1 mot james r. aymann po box 61272 las vegas nv...
TRANSCRIPT
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOT JAMES R. AYMANN PO Box 61272 Las Vegas NV 89160 Phone-(702) 435-5010 Fax-(702) 434-6565 [email protected]
DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
JAMES R. AYMANN- Proper Person Case No. A 586400
Plaintiff Dept. No. XXXI
Vs.
ALANA PETERSON; ELAINA PETERSON;
JOHN DOES I-V, inclusive and ROE CORPS
A through E, inclusive,
Defendants
Notice: you are required to file a written response to this Motion with the clerk of the Court and
to provide the undersigned with a copy of your response within 10 days of your receipt of this
Motion. Failure to file a written response with the clerk of the Court within 10 days of your
receipt of this Motion may result in the requested relief be granted by the Court without hearing
prior to their scheduled hearing date.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY/RECUSE Judge
COMES NOW Plaintiff, in Proper Person, and respectfully moves this Court for the
following relief:
1. That Joanna S Kishner, Judge, remove herself from the case, and due to numerous
incidents of impropriety to include obstruction of Justice involving felonious crimes
against an older and vulnerable person, which is a crime within itself, perceived bias, a
lack of impartiality, and violations of the Judicial Canons to include Rule 2.15, in
regard to Judicial Misconduct.
2. That the Court remand this matter to a different Department.
3. The Defendant be awarded his fees and costs for having to file this Motion.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This Motion is based upon records and files in this action, Points and Authorities,
Affidavit of the Plaintiff, and any argument that may be adduced at the time of hearing of this
Motion.
This is Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge. Plaintiff wishes to remind
this Court that his first Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge was denied in chambers. Plaintiff is
now demanding a video recorded hearing in open Court to submit orally this basis for the
removal of this Judge from his case.
Plaintiff further demands that Judicial Officer Joanna S Kishner avail herself at this
hearing for the purpose of answering questions under oath submitted by Plaintiff James R.
Aymann. Plaintiff will consider anything less than the fulfillment of this demand as a further
continuation of the corruption and gross injustice repeatedly displayed by Joanna S Kishner and
this “legal system” toward Plaintiff James R Aymann.
Plaintiff further demands that Jennifer P Togliatti, Presiding Judge, remove herself from
any involvement in Case # A586400. It is Plaintiff’s contention that this individual is not
competent or qualified to oversee any disputes between Plaintiff and this Judicial Officer.
Dated this______ day of___________, 2014.
_______________________________________
JAMES R. AYMANN-Plaintiff in Proper Person
NOTICE OF MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff’s Motion shall be heard in Dept.____of the
eighth Judicial District Court on _____________at________________.
Dated this______ day of______________, 2014
_______________________________________
JAMES R. AYMANN-Plaintiff in Proper Person
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRESIDING Judge JENNIFER P TOGLIATTI
At this time, Plaintiff wishes to challenge the suitability and qualifications of Jennifer P
Togliatti to sit as a Presiding Judge, let alone her involvement in any matter involving Plaintiff
James R Aymann’s Court Case number A 586400.
The register of actions, (please refer to Exhibit 1) indicates that Jennifer P Togliatti:
1. On 10/12/2011, did submit an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Judge
Joanna S Kishner. (Please refer to Exhibit 2)
2. On 1/16/2014, did deny a Motion to Disqualify Judge, even though Plaintiff had not
yet filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge. This Presiding Judge denied a Motion that did
not yet exist! (please refer to exhibit 3)
Plaintiff does not concern himself with political correctness. Please consider the
following excerpts from a biography of Jennifer P Togliatti. (Please refer to Exhibit 4)
“Her position as a Deputy District Attorney with the Crimes against Women and
Children’s Unit ended in 1998 when she was elected to the bench as the Seventh Justice of the
Peace for the Las Vegas Justice Courts. During this same time period, the Nevada Chapter of
the National Organization of Women presented her with the 1998 Equality Now Award for
her “Commitment to Community, political activism and the rights of women and
children.”
In 1999 she served as the Chief Judge for the Las Vegas Justice Courts and further has
the distinction of serving as an acting Judge for Drug Court with the Eighth Judicial District
Court and also as acting Federal Magistrate for the US District Court. On April 23, 2002, Gov.
Kenny Guinn appointed Judge Togliatti to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge
Stephen Huffier for the Eighth Judicial District Court, Department Nine which is where she
presently serves.
Her professional and community involvement have included the Nevada Judges
Association (legislative committee), the Domestic Violence Curriculum Planning Committee
and the Mandatory Sentencing Review Commission (appointed by the Nevada Supreme
Court), the Southern Nevada Domestic Violence Court Task Force, Adult and Youth
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Leadership Las Vegas through the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Community
Training for CAAR are (community action against rape), Board of Directors for the
Women’s Development Center, and UNLV Development Assets Planning Retreat.
Plaintiff submits that this is all impressive and Jennifer Togliatti should and deserves to
be commended, as Plaintiff for the most part, would support all of her involvements. However,
to say that a number of these involvements would label Jennifer P Togliatti as strongly pro-
woman would be an understatement. How is it possible that an individual with these types of
involvements and commitments could be expected to be impartial as a Judge in any case
involving an adversarial confrontation between a man and a woman? Jennifer P. Togliatti, if
challenged would not even be able to sit on a jury in such cases? To be blunt, it is Plaintiff’s
contention that this individual has much to offer this community, but not as a Judge let alone a
Presiding Judge that denies Plaintiff’s proper and valid Motion to Disqualify Judge Joanna S
Kishner for the very legitimate reasons that Plaintiff has repeatedly submitted! Alana Peterson, a
Defendant in Plaintiff’s lawsuit has accused Plaintiff of attacking her even though she has no
marks whatsoever and it is clear that she provided the police with fraudulent statements both oral
and written with impunity!
Now who would Jennifer Togliatti side with, a man who has been accused of
attacking a woman or a fellow female Judge?
THE FIRST AFFIDAVIT OF JOANNA S. KISHNER
Joanna S Kishner signed and filed an “Affidavit of Joanna S Kishner pursuant to NRS
1.235 in response to Plaintiff James R Aymann’s original Motion to Disqualify/Recuse
Judge” on 8/29/2011. (Please refer to Exhibits 5 and 6) (please note, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Disqualify Judge has two Exhibits reply to Opposition to motion to Adjudicate the rights of
counsel for enforcement of attorneys lien and for judgment of attorney’s fees – filed
6/6/2011, once again and motion to Adjudicate to Adjudicate attorneys lien – filed
12/21/2010.
Plaintiff filed a “Reply to Affidavit of Joanna S Kishner pursuant to NRS 1.235 in
response to Plaintiff James R Aymann’s Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge”.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On 9/19/2011. (Please refer to Exhibit 7)
Since 2/25/2011which is when Plaintiff was first allowed to speak, Judge Joanna S
Kishner has had knowledge and received information that raised a substantial question regarding
lawyer Yvette Freedman’s honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness. That was over three years ago
and she still refuses to inform the appropriate authority. Does this Judge believe that the Canons
of the Judicial Ethics do not apply to her?
“Plaintiff’s Affidavit with Supplemental Exhibits was filed on 6/10/2011 this
document consists of 83 pages including a sworn Affidavit supported by 18 Exhibits. (Please
refer to Exhibit 9) Based on this document, Plaintiff submits that if an independent third-party
thoroughly read this document, they would concur that Plaintiff was never informed of the $3000
cap for attorney’s fees and Arbitration and that both Yvette Freedman and Paul Ray had been
lying profusely. In Plaintiff’s “Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge” Plaintiff has also submitted
this document as an exhibit in its entirety. Please note, in Judge Kishner’s eight page sworn
Affidavit dated 8/29/2011 she makes no mention of the existence of this crucial document
although it has now been presented to her on numerous occasions in its entirety. Also note she
listed every other document. Plaintiff submits that if an independent third-party were to read
her sworn Affidavit they would be unaware of the existence of “Plaintiff’s Affidavit with
Supplemental Exhibits”, although she included every other document. Plaintiff further submits
that this is a clear case of bias on the part of this Judge. Once again Plaintiff demands that this
Judge not be allowed to preside over his case.”
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO AFFIDAVIT OF JOANNA S KISHNER – filed 8/29/2011
“Since Judge Kishner has decided to stray from the main issue Plaintiff will be forced to
do the same in addressing every point that Plaintiff deems contentious in her sworn Affidavit.”
2. I make this Affidavit in response to Plaintiff James R Aymann’s (hereinafter referred
to as “Plaintiff” and/or “Mr. Aymann”) Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge. The Motion
does not contain a certificate of service nor was it delivered to me personally or to any
member of my chambers. I however, became aware of the Motion and thus I am
responding.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s response – Point 2 in her sworn Affidavit is false, 8/19/2011 at 11:48 AM
Brian Hopping telephoned Plaintiff to inform him of the schedule change at that time Plaintiff
informed him that he would be filing a Motion to Disqualify Judge Kishner and he informed
him that he wanted to hand deliver a copy. Hopping told Plaintiff to take the documents 2301
East Clark St., sixth floor. Plaintiff finished typing the Motion, had it notarized, filed it and took
a copy to hand deliver to Judge Kishner’s office. In the small lobby were two security guards.
They instructed Plaintiff to place the documents in Judge Kishner inbox Plaintiff contacted Brian
Hopping by telephone on 8/25/2011. Brian seemed to be a congenial individual but he was very
secretive. He did indicate that he did receive a copy of the “Motion to Disqualify the Judge”.
On 8/26/2011 Plaintiff faxed a letter of inquiry to Brian at 1:20 PM. Brian telephoned Plaintiff
25 minutes later, the information he gave was contradictory which added to the confusion. What
is Judge Kishner implying? That someone removed the copy left by Plaintiff from her inbox?
Plaintiff submits that she is once again being dishonest and contentious. What was her
motive for including this point in her sworn Affidavit?
4. On February 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed a preemptory challenge of Judge Villani and the
matter was randomly reassigned to Department XIX, the Hon. Alan R Earl, on or
about February 26, 2010. Plaintiff’s Motion to amend the complaint on Order
shortening time was granted by Judge Earl in chambers on March 15, 2010 and signed
on March 22, 2010.
Plaintiff’s response – It has been clear to Plaintiff that attorney Paul C. Ray had not been
acting in his best interests and had his own agenda. Plaintiff was not aware of this preemptory
challenge until after the fact and Paul C Ray’s explanations if any, were typically vague and
evasive.
6. An Arbitration award was entered on or about August 31, 2010. Plaintiff prevailed
in the Arbitration and was awarded $35,000 plus interest, costs and fees in
accordance with applicable law. In accordance with the Arbitration Rules Plaintiff’s
attorneys fees were limited to $3000 at the time of the Arbitration, Plaintiff was
represented by the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s response – In this statement Kishner is clearly making a case for the law firm
of John Peter Lee. Please note, she is also clearly disregarding Plaintiff’s claim that he was never
informed of the $3000 limit for attorney’s fees and Arbitration. This is evident throughout her
sworn Affidavit. To date this Judge has never acknowledged this fact in or out of Court!
7. Shortly thereafter, on or about September 16, 2010 John Peter Lee Ltd. withdrew
from the case but did not file a proper Motion, which fact was brought to this
Court’s attention in February, 2011
Plaintiff’s response – On September 16, 2010 Plaintiff prepared a “Substitution of
Attorneys” and took it to John Peter Lee for his signature. (Please refer to exhibit 9) Lee asked
if he could have a copy, without Plaintiff’s knowledge and his authorization, John Peter Lee
immediately filed this document. John Peter Lee did not withdraw from this case he was
fired by Plaintiff. Judge Kishner has knowingly submitted another false statement!
8. On or about September 27, 2010 the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. filed a notice
of attorney’s lien pursuant to NRS 18.015. Attached to the notice is a certificate of
mailing stating it was mailed to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s response –Judge Kishner is once again making a case for the attorneys. She
completely omits the fact that Yvette Freedman claimed that Plaintiff never responded to this
Notice of Attorneys lien, she did so repeatedly in the Courtroom and in documents filed with the
Court Yvette Freedman had been repeatedly lying with impunity in this Courtroom. Plaintiff
had in fact responded to this notice of attorney’s lien on two separate occasions in writing!
11. On or about December 21, 2010, a Motion to Adjudicate Lien and Rights of Counsel
was filed. The Motion has a certificate of service attached.
Plaintiff’s response – Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the Motion to Adjudicate Lien
and Rights of Counsel until 1/16/2011 Plaintiff has spoken with numerous former employees of
John Peter Lee Ltd. who have unanimously described them as crafty. This is absolutely the
busiest time of the year for Plaintiff and this law firm was aware of that.
12. On or about January 1, 2011, this case was randomly reassigned to Department 31.
The hearing on the Motion to Adjudicate lien, which had been filed in December 2010 to
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
be heard I Judge Earl was reset by clerk’s office for January 28, 2011, to be heard by
Department 31 no timely Opposition was filed by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s response – This is also false. This case was scheduled to be heard by Judge
Charles J Hosking. At no time was Plaintiff personally informed of any change thereafter.
Plaintiff retained lawyer Matthew Callister at great expense to represent him in this instant
motion only with the understanding that Callister would initiate a lawsuit for legal malpractice
upon Plaintiff’s behalf against the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. Instead, Callister placed Adam
Rosenberg, an underling, to represent Plaintiff without informing Plaintiff. Plaintiff also
determined that Matthew Callister in actuality had no intention of initiating a lawsuit on
Plaintiff’s behalf against the law firm of John d Peter Lee Ltd. Plaintiff clearly instructed
Callister to check out Judge Kishner’s background. Callister failed to fulfill this request.
