Tag: attorney misconduct

Would a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts perceive bias or a lack of impartiality?

Transcript analysis 2/2/23 hearing

Analysis by Casetext.com Co-counsel AI

For the last four years, I have subscribed to a legal services research service found on casetext.com. On 3/15/23, I upgraded to its new level of service called Co-counsel that includes an OpenAI-enabled document analysis feature that I utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of impartiality in the court hearings. I asked for an analysis of each hearing by providing a series of questions. Below are the responses for the 2/2/23 hearing.

Identify where in the transcript the judge made accommodating statements to or about the parties present

Pgs. 21-22, 3, 5, 10, 11

The judge makes several accommodating statements throughout the transcript. The most explicit examples are on pages 21-22 (LINES: 138-140) where the judge thanks Mr. Scow and asks Ms. Turley if she has anything to add. There are also other instances where the judge is understanding or polite to the parties present, such as not faulting Mr. Scow for a delay (pgs. 3,5) and allowing him to speak when he interrupts (pgs. 10,11).

The judge does not make any explicitly accommodating statements, but there are a few places where the judge seems to be understanding or accommodating. For example, the judge does not fault Mr. Scow for the delay in submitting an order because they were waiting for a transcript and for a writ issue to be resolved (LINE:130). Additionally, the judge tells counsel that they do not need to file an opposition to certain motions because the judge is advancing all motions to that day (LINE:113).

The judge does not make any explicitly accommodating statements, but there are a few instances where the judge is polite or respectful to the parties present. For example, the judge says “Go ahead” when Mr. Scow interrupts (LINE:116), and the judge responds “Okay, perfect” when Mr. Scow confirms that Ms. Tobin received notice (LINE:125).

The judge made several accommodating statements to or about the parties present. For example, the judge said “Thanks for coming down” (LINE:139) and “Appreciate it” (LINE:140) to Mr. Scow. Additionally, the judge asked Ms. Turley if she had anything to add, and when she said no, the judge responded “All right” (LINE:138).

Identify where in the transcript the judge made complimentary statements to or about Nona Tobin.

No relevant language found.

  1. Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Nona Tobin.
  1. Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Nona Tobin.

Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Nona Tobin.

Throughout

The judge makes negative statements about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript, including that she does not understand the law (Lines 103, 115), is repetitive and unmeritorious in her filings (Lines 110, 124, 126), and is a “vexatious litigant” (Line 113). These statements occur on pages 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17.

The judge makes several negative statements or implications about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that Tobin “does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint” (LINE:115), that she “continues to argue” a point that has already been decided (LINE:120), and that she “continues to file seriatim motions that were without legal or factual merit” (LINE:126).

The judge makes several negative statements about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that Tobin is “wrong and… misunderstanding what the law is” (Line 103), that she “did not seek leave of this Court to do so as required” (Line 108), that she “is simply wrong” (Line 110), and that she has filed “seriatim motions with this Court that are devoid of legal merit” (Line 124).

The judge makes several negative statements about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge refers to her filings as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious” (LINE:111), and declares her a “vexatious litigant” (LINE:113).

Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about the parties present.

Against Ms. Tobin

The judge makes a number of negative statements or implications about Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript, including that she does not understand the law (Lines 103, 115, 118), files motions without merit (Lines 108, 110, 116, 126), and is a “vexatious litigant” (Line 113). The judge also refers to one of her requests as “inappropriate” (Line 145). These statements occur on pages 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17.

The judge makes a number of negative statements or implications about Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that “Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint” (

The judge makes several negative statements about Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that Ms. Tobin is “wrong and… misunderstanding what the law is” (Line 103), that she “did not seek leave of this Court to do so as required” (Line 108), that she “is simply wrong” (Line 110), and that she “continues to file seriatim motions with this Court that are devoid of legal merit” (Line 116). Additionally, the judge refers to Ms. Tobin’s request for judicial notice as “inappropriate” and “legally devoid of merit” (Line 145).

The judge makes a few negative statements or references to Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge refers to her motions as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious”

The judge references denying Tobin’s motions or precluding her claims in multiple places throughout the transcripts. On pages 3-4, the judge discusses dismissing Tobin’s claims, denying her motion to reconsider, and implying that all motions will be denied. On pages 8, 10, 11, and 13, the judge mentions that Tobin’s motions have been denied multiple times and that she may be declared a vexatious litigant. Finally, on pages 15-17, the judge discusses enjoining Tobin from filing complaints, denying her motion to reconsider, and declaring her a vexatious litigant.

