Court records show that the interpleader action was meritless as it was filed when I was the sole party with a recorded claim after June 3, 2019.
The statute NRS 116.31164(3)(c)(2013) required that all the proceeds from the August 15, 2014 HOA foreclosure sale be distributed in a specified manner by the person conducting the sale.
Red Rock’s attorney’s failure to comply with the law and Red Rock’s instructions caused years of litigation and enabled bank fraud.
The law required all the proceeds to be distributed after the sale in 2014, but Red Rock didn’t do that and forced years of litigation to claim money that was rightfully mine and enabled massive fraud on the court by other parties as a result. When Red Rock sued me in a meritless interpleader action, I fought back with fraud, racketering and conversion claims. No party answered so I filed a motion for summary judgment, but then a nonparty filed a motion to dismiss per res judicata which the court granted while denying my motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there were disputed facts and my claims were precluded anyway and she didn’t need to address my claim for the proceeds as long as I was attempting to unwind the sale on appeal.
Red Rock filed a successful motion to dismiss my claim for those proceeds on June 23, 2020 on the grounds of NRCP 12(b)(5) (res judicata) (even though the excess funds from the 2014 sale had not been distributed as required by the statute NRS 116.31164(3)(c)(2013) and NRCP 12(b)(6)(failure to join the HOA as a necessary party to protect its interest in the excess proceeds (despite the fact that Red Rock had paid the HOA in full $2,701.04 on 8/21/04 (according to HOA records that Red Rock falsified in discovery).
Plaintiff Red Rock did not have standing to file 2/3/21 interpleader complaint
Plaintiff Red Rock Financial Services was referred to as “RRFS” in the complaint, but as “Red Rock” elsewhere throughout the case, and as “RRFS was contracted by the Association to collect debts for unpaid homeowners assessments owed to the Association by defendant Nona Tobin as the trustee for the Gordon Hansen Trust for the property located at 2763 White Sage Drive, Henderson, Nevada 89052”. This “RRFS” was a partnership subsidiary of FirstService Residential Nevada, LLC (EIN 88-0358132). The relevant debt collection contract, also concealed in discovery by Red Rock, was signed with Sun City Anthem on 4/27/12.
Judge Peterson did not require my opponents to have standing
The Plaintiff Red Rock is a different legal entity from Red Rock Financial Services, LLC, is a disinterested non-party utilized by their shared attorney to improperly file rogue documents into these proceedings. Judge Peterson’s 7/7/22 declaration that Red Rock LLC was a party is factually and legally incorrect. Red Rock LLC never had a contract with Sun City Anthem, never had the proceeds, never had anything to do with this case until Steven Scow started adding the LLC designation in the caption or filing rogue documents in when the plaintiff or the counter-defendant had not filed a responsive pleading or a written opposition or filed a motion.
Judge Peterson gave preferential treatment to my opponents
The interpleader action was a meritless abuse of process.
Judge Peterson assumed without support of evidence or law that ALL the proceeds didn’t have to be distributed after the sale
Red Rock misrepresented in the complaint that it faced multiple liabilities.
I presented evidence that this was false and Judge Peterson did not distribute the funds to me for over yet and almost all the funds are gone in fees.
How Plaintiff Red Rock is identified
The funds that the court was asked to distribute were the excess proceeds of an HOA sale conducted by FirstService Residential Nevada LLC (Formerly RMI Management LLC) dba Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) that was under a 4/27/12 debt collection contract and the NRS 649 debt collection license with Sun City Anthem that was terminated in April, 2015.
Plaintiff Red Rock wrote a check to the court on its collection account
Shown below is the check for the interpleaded proceeds that Red Rock agent gave to Steven Scow on 8/28/14 with instructions to remit it to court. That check is written on a co-mingled collection account that is under the control of Scow’s client FirstService Residential dba Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) who is the Plaintiff in this case.
Why Scow refusing to distribute the funds is harassment, maybe conversion
This is significant because the interpleader action was meritless because Scow was supposed to deposit the money with the court in 2014 as his client Red Rock instructed, but he failed to do so. I have spent over $300,000 trying to get my huse back and these funds and Scow has fought me every step of the way.
The cover up – why they fight so hard to silence me
He has filed false evidence in response to subpoena to cover up that Red Rock sold my house without notice, that included files and accounts that had been doctored and he acted in concert with the Nationstar and HOA attorneys to cover up that the sale was void in its entirety because Red Rock conducted the sale after it had rejected assessments that cured the default three times.
It would have been over BUT FOR
The sale should have been voided in the 1st action, and it would have been BUT FOR the misconduct of the opposing parties that met ex parte with Judge Kishner and convinced her that I had never been granted leave to intervene as an individual, and therefore that all of my verified evidence and me, a necessary party under Rule 19, were excluded from the trial.