On 10/25/2010, the “State of Nevada Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and
Election Practices” determined that “therefore, August any committee determines: that Joanna S
Kishner violated Canon 4 and Rule 4.1(A)(11) of the NCJC; and that pursuant to Rule 4(4)(a0(I)
of the standing committee on Judicial ethics and election practices and based on the foregoing
findings and conclusions, Joanna S Kishner is hereby publicly censured for violating Canon for
and Rule 4,1(A)(11) of the NJCJ by making statements on September 13, 2010, during a
televised interview on the face-to-face program that were made knowingly or recklessly and
omit facts necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially
misleading. That this decision shall be published in accordance with the Rules of this committee
on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices.” – Signed by Dan R Eraser, Chairman. (Please refer to
exhibit 10)
Had Matthew Callister done his job and informed Plaintiff of Judge Joanna S Kishner
true character, Plaintiff would surely have filed “a timely Opposition”.
15. Of the February 4, 2011, hearing, the parties each presented oral arguments on the
matter counsel also stated that they were to be appearing before Discovery Commissioner
Bulla on an outstanding matter. At the request of the parties, and to coordinate with the
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
discovery Commissioner, the Court deferred the decision to its chambers calendar of
February 9, 2011.
Plaintiff’s response – This is also false, at the February 4, 2011 hearing that was
allegedly not recorded, Yvette Freedman presented an oral argument that lasted over five
minutes. This argument was filled with one false statement and accusation after another, attorney
Adam Rosenberg did not respond other than repeating “Mr. Aymann was not aware of the $3000
limit for the recovery of attorney’s fees in Arbitration” over and over again! Plaintiff wanted to
respond but was informed that he would not be allowed to speak! From the bench Judge Kishner
clearly commented that it was unlikely that Paul Ray would have offered to take the case for
$10,000-$12,000 essentially calling Plaintiff a liar! She also commented that it was unlikely that
the Arbitrator would not have informed Plaintiff of the $3000 cap for attorney’s fees again
essentially calling Plaintiff a liar!
After the hearing, in the hallway Plaintiff asked Adam Rosenberg if he had heard her
comments. He said “yes”. Plaintiff stated “She is going to Rule against me isn’t she”? He replied
“It appears that way”. He actually advised Plaintiff to pay the additional $35,000! Regarding
the Discovery Commissioner none of this transpired during the hearing. Plaintiff was not at the
2/8/2011 hearing before the Discovery Commissioner because he was never informed by anyone
of this hearing. Essentially her description of what transpired at the February 4, 2011 hearing is
inaccurate. Plaintiff does not appreciate being labeled as a “liar” by anyone, Judges included!
18. The following day on February 10, 2011, Department XXXI received a Motion to
withdraw as counsel on Order shortening time by Callister and Associates who had
entered their appearance a few weeks before. The Affidavit to the Motion stated that
“The professional relationship between Callister and Associates, LLC, and named
Plaintiff had been broken result of which is that Plaintiff’s request that Callister and
Associates, LLC no longer represent him in the instant matter.” The Motion was set for
the same February 25, 2011 hearing date so that all matters could be considered.
Plaintiff’s response –Judge Kishner states “the Affidavit to the Motion stated that the
professional relationship between Callister and Associates, LLC and named Plaintiff has been
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
broken, result of which is the Plaintiff’s request that Callister and Associates LLC no longer
represent him in the instant matter.” The bigger question is why did Judge Kishner feel it was
necessary to include this statement? It is adversarial and a contradiction to “I believe I can be fair
and impartial” the truth is that Plaintiff remained cordial to Matthew Callister and Adam
Rosenberg. On 2/7/2011 Plaintiff faxed a letter to Matthew Callister indicating “I can no longer
afford representation with an attorney please cease all work immediately I appreciate your
assistance thus far.” (Please refer to exhibit 11) the statement made by Adam Rosenberg is
simply an indication that Plaintiff’s initial assessment of Rosenberg’s true character was correct
and that Judge Kishner needlessly included his statement in her Affidavit is still another
indication of her true character. Plaintiff wants Joanna S Kishner disqualified from his case and
out of his life!
19. On February 25, 2011 both firms and Mr. Aymann appeared for the hearing on the
Motions to withdraw. To the Court’s recollection, Mr. Aymann expressed that he was
not satisfied with the work of either firm. The Court explained the procedural issues
regarding the failure to file a timely Motion to withdraw prior from the case being
assigned to this Court in light of the request by Mr. Aymann and for good cause set forth
in the respective Motions to withdraw, the Court granted John Peter Lee’s Motion nunc
pro tunc and then granted Callister and Associates Motion to withdraw.
Plaintiff’s response – Once again, Plaintiff wants to be perfectly clear, both these law
firms were fired by Plaintiff! As Plaintiff previously stated, the hearing on 2/25/2011
was the first time that Plaintiff was allowed to even speak and he made it abundantly
clear that Yvette Freedman had been lying profusely and continuously. Judge Kishner
made no comment whatsoever. This is contrary to her obligation as a Judicial Officer to
at least inquire as to the validity of Plaintiff’s claims. Also, the law firm of John Peter
Lee had in fact been fired by Plaintiff on 9/16/2010, five months earlier! (Please
refer to Exhibit11)
20. As detailed in the Court minutes of February 28, 2011 the Court inquired Mr.
Aymann and his counsel if Mr. Aymann had been fully informed of his rights and
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
obligations if he chose to proceed in proper person by his counsel and to confirm that it
was his desire to proceed in proper person. Mr. Aymann stated he wished to proceed in
proper person. Due to the unique circumstances the law offices of John Peter Lee were to
prepare the proposed Order outlining the rulings and thereafter were to refile the Motion
to Adjudicate lien and set a new hearing date.
Plaintiff’s response – At no time did Judge Kishner ask Adam Rosenberg if “Plaintiff
had been fully informed of his rights and obligations if he chose to proceed in proper person”. At
no time did Adam Rosenberg inform Plaintiff of “his rights and obligations if he chose to
proceed in proper person.” This is all immaterial, Plaintiff wanted him off the case. Also by
having “the law offices of John Peter Lee Ltd. prepare the proposed Order “Judge Kishner once
again displayed a bias against Plaintiff. Plaintiff is and was perfectly capable of preparing such
an order.
21. Thereafter, the Court inquired whether Mr. Aymann wished the Court to disregard
the pleadings and arguments that had been made on his behalf in Opposition to the
Motion to Adjudicate lien or whether he wished to have the Court considered those
pleadings and arguments made on his behalf. Mr. Aymann stated that he wished the
Court to consider the pleadings and arguments that had been presented to the Court. At
no point did Mr. Aymann to the Court’s knowledge, express any displeasure of the
Court’s ruling but instead appeared to be happy that the Court was willing to consider the
prior pleadings and arguments and that he also had an opportunity to respond to the filed
Motion if he chose.
Plaintiff’s response – Considering the fact that Judge Kishner, to date has completely
ignored “Plaintiff’s Affidavit with Supplemental Exhibits” renders the question of whether
Plaintiff chose the Court to disregard or consider any prior pleadings or arguments as pointless.
Plaintiff considers point number 21 to be false and a complete farce!
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22. On May 11 2011, the Court received a renewed Motion to Adjudicate from the law
offices of John Peter Lee. The hearing was set in ordinary course for June 13, 2011. On May 18,
2011 Mr. Aymann in proper person filed an Opposition and on June 6, 2011 a reply was filed.
Plaintiff’s response –Judge Kishner fails to state that she actually ordered John Peter
Lee to resubmit a Motion to Adjudicate. Plaintiff submits that a Judge ordering a party to
submit a Motion against another party is grossly improper. Yvette Freedman did file a reply
to Plaintiff’s Opposition on 6/6 2011. It was filled with fraudulent statements. Four days later
Plaintiff was compelled to file “Plaintiff’s Affidavit with Supplemental Exhibits.” (Please
refer to Exhibit 9) Once again, Judge Kishner makes no mention of this critical document and
to date has never acknowledged the existence of this document either orally or in writing.
23. At the hearing on June 13, 2011, during oral argument, Mr. Aymann indicated that
he had filed a complaint with the State Bar of Nevada regarding his representation and
the fees charged by John Peter Lee firm and he thought the State Bar was handling the
matter. Upon the Court’s inquiry, neither party could affirmatively state whether or not
the matter had officially been referred to the State Bar’s fee dispute program. Although
Ms. Freedman wanted the Court to Rule on the Motion, Mr. Aymann also contended that
he had additional documentation to support his position. In Order to have the parties
notify the Court as to whether the matter should be Ruled upon by the Court or was being
overseen by the State Bar, to allow the fee dispute process to be initiated if it had not
already been implemented with the parties so chose, as well as to allow Mr. Aymann to
present the additional documentation he requested, the Court continued the matter for 60
days until August 15, 2011.
Plaintiff’s response – NRS 193.167 additional penalty: certain crimes committed
against person over 60 years of age or against vulnerable person
1. Any person who commits the crime of:
(I) obtaining money or property of $250 or more by false pretenses.
Plaintiff submits that Paul Ray, Yvette Freedman and John Peter Lee and John Courtney
have committed this crime. Plaintiff submitted this complaint to the Atty. Gen.’s office replete
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with supporting Exhibits. They stated that they were not allowed to provide legal advice and
referred Plaintiff to the State Bar of Nevada. Plaintiff had clearly filed a written criminal
complaint against the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. and his former attorney Paul C Ray.
Plaintiff was clearly not asking for legal advice! Plaintiff had in fact already filed a
complaint with the State Bar of Nevada.
Please note, Plaintiff’s experience with the State Bar of Nevada was disgraceful at best.
There was never any face-to-face contact. Not even telephone calls. The complaints submitted to
the State Bar of Nevada involved felonies committed by the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd.
Plaintiff made it abundantly clear that he also wanted a fee dispute to be managed by the State
Bar of Nevada. Plaintiff never received any response whatsoever to any of his requests at any
time. 10 months after Plaintiff’s request to resolve late fee dispute and to consider the very
legitimate written complaints against this law firm, Plaintiff received a letter from the State
Bar of Nevada indicating that they could not determine any wrongdoing by the law firm of
John Peter Lee Ltd. The whole experience was another waste of time, a complete sham and
another indication and example of the rampant corruption that exists in Clark County and in the
State of Nevada.
A copy of the complaint submitted to the State Bar of Nevada is Exhibit 2 in “Plaintiff’s
Affidavit with Supplemental Exhibits”. It is there for anyone to read. It is clearly evident that
Plaintiff was also disputing the fees. The State Bar of Nevada accepted the complaint and gave
Plaintiff a Grievance number. Plaintiff had not heard from them for four months Plaintiff has
repeatedly had to deal with a completely unresponsive legal system. Judge Kishner’s statement
that Plaintiff had additional documentation to support his position is completely false.
“Plaintiff’s Affidavit with Supporting Exhibits” that she has continuously ignored is all
that Plaintiff intended to submit and had already done so! (Please refer to Exhibit 9))
25. First, the Court confirmed with Plaintiff that he had not provided the Court with any
additional documentation although he had been allowed to do so for the Court’s
statement at the prior hearing. Mr. Aymann conceded that he had not provided any
additional documentation. During oral argument, Mr. Aymann wanted Ms. Friedman
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
placed under oath as he was questioning the veracity of the pleadings prepared by her
office and her statements. The Court informed Mr. Aymann that it would not be
appropriate to place Ms. Freedman under oath and asked whether he had any support for
his contentions that she was not being forthright. Mr. Aymann did not provide any
support but set forth that she was not the attorney at the time of the hearing and that he
wanted information regarding what he referred to as the prior counsel’s termination. The
Court explained that what he was asking was not within the scope of the hearing and
placing Ms. Freedman under oath would not be an appropriate action for the Court to take
at the hearing. The Court also reminded Ms. Freedman that her arguments were to be
truthful and accurate. Ms. Freedman acknowledged that she knew her legal and ethical
obligations, the Court had no reason to question her acknowledgment.
Plaintiff’s response - This Judge is lying throughout this point! Plaintiff asked the Court
reporter to record the entire proceeding. The reporter stated that Plaintiff would have to pay $35.
Plaintiff indicated that he does not bring personal items into the Courthouse including his wallet
even though he assured the reporter that he would return with the $35 the Court reporter refused
to record the hearing. Plaintiff considers this a disgrace. Subsequently there is no record of
what transpired. This court claims that this hearing was not video recorded!
Plaintiff informed Judge Kishner that all the necessary documentation had already been
submitted and filed over two months earlier! This specifically includes “Plaintiff’s Affidavit
with Supplemental Exhibits” which Judge Kishner has still not acknowledged its very
existence!
What actually transpired is that prior to the oral argument, Plaintiff requested that both he
and Yvette Freedman be placed under oath. It is not inappropriate for any Court to place anyone
under oath.
Plaintiff was replete with support that Yvette Freedman had been lying. This is very
clearly articulated in the list that Plaintiff itemized in his “Motion to Disqualify Judge Kishner”
in its entirety. It makes absolutely no sense that Plaintiff would not have articulated this
itemized list at this hearing in open court! This Judge is lying!
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
When Plaintiff stated that Paul Ray had been terminated and that Yvette Freedman had
been lying to cover up that fact, Plaintiff advised Judge Kishner that John Peter Lee had refused
to comply with a subpoena to provide all documents involving the termination. At no time at that
hearing did Plaintiff ask Judge Kishner to do anything other than place Yvette Freedman and
himself under oath. Judge Kishner is lying!