The judge references dismissing Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion on line 121. Additionally, the judge discusses denying Tobin’s motion to reconsider on line 122. Finally, the judge states that she is advancing all motions to the current day and implies that they will all be denied on line 114.

The judge does not explicitly state that Tobin’s claims are precluded or that she has no claims, but the judge does mention multiple times that Tobin’s motions have been denied. Specifically, the judge says “once again denied Tobin’s claims” (Line 105), “the Court will have no other choice but to issue an order to show cause why Ms. Tobin should not be declared a vexatious litigant” (Line 116), “the Court was going to declare her a vexatious litigant” (Line 124), and “she filed another motion to reconsider on the same issues that have been denied over and over and over again” (Line 139).

The judge references denying Tobin’s motions or precluding her claims in several places. For example, the judge says “The Court is going to enjoin her from filing any complaints” (Line 101), “If Ms. Tobin’s complaint is meritless or if it fails to allege a cognizable, legal claim Ms. Tobin’s complaint shall be sent back to her unfiled” (Line 102), “Ms. Tobin is enjoined from filing anything other than a timely notice of appeal into this case” (Line 103), and “the Court declares Ms. Tobin a vexatious litigant and denies the motion to reconsider that is being advanced to today” (Line 115).

The judge explicitly states that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case on two separate occasions (pgs. 3, 9), and also makes reference to them in the context of the case on another occasion (pg. 19).

The judge states that “It is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint. Red Rock Financial Services is a party to this case.” Additionally, the judge later says “They have interplead funds. That is the only thing that is at issue in this case.”

The judge states that “Red Rock Financial Services is a party in this case. They are the interpleader in this case. She filed cross-claims against them.”

While the judge does not explicitly state that Red Rock LLC is a party as a matter of law, the judge does mention Red Rock Financial Services several times, including instructing that they “shall turn over to Ms. Tobin the amount of blank” (Line 131) and that they are to be included in the order being prepared (Line 129).

Lines 113, pg. 18

The judge explicitly stated that the parties did not need to file an opposition to Tobin’s motions in line 113 (pg. 3), and also implied it in response to Mr. Scow’s question on page 18.

The judge stated that “I do not feel that it is necessary for them to file an opposition to the motion to reconsider that is set to be heard on the 8th or on the 28th. Nor do I find it necessary for them to file an opposition to the motions that are set for in chambers, for February the 8th” in

The judge does not explicitly state that the parties do not have to file a written opposition, but the implication is clear when the judge says “I advanced that to today, too” in response to Mr. Scow’s question about the hearing on the 8th being in chambers only.

The judge stated that the court had tried to call Tobin but she didn’t answer her phone on line 107 (pg. 2)

The judge states that “We just attempted to phone her and she did not answer the phone” on line 107.

The court was consistently displeased with Tobin’s allegations and motions, dismissing them as meritless and expressing frustration with her repeated filings (pgs. 3,4,7,8,9,10,11,13,14). The court ultimately declared her a vexatious litigant and enjoined her from filing any further complaints without review (pgs. 15,16,17).

The court seems to have largely dismissed Tobin’s allegations. The judge notes that Tobin “does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint,” and that “Red Rock Financial Services is a party to this case.” Additionally, the judge criticizes Tobin for filing “seriatim motions that were devoid of legal or factual merit,” and argues that her attempt to withdraw those filings does not “cure” the issue.

The court repeatedly denies Tobin’s claims and motions, and expresses frustration with her repeated filings. The court ultimately considers declaring her a “vexatious litigant” in order to restrict her ability to file further motions.

The court was not pleased with Tobin’s allegations. The court enjoined her from filing any complaints until they are reviewed by the Chief Judge, and if they are found to be meritless, they will be returned to her unfiled. The court also declared her a vexatious litigant, citing her “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions.”

Procedural errors; meritless motions

The court provides a number of reasons for denying Tobin’s motions, including that she did not follow proper procedure (pgs. 9,11), did not justify her request for relief (pgs. 9,11), and misunderstood the nature of the complaint (pgs. 3,4,6,7). Additionally, the court argues that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that lack merit and has been warned about being declared a vexatious litigant (pgs. 9,11,16,17).

