Here’s how Hong & Morgan tricked the Court into letting Nationstar & Joel Stokes steal my house

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

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

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 tricked the court at an Ex-parte “hearing” into letting them “settle”

Links are below to my seven (including 3 erroneous duplicates) filings that were stricken from the record based solely on the misrepresentations of opposing counsels Morgan & Hong at a “hearing” made 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 so my Pro Se filings were rogue. Morgan got the court to believe that Nationstar and I were not making adverse claims against each other.

Nationstar & Jimijack stole a $500,000 house from me without either of them ever meeting their Plaintiffs’ burden of proof and by obstructing judicial scrutiny of my evidence against them.

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.

Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment was fraudulent

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.

Catch-22

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, 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.

 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

Further, the Court had a duty to adjudicate my claim, but apparently, thought she was prohibited from exercising that duty by the misrepresentations of opposing counsels.

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

7/1/19 RIS MWCN reply in support of Joe Coppedge’s motion to withdraw as counsel for nonaTobin, as an individual

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

Scroll to Top