt it was not owed from Tobin who did not owe it without foreclosure and disregarding the PUD Rider Remedies (F) provision that prohibits any lender from using the payment of delinquent HIA assessments as a de facto foreclosure Pages 4155-4259
22-081913/1/22 Steven Scow, Koch & Scow, LLC Part 1 Verified Bar Complaint  Scow produced Red Rock’s false evidence in response to Tobin’s Subpoena. It was the hearsay evidence that provided the total support for the HOA’s meritless MSJ that became the “law of the case” and stopped all judicial scrutiny of any verified evidence in the remainder of the 1st action and in both subsequent actions Pages 4260-4354
22-08192Steven Scow Part 2 Verified Bar Complaint Exhibits B-F Red Rock instructed Scow to remit checks for excess proceeds to court but Scow retained millions in proceeds from all Sun City Anthem foreclosures and from all Red Rock foreclosures in multiple other HOAs by disregarding Red Rock’s instructions and NRS 116.31164(3)(c)(2013) statutory mandate that required distribution of all proceeds in 2014. Scow covered up how Red Rock was unjustly enriched by selling directly to investors without conducting public auctions, by not indemnifying the HOA according to contract terms, and by misrepresenting the open meeting law to inattentive or unsophisticated HOA Boards. Pages 4355- 4438
22-08194Steven Scow Part 3 Verified Bar Complaint Exhibits F -H-5 The false evidence Scow gave to the HOA and in response to subpoena covered up that: 1) Red Rock covertly sold the property after rejecting assessments that cured the default three times; 2) the HOA Board did not authorize the sale by valid corporate action; 3) Required notices were not provided, but records were falsified to fake that they had been sent. Pages 4439-4603
22-081953/6/22 Verified Bar Complaint vs. David Ochoa & Adam Clarkson Sun City Anthem attorneys Exhibits A-D Attorneys deprived Tobin of ADR, then obstructed her litigation and appeal litigation. They misrepresented the false evidence from Red Rock as the HOA’s official records and concealed the HOA’s actual verified records that were inculpatory t Red Rock and of probative value to Tobin’s case. Pages 4604 – 4733
22-08196 22-081983/6/22 Verified Bar Complaint vs. David Ochoa & Adam Clarkson Exhibits E, E-1, E-2, 3-3 F Shows how HOA MSJ was meritless for more reasons than because SCA had no standing to file it, i.e., the supporting exhibits include falsified documents produced by Red Rock and conceal the HOA’s real records indicating that Ochoa & Clarkson are working for Red Rock, not for the HOA. Pages 4734 – 4847
22-081993/6/22 Verified Bar Complaint vs. David Ochoa & Adam Clarkson Exhibits G shows exactly how documents were doctored or just deceptive. G-1 & G-2 show the attorneys advised the HOA Board to act in a manner that did not comply with HOA meeting laws.  G-3 shows that SCA Board was told that it was legally required to keep confidential from all SCA owners when Red Rock was intending to sell an SCA property. G-4 shows that in one year, Red Rock secretly sold a dozen houses to investors for less than 20% of their value, and the HOA has no records that any of them were foreclosed or sold under the HOA’s statutory authority or that any amount of money was collected.    G-5 shows that no valid Board action approved any of the sales. H shows more disputed facts that were in the HOA’s motion for summary judgment; H-1 shows a comparison with a case in a different HOA with different lenders but many of the same attorneys Pages 4848 – 5046
22-081629/4/17 Verified Bar Complaint Adam Clarkson & 9/12/17 Bar Rejection Had the State Bar not ignored Tobin’s 1st Bar Complaint against Adam Clarkson for bullying, harassment, representing the interests of the HOA manager against the interests of the HOA, misrepresenting the law to the HOA Board regarding open meeting and notice requirements, years of litigation could have been averted. Pages 242-279
22-081632/14/21 Joseph Hong And 2/16/21 Brittany Wood Verified Bar Complaints & 3/4/21 Bar Counsel’s Rejection pending Tobin’s submission of a court order with written findings of attorney misconduct. Hong conspired with Melanie Morgan to obstruct the 1st action because neither of their clients had evidence to support their title claims and the way to win was to get rid of Tobin by whatever means. They negotiated a fraudulent side deal, misrepresented it to the court, orchestrated an ex parte meeting with the judge, recorded multiple false claims to title to aid and abet their clients’ fraudulent reconveyance of the property to defraud Tobin. They lied to the district courts and the courts of appeal about Tobin’s standing as an individual to prevent her claims from being heard and to obstruct judicial scrutiny of her verified evidence.   Brittany Wood conspired with Joseph Hong and others to cover up that her clients were not bona fide purchasers, but knowingly received the last fraudulent transfer while there were three of Tobin’s lis pendens on record.  Wood made multiple intentional misrepresentations of material fact to obstruct Tobin’s claims from being heard on their merits because, if they were fairly heard, her clients would lose both their investment, whatever it was, and the property, because chances are, the title insurance wouldn’t have paid. Pages 280-460

What happens when attorneys take over and control HOA Boards?