The court argues that Tobin’s motions should be denied for a few reasons. First, the court contends that Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint and that Red Rock Financial Services is indeed a party to the case. Second, the court argues that Tobin has continued to file “seriatim motions” that lack legal or factual merit, even after being warned not to do so. Finally, the court argues that Tobin’s request for judicial notice is not appropriate because the facts she wants the court to take notice of are subject to reasonable dispute.

The court provides several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. First, Tobin did not seek leave of the court to file a motion for reconsideration, as required by EDCR 2.24(a). Second, she did not identify which of the six grounds for relief from a final order would justify relief or reconsideration. Third, the court argues that Tobin is incorrect in asserting that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to the case. Finally, the court notes that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that are devoid of legal merit, and has been warned that she risks being declared a vexatious litigant if she continues to do so.

The court cites several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. The court argues that Tobin’s motions are “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious,” and that she has been given ample opportunity to respond and argue her case. Additionally, the court notes that they had previously warned Tobin that if she continued to file motions that were “legally and factually devoid of merit,” they would declare her a “vexatious litigant.”

Claim preclusion; harassment

The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion (pg. 4), and denied her motion to reconsider. Additionally, the court has repeatedly expressed frustration with Tobin’s “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” (pgs. 13-14, 16-17), which may have contributed to the decision to dismiss her claims with prejudice.

The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion, as stated in line 121. Additionally, the court denied Tobin’s motion to reconsider this decision (line 122).

While the document does not directly address this question, it does mention that the court has repeatedly denied Tobin’s claims and motions, and that the court finds her filings to be “legally devoid of merit” and “doing nothing except for attempting to harass the attorneys that have been involved in this matter.”

While the document does not explicitly address the reasoning behind the dismissal of these claims, it does mention that Ms. Tobin has filed “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” and that she was warned about being declared a “vexatious litigant” if she continued to file motions “legally and factually devoid of merit.”

230202 A-21-828840-C – Recorders Transcript of Hearing – RTRAN CIV.pdf

There are multiple negative references to Tobin throughout the document. The Court criticizes her for not understanding the nature of a complaint (pgs. 3-7), for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14), and for not attending a hearing (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14). The Court also refers to her as a “vexatious litigant” on multiple occasions (pgs. 16,17,21).

There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. For example, the Court states that Tobin “continues to argue that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to this case” and that “it is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint.” Additionally, the Court references Tobin’s “seriatim motions that were without legal or factual merit” and warns her that she may be declared a “vexatious litigant.”

There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court repeatedly refers to her filings as “devoid of legal merit,” “repetitive,” and “abusive.” The Court also notes that she did not attend a hearing and did not provide any notice that she would not be present. Finally, the Court discusses the possibility of declaring her a “vexatious litigant.”

There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court refers to her filings as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious” (LINE:111) and declares her a “vexatious litigant” (LINE:113). Additionally, Mr. Scow notes that Tobin’s behavior has been “vexatious” for the Court as well (LINE:136).

While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, there are a few places in the document that could be seen as favorable to them. The Court notes Mr. Scow’s caution and thoroughness (pgs. 5,7), criticizes Tobin for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,14), and expresses appreciation for Mr. Scow’s cooperation (pgs. 17,19,20,22).

While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain some information that could be seen as favorable to them. For example, the Court notes that Mr. Scow submitted an amended order “in an abundance of caution” to reflect Tobin’s proposed changes, which suggests that he is being careful and thorough. Additionally, the Court repeatedly criticizes Tobin for filing motions that are “devoid of legal or factual merit,” which implies that her opponents may have stronger arguments.

While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain several negative references to Tobin herself, which could be seen as indirectly positive for her opponents. For example, the document states that Tobin’s proposed changes are “legally incorrect,” that she is “wrong” and “misunderstanding what the law is,” and that she has filed motions that are “devoid of legal merit.”

While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the Court does express appreciation to Mr. Scow for his suggestions and cooperation, saying “thank you” multiple times and noting that he is “happy to do” what the Court requests.

230202 A-21-828840-C – Recorders Transcript of Hearing – RTRAN CIV.pdf

Pages 1-7

 – The document is a transcript of a court proceeding involving Red Rock Financial Services and Nona Tobin.

– The proceeding took place on Thursday, February 2nd, 2023, before Judge Jessica K. Peterson.