Finally Judge Kishner states, “The Court also reminded Ms. Freedman that her arguments
were to be truthful and accurate. Ms. Freedman stated that she knew her legal and ethical
obligations and the Court had no reason to question her acknowledgment.” This is a complete
fabrication this never transpired this Judge is lying profusely.
26. As the Motion to Adjudicate did not have an Affidavit supporting the amounts in
question and there was a dispute as to whether the last bill sent to Mr. Aymann was in
October as he contended, or July as set forth in the Motion the Court Ruled that Motion
was to be limited to the July 2009 time frame and that counsel needed to provide proper
evidentiary support for the sum sought before the Court could Rule on the Motion. As to
allow Mr. Aymann an additional opportunity to provide the documentation he had
contended he had in June 2011 the Court set the matter for decision in chambers on
August 24, 2011 and allowed the parties until August 22, 2011 to submit any documents
either side wished to submit. The instant Motion to Disqualify/Recuse followed and no
further documentation was submitted by Mr. Aymann since the Motion was filed the
Court has continued the two pending hearings in this case until after September 22, 2011.
Plaintiff’s response -Once again, all the documentation that Plaintiff had intended to
submit and file had been done so over two months earlier. Once again this Judge refuses to
acknowledge the very existence of a filed document depicting the legitimate arguments that
Plaintiff had presented! After this hearing this Judge’s unapproachable steadfastness was
clearly apparent. Comments made and not made by her and her general demeanor were
clear indications that she was going to rule against Plaintiff, which she in fact did!
Plaintiff was distraught, he had an anxiety attack that lasted almost 2 days. Then he
researched “the Canons of Judicial ethics”. He discovered that this Judge cannot allow a lawyer
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to continuously submit false statements both oral and written with impunity. Plaintiff prepared
his “Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge” and filed it three days later. (Please refer to Exhibit 5)
27. Before Plaintiff filed this Motion, he has appeared with counsel or in proper person
only in this matter in Department XXXI according to Court records. We do not share any
mutual acquaintances or associations as to the best of my knowledge. Prior to Yvette
Freedman appearing in Department XXXI in January 2011, I do not believe I have met
Ms. Freedman nor do we share any mutual acquaintances or associations to the best of
my knowledge.
Plaintiff’s response – Whether Judge Kishner and lawyer Yvette Freedman are strangers
or the best of friends is immaterial. Yvette Freedman had lied repeatedly in and out of this Court
room with impunity.
28. I believe I can be fair and impartial in deciding the underlying merits of case number
A-09-586400.
Plaintiff’s response – This Judge has clearly displayed that she is unwilling to be “fair
and impartial” and Plaintiff is once again demanding that she be completely removed from this
case. Plaintiff is requesting a Judge that is willing to work with a party that is represented
in Proper Person and that will not tolerate lying in any form by anyone!
29. I have no actual or implied bias toward Plaintiff James R Aymann. Instead, as noted
by the Court minutes and this Affidavit, the only rulings thus far in this case have been
favorable to Mr. Aymann or have involved continuing matters at Mr. Aymann’s request
or to allow him to provide Supplemental information that he wished the Court to
consider.
Plaintiff’s response - The only ruling that Plaintiff cared about at that juncture was
a denial of the disgraceful “attorneys lien” and the return of his personal documents and
items!
30. I have a duty to sit and decide to the conclusion of all proceedings, in the absence of
some statute, Rule of the Court, ethical standard, or other compelling reason to the
contrary.
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s response – By allowing Yvette Freedman to profusely and repeatedly lie with
impunity and to negate the existence of “Plaintiff’s Affidavit with Supporting Exhibits” this
Judge has clearly violated a responsibility entrusted by Plaintiff.
Please note, on January 17, 2011, Plaintiff James R Aymann filed a grievance against the
law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. with the State Bar of Nevada that included entries against lawyer
Paul C Ray, lawyer John Peter Lee, lawyer Yvette Freedman, lawyer John Courtney and the law
firm of John Peter Lee Ltd.
Paul C Ray submitted a response to his grievance to the State Bar of Nevada. (Please
refer to exhibit 12) Paragraph 32 of this response states “Apparently John Peter Lee Ltd.’s
office did not inform Mr. Aymann that they had involuntarily terminated me on August 20, 2010.
I have no way of knowing during the July 15 call that that would occur in the future. The
termination is included also with the subject of a bar complaint filed against John Peter Lee in
grievance number SC 11 – 0198/John Peter Lee. I have been advised that the termination is also
potentially a substantial wrongful termination cause of action”. This response is dated April 21,
2011 and signed by Defendant Paul C Ray.
Plaintiff’s former lawyers John Peter Lee and Yvette Freedman filed a document titled
“Reply to Opposition to Motion to Adjudicate the rights of counsel for enforcement of
attorney’s lien and for judgment of attorney’s fees.” (Please refer to exhibit 1 of exhibit 5)
Please note the mastheads on this document include the names of John Peter Lee, Yvette
Freedman and John Peter Lee Ltd.
Line 2 page 4 of this document begins with “In the present case Mr. Ray had been
practicing law with the firm for approximately 16 years and has extensive litigation
experience. Mr. Ray has since left the firm in open his own practice. It is incredulous to
believe that such an experienced attorney will suggest to the client that he would recover all
of his attorney’s fees incurred in this case or any other case for that matter.”
Plaintiff Aymann submits that this entry submitted by John Peter Lee and Yvette
Freedman is patently false. “Mr. Ray has since left the firm to open his own practice” is not
the same as “they had involuntarily terminated me on August 20, 2010.”
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This entry in this document is clearly designed to fraudulently conceal and fraudulently
misrepresent to the Court the true nature of Defendant Paul C Ray’s departure from the law firm
of John Peter Lee Ltd.
Plaintiff submits that this fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation in a
Court document by lawyer John Peter Lee and lawyer Yvette Freedman constitutes fraud upon
the Court which is a crime!
This fraud upon the Court took place in Department 31 presided by Judge Joanna S
Kishner. Plaintiff James R Aymann repeatedly protested Yvette Freedman’s false testimony and
the introduction of this document and others signed by John Peter Lee containing fraudulent
entries. To add to the disgrace of this Court Plaintiff James R Aymann was actually
admonished by Judge Joanna S Kishner!
THE NEVADA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT/CODE OF ETHICS
Rule 203 misconduct:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
[3] engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
It is Plaintiff’s contention that Judge Joanna S Kishner was in violation of the Canons of
the Judicial Ethics including Rule to .15 responding to Judicial and lawyer misconduct, which
states as follows:
Rule 2.15 responding to Judicial and lawyer misconduct, which states as follows:
(B) A Judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the
Nevada Rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the
appropriate authority.
(D) A Judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a
lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of professional conduct shall take
appropriate action.
FIRST MOTION TO DISQUALIFY/RECUSE Judge
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
At no time did Judge Joanna S Kishner refer to Plaintiff’s Affidavit with Supplemental
Exhibits either orally or in writing, assist it did not exist.
Judge Joanna S Kishner was clearly involved in this fraud upon the Court
constituting a cover-up initiated by this Judge with the intention of shielding these lawyers
from any repercussions as a result of their dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentations
constituting felonious crimes against a 68-year-old disabled combat veteran.
Plaintiff’s former lawyer Paul C Ray contacted Plaintiff by telephone on July 15, 2010.
Plaintiff was in his home office with two houseguests when Plaintiff received the call from Ray.
Plaintiff customarily presses speakerphone and memory record simultaneously when taking a
call at his desk Plaintiff has since had a transcription of this conversation typed professionally.
(Please refer to Exhibit 14) The two houseguests that overheard the entire conversation, have
since submitted a notarized sworn Affidavit. (Please refer to Exhibit 15) Please consider the
following three comments made by Plaintiff during this conversation:
1. “There is a $3000 limit for recovery of attorney’s fees I mean what was I doing?
I mean why was this in Arbitration?”
2. “My concern at this point is this thing that I read in the Rules, Forms and
Directions. The $3000 limit for attorney’s fees. I mean it blew me right over.”
3. “If it would have taken two years to get a trial that it means I can recover
attorney’s fees, all of it if it comes to that, then it’s worth the wait to me I mean
this is huge being able to recover attorney’s fees.”
Please consider the following statements by lawyer Paul C Ray in this conversation.
Please note, this is one week after the final Arbitration hearing and 18 months after Plaintiff had
hired lawyer Paul C Ray.
“You can get it back. Here’s the thing you probably won’t even have a trial for
another two years, one or two more years, had you not done that. But so you know, now
what I don’t think you understood what she was saying. If you or they don’t like the result
of this you can do a one day short trial and you can get that so that you would get your
original Arbitration and your appeal. You can get that probably in two years where you
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
normally can’t even get a trial in two years let alone an appeal is always two more years. So
it’s faster that’s why you did it.”
This is information that should have been provided to Plaintiff at the initial consultation
and not after the Arbitration hearing. This was the first time that Ray informed Plaintiff of these
conditions. Plaintiff has always been a frugal individual and would never have entered into a fee
agreement with any attorney under these conditions. Plaintiff was clearly duped by his former
lawyer Paul C Ray and his employer John Peter Lee.
Plaintiff wants to be perfectly clear at no time did Ray inform Plaintiff that the litigation
would become Arbitration and that there is a $50,000 ceiling on the amount of awardable in
Arbitration and more importantly that there is a $3000 limit to the award of attorney’s fees and
Arbitration. Please note, that Plaintiff was awarded attorney’s fees.
Lawyer Paul C Ray and lawyer John Peter Lee ran up Plaintiff’s bill to $58,000!
Knowing full well that Plaintiff was completely unaware of the $3000 limit for recovery of
attorney’s fees. Paul C Ray initially estimated that the lawsuit would cost between $10,000 and
$12,000. Plaintiff paid over $16,000 to these individuals and they took him to Court presided by
Joanna S Kishner to recover an additional $42,000.
All the information submitted in this document has been repeatedly submitted to Joanna
S Kishner. This constitutes fraudulent concealment and a covert cover-up of the crimes
committed by these lawyers against Plaintiff James R Aymann by Judge Joanna S Kishner.
DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO Disqualify Judge
Presiding Judge Jennifer P Togliatti filed an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to
Disqualify Judge Joanna K Kishner on 10/12/2011. This denial is seriously flawed and
reeks of corruption. (Please refer to exhibit 2)
Please refer to page 1 lines 19 – 20 of this denial:
“This Court after considering the papers and pleadings on file, concludes this matter
should be decided on the Court’s chamber calendar without a hearing pursuant to EDC are
2.23, and further finds that the Motion to Disqualify lacks merit and should be denied.
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify does not establish a valid basis to Disqualify Judge Kishner
under N.R.S. 1.230, N.R.S. 1.235, or Rule 2.11 of the revised Nevada code of Judicial conduct
(the “code”), which govern the disqualification of a Judge.
Plaintiff’s response – the fact that this Presiding Judge decided not to have an open
hearing on the extremely serious issue of the Disqualification of a Judge is tantamount to a
cover-up and that constitutes corruption. She further states “that the Motion to Disqualify lacks
merit and should be denied.” Once again lawyer Yvette Freedman had repeatedly and profusely
submitted fraudulent statements in open Court and submitted documents to the Court containing
numerous fraudulent and contradictory statements. The “Canons of Judicial conduct” are very
clear in indicating that “a Judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the
Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyers
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate
authority and a Judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer
has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of professional conduct shall take appropriate
action.”
Once again, the Nevada Rules of professional conduct/code of ethics states:
Rule 203 misconduct:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. In an effort to cause further harm to their former client both
Yvette Freedman and her employer John Peter Lee acted in a manner involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.
Please refer to page 2 lines16 -25
“Plaintiff asserts that Judge Kishner is biased against him because Judge Kishner: 1)
illustrated favoritism towards a Plaintiff’s previous legal counsel by suggesting they file specific
Motion; 2) failed to acknowledge Plaintiff’s complaints, even though Judge Kishner continued
oral arguments to provide Plaintiff an opportunity to present evidentiary support for his
arguments and 3) treated Plaintiff disrespectfully simply because he is a pro se litigant. Having
reviewed the record this Court finds Plaintiff’s argument insufficient to support the
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
disqualification of Judge Kishner. Additionally, Plaintiff’s allegation arises directly and
solely from his previous legal counsel, not from any actual or implied bias or prejudice on
part of Judge Kishner.
Plaintiff’s response – This statement by Jennifer P Togliatti is a complete and total
disgrace.
1. At no time did Plaintiff suggest that the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. File any
specific Motions. Plaintiff challenges Togliatti to provide any evidence to support this fraudulent
statement on her behalf.
2. Prior to the hearing Plaintiff had in fact already filed and presented his “Plaintiff’s
Affidavit with Supplemental Exhibits” (please refer to Exhibit 9)) Once again this is a
document that could not have left any doubt that Plaintiff’s former attorneys were lying to the
Court. Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify this Judge contributed additional “evidentiary support for
his arguments”.
3. Treated Plaintiff disrespectfully, this was never the thrust of Plaintiff’s Motion to
Disqualify this Judge.
Plaintiff must establish sufficient factual grounds for disqualification, and the Plaintiff
failed to meet that burden in this case, either under N.R.S. 1.230, N.R.S. 1.235, or the code.
Plaintiff’s response – a Judge allowing attorneys to submit documents with false
entries and to lie profusely in open Court is factual grounds for Disqualification and
Plaintiff did not fail to meet that burden in this case!
Plaintiff has clearly indicated and demonstrated Jennifer P Togliatti’s predilection toward
women. Her Order of denial is a complete sham and a complete and utter disgrace.