As a result, I was never permitted to defend my 3/28/17 deed.
There never was the evidentiary hearing mandated by NRS 40.110.
Judge Kishner awarded quiet title to Jimijack on 6/24/19 who had no deed at all to protect after Jimijack had fraudulently reconveyed its defective inadmissible deed on 5/1/19 to non-party Joel A Stokes.
Nationstar didn’t have to go to trial to prove anything because the court didn’t know that the lien it released on 6/3/19 had already been rescinded on 3/8/19 as if it had never existed.
My claim of conversion and my claim for interest and penalties stems from the fact that I have been forced to litigate over and over to get money that he was supposed to deposit with the court in 2014 and not obstruct
I assert that his successful manipulation of the court got my claims unfairly precluded and got me unfairly declared a vexatious litigant. Scow tricked the court into not looking at the evidence by repeatedly saying that the evidence had been examined before when it had not been.
The banks should have been dismissed. The court allowed attorneys for disinterested parties and non-parties file oppositions to my claims for the proceeds because I had other claims
2/16/21 FirstService Residential dba Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) served five defendants a complaint for interpleader when only one had standing to make a claim
2/17/21 Republic Services filed a disclaimer of interest and withdrew from the case
3/8/21 I, Nona Tobin, as an individual, filed the only timely counter-claim for the interpleaded proceeds, and contained the compulsory counter-claims that I had vs. Red Rock and cross-claims vs. Nationstar of Fraud, Conversion, Racketeering, and sanctions per NRCP 11, NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.270(1)(4). NRS 42.005
The court didn’t require the banks to file NRCP 13(a)(1) counterclaim for the proceeds or answer my crossclaims
4/9/21 Nationstar and Wells Fargo filed a nonsensical answer that had NONE of the compulsory NRCP 13(a)(1) counter-claims, including for the proceeds and NO timely response to my 3/8/21 cross-claims, and NO mention of res judicata in its affirmative defenses. Further, the banks didn’t properly disclaim interest in the proceeds, and the first filing, or any filing thereafter, did not include an Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure so when considered with the affidavit supporting Akerman’s motion to withdraw, it is likely that Wells Fargo doesn’t know it was even in this case.
4/12/21. I filed a motion for an order to distribute the interpleaded funds to me as the sole claimant with interest in which I showed the property records that proved my claim and showed that the banks had no standing to oppose me
4/15/21 I filed a motion for summary judgment as no one filed a timely response to my 3/8/21 courter-claims and cross-claims
4/16/21 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC, filed a motion to dismiss my 3/8/21 counter-claims.
4/26/21 Doc 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
4/27/21 Doc ID# 32 Scow listed Non-party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC as the Plaintiff and the counter-defendant 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. In either case, it just manipulated and confused the court who never understood what was really going on.
Red Rock LLC has nothing to do with this case and Scow knows it
Instead of distributing the proceeds to me in 2021 as the sole claimant they jerked me around for years precluding all my claims
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.
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.
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.”
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.
– 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.
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.”
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.
– 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.
“No parties present” – not Steven Scow for Plaintiff Red Rock and non-party Red Rock LLC and Vanessa Turley for Nationstar who were actually at the ex parte hearing
There were no minutes that any decisions were made on the three actions scheduled for hearing on February 2 at 10 AM
Tobin’s 1/03/23 motions were scheduled for decision in chamber without oral argument on 2/8/23, but were denied ex parte 2/2/23
Tobin Motion To Disqualify The Honorable Judge Jessica K. Peterson Pursuant to NRS 1.230, NCJC 2.11, NCJC 1.2, 2.2 (appearance of a lack of impartiality); (NCJC 2.9 (improper ex parte communications); NCJC 2.15 (C)(D) (improper response to allegations of judicial and lawyer misconduct); And NRCP 59(a)(1)(A) (irregularity in the proceedings) or (B)(misconduct of prevailing party) (C) (surprise)(ex parte vexatious litigant bench order in absentia and refusal to attach opposition to order) And/Or Relief from the order pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(1)(mistake – errors of law); NRCP 60(b)(3) (misrepresentation); NRCP 60(d)(3) (fraud on the court)
Apr 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 initiated a complaint, but any filing into the case was Dept. 8’s responsibility.
4/13/23 6:06 PM Gmail Court to Tobin Proposed Order has been submitted. my resubmission was immediately acknowledged by the court’s auto- responder, but nothing ever came from Dept. 8 after 3/28/23.
on 4/13/23 I resubmitted the 4/5/23 corrections 230405 corrected 230323 I didn’t hear anything from the court from 4/523 to 4/13/23 so I re-submitted it and I can’t appeal this order without my opposition noted in the record more clearly,
230405 3.52 PM Gmail to court entitled corrections to 3/28/23 order to attach opposition erroneously or intentionally omitted. The court ignored it . Did not respond corrected 230328 I re submitted a
230405 original plus corrected order to attach my opposition is 52-pages. see the PNG .Sig pg. It shows the extreme difference in perspective between how I see this dispute and how Judge Peterson 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 re-litigating the same old thing that I deserve to keep losing.