– Steven B. Scow represented Red Rock Financial Services, while Vanessa M. Turley represented Nationstar.

– Nona Tobin did not appear in court, and did not answer when called.

– Several motions were on the docket, including requests for judicial notice of attorney misconduct.

– The judge advanced all motions to withdraw, and a motion to reconsider to the day of the proceeding despite Tobin’s absence.

– The judge clarified that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, despite Tobin’s arguments to the contrary.

– The judge referenced a previous hearing in which she warned Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and noted that Tobin had continued to do so.

– The judge ruled that she could not take judicial notice of attorney misconduct as requested by Tobin, as the facts were subject to dispute.

– The judge also referenced an order from a previous hearing that was not entered until January 2023 due to Tobin’s appeals to the Supreme Court.

Pages 8-14

 – The Court denies all of Ms. Tobin’s proposed changes to an order, as they are legally incorrect or contain argument.

– Ms. Tobin files a motion to reconsider an order from January 16, 2023, as well as a renewed motion to strike Red Rock Financial Services’ filings.

– The Court explains that Ms. Tobin is misunderstanding the law, and denies her motion for reconsideration.

– The Court references rule 2.24 of the Eighth Judicial District Court rules and rule 60(b) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern motions to set aside a judgement or order.

– Ms. Tobin did not seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration, nor did she identify grounds for relief.

– The Court finds that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, and that Ms. Tobin’s argument is incorrect.

– The Court references a previous order that warned Ms. Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and notes that she received notice of the order.

– The Court discusses the requirements for declaring someone a vexatious litigant, and finds that Ms. Tobin meets the criteria.

– The Court imposes a restrictive order on Ms. Tobin, barring her from filing new actions unless the Court reviews the filing and determines that it is not frivolous.

Pages 15-22

 – Ms. Tobin is warned against filing complaints against individual attorneys involved in the case.

– The Court orders Ms. Tobin to submit any complaints to the Chief Judge of the District Court for review before filing.

– Ms. Tobin is only allowed to file three specific items: a notice of appeal, an objection to the Brunzell affidavit, or an objection to the amount received from the interplead funds.

– The Court declares Ms. Tobin a vexatious litigant and denies her motion to reconsider.

– The Court requests that Mr. Scow prepare an order detailing the Court’s decision.

– The Court discusses the possibility of disposing of the entire case with this final order.

– The Court requests that Mr. Scow leave blank spaces in the order for the amount of fees and the amount Ms. Tobin is entitled to from the interplead funds.

230202 A-21-828840-C – Recorders Transcript of Hearing – RTRAN CIV.pdf

Identify how the court reacted to Tobin’s allegations.

The court was consistently displeased with Tobin’s allegations and motions, dismissing them as meritless and expressing frustration with her repeated filings (pgs. 3,4,7,8,9,10,11,13,14). The court ultimately declared her a vexatious litigant and enjoined her from filing any further complaints without review (pgs. 15,16,17).

The court seems to have largely dismissed Tobin’s allegations. The judge notes that Tobin “does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint,” and that “Red Rock Financial Services is a party to this case.” Additionally, the judge criticizes Tobin for filing “seriatim motions that were devoid of legal or factual merit,” and argues that her attempt to withdraw those filings does not “cure” the issue.

The court repeatedly denies Tobin’s claims and motions, and expresses frustration with her repeated filings. The court ultimately considers declaring her a “vexatious litigant” in order to restrict her ability to file further motions.

The court was not pleased with Tobin’s allegations. The court enjoined her from filing any complaints until they are reviewed by the Chief Judge, and if they are found to be meritless, they will be returned to her unfiled. The court also declared her a vexatious litigant, citing her “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions.”

Describe the court’s reasoning on why Tobin’s motions should be denied.

Procedural errors; meritless motions

The court provides a number of reasons for denying Tobin’s motions, including that she did not follow proper procedure (pgs. 9,11), did not justify her request for relief (pgs. 9,11), and misunderstood the nature of the complaint (pgs. 3,4,6,7). Additionally, the court argues that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that lack merit and has been warned about being declared a vexatious litigant (pgs. 9,11,16,17).

The court argues that Tobin’s motions should be denied for a few reasons. First, the court contends that Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint and that Red Rock Financial Services is indeed a party to the case. Second, the court argues that Tobin has continued to file “seriatim motions” that lack legal or factual merit, even after being warned not to do so. Finally, the court argues that Tobin’s request for judicial notice is not appropriate because the facts she wants the court to take notice of are subject to reasonable dispute.