Plaintiff has repeatedly displayed “evidentiary support for his arguments” that his former
attorneys in a vicious and ruthless manner have repeatedly and illegally taken advantage of this
68-year-old disabled combat veteran.
Jennifer P Togliatti along with Joanna S Kishner think they can do whatever they want.
Apparently an equally disgraceful State Legislature has armed them to the detriment of the
Constituents and Citizens of this State and County to do as they please.
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF JOANNA S. KISHNER
Joanna S Kishner filed an “Affidavit of Joanna S Kishner pursuant to NRS 1.235 in
response to Plaintiff James R Aymann’s notice of intent to file second Motion to
Disqualify/Recuse Judge” (please refer to Exhibit 16) This Affidavit was never notarized or
filed but it was signed by Joanna S Kishner on 1/13/2014. Plaintiff submits that this is an
invalid Affidavit in response to this motion months before it was completed and filed, at
great expense to the tax payers of Nevada! The first 14 points of this Affidavit are identical to
the first 14 points of Kishner’s first Affidavit dated 8/29/2011. Plaintiff will commence with
point number 15.
15. During the pendency of resolving the procedural and substantive aspects of the
attorneys lien that was filed, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge after the
Court did not comply with Plaintiff’s oral request to require the counsel for the John Peter Lee
firm to be placed on the witness stand so that he could cross examine her on the aspects of her
argument that he disagreed with said Motion dated August 19, 2013. As the Motion was not
properly served upon the Court when the Court subsequently received notification that a Motion
had been filed the Court filed its response pursuant to NRS 1.235 on August 29, 2011
Plaintiff’s response – This is a complete sham and fabrication on the part of this Judge.
At no time did Plaintiff ever request to place Yvette Freedman or any other attorney representing
the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. on the witness stand. Plaintiff is and was fully aware that it
is not appropriate to place anyone on a witness stand at a hearing, it is not a trial! Once
again, the thrust of Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify this Judge is very clear. A copy of the
Motion to Disqualify this Judge was clearly placed into her inbox on the same day that it was
filed. This Judge as a liar!
20. On December 10, 2013, the Court orally granted in part and denied in part Defendants
Alana Peterson and Elaina Peterson’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It is important to note that
Plaintiff only filed a partial Opposition to said Motion and had no Affidavit or other admissible
evidence to rebut parts of the Motion for Summary Judgment. Further, there was no request,
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pursuant to an RCP 56 (F) or otherwise, why the Court should not have ruled on the pending
Motion at the regularly scheduled hearing upon which that Motion was set.
Plaintiff’s response – Plaintiff is not a lawyer, but a layperson. Plaintiff had been
immersed in preparation and research of trial procedure for his upcoming trial. Plaintiff felt very
confident that he would prevail based upon transcripts and supporting Exhibits. It is also
Plaintiff’s contention that through the process of the trial the jury would determine that all the
Defendants are individuals that simply cannot be believed. Plaintiff felt very confident that he
would prevail. Plaintiff filed his “Opposition to Motion of Defendants Alana Peterson and
Elaina Peterson for Summary Judgment” on 12/4/2013 six days prior to the hearing. (Please
refer to Exhibit 17) This Opposition was abbreviated simply for lack of time. Plaintiff had
another hearing in another lawsuit in Opposition to five different Motions to dismiss the
following day. In fact, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ON
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS SET FOR 12/5/13 AN EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN OPPOSITION on 11/25/2013. (Please refer to Exhibit 59)
It was Plaintiff’s intention to hopefully obtain a continuance at this hearing to allow him time to
prepare a more extensive supplement to his Opposition to this Motion for Summary Judgment.
Such was not the case and instead was immersed in preparing three separate Oppositions to
Motions to dismiss in his other case during the following four days, subsequently Plaintiff was
not able to complete and file his supplement to his Opposition. It is plaintiff’s contention that the
events that transpired at that hearing for multiple MOTIONS TO DISMISS was nothing less
than sinister. Judge early had clearly indicated that she had spoken with Judge Kishner and was
aware of what was transpiring. Judge early very clearly stated the name “Judge Kishner” at that
hearing, yet the transcript of this hearing, clearly does not indicate Judge Kishner name. Judge
early was made fully aware at that hearing and with his MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE of
his need to address issues involving his underlying lawsuit. Plaintiff was not given the
additional time that he requested by judge early to address these issues.
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In any event it is Plaintiff’s contention that any party involved in a litigation has a sacred
right to present their case in its entirety to a jury of their peers. This Judge essentially
torpedoed Plaintiff’s entire case with her unsubstantiated partial ruling!
Please note, Plaintiff filed a Plaintiff’s Supplemental Exhibits and witness list (please
refer to Exhibit 18) on 11/27/2013 and a Plaintiff’s notice of intent to place Alexander
Mazzia on witness list on 11/25/2013. (Please refer to exhibit 19) Plaintiff rubber-banded
these documents with his Opposition and placed all three documents in Judge Kishner’s
inbox on 12/4/2013.These documents were replete with supporting Exhibits to support his
Opposition and should not have been perceived or conceived as anything other than
documents submitted to support his Opposition! Also these documents clearly indicate that
this lawsuit has expanded from Plaintiff’s’ pursuit of Justice to now include exposure of rampant
corruption of state officials, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, individual lawyers
and Judges involved in this lawsuit. At the hearing Judge Kishner made it abundantly clear that
she was aware of these supporting documents and its content. She also made it abundantly clear
that she chose to ignore and disregard these crucial supporting documents replete with
supporting Exhibits to support Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
The hearing for this Motion for Summary Judgment was held on 12/10/2013. Petitioner
purchased a transcript of this hearing. (Please refer to Exhibit 20)
On page 2 lines 19 – 22, Judge Kishner states “I just wanted – your file your Motion the
queue chose; okay. So I got it all. It’s your motion I’m going to let you and then Mr. Aymann
you’re going to have a chance to respond once he gets his statement you’ve been here before
motion, opposition, reply. So go ahead.”
It is Plaintiff’s contention that he followed these instructions to the letter to the detriment
of his lawsuit.
Page 7 lines 2 – 7 lawyer for the Defendants Alexander Mazzia states “okay with
regarding the assault case, I’d like to – that is a separate matter than their real estate case.”
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judge Kishner actually interrupts Mazzia with – “correct, and your client is still indirectly
named in that.”
This is the only instance throughout the entire hearing whereby Mazzia even mentions
the assault and battery portion of Plaintiff’s lawsuit. It is Plaintiff’s contention that this
interruption by this Judge was clearly intentional! This Judge has demonstrated a propensity
for unwarranted interruptions usually in an attempt to manipulate and control proceedings.
Consequently, as per her instructions, Plaintiff only responded to the portion of his lawsuit
involving housing discrimination. It is Plaintiff’s contention that this constitutes trickery and
dishonesty on the part of Judge Joanna S Kishner!
On page 18 lines 4-6 Plaintiff states “I submitted police reports statements to the police
and that has been admitted I don’t understand how this is possible that Alana Peterson is not
involved in this assault on my person.” Plaintiff is referring to his “Second Amended
Complaint” filed and submitted to Judge Kishner 10 months prior to the Defendants Motion
for Summary Judgment. (Please refer to exhibit 26) This “Second Amended Complaint” was
well-crafted and most certainly established a reasonable and undeniable argument supporting
Alana Peterson’s involvement in the brutal attack upon Plaintiff’s person. The five page
statement that was included as an exhibit clearly indicates that Alana Peterson described the
attacker as a “friend” in her 911 call and as a “stranger” who subsequently disappeared in her
voluntary statement to the police one hour later.
As the Judge presiding over this case, it was Joanna S Kishner’s responsibility to be
aware of the content of Plaintiff’s “Second Amended Complaint” with supporting Exhibits.
This Judge chose to ignore Plaintiff’s “Second Amended Complaint” with supporting
Exhibits. It is Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendants “Motion for Summary Judgment”
had no basis to begin with!
On page 20 lines 1 – 8 Plaintiff states, “I just remembered one thing. When I filed my
Opposition I left a Courtesy copy in your inbox and I also left a Supplemental – Plaintiff’s
Supplemental list of witnesses and Exhibits. And everything I’m talking about is in that
document the police reports you name it it’s in there” (please refer to Exhibit 20)
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff had one reason and one reason only to submit his Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Exhibits and Witness list rubber-banded to his Opposition to Motion for Summary
Judgment. That was clearly to support his Opposition to this very belated Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Six weeks before the trial)
On page 20 lines 9 – 15Judge Kishner states the Court in looking at – it’s not – with
regards to Supplemental list, do you remember me mentioning a moment ago Sir when I said that
you listed Mr. Mazzia as a potential witness and I said we would discuss that at the time of the
pretrial conference, okay? The reason I said this because I looked at your list of witness
information and those are for trial purposes. They were not in any way designated for any
purposes with regards to the Motion for Summary Judgment okay?”
Plaintiff submits that this Judge clearly admits that she was aware of Plaintiff’s
“Supplemental Exhibits and Witness List” and it’s content and chose to completely disregard
this crucial document. (Please refer to Exhibit18) Instead this Judge chose to sabotage
Plaintiff’s entire case with her despicable partial ruling!
On page 8 lines 17 – 25, Plaintiff states I’m going to ask that you deny this Motion.
Trial has been set for the 21st of next month and all these issues will be addressed in a trial
with a jury I’m not a prognosticator but Alana Peterson, I’m going to have her on that
witness stand twice by the time I’m done for the second time the case will be done as far as
I’m concerned as far as the jury will be concerned. This is a disgrace. Do I need to – are we
going to have the trial now is that what this means?”
Plaintiff submits that this is a powerful statement presented in Court which this
Judge also chose to ignore. Once again this is tantamount to this Judge again calling Plaintiff a
liar in open Court which has been a repetitive occurrence in previous hearings.
Joanna S Kishner is a dishonest, manipulative and vindictive individual and has
absolutely no business being a Judge anywhere!
This Judge’s actions were clearly an attempt on her part to prevent Plaintiff from cross-
examining Police Officers, Government Officials and his former attorneys. This was nothing
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
more than a cover-up on her part and this was also clearly payback for Plaintiff’s motion to have
her disqualified for very legitimate reasons!
22. On December 16, 2013, the Friday before the Pretrial Conference and prior to any
final Order on the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff filed what he deemed an “appeal”
regarding what appears to be the oral ruling.
Plaintiff’s response – This legitimate Notice of Appeal (please refer to Exhibit 22)
was filed because his Motion for Reconsideration (please refer to Exhibit 21) filed three days
earlier was an exercise in futility! This Judge is completely and totally immoral and has
absolutely no capacity for accepting anything other than what is on her agenda! She in fact
did deny this Motion for Reconsideration thereby confirming Plaintiff’s opinion of her! (Please
refer to Exhibit 23) Therefore, she can no longer feign any ignorance of the fact that Defendant
Alana Peterson is a liar which this Judge has conveniently ignored in her denial. Plaintiff waited
for the minutes of this despicable hearing and based his notice of appeal on these minutes.
Plaintiff was also correct in predicting that this Judge would stall any Court Order that
Plaintiff could act on (two months) and that this Judge would deny his Motion for
Reconsideration with numerous compelling facts and contentions!
23. On December 19, 2013, Plaintiff did not appear for the pretrial conference.
Plaintiff’s response – This lawsuit was now under Appeal to the Supreme Court
furthermore this Judges despicable behavior rendered Plaintiff incapacitated. This Judge
has been made aware of Plaintiff’s history of severe anxiety attacks and Plaintiff has no
intention of ever walking into any courtroom with this Judge sitting at the bench!
24. As set forth in further detail in exhibit “A” and as described in paragraph 21: “as
Plaintiff did not appear at the December 19, 2013 pretrial conference, the Court was not able to
verbally inform Plaintiff of the status of the instant case and thus it deemed it appropriate to set
forth its findings in writing. Given that in March 2014 it will be five years from the date of the
original complaint was filed, and a trial has not commenced as Plaintiff has made various
requests to continue the trial date despite being made aware of the parameters of an NRCP 41
(e), as well as the fact that there has not been a determination by the Nevada Supreme Court that
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
it would accept the purported “appeal” nor any direction by the Nevada Supreme Court that this
Court should not proceed with the instant trial date, the Court deems it within its discretion to
maintain the instant calendar call date and firm trial date at the juncture so that Plaintiff has a full
and fair opportunity to have his claims brought the trial within the five year limitation set by an
RCP 41. Accordingly the Court has set forth these findings as the basis of said decision so that
all parties are fully aware that given there is no reason for the trial date to be vacated in light of
the factual and procedural issues, including that if the matter does not proceed to trial forth with
that would likely be subject to dismissal pursuant to an NRCP 41.”
Plaintiff’s response – the Appeal to the Supreme Court of Nevada had in fact been
accepted! This Judge is a liar! She had no business continuing a trial that she systematically
torpedoed that is under appeal! Her entire point # 24 is a complete and total disgrace! Her actual
motive is and was to perfect a cover-up!
26. Although, pursuant to NRS 1.235, the notice is not compliant with the statute, the
Court wanted to ensure that the parties to the underlying litigation matter had a full and fair
opportunity to be heard as quickly as possible given the case status. Accordingly, on January 10,
2014, the Court filed an Order requesting expedited setting on notice of intent to file Motion to
Disqualify.
Plaintiff’s response – Essentially this Judge responded to a Motion before it was crafted
and filed again with the help of Jennifer Togliatti. This lawsuit was under appeal and this Judge
had absolutely no jurisdiction to file anything! This order requesting expedited setting on notice
of intent to file motion to Disqualify is based on a bogus rationale!