This TikToK video shows what happens when outsized attorney fees make it impossible for a homeowner and his HOA to resolve a problem that neither of them started.

Whats happening in Sun City Anthem?

I got elected to Sun City Anthem Board on 5/1/17, the same day that Adam Clarkson was hired to be both the HOA’s attorney and its debt collector. From my very first meeting, Clarkson took actions against me, beginning with ordering me to recuse myself from all collection matters, past or present, then repreated cease & desist orders, demanding that I stop identifying myself as an elected member of the Board with any authority to speak an opinion, regardless of my professional expertise, if it differed from his “advice of counsel” of from the majority of the board. His most strident attacks were designed to threanen me into silence whenever I made any comment that was negative about the manager’s performance.

SCA’s “HOME” Page Says it all

Why I set up SCAstrong.com

Before I got booted off the Board on August 24, 2017, my concept of this website was to improve owner relations and to develop a strategic vision and plan like www.HendersonStrong.org. However, that PollyAnna has left the building. Now, a sadder, but wiser, gal is talking and my new purpose is:

  • To show how owners are paying for the expensive ride the GM & attorney have taken us on by duping the Board into following instead of leading.
  • To restore my reputation to its former glory.
  • To get the Board members & bloggers out of power that are hurting us, dividing us, and are treating some of us a lot better than others.
  • To develop new leaders who have their heads on straight & who haven’t had the fire in the belly kicked out of them yet.

Hot Button Issues examined in blog posts

  • The cost of the failed 2017 removal election of four Directors which was made 10 times higher than it would have been by the GM and attorney usurping the role of the SCA Election Committee against the wishes of the petitioners
  • Huge expenditure of unbudgeted association funds for legal fees – tripe the budget since Adam Clarkson started
  • 2017 Vote of no Confidence Petition against the General Manager
  • Unlawful actions by the SCA Board and management
  • Concealing and falsifying the official SCA records
  • Excessive management compensation
  • Eviction of the Foundation Assisting Seniors

What you’ll learn from blog posts on SCAstrong.com

  • What I’m doing about being illegally kicked off the Sun City Anthem Board just 116 days after 2,001 homeowners voted me onto the Board and two weeks after 825 owners called for a removal election to get rid of four of the other Directors.
  • Why those 825 homeowners signed petitions to remove four Board members: Rex Weddle, Aletta Waterhouse, Tom Nissen & Bob Burch.
  • Why 2,501 homeowners need to VOTE in the removal election scheduled for October 2nd – 20th, 2017.
  • Why all SCA homeowners need to take action to stop being taken for a very expensive ride by:
    • A Board that makes decisions over 50% of the time in secret
    • A General Manager who is paid more than $100,000 over market, 
    • An unnecessary Community Association Manager who does not protect homeowners (so, why do we need two managers?), and 
    • An attorney who has billed three times the budgeted amount – to stop me from being a whistle-blower, to evict the Foundation Assisting Seniors, and to overly protect management.

Why should you care?

  • If the Board is not fair to one, the system is not fair to all.
  • Six members of the board abused their power by making the decision to kick me off in secret without a hearing and without a membership vote.
  • Those same six Directors  evicted the Foundation Assisting Seniors in the same sneaky and unfair way.
  • What you need to care about is how to stop these people from trampling on all of our rights.
Nona Tobin, 9/25/17 SCAStrong.com Home Page

September 2017 SCAStrong.com archives show the entrenchment of power

September 2017 blogs linked here show that the same things are happening now. Clarkson and Seddon are still being unjustly enriched by manipulating the composition of the Sun City Anthem Board.

Call to Action – Stop SB 417

Please contact your State legislator and beg them not to pass SB 417. It just legalizes the corruption SCA has been fighting for years.

Legislators’ contact info

SCA’S ATTORNEY also is LOBBYIST against you the homeowner.  RED FLAG!