The court provides several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. First, Tobin did not seek leave of the court to file a motion for reconsideration, as required by EDCR 2.24(a). Second, she did not identify which of the six grounds for relief from a final order would justify relief or reconsideration. Third, the court argues that Tobin is incorrect in asserting that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to the case. Finally, the court notes that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that are devoid of legal merit, and has been warned that she risks being declared a vexatious litigant if she continues to do so.

The court cites several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. The court argues that Tobin’s motions are “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious,” and that she has been given ample opportunity to respond and argue her case. Additionally, the court notes that they had previously warned Tobin that if she continued to file motions that were “legally and factually devoid of merit,” they would declare her a “vexatious litigant.”

Describe the court’s reasoning on why all Tobin’s claims of Fraud, Racketeering, Conversion, and petitions for sanctions were dismissed with prejudice.

Claim preclusion; harassment

The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion (pg. 4), and denied her motion to reconsider. Additionally, the court has repeatedly expressed frustration with Tobin’s “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” (pgs. 13-14, 16-17), which may have contributed to the decision to dismiss her claims with prejudice.

The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion, as stated in line 121. Additionally, the court denied Tobin’s motion to reconsider this decision (line 122).

While the document does not directly address this question, it does mention that the court has repeatedly denied Tobin’s claims and motions, and that the court finds her filings to be “legally devoid of merit” and “doing nothing except for attempting to harass the attorneys that have been involved in this matter.”

While the document does not explicitly address the reasoning behind the dismissal of these claims, it does mention that Ms. Tobin has filed “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” and that she was warned about being declared a “vexatious litigant” if she continued to file motions “legally and factually devoid of merit.”

230202 A-21-828840-C – Recorders Transcript of Hearing – RTRAN CIV.pdf

Identify where in the transcripts the judge stated why she would not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested.

Multiple reasons

The judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, but there are a few potential explanations in the transcript. The judge mentions Tobin’s history of filing frivolous motions (pg. 16), her apparent misunderstanding of the case (pg. 3), and her inappropriate and meritless request for the court to take judicial notice of alleged attorney misconduct (pg. 14).

While the judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, she does mention that Tobin “continues to argue that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to this case” and that “it is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint.” This suggests that the judge does not believe the evidentiary hearing is necessary or warranted given Tobin’s apparent misunderstanding of the case.

While the judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, she does mention that Tobin’s request for the court to take judicial notice of alleged attorney misconduct was “inappropriate” and “legally devoid of merit.”

The judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, but she does mention that Tobin’s “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” provide “a sufficient record to support a vexatious litigant filing.” This suggests that the judge is not inclined to grant Tobin’s requests because she has a history of filing frivolous motions.

Identify any negative reference to Tobin

There are multiple negative references to Tobin throughout the document. The Court criticizes her for not understanding the nature of a complaint (pgs. 3-7), for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14), and for not attending a hearing (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14). The Court also refers to her as a “vexatious litigant” on multiple occasions (pgs. 16,17,21).

There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. For example, the Court states that Tobin “continues to argue that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to this case” and that “it is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint.” Additionally, the Court references Tobin’s “seriatim motions that were without legal or factual merit” and warns her that she may be declared a “vexatious litigant.”

There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court repeatedly refers to her filings as “devoid of legal merit,” “repetitive,” and “abusive.” The Court also notes that she did not attend a hearing and did not provide any notice that she would not be present. Finally, the Court discusses the possibility of declaring her a “vexatious litigant.”

There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court refers to her filings as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious” (LINE:111) and declares her a “vexatious litigant” (LINE:113). Additionally, Mr. Scow notes that Tobin’s behavior has been “vexatious” for the Court as well (LINE:136).

Identify any positive reference to Tobin’s opponents

While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, there are a few places in the document that could be seen as favorable to them. The Court notes Mr. Scow’s caution and thoroughness (pgs. 5,7), criticizes Tobin for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,14), and expresses appreciation for Mr. Scow’s cooperation (pgs. 17,19,20,22).