3/31/23 11:59 I submitted 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 that and became the 1/1623 order. That didn’t happen in either case. The 3/28/23 order continued uncorrected proposed order
Order 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
Order 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
230328 Gmail I sent an email to the court requesting 30 days to write an opposition considering that Scow got 50 days to draft an order that was imposed unfairly ex parte for no just cause. but I got no answer.
230328 Gmail 11.02 The court acknowledged receipt that it was submitted to the dept. 8.
3/27/23
I 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.
3/24/2023
11:53AM 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.
Gmail 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)
Gmail 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.
10:41 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.”
Gmail 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)
Gmail 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
Proposed 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
Doc ID# 127 Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements Red Rock Financial Services’ Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements as Supplement to Declaration of Steven B. Scow
Gmail 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))
Minutes 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 these motions were denied at an ex parte hearing held after I 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 3:46p
January 28, 2021 I complained to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline about Judge Kishner
Staff attorneys dismissed the complaint without investigation and the same thing happened again in 2023 with a different judge.
Summary of 1/28/21 video to NCJD
Nona Tobin is filing a complaint against Judge Joanna Kishner of the Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas.
Tobin’s complaint centers on Kishner’s alleged ex parte communication with opposing counsel, as well as her failure to properly adjudicate claims in consolidated cases under her jurisdiction.
Tobin also alleges that Kishner acted outside of her jurisdiction by allowing plaintiffs to prevail without being compliant with NRS 38.310 when Tobin was the only party compliant with NRS 38.310 which requires mediation prior to courts attaining jurisdiction in cases involving interpretation of HOA CC&Rs.
Tobin claims that Kishner met with opposing counsels ex parte at a hearing that Tobin was served notice was continued, and in her absence, they decided that Tobin had never been a party to the case, despite her filing the pleadings and other documents since 2016.
Tobin argues that the ex parte meeting affected the outcome of the trial, in which unfairly, no documentary evidence was allowed.
Tobin also alleges that Kishner never ruled on the standing of the other parties.
Tobin filed a complaint in a different district court, but the judge refused to hear the case on the grounds of claims preclusion.
Tobin has four appeals in front of the Nevada Supreme Court.
Tobin also alleges misconduct by opposing counsels, particularly Joseph Hong.
I have been in litigation since July 29, 2016 and no judge looked at my evidence ever.
NRS 40.110 requires an evidence-based adjudication of a title decision, but I have never got one. I never was allowed to file a claim for sanctions, fraud, conversion or racketeering because ALL my claims were precluded per res judicata.
NRS 40.110 requires an evidentiary hearing
NRS 40.110Court to hear case; must not enter judgment by default; effect of final judgment.
1. When the summons has been served as provided in NRS 40.100 and the time for answering has expired, the court shall proceed to hear the case as in other cases and shall have jurisdiction to examine into and determine the legality of plaintiff’s title and of the title and claim of all the defendants and of all unknown persons, and to that end must not enter any judgment by default, but must in all cases require evidence of plaintiff’s title and possession and receive such legal evidence as may be offered respecting the claims and title of any of the defendants and must thereafter direct judgment to be entered in accordance with the evidence and the law. The court, before proceeding to hear the case, must require proof to be made that the summons has been served and posted as hereinbefore directed and that the required notice of pendency of action has been filed.
In Nevada, the elements for a claim of quiet title are:
1. Action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claims. NRS 40.010;2. Complaint must be verified. NRS 40.090-1;
3. Summons must be issued within one year of filing the complaint and served per NRCP. NRS 40.100-1;
4. Lis Pendens must be filed with the county recorder within 10 days of filing of the complaint. NRS 40.090-3;
5. Copy of the Summons must be posted on the property within 30 days after the summons is issued, and an affidavit of posting must be filed with the court. NRS 40.100-2;
