Here’s how Hong & Morgan tricked the Court into believing Nona Tobin, an individual, had no rights to make any claims

Hong misrepresented what happened at the 12/20/16 hearing

The court granted my motion to intervene as an individual and as trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust at the 12/20/16 hearing. Hong was there.

Link to 12/20/16 Court recorder’s transcript; Link to my 11/16/16 motion to intervene where you can see that I am identified as a party in both an individual and trustee capacities and that I am named in both capacities in every caption of the attached proposed pleadings; Link to Hong’s 12/5/15 opposition for Jimijack which solely states that he just can’t see how the case is between anyone but his clients and Nationstar; Link to my 12/12/16 Reply that points out how a lawyer ought to do better than a Pro Se in arguing his case based on the law and the truth.

Court denied the HOA’s motion to dismiss my claims as an individual on 4/27/17.

Hong was not there. Sun City Anthem never filed the order denying their motion to dismiss.

Joseph Hong was not present when the Court denied the motion to dismiss Nona Tobin as an individual. This video is a 2-minute clip of the order. Link to the court recorder’s official transcript for the full 4/27/17 hearing.

Hong & Morgan had an ex-parte meeting with the Court on 4/23/19 after serving notice MSJ hearing was continued.

Many damaging actions were taken against me based on misrepresentations of opposing counsels Morgan & Hong at a 4/23/19 “hearing” held ex-parte by Hong serving notice that the hearing was continued.

Melanie Morgan & Joseph Hong knowingly committed a fraud on the Court to get rid of me. Hong got the court to believe that I had never been a party as an individual by misrepresenting to the court in my absence a provably false revisionist history. Morgan got the court to believe that Nationstar and I were not opposing parties and that nationstar and jimijack weren’t doing anything wrong by covering up the actual deal, recording false claims, and cheating to win.

Nationstar & Jimijack never met their Plaintiffs’ burden of proof and by the court let them get away with it by letting them control completely her perception of reality without giving me a chance to defend or appeal. These unscrupulous attorneys topped off their trickery by creating a phony paper trail that denied me access to appeal and other avenues of redress. I believe they should be disbarred for their total lack of candor to the court that robbed me of my property without due process and obstructed a fair adjudication of my claim before ANY tribunal.

What does “ex-parte” mean?

How can a hearing in open court be ex-parte?

Easy. Hong served two notices that the 4/23/19 hearing was continued to 5/7/19.

On 3/22/19 Clerk served Notice of 4/23/19 hearing of Nationstar’s Motion for Summary Judgment

This is the only Clerk’s notice of a 4/23/19 hearing. In the video, you can hear that the Court thought there had been a clerk’s notice of hearing for my motion for summary judgment. See page 4, line 17 to page 5, line 7.
4/15/19 notice 4/23/19 hearing continued to 5/7/19 and Jimijack’s deadline to oppose MSJ moved to 4/26/19
4/12/19 order to continue 4/23/19 hearing to 5/7/19 and Jimijack’s deadline to oppose MSJ moved to 4/26/19 was done as a side deal without notice to either Nona Tobin or the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, both of whom had quiet title claims against all parties and DOEs and ROEs.

Jimijack’s & Nationstar’s settlement was fraudulent because…

  1. I was a necessary party under NRCP Rule 19 in both my capacities, not just as an individual, in the dispute over the title to 2763 White Sage. Two parties don’t get to just say to the court that they don’t have to go to trial or prove anything because they have decided on the side to withdraw from the case and steal the house from the party who says it belongs to her. Or, I should say, the court shouldn’t have let them do it.
  2. Jimijack did not have a valid deed and therefore had no standing to prevail in the case by an out of court settlement with another party whose standing I challenged in the record since 2016.
  3. Nationstar was lying to the court about being the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust and every claim against this property’s title that Nationstar recorded was false and should be investigated as felonies pursuant to NRS 205.395 (recording false claims to title) and NRS 207.400 (racketeering).
4/12/19 “settlement” was a fraudulent side deal done without notice to either Nona Tobin or the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, both of whom had quiet title claims against all parties and DOEs and ROEs.
Note that Nona Tobin, an individual, are still both parties with quiet title claims and so were necessary parties required to be joined pursuant to NRCP 19. Further, Jimijack had no claims against nationstar to “settle”. Finally, they did not produce the settlement documents at the 5/21/19 status check hearing. If they had, the court would have seen that the “agreement” was actually a $353,500 personal loan from non-party Civic Financial Services to non-party Joel Stokes, an individual.