While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain some information that could be seen as favorable to them. For example, the Court notes that Mr. Scow submitted an amended order “in an abundance of caution” to reflect Tobin’s proposed changes, which suggests that he is being careful and thorough. Additionally, the Court repeatedly criticizes Tobin for filing motions that are “devoid of legal or factual merit,” which implies that her opponents may have stronger arguments.

While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain several negative references to Tobin herself, which could be seen as indirectly positive for her opponents. For example, the document states that Tobin’s proposed changes are “legally incorrect,” that she is “wrong” and “misunderstanding what the law is,” and that she has filed motions that are “devoid of legal merit.”

While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the Court does express appreciation to Mr. Scow for his suggestions and cooperation, saying “thank you” multiple times and noting that he is “happy to do” what the Court requests.

Summary of the 2/2/23 ex parte hearing

Doc No. 130 230303 filed RTRAN of 230202 ex parte hearing.pdf

Pages 1-7

 – The document is a transcript of a court proceeding involving Red Rock Financial Services and Nona Tobin.

– The proceeding took place on Thursday, February 2nd, 2023, before Judge Jessica K. Peterson.

– Steven B. Scow represented Red Rock Financial Services, while Vanessa M. Turley represented Nona Tobin.

– Nona Tobin did not appear in court, and did not answer when called.

– Several motions were on the docket, including requests for judicial notice of attorney misconduct, motions to withdraw, and a motion to reconsider.

– The judge advanced all motions to the day of the proceeding.

– The judge clarified that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, despite Tobin’s arguments to the contrary.

– The judge referenced a previous hearing in which she warned Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and noted that Tobin had continued to do so.

– The judge ruled that she could not take judicial notice of attorney misconduct as requested by Tobin, as the facts were subject to dispute.

– The judge also referenced an order from a previous hearing that was not entered until January 2023 due to Tobin’s appeals to the Supreme Court.

Pages 8-14

 – The Court denies all of Ms. Tobin’s proposed changes to an order, as they are legally incorrect or contain argument.

– Ms. Tobin files a motion to reconsider an order from January 16, 2023, as well as a renewed motion to strike Red Rock Financial Services’ filings.

– The Court explains that Ms. Tobin is misunderstanding the law, and denies her motion for reconsideration.

– The Court references rule 2.24 of the Eighth Judicial District Court rules and rule 60(b) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern motions to set aside a judgement or order.

– Ms. Tobin did not seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration, nor did she identify grounds for relief.

– The Court finds that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, and that Ms. Tobin’s argument is incorrect.

– The Court references a previous order that warned Ms. Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and notes that she received notice of the order.

– The Court discusses the requirements for declaring someone a vexatious litigant, and finds that Ms. Tobin meets the criteria.

– The Court imposes a restrictive order on Ms. Tobin, barring her from filing new actions unless the Court reviews the filing and determines that it is not frivolous.

Pages 15-22

 – Ms. Tobin is warned against filing complaints against individual attorneys involved in the case.

– The Court orders Ms. Tobin to submit any complaints to the Chief Judge of the District Court for review before filing.

– Ms. Tobin is only allowed to file three specific items: a notice of appeal, an objection to the Brunzell affidavit, or an objection to the amount received from the interplead funds.

– The Court declares Ms. Tobin a vexatious litigant and denies her motion to reconsider.

– The Court requests that Mr. Scow prepare an order detailing the Court’s decision.

– The Court discusses the possibility of disposing of the entire case with this final order.

– The Court requests that Mr. Scow leave blank spaces in the order for the amount of fees and the amount Ms. Tobin is entitled to from the interplead funds.

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.

My opponents’ first improper attempt for a vexatious litigant restrictive order failed.

January 19, 2022 court hearing

Link to Transcript

First attempt for a vexatious litigant restrictive order was to dstrict the court from having an evidentiary hearing.

My motive for requesting a ruling based on evidence was proper.

In December 2021 I filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing because I had been in litigation since July 2016 and no judge had looked at the evidence yet.

Screenshot of my motion’s introduction shows my good faith intention.

Non-party Red Rock LLC filing an opposition to my motion was improper and outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Red Rock Financial Services LLC is not the Plaintiff, did not file the complaint, did not ever have a contract with Sun City Anthe, did not conduct the disputed forecloure sale, did not legally ever possess the interpleaded funds that Plaintiff Red Rcok was lawfully required to distribute to me as the sole claimant in 2014, but has obstructed giving to me through three court cases for 8+ years.