27. The Chief Judge that set this matter for hearing on her chamber calendar for
Thursday, January 16, 2014. In Order to assist the parties and the chief Judge, the Court is filing
this Affidavit compliant with NRS 1.235
Plaintiff’s response – Once again, this Affidavit by Joanna S Kishner is based on this
Motion that has not yet been filed and submitted. Additionally this case was and is under appeal
to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28. The notice does not set forth any grounds as to why Plaintiff is intending to file a
Motion to Disqualify in this Court. Thus the Court is unable to articulate what basis Plaintiff may
set forth as grounds for any such Motion. Accordingly, in Order to anticipate and address any
potential basis that Plaintiff could bring forth, this Court reviewed the entire record of this case
both procedurally and substantively. In so doing, this Court finds that it has fully and fairly
evaluated all Motions brought before it both orally and in writing, and has made its rulings
consistent with applicable law as it does with all matters before it. The Court further finds that it
has repeatedly granted Plaintiff’s requests to continue the trial within the parameters of an NRCP
41, and has granted other requested clarifications and accommodations of Plaintiff consistent
with applicable Canons and laws. The Court also finds that it can continue to be fair and
impartial and be in deciding the underlying merits of case number a – 09 – 586400.
Plaintiff’s response – The purpose of this Motion for the Disqualification of Joanna S
Kishner and for purpose of the Notice of Appeal is obvious. This Judge unnecessarily and
vindictively torpedoed Plaintiff’s entire case six weeks prior to the trial whereby it is Plaintiff’s
contention that he would have prevailed over all of the Defendants. This Judge is and has been
clearly and repeatedly overstepping the bounds of her authority as she has repeatedly done in the
past when she refused to recuse herself. Had she appropriately recused herself, as it is
Plaintiff’s contention, his case would have been completed and unless Plaintiff is completely
and totally wrong? He would have won his case hands down and continued with his life and
his retirement. In the process he would have exposed numerous lawyers, government
officials and police officers for the corrupt individuals that they are!
Plaintiff establishing that these lawyers, government officials and police Officers as
corrupt individuals in her Courtroom is completely unacceptable to this Judge. Plaintiff is
convinced that this corrupt Judge would have contrived any means to sabotage Plaintiff’s
lawsuit! It is a sad state of affairs, when the lawmakers of this state continuously pass laws
to arm Judges with enormous unbridled powers to support their own agendas to the
detriment of this state’s taxpaying constituents and it’s general population She has in fact
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
been continuously achieving this on a regular basis for the past three years in all matters
involving Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
29. Further, this Court finds that I have no actual or implied bias towards Plaintiff James
R Aymann. Moreover I have a duty to sit and “preside to the conclusion of all proceedings, in the
absence of some statute, Rule of Court, ethical standard or other compelling reason to the
contrary.
30. I wish to honor my duty to sit in the absence of any Rule, statute, case law ethical
duty or otherwise.
Plaintiff’s response – For this Judge to say that she has “no actual or implied bias toward
Plaintiff James R Aymann” is a disgraceful and despicable lie! She mentions “ethical standard
and ethical duty” on this concept alone this Judge has repeatedly mistreated Plaintiff over and
over and over and over again to include sabotaging his case that was due to be heard in front of a
jury of his peers in six weeks. Plaintiff has had more than enough evidence to sway any jury of
his peers to determine that the Defendants are in fact not to be believed.
This Judge is a disgrace and qualifies as one of the most despicable individuals that
Plaintiff has ever had the displeasure of having thrust into his life! When Plaintiff first
realized that this woman would be the Judge for his entire case, he knew he was in deep
trouble and he was completely and totally correct in that assumption! Once again, Plaintiff
is demanding that Joanna S Kishner be disqualified from presiding over any and all
matters involving case a 586400. This demand is partially based on the content of her two
sworn Affidavits.
NRS 200.471 Assault: Definitions; Penalties. [Effective through December 31, 2013]
1. As used in this section
(a) “assault” means:
(1) unlawfully attempting to use physical force against another person; or
(2) intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension or immediate
bodily harm. (Please refer to Exhibit 24)
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This law is very clear. Intent is sufficient grounds to constitute “assault”. Actual
physical contact is not necessary to constitute “assault”.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - Filed 1/22/2013
The following are excerpts taken from Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on
1/22/2013. These excerpts involve Defendant Alana Peterson’s assault upon the person of
Plaintiff James R Aymann. (Please refer to Exhibit 25)
43. On or about February 8, 2009, Aymann was walking from his townhouse to his
vehicle when he encountered Alana for the second time in a few minutes.
44. Almost immediately Alana called out for Robert Perry white (formerly John Doe I)
who stepped forward from behind Alana and at her behest willfully and without justification,
violently struck Aymann, who then fell to the ground unconscious and bleeding.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Abuse of Process
53. On November 30, 2009, Alana falsely testified in her deposition that she did not
know who struck Aymann, that the person who struck him was a stranger and that she did not
know the two men in a red pickup truck that arrived with her, when in fact she knew the person
who struck Aymann. Alana falsely reported to the police that Aymann had been swinging at her
and that the person who struck Aymann had pushed Aymann to the ground, which false
testimony and false reporting to the police were willful acts and use of process that were not
proper in the regular conduct of the deposition proceedings and the police reporting and
investigation proceeding.
54. Defendants had an ulterior purpose in misusing said process of providing false
testimony and the false report to the police to conceal from Aymann and from the police the true
identity of the person known to Alana to have violently struck Aymann without justification.
See Exhibit “23”
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
55. The production of false testimony and false reports to the police did cause Alana
Peterson and brother, Robert Perry white to avoid criminal prosecution. This constitutes
obstruction of Justice. See Exhibits “3” ans”4”.
*56. Alana Peterson did in fact caused her brother Robert Perry White to violently
strike Aymann without provocation or justification.
57. The Defendant’s actions constitute an abuse of process which has caused injury to
Aymann in an amount in excess of $50,000.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Abuse and Exploitation of an Older Person – NRS 41.1395
58. Aymann repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 as if fully set forth here in.
*65. Alana gave false testimony of her deposition on November 30, 2009, wherein
she stated that she did not know the person who struck Aymann. She falsely stated that she
did not arrive at the townhouse initially on the day of the attack of Aymann with two men who
drove in a red pickup truck and she falsely stated to the police that Aymann repeatedly swung at
her and that the person who struck him pushed him down, constituting “exploitation” of “an
older person” within the meaning of NRS 41.1395. See exhibit “12”, “13”, “3”, “4” and “5”
66. Alana and Robert Perry White, (John Doe I), willfully and without justification
inflicted pain, injury, and mental anguish upon Aymann on or about February 8, 2009,
constituting “abuse” of an “older person” within the meaning of NRS 41.1395.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Battery
68 Aymann repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 – 71 as if fully set forth herein.
69. Robert Perry White made an intentional, unlawful and harmful contact with Aymann
when he violently struck him at the behest of Alana Peterson on or about February 8, 2009.
70. At the behest of Alana Peterson, Robert Perry White committed a battery against
Aymann which caused Aymann to suffer injury in an amount in excess of $50,000.
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Assault
71 Aymann repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 74 as if fully set forth here in.
72 Alana Peterson’s intentional assault caused Aymann to suffer injury in an amount in
excess of $50,000.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Civil Conspiracy
77. Aymann repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through a as if fully set forth herein.
79. Further, Defendants Alana and Robert Perry White conspired to act in concert
to accomplish the unlawful objective of harming Aymann by violent contact.
80. Aymann sustained damage in a sum in excess of $50,000 resulting from the
Defendants actions.
This document also included:
1. A five page statement by Plaintiff describing the events involving the attack on his
person by Defendant Alana Peterson and her brother Defendant Robert Perry White.
2. Transcript of Defendant Alana Peterson’s 911 telephone call.
3. “Voluntary statement” of Alana Peterson to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department.
4. Alana Peterson’s counterclaim
5. The combined statement of Angelika and Joachim Goes (witnesses)
6. The five page partial transcript of Alana Peterson’s testimony at the first Arbitration
hearing.
****************************************************************************
It is Plaintiff’s contention that his “Second Amended Complaint” with supporting
Exhibits was well-crafted and most certainly established a reasonable and undeniable
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
argument supporting Alana Peterson’s involvement in the brutal attack upon Plaintiff’s
person. The five page statement that was included as an exhibit clearly indicates that Alana
Peterson described the attacker as a “friend” in her 911 call and as a “stranger” who
subsequently disappeared in her voluntary statement to the police.
Judge Kishner had access to this “Second Amended Complaint” 10 months prior to
the filing of the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment!
Plaintiff could simply have responded to “Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment”
with “Please refer to Plaintiff’s “Second Amended Complaint” to oppose all issues presented in
Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment.
It is Plaintiff’s contention that his Complaint addresses all issues, including Alana
Peterson’s involvement in the vicious attack instigated by her on Plaintiff’s person!
In the remainder of this document Plaintiff will continue to clearly establish that
this Judge has repeatedly chosen to ignore detailed documents submitted to her and
detailed statements submitted to her in open Court for the past three years!
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 12/13/2013. (Please refer to 21)
Page 1 lines 21 – 24 “Court Ordered Elaina and Alana Peterson’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is granted as to the claims relating to Alana Peterson for the battery of Plaintiff by
Robert Perry White, Court finds no evidence that Alana Peterson was responsible for the
battery, assault and the civil conspiracy claims these claims are dismissed as to Alana
Peterson.
1. Page 3 lines 1 – 7 and lines 18 – 20 excerpt from Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment “Although the identity of the party who struck Plaintiff
Aymann is disputed, Defendants must assume for purposes of this Motion that it was
Robert Perry White who attacked him. However, Plaintiff Aymann’s claim against
Alana Peterson must fail. It is uncontroverted that Alana did not hit Plaintiff Aymann
or have any physical contact with him. The basis of Plaintiff Aymann’s claim against
her is some sort of conspiracy between herself and the attacker. This contention is not
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
supported by any evidence just by Plaintiff Aymann’s suspicion.” “Based on the
foregoing Defendant Alana Peterson should be entitled to Summary Judgment against
Plaintiff Aymann. Plaintiff Aymann’s claim is against the person that actually hit him
not against Alana Peterson.”
2. Page 4 lines 10 - 14 “It is Plaintiff Aymann’s contention that these entries into his
Second Amended Complaint are legal accurate and proper. Willful contact is not
required for a cause of action for assault. Intent is a sufficient basis for assault.
(Please refer to Exhibit 24) Mazzia’s contention that physical contact between
Defendant Alana Peterson and Plaintiff Aymann was necessary is false, as an attorney
he should be aware of this statute and more importantly Judge Joanna S Kishner
should also be aware of this statute!
3. Page 4 – lines 15 – 18 Plaintiff Aymann also contends that the Arbitrator’s award to
Plaintiff Aymann for damages for assault was completely proper. Please note this
Arbitration consisted of two hearings amounting to 11 hours of testimony supported
by evidence on both sides at great expense to him. Plaintiff finds it incomprehensible
that this was for naught.
4. Page 5 – lines 1 – 13 “Three 911 calls were made. Plaintiff Aymann made the first,
then Defendant Peterson, then Plaintiff Aymann called 911 a second time. Peterson
referred to Plaintiff Aymann’s attacker as “and my friend…….” And “a friend of
mine here” In her written statement to Metro one hour later she states “a man, who
introduced himself as Vince (a stranger) came running around the corner when he
heard the commotion, Plaintiff Aymann submits that Peterson referred to Plaintiff
Aymann’s assailant as a friend twice in her 911 call, then referred to him as a
stranger who mysteriously appeared then disappeared in her police report one hour
later. Based on this contradiction alone Plaintiff Aymann submits that this ruling must
be reversed!
5. Page 6 - lines 1 – 10 “a retired German couple was vacationing in Las
Vegas and they were staying at the townhouse where Plaintiff Aymann was attacked
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
behind their garage. They were waiting for friends to pick them up and looking out
the front window. They witnessed Peterson and her mother and her two daughters.
They also saw two men arrive in a red pickup truck. As it turns out this pickup truck
was identical to the one that Ray sellers drove before he died. The German couple
testified at a deposition and at the first Arbitration hearing indicating that they saw
one of the men take a wheelchair out of the back of the red pickup truck. Peterson has
repeatedly denied the existence of the red pickup truck and the two men. Please note
their description of one of the men fits Robert Perry White. The German couple
signed a statement.” Please note, Angelika and Joachim Goes testified at a deposition
and at the first Arbitration hearing.
When Plaintiff completed and filed this document, he collapsed and was
completely incapacitated. Plaintiff realized that the “Motion for Reconsideration” was
just another exercise in futility in dealing with this Judge. Three days later Plaintiff
filed a proper and necessary “Notice of Appeal”.
This Judge still tried to force the issue by attempting to force Plaintiff to participate
in a pretrial process that she no longer had the jurisdiction to conduct or preside over! Also
this Judge was clearly attempting to conceal her role in this ongoing cover-up with the
assistance of Presiding Judge Jennifer P Togliatti!
DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION -filed 2/6/2014
CONCLUSION - Based upon the foregoing. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED (please refer to Exhibit 23)
Plaintiff’s prognostication concerning his Motion for Reconsideration was correct. This
Judge truly is predictable.
Points of contention:
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 26, 2009. He filed an amended complaint on
March 17, 2010 which was the subject of an Arbitration.
Plaintiff’s response -the lawsuit was filed by lawyer Paul C Ray employed by the law
firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. the amended complaint was filed by Ray without Plaintiff’s
knowledge. Ray failed to add Realtor James Watt of Coldwell Banker and Robert Perry White,
the Ray Sellers trust and the Ray Sellers Estate as Defendants. He also failed to add Housing
Discrimination as a cause of action.