Is an ex-parte order legally binding?

What’s an ex-parte order?

In State, Division Child & Family Services v. District Court,120 Nev. 445, 451–5492 P.3d 1239, 1243–45 (2004), this court set forth the parameters for determining when a district court’s oral rulings are effective. Specifically, this court stated that

dispositional court orders that are not administrative in nature, but deal with the procedural posture or merits of the underlying controversy” must be in writing and signed. Id. 

On the other hand, “oral court orders pertaining to case management issues, scheduling, administrative matters or emergencies that do not allow a party to gain an advantage are valid and enforceable.”

Maduka v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 373 P.3d 938 (Nev. 2011)

However, if not written, signed and entered, they are not appealable so good-bye justice.


This unnoticed, ex-parte meeting between Judge Kishner, Hong and Morgan certainly allowed Nationstar and Jimijack to gain an unfair advantage over me.

In fact, it caused me irreparable harm because these unwritten orders were not appealable.

Ex-parte bench orders to strike seven of my Pro Se filings in one fell swoop are not technically legally binding as no orders to strike these particular filings were ever signed or entered.

Yet, absent the ability to appeal, being technically not binding and being legally binding is a distinction without a difference.

There was never a written order to declare me a non-party as an individual until the final judgment order filed with the notice of entry on 6/24/19 – three weeks after the trial I was excluded from based on these attorneys’ egregiously unfair tactics.

Link to 6/24/19 Notice of Entry of Findings of Fact and order which focuses entirely on misrepresenting my standing as an individual and sets up Hong’s res judicata and claims preclusion case.

Two appeals dismissed by the Nevada Supreme Court

See Nevada Supreme Court case management system for case 79295.

Nona Tobin, an Individual, appealed as a Pro Se on 7/24/19 and filed an individual docketing statement on 9/6/19 before finding out that the Nevada Supreme Court had dismissed me days before on the grounds that, as a non-party, I was not aggrieved, by the order granting quiet title to 2763 White Sage to Jimijack.

Irony is no comfort

Hong’s & Morgan’s ethically challenged, but highly effective, tactics were a total smoke and mirrors gambit.

It utterly distracted the courts, and exhausted me, and covered up the fact that neither of their clients had any evidentiary support of their claims whatsoever.

However, it is ultimately irrelevant whether Judge Kishner had ever granted me the right to intervene as an individual or not, I still had a right under NRS 40.010 to assert a title claim because I had a deed recorded on 3/28/17.

 NRS 40.010  Actions may be brought against adverse claimants.  An action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property, adverse to the person bringing the action, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim.

Nevada Revised Statutes 40.010

The Court had a duty to adjudicate my claim, but misrepresentations of opposing counsels convinced her that I had no right to 1) assert a claim as an individual based on a 3/28/17 deed, 2) assert a claim as an individual as I had exercised my authority to close the Gordon B. Hansen Trust on 3/28/17, and 3) that opposing parties are prejudiced somehow by whether I claim an adverse interest as an individual versus as a trustee.

NRS 30.030  Scope.  Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.

Nevada Revised Statutes 30.030

Links to my filings that were stricken at the 4/23/19 ex-parte hearing

Notice of Appearance

4/9/19 notice of appearance (I had filed a notice of appearance as a Pro Se on 2/1/17 (1st Pro Se NOTA) as well, but Joe Coppedge had filed a notice of appearance on 5/24/17 and was, therefore, counsel of record for both me as an individual and as the trustee. Judge Kishner denied Joe’s oral motion to withdraw at the pre-trial conference on 4/25/19 after I had fired him in outrage on 4/16/19.

Notice of Completion of Mediation

4/9/19 Notice of Completion of mediation Judge Kishner also declared the 4/12/19 duplicate rogue. I filed another notice of completion of mediation on 7/26/19 (stricken at the 9/3/19 hearing along with my motion to dismiss pursuant to NRS 38.310. None of the prevailing parties had submitted their claims to mediation and the court has no jurisdiction without complying to NRS 38.310.