Screenshot of Red Rock LLC’s motion’s preliminary statement shows irrelevant personal attack and lack of substance.

Note that I brought claims as an individual in the 1st action as well as the trustee of the Hansen Trust. The last line of this scrennshot, that i brought claims solely as a trustee, is one of the big lies that have made this dispute so hard to resolve as that lie is used to preclude my claims from being heard on the merits.

The hearing was scheduled for 1/18/22 to hear my motion for an evidentiary hearing until a counter-motion changed the purpose and the date of the hearing

A hearing was held on January 19, 2022 to decide my motion for an evidentiary hearing to set aside previous orders on the grounds that the orders had been obtained by fraud, false evidence, attorney and judicial misconduct.

A rogue counter-motion made by a non-party, Red Rock Financial Services LLC, to issue a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me was filed, and the date and purpose of the hearing changed so no evidentiary hearing was held (again).

The same date change and the same failure to hold an evidentiary hearing happened for the 8/19/21 hearing that had the date changed inexlicably from 8/18/21 to 8/19/21.

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

Petition for the enforcement of the Judicial and Professional Codes of Conduct failed

The State Bar of Nevada refused to investigate complaints of attorney misconduct without a court order.

Linked Table of Contents of Appellant’s Appendices in Nevada Supreme Court

case 84371

I asked the Supreme Court to order the State Bar to investigate because it was an undue hardship on the victim to get a court order.

The petition for Writs of Mandate vs. the State Bar of Nevada and the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline was supported by a 36 -volume appendix that contained all the evidence that had been submitted to the State Bar and the NCJC, but had not been investigated. The uninvestigated complaints are linked below.