2. On January 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which not only
added a party, Robert Perry White instead of one of the Doe Defendants, but also substantively
changed some of the allegations in the complaint. The Second Amended Complaint contains the
following causes of action abuse of process, abuse and exploitation of an older person – NRS
41.1395, battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy and
discrimination in housing.
Plaintiff’s response – This is another false statement by this Judge. Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint (please refer to Exhibit 25) fell far short of what was requested. Robert
Perry White was added as a Defendant and Discrimination in Housing was added as a cause of
action. All other causes of action were already intact, the addition of other Defendants was
denied by this Judge causing irreparable damage to Plaintiff’s lawsuit. Once again this Judge is
lying!
6. Similarly, Plaintiff’s claim for conspiracy sets forth that: “Defendants acted in concert
to accomplish an unlawful objective for the purpose of harming Aymann by deceiving, coercing
and intimidating Aymann to permanently deprive him of the right to use and purchase the
townhouse.”
Plaintiff’s response – This is not a point of contention in Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration. What point is this Judge trying to make?
9. While Plaintiff’s complaint did allege conduct as to Defendant Alana Peterson,
Plaintiff to and a half page Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment did not even
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
address the arguments in the Motion and did not contain any Affidavits or other admissible
evidence that rebutted the undisputed facts presented by Defendant Alana Peterson.
Plaintiff’s response – the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as a whole is not
worth the paper that it was written on. #6 of Plaintiff’s Opposition states “Plaintiff Aymann has
reviewed the Motion of Defendants Alana and Elaina Peterson for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff Aymann is encouraged by the totality of its content”. Truer words have never been
written by Plaintiff. The fact of the matter is that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (was
well-crafted (please refer to pages 31 – 34 of this document) the fact of the matter is that
every issue of Alana Peterson’s instigation of the assault on Plaintiff’s person had already
been submitted 10 months earlier! It was initially Plaintiff’s intention not to even submit an
Opposition to the Defendants insulting Motion for Summary Judgment or attend the
hearing!
For anyone that is reading this document and that number promises to be vast,
Judge Joanna S Kishner was and is aware of the content of Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint as described in detail in this document and she was also aware of the content of
“Plaintiff’s Supplemental Exhibits and Witness List” that was rubber-banded to his
Opposition. The sole purpose of this document was to support his Opposition! This Judge’s
Partial Ruling essentially destroyed this law abiding and disabled senior citizen’s efforts
and attempts at seeking Justice!
10. The Court allowed the parties a full opportunity to brief and argue the instant Motion
for Summary Judgment. Neither in briefing, nor at oral argument did any party request additional
briefing, or seek a continuation of the hearing date. All parties presented themselves at the
hearing as being fully prepared to address the Motion for Summary Judgment. There was no
request for NRCP 56(F) relief.
Plaintiff’s response – (please refer to page 24 – line 14 to page 27 – line 23) of this
document. - Once again, this hearing was clearly manipulated by this Judge to the detriment of
Plaintiff’s lawsuit! Please note, the video recording of this hearing, along with numerous other
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
video recordings of other hearings involving Plaintiff’s lawsuit will be on multiple websites on
the Internet. This Judge clearly ambushed Plaintiff at this hearing!
12. On December 13, 2013, prior to the Court issuing a written Order, and during the
time period that Defendant was to draft a proposed Order and have it reviewed by Plaintiff,
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. The matter was set for the Master Calendar
Department in ordinary course on the Court’s Chambers calendar for January 17, 2014, a date
when the Court regularly hears Motions for Reconsideration. Due to intervening procedural
issues set forth herein, the ruling on the Motion was continued to the present day.
Plaintiff’s response – This is just another example of this Judges back room cover-up
shenanigans. Once again there was no hearing and this Judge expected Plaintiff to wait two
months for a Ruling that isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
15. January 16, 2014 the Court received Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
reconsideration and counter Motion to dismiss case for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff’s response – This “Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to Prosecute” is
another example of Alexander Mazzia’s despicable antics. Plaintiff is providing a copy of the
register of actions of this lawsuit. (Please refer to exhibit 1)
16. On January 16, 2014 the Court received notification, the amended Order, that Chief
Judge Togliatti denied “Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to file a Plaintiff’s Second Motion for
Request for Extension of the Five-year Rule under NRCP 41 (E) and to file “Plaintiff’s Second
Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge”
Plaintiff’s response – (please refer to page 2-4 of this document) Plaintiff is
challenging Judge Togliatti’s further involvement in any matter concerning Plaintiff’s lawsuit
based on her history and background past and present. Furthermore, this Judge does not have
the right to deny a Motion before it is filed and in a court case that is under appeal to the
Supreme Court! This is still another indication and evidence of this Presiding Judge’s
involvement in Judge Joanna S Kishner’s despicable cover-up!
18. That same date, Plaintiff filed a Second Notice of Appeal where he stated “this appeal
is specifically related to Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to file a Plaintiff’s Second Motion for request
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for extension of five-year Rule under NRCP 41 (e) and to file Plaintiff’s Second Motion to
Disqualify/Recuse Judge.” Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal despite receiving an Order from the
Nevada Supreme Court in August 2012, that a prior appeal he had filed regarding the first
Motion to Disqualify it was dismissed by the Nevada Supreme Court. That prior Order
dismissing appeal set forth:
“Proper Person Appellant seeks to challenge a District Court Order denying a Motion to
Disqualify a Judge. As no statute or Court Rule authorizes an appeal from the challenged Order,
it is not substantively appealable.”
Plaintiff’s response – If this Motion to Disqualify this Judge is denied, Plaintiff will
appeal it again to the Nevada Supreme Court and then will appeal that denial to the federal
Courts. Deep down Plaintiff doesn’t feel that will be necessary. It is Plaintiff’s contention that
Judge Joanna S Kishner’s days as a Judge in Clark County are numbered!
Conclusions of law by Judge Joanna S Kishner
Plaintiff’s response –Judge Joanna S Kishner is a cover-up, artist and pages 5 – 12
of her denial to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is a testament to that fact. What
Plaintiff finds interesting is that this Judge thinks that by not acknowledging a reality, it
does not exist. The level of this woman’s ego is unfathomable!
Defendant Alana Peterson described Plaintiff’s assailant as a friend and then
changed her story to describe Plaintiff’s assailant as a stranger that mysteriously appeared
then disappeared! Detective Jill James of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department,
tried to cover up that fact and now Judge Joanna S Kishner with the help of Judge Jennifer
Togliatti are continuing this cover-up.
Kishner’s’ feigned claims of unbiased impartiality is actually ridiculous and tiresome.
Plaintiff James R Aymann is demanding the removal of Joanna S Kishner and Jennifer Togliatti
from case A 586400
ORDER RE: MAINTAINING THE JANUARY 21 TRIAL SETTING AND
EXPIRATION OF THE FIVE YEAR RULE -signed by Judge Joanna S Kishner
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on 1/3/2014 (please refer to exhibit 26)
Findings: (of the above document)
1. Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 26, 2009.
Plaintiff’s response – the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. filed this instant action on
behalf of appellant.
2. The case was placed in the arbitration program and after the arbitration was held, a
request for trial de novo and a petition for removal of the case from the Short Trial Program was
filed.
Plaintiff’s response – the case was placed into the Arbitration Program by lawyer Paul C
Ray employed by the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. at no time was there any discussion
involving arbitration with Plaintiff prior to the placement of his lawsuit into the arbitration
program. At no time was Plaintiff informed that he would only be able to recover $3000 in
attorney’s fees in arbitration. The law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. ran up Plaintiff’s bill to
$58,000. It was a year before Plaintiff was informed that there is a limit for recovery of damages
of $50,000 in Arbitration and Plaintiff was also led to believe that the Arbitration would be
binding. Consequently, Plaintiff fired the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. it was Plaintiff in
Proper Person that requested a Trial de Novo and it was Plaintiff in Proper Person that
filed a petition for removal of the case from the Short Trial Program.
3. The case was transferred to the instant court in January 2011.
Plaintiff’s response – Plaintiff was never informed of this transfer.
4. Individual case conference reports were filed in July 2011.
Plaintiff’s response – Plaintiff filed his Case Conference Report on 7/22/2011. On this
same date, Plaintiff filed for discovery to include a request for Production of Documents and a
request for a response to a first set of interrogatories. By law the Defendants had 30 days to
comply. The Defendants ignored these requests. Plaintiff sent additional written requests for
compliance with these requests of discovery on August 20, 2011; September 18, 2011, October
1, 2011, October 25, 2011, November 8, 2011 and December 12, 2011 additionally Plaintiff
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
personally requested a response to his discovery from Alexander Mazzia lawyer for the
Defendants after a hearing at the courthouse on 11/4/2011.
On 12/13/2011 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel response to Discovery which was set
for hearing on 1/23/2012 “Motion to hold Defendant in Contempt of Court, to Compel
Discovery; or in the alternative, to Strike Defendants Answers and Proceed to Default for Fees
and Costs, and Related Relief” (please refer to Exhibit 27)
5. On or about November 2, 2011, an order setting civil jury trial, pretrial conference,
calendar call and status check was filed setting the case on the Court’s June 25, 2012
five-week trial stack.
6. Approximately 6 days later, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on or about November 8,
2011 regarding an order from the Chief Judge that was not appealable pursuant to NRAB
3A (b)
Plaintiff’s responses to findings #5 and #6. – On 5/11/2011, lawyer Yvette Freedman
representing the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. filed a “MOTION TO ADJUDICATE THE
RIGHTS OF COUNSEL FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEYS LIEN AND FOR
JUDGMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES” on 5/11/2011. Plaintiff filed an opposition to this
motion on 5/24/2011. On 6/6/2011, Yvette Freedman filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.
This document was riddled with fraudulent concealment’s, misrepresentations and
omissions. Plaintiff was compelled to compose and file a PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT
WITH SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS (please refer to Exhibit 9) it is plaintiff’s opinion
that this document was well-crafted and was designed to establish that Yvette Freedman
had been introducing documents with false entries to the court and furthermore was
submitting your and in fraudulent oral statements.
On 6/13 2011 a hearing was held in this court to hear the MOTION TO ADJUDICATE ETC.
at this hearing, Plaintiff requested that the Judge Place Yvette Freedman and himself under oath
Judge Joanna S Kishner replied “Yvette Freedman is an officer of the court and it is
presumed that she is telling the truth”. This judge further stated that it would be inappropriate
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to place Yvette Freedman under oath. This judge actually admonished Plaintiff for “casting
aspersions”! Once again this Judge is a liar!
It became Plaintiff’s contention, that he had no chance of prevailing in his lawsuit with
this Judge. This Judge was clearly violating the Canons of Judicial Conduct, and more
Importantly, she was very clearly involving herself in a multifaceted cover-up and
deception in attempts to cause even more harm to Plaintiff than this law firm had already
done. These are in fact criminal acts and in subsequent Complaints to the Atty. Gen. of
Nevada and the State Bar of Nevada, Plaintiff had been completely ignored and rebuked.
What is also mind-boggling to Plaintiff is that the incontrovertible documents that support
the fact that Plaintiff has the absolute truth on his side did not and does not seem to matter!
On 8/19/2011 Plaintiff prepared and filed a Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge. (Please
refer to exhibit 5) on 8/29/2011 Judge Joanna S Kishner filed an Affidavit in Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge. (Please refer to Exhibit 6) This sworn
Affidavit signed by Judge Kishner was riddled with fraudulent misrepresentations. The thrust of
the Motion, which was that this Judge was allowing a lawyer to submit fraudulent statements
with impunity was completely ignored. At no time to this date has anyone acknowledged
Plaintiffs Affidavit with Supplemental Exhibits!
Plaintiff was incensed and filed a Reply to Affidavit of Joanna S Kishner on 9/19/2011
essentially and rightfully labeling this Judge as a liar. (Please refer to exhibit 7) on 10/12/2011
Presiding Judge Jennifer P Togliatti denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Joanna
S Kishner. (Please refer to Exhibit 2) Please note, in this order Presiding Judge also
avoided and ignored the thrust of this Motion and that is that this Judge was allowing a
lawyer to submit fraudulent statements, written and oral, to the court with impunity to the
detriment of Plaintiff James R Aymann!
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
What Joanna S Kishner and Jennifer P Togliatti did is tantamount to a cover-up and
obstruction of justice! Once again, Plaintiff filed Complaints with the State Bar of Nevada and
the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Nevada. Once again, these State agencies
essentially ignored and/or rebuked Plaintiff’s legitimate written Complaints. Please note Plaintiff
has documents in support of these statements!
On 11/8/2011 Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of this Denial by the Presiding Judge to the
Supreme Court of Nevada. (Please refer to Exhibit 28)
7. On April 6, 2012, Plaintiff failed to appear at a court ordered status check which date
had been set forth in the order setting jury trial. The minutes of the status check set forth that
the trial stack date of June 25, 2012 would remain and a specific trial date within that stack
would be set at the Pretrial Conference which was scheduled pursuant to the order setting
jury trial for June 25, 2012.
Plaintiff’s Response – What Plaintiff finds interesting is that this Judge failed to
indicate that the Defense attorney also failed to appear at this “court ordered hearing”.
Once again, Plaintiff considers this fraudulent concealment and fraud by omission and a
clear bias against Plaintiff by this Judge. Plaintiff was with his parents during this hearing,
that he was unaware of, Plaintiff’s father passed away at a hospital less than two weeks
after this hearing. Plaintiff was not even in the State of Nevada! Plaintiff was remotely
checking his messages on his answering machine from California. If this court and/or Mr.