This is a re-print of an email that was circulating this weekend about SB 417, a very anti-homeowner bill that has tentative approval going forward and needs strong opposition from HOA homeowners to turn the tide.

Here is a link to the Nevada State Legislature’s website to get more information or track the bill. If you want to oppose SB 417 directly online, you just register up in the righthand corner. It’s free.

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/82nd2023/Bill/10426/Overview

Subject: SCA’S ATTORNEY also is LOBBYIST against you the homeowner.  RED FLAG! by Robert Stern.

By allowing Adam Clarkson to serve as the weaponized counsel for SCA to stifle free speech, to abuse power and disrespect the rule of law, the current board members are each one of the evil doers that ignore enforcement of the governing documents if it doesn’t fit their political agenda and goals. It’s even worse as they allow a self-serving COO to exercise her control to protect both hers and Clarkson’s gravy train.

This current board is a disgrace and a huge cancer on the future of SCA as its failed leadership thinks it’s coalition will sustain its mismanagement of power indefinitely. Hopefully the electorate over the next two elections will rid the community of the financially incompetent spenders and their disdain for the homeowners they were elected to govern. Adam Clarkson’s firm ought to be immediately relieved of its duties before more harm is done to homeowners.

Adam Clarkson of the Common Associations Institute, the lobbying arm of HOA management companies, says the state’s Real Estate Division receives “a lot of complaints from people that are just routine fighters,” and noted the bill would allow boards to prevent those people from serving on the board.

“They are not the kind of people who should be on the board,” Clarkson said. “They are not good people.”

Adam Clarkson, CAI Lobbyist, SCA attorney & debt collector

What it really is is an assault to stifle homeowner free speech and resistance to bad and fiscally irresponsible governance. Follow the money. Clarkson and his firm represent SCA’s Sandy Seddon and the board in SCA matters. Not good.

Samuel Covelli, a retired corrections officer in Las Vegas, says he was “stonewalled” when he asked his HOA for financial information. “this whole process is horribly slanted against a homeowner.”

The bill allows an association to ban a homeowner from serving on an HOA board for up to 10 years for filing a vexatious, defamatory, or  false complaint with the state, and allows board members or staff to use HOA funds to recover compensatory damages, attorneys fees, and costs from a person who takes “retaliatory action,” as determined by the State Real Estate Division( NRED).

And NRED is no friend to the ordinary homeowner. This is an attack against you the homeowner that is designed to ensure attorneys fees and power. Follow the money.

And SCA’s Weaponized counsel under Sandy Seddon and like minded board members must be gotten rid of. It is already happening and Clarkson, Seddon and certain board members must not have censorship power over you. This and future elections matter.

Las Vegas homeowner Michael Kosor says the measure is an assault on the First Amendment and serves to chill opposition to HOA governance. He says it’s also  “a rainmaker for the attorneys and management companies.”
Kosor says defamatory speech is already prohibited. The legislation, he says, allows the association to determine what is defamatory and gives the association “the ability to censor free speech based on opposing positions from that of the board.” RED FLAG!

Las Vegas homeowner Michael Kosor

Southern Highland’s developer Garry Goett’s Olympia Companies sued Kosor for defamation over statements made on-line and in-person at HOA meetings. Kosor prevailed before the Nevada Supreme Court.

“I’m a retired Air Force colonel fighter pilot with combat experience in the Gulf War,” Kosor testified Tuesday. “This experience defending the attacks of this developer on my family’s financial future was in total the most stressful experience of my life.”

retired Air Force colonel fighter pilot Michael Kosor

Kosor contends Goett has erroneously maintained control of the Southern Highlands board. He’s presented what he says is evidence to the state, but NRED has refused to investigate. SB 417 would codify the state’s ability to pick and choose investigations.


“There’s an imbalance of power between homeowners and homeowners’ associations and management companies,” Las Vegan Howard McCarley testified in opposition to the bill.  “Extensive financial resources are available to associations and managers. Residents are on their own.”

Las Vegan Howard McCarley

PROTECT YOUR POCKETBOOK AND FREE SPEECH. If you haven’t voted yet, please find your ballot and vote only for Pamela Williams (Ballot position #1) and Rick Ernest (Ballot Position #2). And please ask one more person who hasn’t voted to cast their ballot.
And be ready to support candidates in 2024 that will rid us of Seddon and Clarkson and likeminded board members.
The Community you save may be your own.