FILED DATETOBIN BATES NUMBERDOCUMENT DESCRIPTIONNEVADA SUPREME COURT FILE NUMBER
3/15/2022PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEVADA JUDICIAL AND PROFESSIONAL CODES OF CONDUCT22-08149
3/15/2022PETITION FOR EXCESS PAGES22-08150
3/15/2022EXPANDED TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX VOLUMES 1-3622-08152
5/18/2022AMENDED PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEVADA JUDICIAL AND PROFESSIONAL CODES OF CONDUCT22-15670
VOLUMEAPPENDIX VOLUME CONTENTS
1001 -104A-15-720032-C orders that were obtained by fraud22-08156
2105 – 201A-19-799890-CANDA-21-828840-C ORDERS OBTAINED BY FRAUD22-08160
3202-27979295 AND 82294 ORDERS AND 1ST BAR REJECTED COMPLAINT22-08162
4280-4602ND AND 3RD BAR COMPLAINTS AND REJECTIONS22-08163
5461-646NCJD COMPLAINT ATTACHMENTS 1-722-08164
6647-828NCJD ATTACHMENTS 8-1222-08165
7829-946NCJD ATTACH 13 AND 14 NATIONSTAR AND EX PARTE22-08167
8947-1157NCJD Attach 15 obstruction of forced litigation22-08168
91158-1284NCJD Attach 16 EX PARTE STRICKEN PART 122-08169
101285-1431NCJD Attach 16 EX PARTE STRICKEN PART222-08170
111432-1676NCJD Attach 16 190417 EVIDENCE EXHIBITS 1-3 STRICKEN PART 322-08171
121677-1823NCJD Attach 16 190417 EVIDENCE EXHIBITS 4-9 EX PARTE STRICKEN PART 422-08172
131824-1949NCJD Attach 16 190417 PROOFS OF SERVICE EX PARTE STRICKEN PART 522-08173
141950-2064NCJD Attach 16 EVIDENCE VS NATIONSTAR EX PARTE STRICKEN PART 622-08174
152058-2120NCJD Attach 16 ANNOTATED ORDERS AND COURT RECORD PART 722-08175
162121 -22994/24/19 MVAC PER NRCP 60(b) AND CMSJ vs all AND 6/17/19 Motion to intervene as individual per NRCP 24 UNHEARD PART 122-08176
172300-24926/17/19 Motion to intervene as individual per NRCP 24 unheard PART 222-08178
182493-26996/17/19 Motion to intervene as individual per NRCP 24 PART 3 AND 7/22/19 Motion for a new trial PER NRCP 54(b) AND NRCP 59(a)(1)(A)(B)(C)(D)(F) PART 122-08179
192700-29197/22/19 Motion for a new Trial NRCP 54(b) AND NRCP 59(a)(1)(A)(B)(C)(D)(F) stricken PART 222-08180
202920-30377/29/29 motion to dismiss PER NRS 38.310.2; 8/7/19 COMPLAINT ABUSE OF PROCESS CLAIM VS. MORGAN, HONG & OCHOA @ 3025-303122-08181
213038-31683/8/21 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 dismissed with prejudice per NRCP 12(b)(5) res judicata.22-08182
223169-3367NONA TOBIN S THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT 1. ABUSE OF PROCESS 2. RACKETEERING (NRS 207.360(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 withdrawn, not served within 120 days PART 122-08183
233368 – 3543NONA TOBIN S THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT 1. ABUSE OF PROCESS 2. RACKETEERING (NRS 207.360(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 (was withdrawn as it was not served within 120 days) PART 2; 4/12/21 Nona Tobin’s Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin; 4/15/21 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; 11/10/21 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; 11/10/21Nona Tobin’s Three-Day Notice of Intent to Take Default vs. Nationstar. as to Tobin’s Cross-Claims Filed on March 8, 2021 and 2/18/21, 5/11/21, 5/21/21, & 5/25/21 NCJD TOBIN COMMUNICATIONS22-08184
243544-37363/15/21 RFJN 2003-2019 PROPERTY RECORD PART 122-08185
253738-39393/15/21 RFJN 2020-2021 PROPERTY RECORD PART 2.22-08186
263940-40444/4/21 RFJN UNADJUDICATED CLAIMS; 4/7/21 RFJN LAWS 210409 NRCP 16.1 DISCLOSURES22-08187 DUPLICATE WAS REPLACED ON 4/12/22 BY 22-11463
274045-41542/23/22 BAR COMPLAINT VS. MELANIE MORGAN22-08189
284155-42592/28/22 WRIGHT FINLEY ZAK BAR COMPLAINT22-08190
294260-43543/2/22 STEVEN SCOW BAR COMPLAINT AND EX A FALSE EVIDENCE22-08191
304355- 4438STEVEN SCOW BAR COMPLAINT EX B-F RETAINED PROCEEDS22-08192
314439-4603STEVEN SCOW BAR COMPLAINT EXHIBITS F -H-522-08194
324604 – 4733BAR COMPLAINT VS. DAVID 3/6/22 OCHOA EXHIBITS A-D22-08195
33.14734 – 4847BAR COMPLAINT VS. OCHOA EXHIBITS E, E-1, E-2, 3-3 AND F22-08196
33.2  ADDS INCORRECTLY NUMBERED EXHIBIT H-1 TO OCHOA EXHIBITS E, E-1, E-2, 3-3 AND F (4734-4847)22-08198
344848 – 5046BAR COMPLAINT VS. OCHOA EXHIBITS G, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, H, ONLINE RECEIPT22-08199
355047 – 5204PRO SE A-21-828840-C FAILED ATTEMPTS TO GET ORDER WITH WRITTEN FINDINGS OF ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT22-08200
365205 – 5282A-21-88840-C 8/19/21, 11/16/21, and 1/18/22 HEARING TRANSCRIPTS22-08218
26 CORRECTED3944-40444/4/21 RFJN UNADJUDICATED CLAIMS; 4/7/21 RFJN LAWS 210409 NRCP 16.1 DISCLOSURES OMITTED IN ERROR FROM THE COURT”S 84371 PUBLIC PORTAL. CORRECTED 4/12/2222-11463
Volumes 22, 23, and 35 were my unsuccessful attempts to written findings of the attorney misconduct that made winning civil litigation a virtual impossibility. Volumes 5-15 related to the judicial misconduct in the 1st action. Because these failed, history repeated itself in the 3rd action.

On 8/11/22, the Supreme Court ruled that an appeal was a speedy and adequate remedy for me, and there was no need its extraordinary intervention.

This order meant that the Nevada Supreme Court was okay with requiring the victim to get a court order with written findings of attorney misconduct as a condition precedent to the State Bar beginning any investigation of alleged violations of ethical rules.

So I tried again.

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…but that led to an obviously unwarranted vexatious litigant restrictive order.

The saga continues…

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.

A-21-828840-C Orders are “void, not voidable merely”

“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)

A-21-828840-C Orders Are Void

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