4/10/19 & 4/12/19 Opposition to Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment & Counter-motion for summary judgment (erroneously labeled an opposition; OPPC should have been JMOT, a joinder to Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment, like the also-stricken 4/17/19 Reply was correctly labeled.

4/17/19 Reply in Support of Joinder to Nationstar’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Tobin’s Motion for summary judgment includes 600 pages of evidence against Nationstar, Sun City Anthem and Jimijack. Since the 4/17/19 reply was stricken as coming from a Pro Se, Joe Coppedge re-filed it on 5/23/19 RPLY Reply to Sun City Anthem’s opposition to Tobin’s motion for reconsideration of the Sun City Anthem summary judgment and Nationstar limited joinder. Note that Jimijack’s oral motion to join the MSJ was denied at the 3/26/19 hearing, but Hong acts like the passage of the MSJ meant that res judicata and claims preclusion applied to the benefit of his clients at trial, at appeal, and at the next district court case.

Other Pro Se motions that were stricken or simply ignored

4/24/19 MVAC motion to vacate the order that granted the HOA Motion for summary judgment

7/29/19 MDSM motion to dismiss per NRS 38.310(2) for the court’s lack of jurisdiction to grant relief to parties Joel and Sandra Stokes, Jimijack, Nationstar and Yuen K. Lee as all had failed to submit their claims to mediation.

6/17/19 MINV motion to intervene as an individual prior to entering the final judgment against the Gordon B. Hansen Trust

7/22/19 MNTR motion for a new trial pursuant to NRCP 54b (not all claims of all parties were adjudicated) and 59a1ABCF (irregularities in proceedings, attorney misconduct, abuse of judicial discretion, surprising pre-trial orders that obstructed my case.)

6/21/19 DECL Table of contents of Tobin declaration with 200+ pages of exhibits to expose the fraud on the court and to support the motion to intervene as an individual prior to entering the final judgment against the Gordon B. Hansen Trust

Judge Kishner’s manipulated mind was on full display

I have two degrees in psychology (admittedly earned in the Sixties while my mind was actually elsewhere), and I never went to law school. So I view these proceedings and the judge’s conduct primarily through the lens of asking what is expected human behavior given the environmental context and the triggers. Judge Kishner made human errors in judgment because, like anyone in her seat would, she expected the attorneys as officers of the court to respect their duty of candor to the court. When attorneys that she has seen many, many times in court ALL tell her that she did or did not do something, it is natural for her to believe them over me who in her eyes comes to be seen as an obnoxious, disobedient little pissant.

The important thing to remember is that the attorneys that I am accusing of perpetrating a fraud on the court know the judge’s human tendencies and the intricacies of the judicial court system very, very well. That’s why they have been able to convince not justJudge Joanna Kishner, but also Judge Susan Johnson and the female-dominated Nevada Supreme Court to believe opposing counsels representations without looking at the evidence or listening to the person they are ruling against.

insisted despite all evidence to the contrary that 1) she had never granted leave to intervene, 2) because of that notion, I had no right to make an NRS 40.010 claim at all, and 3) attorneys were ordered to change the caption to remove me. She never wondered why that was.

At the 4/25/19 Pre-trial conference, Judge Kishner refused to let me speak for myself or to let me fire my attorney

5/29/19 hearing for motion to substitute me as an individual as the real party in interest and to reconsider the summary judgment against me as the trustee

6/3/19 calendar call the court officially turned the 6/5/19 trial into a complete sham

Link to the EDCR 2.67 supplement I vigorously tried to get the court to consider. It identifies the issues of law that had NOT been addressed in the HOA’s partial motion for summary judgment on Gordon B. Hansen Trust’s quiet title cause of action. This annoyed her so much she excluded ALL documentary evidence from the trial and she restricted the parties solely to those who did not have a current recorded claim.

9/3/19 Judge refused to hear any Pro Se motions

9/10/19 Judge denied attorney fees, refused to sign order to let me represent myself, and struck more of my motions unheard

Scroll to Top