Mazzia were so concerned about Plaintiff’s appearances at these hearings, why didn’t they
simply leave a voice message on his answering machine? Plaintiff would surely have arranged
for a telephonic appearance like he did for his Motion to Compel for the Discovery
Commissioner 10 days earlier! This court Case had in fact been accepted by the Supreme
Court of Nevada on an appeal. Judge Kishner, had in fact no authority to set any court
dates!
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. Plaintiff failed to appear at the June 25, 2012 pretrial conference. In accordance with its
standard procedure, the court set the trial to commence on July 9, 2012 a date within the
scheduled trial stack.
Plaintiff’s Response – Plaintiff will begin this Response by continuing his Response to
finding # 4. – “Individual Case Conference Reports were filed in July 2011.”
Once again, Defendants Alana and Elaina Peterson through their lawyer Alexander Mazzia
intentionally refused to comply with Plaintiff’s requests for Discovery. After five written
requests and finally a face-to-face confrontation at the courthouse failed to generate the
requested Discovery from the Defendants, a Motion to hold defendant in contempt of court
and to Compel Discovery was filed with the Discovery Commissioner on 12/13/2011. (Please
refer to Exhibit 27) A Hearing was set for 1/23/2012. Four days earlier, Alexander Mazzia filed
an Opposition to Motion to Compel (please refer to Exhibit 29) included with this Opposition
were answers to Plaintiff’s requests for Discovery. It took an additional 178 days past the 30 day
deadline for these Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for Discovery. Now the problem
was that every answer or Response was either fraudulent, evasive or incomplete! It is
Plaintiff’s contention that this clearly constitutes a cover-up and obstruction of justice on the part
of this lawyer and the Defendants.
In Defendants Opposition to Motion to Compel, #3 States, “this court has no jurisdiction at
this time because Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal on November 8, 2011.”
At the Hearing before the Discovery Commissioner on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Response to Discovery, the Commissioner Stated “well, according to this Opposition you filed a
Notice of Appeal in this Case. Well we don’t even have jurisdiction to hear anything now. Once
you file a Notice of Appeal, this court loses all jurisdiction.” Plaintiff purchased a Transcript of
this hearing. (Please refer to exhibit 30)
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On 2/23/2012 Plaintiff filed, Objection to Discovery Commissioner’s Report and
Recommendations; request for order holding Defendants in contempt of court and sanctions for
Violation of Discovery. (Please refer to Exhibit 31)
In this document Plaintiff States, “Plaintiff filed for Discovery, to include request for
Production of Documents, and request for Response to interrogatories which were provided to
Defendants counsel on or about 7/22/2011. In spite of numerous requests for Response to this
Discovery no Responses had been provided prior to the Motion to Compel and most of the
Responses are inadequate. The Responses provided were evasive. For example, in Response to a
request for phone records, Defendants alleged they were not available.” And “Plaintiff does not
want this matter to simply be ignored, swept under the rug, or told later that he should
have filed to have this matter heard. In fact Defendants ongoing failure to cooperate has
severely staggered this Case! Shortly after Plaintiff filed this document on 2/23/2012, Plaintiff
left for California for several months. Plaintiff’s 89-year-old father was dying of cancer and had
decided to discontinue treatments. Plaintiff’s 85-year-old mother was distraught and
consequently was ailing. Plaintiff is the oldest child and the only son. He has two younger sisters
and a daughter that he raised as a single parent. As he has done on previous occasions, Plaintiff
had taken charge during ongoing family crisis. Plaintiff is proficient in alternative medical
treatments. He nursed his mother back to health while assisting his father’s preparation for his
death. Plaintiff’s father died on or about 4/20/2012
*Please note, Plaintiff paid $475 for all “available” video recordings of hearings
pertaining to this Case A586400. Plaintiff simply cannot afford the additional
thousands of dollars necessary to order all the necessary transcripts of the hearings.
Consequently Plaintiff has prepared his own transcripts of excerpts from these
hearings. Plaintiff submits that his transcripts are true and correct. Please feel free to
order transcripts to verify Plaintiff’s accuracy. In any event these video recordings are
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
open to the public and excerpts of these hearings will be posted on the Internet. Also
note Plaintiff has already spent well over an additional $500 for Transcripts. Excerpts
of these court Transcripts will also be used in this document.
. STATUS CHECK - 3/5/2012
MR. MAZZIA - It was a Motion to Compel a Response to Discovery. It was late, when
we got the Motion. We did answer the Discovery. We went into the Hearing pointed out
in a short Opposition that he had filed an appeal regarding the matter involving you. We
had already answered the Discovery. The Commissioner just looked at it and said if it is
under appeal I have no jurisdiction and then he walked out. So that’s what happened at
that Discovery Hearing last month.
JUDGE KISHNER - I don’t want your Case to be delayed unfairly.
MR. MAZZIA - the Defendant doesn’t really have any problem with the Case being
delayed forever.
JUDGE KISHNER - You’re not pushing to have this Case go forward? Has there been
any discussions about today’s status check to know whether or not any party would think
it was not necessary to appear?
MR. MAZZIA - I was assuming that the Case really could not go to trial under the `
situation where you are the Judge, but he is appealing the fact that you are the Judge.
Please note, 10 days earlier on 2/23/2012 Plaintiff filed another Motion to Compel
Discovery. The Hearing was held on 3/26/2012 before the Discovery Commissioner. Plaintiff
made a telephonic appearance from California. Once again the Discovery Commissioner ruled
that he had no jurisdiction over this Case. Once again Plaintiff’s attempts to acquire truthful
and accurate Responses to his Discovery requests was once again fruitless. Mazzia was less
than truthful and honest at the status check on 3/5/2012. Mazzia was fully aware that
Plaintiff was in fact in California and that he was unaware of this Status Check.
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Also note, at this Status Check before Judge Kishner, Mazzia States “The Defendant
doesn’t really have any problem with the Case being delayed forever”. It is Plaintiff’s
contention that the absence of this profound and very revealing statement by the Defense
attorney from this Judge’s order, constitutes fraudulent concealment and fraud by
omission by this Judge. This Statement by the lawyer for the Defendants in conjunction with
their refusal to comply with Plaintiff’s Discovery requests in a truthful and complete manner
speaks for itself.
8. Plaintiff failed to appear at the June 25, 2012 Pretrial Conference. In accordance with its
standard procedure, the court set the trial to commence on July 9, 2012; a date within the
scheduled trial stack.
Plaintiff’s Response – Plaintiff finds it curious as to why this Judge that refused to recuse
herself in compliance with Plaintiff’s very compelling and undeniable reasons, was forcing this
trial to go forward, with the aid of the Presiding Judge, even though it was clearly under appeal!
Once again, the Discovery Commissioner refused to go forward with Plaintiff’s Discovery
requests while it was under appeal!
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE - 5/25/2012
JUDGE KISHNER - Plaintiff did file what he termed an appeal. It was confirmed by
checking with the Chief Judge in District Court that the court was to move forward with
this Case. Did he receive any notification at all from the Nevada Supreme Court?
MR. MAZZIA - I was curious myself. I did not talk to the justices, I talked to whoever
answered the phone. She pretty much told me to get lost. So I didn’t get any help from that
phone call.
JUDGE KISHNER - how long do you anticipate 3 to 5 days?
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MR. MAZZIA I know I’m not being helpful here, but Mr. Aymann I view as being a little
funny. He’s very angry. He doesn’t get along with me. He doesn’t know what he’s doing
procedurally. I have no idea what is going to happen.
JUDGE KISHNER - I am going to ask that you Please give notice to opposing party of the
Pretrial Conference and the specific date as well as the date of the calendar call.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE – 5/25/2012
Plaintiff finds it disturbing that the Chief Judge in District Court allowed Judge
Kishner to move forward with Plaintiff’s Case while the Discovery Commissioner Refused
to hear Plaintiff’s pleas to compel the Defendants to comply truthfully with his legitimate
Discovery requests because Plaintiff’s Case was under appeal with the Supreme Court of
Nevada.
Judge Kishner’s request that Mazzia “Please give notice to opposing party of the Pretrial
Conference”. Mazzia has never ever contacted Plaintiff by telephone or returned a call from
Plaintiff. He has never ever been contacted by this lawyer concerning any upcoming court dates
at any time. The only exception was a cancellation of a deposition, four days prior to Plaintiff
conducting multiple depositions of his own. This again was one more example of this lawyer’s
underhanded and despicable tactics to create unnecessary difficulties for Plaintiff!
9. On July 2, 2012, at the calendar call for the trial that was to commence the following
week Plaintiff stated inter alia that he was “absolutely not ready to go to trial.” In order to
accommodate Plaintiff’s statement that he was not prepared to go to trial, the court vacated the
trial date and set a Hearing regarding trial setting for July 16, 2012; a date that was convenient
for Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s Response – The minutes of this hearing actually states “Defense counsel not
present. Upon court’s inquiry, Plaintiff states he forgot about the Pretrial Conference, as there
was some confusion, and apologized to the court. Mr. Aymann states he is absolutely not ready
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to go to trial, has had problems with Defense regarding Discovery.” Once again, Plaintiff
considers this fraudulent concealment and fraud by omission by this Judge. The minutes also
include “Clerk spoke with Mr. Mazzia via telephone on 7/3/12 notifying of status check on
calendar 7/16/12” Plaintiff wonders why he was not granted this same courtesy by this
Judge regarding the hearings that he was unaware of? Why was Mazzia not present at this
hearing? Why didn’t Kishner mention it in # 9?
10. At the July 16, 2012 status check regarding the trial setting, the court after discussion with the
parties set the matter for a firm trial date of December 10, 2012. A Pretrial Conference was set for
November 9, 2012 the minutes of the Hearing the court noted that the date was to provide Plaintiff
with sufficient time to hear whether the Nevada Supreme Court had accepted what he had filed as an
appeal by which pursuant to applicable law was not an appealable order of the Chief Judge.
Plaintiff’s Response – Please note, the trial date was not to provide Plaintiff with sufficient
time to hear whether the Supreme Court had accepted the appeal. The actual issue was the
refusal of the Defendants to comply with Plaintiff’s Discovery requests by the Defendants. Once
again this constitutes fraudulent concealment by this Judge! An even greater issue was the fact
that this Judge had refused to recuse herself from this lawsuit for very legitimate reasons
submitted by Plaintiff. It was extremely clear to Plaintiff that he had no chance of prevailing in
this lawsuit with this Judge presiding and this presumption by Plaintiff proved to be 100%
correct.
STATUS CHECK – 7/16/2012
Plaintiff submits the following excerpts from the hearing.
JUDGE KISHNER - It was represented to the court that Mr. Aymann was not ready for
trial because there are outstanding Discovery issues.
PLAINTIFF - First of all I need all the necessary documents from the prior counsel that I
had. I listed 80 items that last one is unnecessary, but I do need 79. Those are originals and
they are my property.
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF -The problem I’m having is that Discovery is not hearing anything because of
my Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court. I went to them twice regarding my Motion to
Compel Defense to comply with Discovery.
JUDGE KISHNER - Are you saying that you need to have some Discovery before we reset
for trial?
PLAINTIFF - Absolutely, but what I’m trying to say is that going to Discovery is not
going to solve anything. You’re saying you can’t give legal advice. I’m up against a brick
wall. I don’t know what to do about Discovery, Defense is not cooperating at all with
Discovery.
JUDGE KISHNER - I don’t see anything in May – pardon?
. PLAINTIFF - It’s possible I was with my father in California he was dying. He died April
16 so my memory is a little jogged right now.
JUDGE KISHNER - My condolences.
PLAINTIFF - After the first hearing with the Discovery Commissioner was denied I put in
a Motion for the Presiding Judge to hear it. I don’t know what happened, but it went right
back to the Discovery Commissioner and it went exactly the way it went the first time. It
was denied that he would even look at it. So what’s happening is I’m hitting a brick wall. It
isn’t that I’m not doing anything I’m doing what I can.
PLAINTIFF - I need to amend the Complaint it’s all been typed up.
PLAINTIFF - I’m not trying to be a prima donna I’ve been in California with my mom
who was ailing.
Please consider the following points:
1. Plaintiff was present at a Hearing for his Motion to Compel by the Discovery
Commissioner on 12/17/2012. This Hearing included Plaintiff’s request that his
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
personal items and documents being withheld by the law firm of his former attorney,
be returned. The Discovery Commissioner granted Plaintiff’s request.
Please note, Plaintiff’s former attorneys were not present, however Alexander Mazzia
started arguing on behalf of Plaintiff’s former attorney’s on a matter that was
simply none of his business! It was a disgraceful display by this attorney representing
the Defendants.
Plaintiff was present at a Hearing on Discovery Commissioner’s Report and
Recommendations on 2/12/2013. Judge Joanna S Kishner overruled the Discovery
Commissioner’s granting Plaintiff’s request that his personal items and
documents be returned!
2. Please note, this Judge was completely and totally aware of this law firm’s
dastardly and deceitful manner in which they ran up Plaintiff’s bill to $58,000
knowing full well that Plaintiff was unaware of a statute that restricts the
recovery for attorney’s fees at $3000 in Arbitration! This Judge was also aware
that this law firm was blatantly and overtly covering up the fact that they fired
Plaintiff’s attorney prior to Plaintiff receiving an award that included attorney’s fees
from the Arbitrator! Judge Joanna S Kishner is a complete and utter disgrace!
How does this Judge describe this farce as being unbiased and impartial?