6. Disclaimer must be filed. NRS 40.020;
7. Affidavit to unknown heirs must be filed. NRS 14.040(3);
8. Court must hold a hearing on the evidence in order to issue judgment. NRS 40.110(1)
9. Quiet title may not be obtained through default judgment. NRS 40.110(1); and
10. Record a certified copy of the judgment quieting title. NRS 247.120(0).
Foyner v. Bank of America Home Loans. Case No. 2:09-CV-2406-RCJ-RJJ 2010 Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev.1996); Sceirine v. Densmore. 87 Nev. 9, 12,479 P.2d 779 (1971); MacDonald v. Krause. 77 Nev. 312, 317-18, 362 P.2d 724 (Nev.1961); Clay v. Scheeline Banking & Trust Co . 40 Nev. 9, 159 P. 1081, 1082-83 (1916) No. 2:09-CV-00567-RCJ-LRL, 2009 WL 5039495 (D. Nev. 2009); Del Webb Conservation Holding Corp. v. Tolman. 44 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1109-10 (D. Nev 1999); Union Mill v. Mining Co. v. Warren, 82 F. 519, 520 (D. Nev. 1897); Howell v. Ricci, 197 P.3d 1044, 1046 n. 1 (Nev. 2008); Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev. 1996); Sceirine v. Densmore. 87 Nev. 9, 12,479 P.2d 779 (1971); MacDonald v. Krause. 77 Nev. 312, 317-18, 362 P.2d 724 (Nev.1961); Clay v. Scheeline Banking & Trust Co .. 40 Nev. 9, 159 P. 1081, 1082-83 (1916)
Each party must prove good title for herself, but I have never been allowed to defend my title
Res. Grp., LLC v. Nev. Ass’n Servs., Inc., 437 P.3d 154, 156 (Nev. 2019) (“We first hold that each party in a quiet title action has the burden of demonstrating superior title in himself or herself.”)
While the “burden of proof [in a quiet title action] rests with the plaintiff to prove good title in himself,” Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp ., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (1996), abrogated on other grounds byDelgado v. Am. Family Ins. Grp.,125 Nev. 564, 570, 217 P.3d 563, 567 (2009), “a plaintiff’s right to relief [ultimately] … depends on superiority of title,” W. Sunset 2050 Tr. v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC , 134 Nev. ––––, ––––, 420 P.3d 1032, 1034 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). And because “[a] plea to quiet title does not require any particular elements, … each party must plead and prove his or her own claim to the property in question.” Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Natl Tr. Co.,129 Nev. 314, 318, 302 P.3d 1103, 1106 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted)
Now in 2023 Judge Peterson is the 2nd judge who improper ex parte communications
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.
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
Doc ID# 14 Nona Tobin’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Answer And Counter-Claim vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Cross-Claims Vs. Nationstar Mortgage LLC And Wells Fargo, N.A., And Motion For Sanctions vs. Red Rock Financial Services And Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and/or Nationstar Mortgage dba Mr. Cooper Pursuant To NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005
Doc ID# 15 Request for Judicial Notice Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Complete Official Clark County 2003-2021 Property Records for APN 191-13-811-052
Doc ID# 19 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and Sun City Anthem Governing Documents Germane To the Instant Action
Doc ID# 21 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of NRCP 16.1 Disclosures /Subpoena Responses from Discovery in Case A-15-720032-C and Disputed Facts in the Court Record
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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
Casetext.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
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”
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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.
Doc 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.
Doc 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
Doc 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.
Casetext.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
Doc 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
Doc ID# 75 Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside Orders and for Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 60(B)(3) and (D)(3), NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60 (1) and (3)
Doc ID# 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
Doc 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.”
Doc 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
Doc ID# 80 Nona Tobin’s Reply to Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Cots Pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) and (3), NRS 18.010(2); and, Countermotion for Abuse of Process for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
Doc ID# 84 Notice of Entry of Order Granting Akerman s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC
1/19/22
Casetext.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
Doc 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.”
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 & Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion For A Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin And denying For Attorney Fees Costs
[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
[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
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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)
Doc 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
Casetext.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
Doc ID# 105 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Melanie Morgan, Esq. (SBN 8215), Akerman, LLP; and Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP, and Draft Alternative Civil Action
Doc ID# 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.
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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.
Doc 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. #
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 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
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
Doc 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.
Doc 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
Doc 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.
Doc 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.
Doc 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
Casetext.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
Minutes 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//2023
I 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.
Minutes 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
Gmail 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))
Doc ID# 127 Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements Red Rock Financial Services’ Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements as Supplement to Declaration of Steven B. Scow
Gmail 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)
Gmail 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.
10:41 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.”
Gmail 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)
Gmail 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
Proposed 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
Doc ID# 130 Recorders Transcript of 2/2/23 ex parte unnoticed Hearing was added to court record on 3/3/23
3/24/2023
11:53AM 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.
3/27/23
I 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.
Order 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
Order 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
230328 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.
3/31/23 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
230405 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
230405 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.
4/13/23
on 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,
4/13/23
4/13/23 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.
4/19/23
4:00 PM Tobin to Clerk for Chief Judge ‘Could you please tell me if Judge Weise has seen this?
4/19/23
230419 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.
4/20/23
Apr 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.
4/20/23
230420 3.20 pm court ack so I resubmitted it to Dept 8 and predictabily it has been ignored ever since.
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.
“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