3. Plaintiff was also successful in reopening Discovery on 12/17/2013, after one year of
repeatedly attempting to reopen and Compel Discovery. Plaintiff felt that this was a
major step forward in that he would now be able to serve Robert Perry White with the
Complaint and arrange for multiple depositions to be taken.
4. Plaintiff has a 70% disability for posttraumatic stress disorder with the Veterans
Administration as a result of the effects of continuous and intense combat conditions
during the Vietnam War. Plaintiff has also been diagnosed with attention deficit
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
disorder. In any event, Plaintiff will be 69 years of age in a few days and his presence
of mind is not what it used to be.
5. It is a certainty that this Judge was and is aware of Plaintiff’s mental disorder as it
has been submitted in writing on several occasions.
6. Judge Joanna S Kishner has demonstrated a habit of routinely and rudely
interrupting Plaintiff when he has the floor and is trying to make a point.
Plaintiff’s presence of mind is poor. Plaintiff submits that this is a contrived ploy
to repeatedly confuse Plaintiff on the part of this Judge! Also this judge has
routinely avoided acknowledging improprieties by defendants and their attorney.
This judge is a disgrace!
FINDINGS –continued
11. On or about August 21, 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its order dismissing the
appeal setting forth that the matter was not appealable pursuant to NRAP 3A (b)
Plaintiff’s Response – Plaintiff should never have been put in a position where he felt it was
necessary to appeal the Presiding Judges Denial of his Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge
Kishner. The fact that this Judge repeatedly ignored Plaintiff’s Affidavit with Supplemental
Exhibits, (please refer to Exhibit 8) which supported beyond any doubt that his former
attorneys were submitting documents with fraudulent Statements and submitting oral Statements
that were fraudulent in court. If this Judge simply recused herself, Plaintiff would have been able
to concentrate on pursuing the necessary Discovery that he required in a timely manner. The trial
process would have been much smoother, Plaintiff would have won his Case and would have
been able to move on with his life and his retirement. Instead this Judge decided to initiate a
process that can only be considered as a cover-up of crimes committed by these lawyers
constituting a crime within itself Presiding Judge Jennifer P Togliatti was clearly part of this
cover-up as she has also completely ignored that the thrust of Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify
this Judge was that she was allowing attorney’s to repeatedly commit fraud in court with
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
impunity. Once again Plaintiff’s Affidavit with Supplemental Exhibits filed 6/10/2011 has
been completely and totally ignored by both these Judges as if this document had never
been filed and never existed! Also this judge is now acting as if she was cognizant of the
basis for the Supreme Court’s denial of Presiding Judge Jennifer P Togliatti’s denial of
Plaintiff’s Motion to have Judge Joanna S Kishner removed from this case. Why didn’t
Kishner simply inform Plaintiff that there was in fact no basis for the appeal to the
Supreme Court! This judge is a complete and total disgrace!
It is Plaintiff’s opinion that the lawmakers in the State of Nevada are a complete and total
disgrace! Laws are routinely passed that cater to special interest groups. (Big business) This
statute disallowing the higher court of this State to consider an appeal of a Denial by a Presiding
Judge to disqualify a fellow female Judge is a complete and utter disgrace! The fact that this
legislature is only in session every other year is another case in point! It is corruption in every
sense of the word!
12. Although the parties had agreed in July that they would be ready for trial in December; on
November 9, 2012, pursuant to the order scheduling trial the court held a Pretrial Conference with a
firm trial set for December 10, 2012. At the Pretrial Conference as noted in the minutes Plaintiff stated
he would not be ready for trial on December 10, 2012 and made an oral Motion to continue the trial.
The court granted the oral Motion and reset the trial date to August 5, 2013 and set the Pretrial
Conference for June 27, 2013.
Plaintiff’s Response – Please note, once again Judge Joanna S Kishner conveniently
omitted the fact that Alexander Mazzia, lawyer for the Defendants, was once again not
present for a hearing. Once again, Plaintiff submits that this is fraudulent concealment and
fraud by omission on the part of this Judge!
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE – 11/9/2012
Please consider the following excerpts of statements presented by Plaintiff at this hearing:
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF - Initially I did put in my Motion to Subpoena Duces Tecum my Complaint
15 months ago.
PLAINTIFF - Another issue my former attorney who was fired by his law firm, is now
refusing to give me – I’m not interested in the files, but there are 80 items that I need in order
to conduct this trial.
PLAINTIFF - I was under the understanding that because they came to this court to ask for
a lien on this trial that it would be under your jurisdiction.
PLAINTIFF - No one wants to get this done quicker than I do I have plans other than being
here in Nevada.
Please note, Plaintiff was also in the process of moving from his home so that he could sell it
prior to the conclusion of The Debt Forgiveness Act at the end of the year. Plaintiff has an
enormous amount of possessions and this was a massive undertaking.
Plaintiff has to wonder why this Judge has this penchant for setting unrealistic trial
dates. As a Judge she should have been aware of the extremely slow legal process that
Plaintiff as a non-lawyer was challenging.
Please consider the following actions on the part of Plaintiff. Also please take into
consideration that Plaintiff was working long hours 6 to 7 days per week:
12/17/2012 – Motion to Compel Discovery; reopen Discovery to allow Plaintiff to obtain
depositions - this Motion was granted by the Discovery Commissioner.
12/28/2012- Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum Motion to Subpoena Duces Tecum
Complaint the Second Subpoena Duces Tecum Complaint to name unknown John Does I and
related relief - Judge Joanna S Kishner only allowed Plaintiff to add Robert Perry White as a
Defendant and to add Housing Discrimination as a cause of action. Plaintiff was very
disappointed.
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2/12/2013 - Judge Joanna S Kishner overruled the Discovery Commissioner’s
Recommendation that Plaintiff’s documents and possessions be returned. Another completely
and totally unjust and disgraceful act by this judge!
4/6/2013 – Plaintiff filed a Complaint against his former attorney’s in District Court.
4/25/2013 – Robert Perry White was incarcerated on a two-year-old bench warrant.
Consequently Plaintiff was finally able to locate and serve his assailant with a Complaint.
5/28/2013 – Plaintiff conducted multiple depositions on this date. It was a harrowing
experience. None of the individuals arrived at the appointed time. Defendants Alana and
Elaina Peterson were late. Others arrived hours early. Plaintiff was subjected to ongoing
verbal abuse throughout the taking of depositions. Lawyer Mazzia did nothing to curb
their behavior. As a result, Plaintiff was incapacitated for several days afterwards. However,
these depositions proved to be extremely successful and Plaintiff knew that he would be able
to base a substantial portion of his upcoming trial on the answers that were given to his
questions at these depositions.
6/4/2013 – Plaintiffs Motion for Relief from Judgment Order - denied by Judge Kishner.
FINDINGS – continued
13. On June 27, 2013 at the Pretrial Conference, the minutes reflect that Plaintiff again was not ready for
trial and sought a continuance. The minutes state in relevant part, “Mr. Aymann also indicated he
needs to conduct further Discovery and obtain a new expert witness. Court noted this is a 2009 Case
and expressed concerns regarding the five-year rule and advised parties of the risks involved as it
gets closer. Mr. Aymann stated he may be seeking waiver of the five-year rule. Court advised it has to
come from all parties and one of the parties is not present today. Mr. Mazzia advised he will not be
waiving the five-year rule. Colloquy regarding use circumstances in Case an oral stipulation to
continue Discovery. Court fully advised Mr. Aymann of potential ramifications.
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s Response – There were two hearings heard on this date. Plaintiff purchased a
Transcript of both hearings. (Please refer to Exhibit 30)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Order was heard at 9:08 AM. A Pretrial
Conference was heard at 10:21 AM. After the first hearing, Mazzia asked Plaintiff if he would
join him for coffee while waiting for the next Hearing in an hour. During this discussion Mazzia
suggested that Discovery should be reopened to ensure that Defendant Robert Perry White’s
rights would not be violated, as that would be grounds for an appeal. Plaintiff did not want any
further complications and agreed to reopen Discovery but only if an extension of the Five Year
Rule was stipulated as a precaution. Plaintiff was essentially prepared to go to trial. Plaintiff had
recently been informed by the Veterans Administration that his psychiatrist would not be
allowed to testify. Having extra time to locate a psychiatrist in the private sector was enticing,
but definitely not essential. Plaintiff was confident that he had more than enough to handily win
this lawsuit in its entirety.
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE – 6/27/2013
Please consider the following entries from the Court Transcript of this Hearing
(please refer to exhibit 32)
Page 9 – lines 20 – 23
MR. MAZZIA: that’s correct, your honor. The – we have a new party, Mr. White. We
haven’t seen it but I spoke with him briefly about what, five, six weeks ago. He said that he
may have documentary evidence as well as witnesses that are quite relevant to one of
the claims.
Page 10 – lines 5 –
MR. MAZZIA: I don’t represent him but obviously Mr. White has some rights to conduct
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Discovery and he has a right to produce some witnesses and documents if he has some to
produce. That’s why –
Page 11 – lines 7 – 15
THE PLAINTIFF: I indicated to Mr. Mazzia that I would like this to be done by the
end of the year. The only reason I am cooperating with this is I have a psychiatrist that I’ve
been seeing through the Veterans Administration for PTSD and other matters, and he will not
be available to testify and I wanted to bring him in as an expert witness. The VA is not
allowing him, so now I have to go into the private sector and locate someone and it’s – it’s
frustrating.
THE COURT: Because –
THE PLAINTIFF: Other than that, I have no reason not to go forward. I’m ready
right now.
Page 12 lines 9 – 10
THE PLAINTIFF: Yeah, I appreciate that, and I will be asking for a waiver of the five-
year rule, if that’s the Case. Either that or I’m ready to go forward.
Plaintiff feels that once again he was duped by this lawyer. What is interesting is that this
Judge initiates and misrepresentation that Plaintiff was not ready to go to trial, when in
fact it was Mazzia that was making the argument to reopen Discovery for the benefit of
Defendant Robert Perry White. The irony is that this is the individual that brutally attacked
Plaintiff at the behest of his sister Alana Peterson rendering him unconscious and necessitated
transport to a hospital in an ambulance.
14. On September 3, 2013, a few weeks before the rescheduled Pretrial Conference State that
Plaintiff had sought, the court heard Plaintiff’s Motion to extend Discovery and extend the five-year
rule. As the minutes of that Hearing reflect: “court noted, Defendants have a limited Opposition in
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
which they agreed to the Discovery extension but disagreed with extending the five-year rule.
Statement by Mr. Aymann in support of relief requested noting there was a Discovery delay caused
by the Defense attorney; it has been difficult serving Defendant Robert Perry White and Plaintiff still
needs to take the deposition of the police officers and subpoenaed the related police records. Mr.
Mazzia opposed, stating that Plaintiff should have enough time to proceed to trial within the five-year
time frame. Court directed Plaintiff to address Discovery issues with the Discovery Commissioner and
suggested Plaintiff to seek legal assistance from this legal self-help Center if needed. Court finds
parties must stipulate for the court to grant the extension of the five-year rule; otherwise, court cannot
mandate the extension. However, court can continue the trial within the five-year rule limit. Court
ordered Plaintiff’s Motion for extension of Discovery is granted on the merits and pursuant to EDCR
2.20, and Plaintiff’s request for extension of five-year rule is denied for lack of legal basis upon court’s
inquiry, Plaintiff estimated the trial will last for five days. Court ordered, trial date vacated and reset to
a firm setting. Court further directed all parties to confirm regarding the extended Discovery
deadlines, include the dates in a proposed order and submit the order by Friday 9/13/13. Court
additionally directed parties to meet with Pro per Defendant Robert Perry White; if that cannot be
accomplished parties need to attempt to notify Defendant White. Court Lastly directed parties to
contact the court by 9/12/13 regarding the status of order and Discovery deadlines.” In order to
ensure that the parties had sufficient time to prepare but also taking into account an NRCP 41, the
court set the following trial related dates in the presence of the parties: 12/19/13 10:15 AM Pretrial
Conference; 1/14/14 9 AM calendar call; 1/21/14 at 11 AM jury trial.
Please consider the following excerpts from the following hearing.
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY - 9/3/2013
PLAINTIFF - Nine weeks ago on the 27th of June we had a Pretrial Conference at 10:15
we had a Hearing at 9:00 prior to that Mr. Mazzia and I spoke for about half an hour.
He made some comments which I did not understand where he was going with these
comments. He volunteered to prepare a stipulation and order extending the Discovery
deadlines. This was not forthcoming in court and I have a copy of the court records. I made it
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Very clear that I wanted an extension of time if there was going to be an extension to the
deadline. In court he stated that the main reason on his behalf was that Defendant Robert
Perry White had rights. Where is he? I spent $140 to have him served overnight. Where is
he? This is an individual that has a felony record, a violent record. This man put me in the
hospital. Where is he? On July 22, 2011, that’s over two years ago I submitted a Plaintiff’s
request for Production of Documents, Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and at sent five
separate letters to Mr. Mazzia requesting this. This is supposed to be answered in 30 days. It
was 208 days before I got it and I only got it – if you want to see a copy of this. Here’s a
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Discovery against Defendant for attorney’s
fees and costs. 208 days! We finally went before the Discovery Commissioner and he was
ready to proceed on this. It was Mr. Mazzia that brought up the appeal. I put in a
Reconsideration to the Discovery Commissioner. I needed to reopen Discovery because the
answers that I got to my Production of Documents and my request for interrogatories
were all evasive, they were false, and they didn’t answer what I wanted. He did not produce
as Defendants and I believe he’s the one that typed it up. It didn’t represent what I was
asking at all. I was able to reopen Discovery. The problem now became to find Robert Perry
White which was difficult. It took months. In the Production of Documents one of the
requests was for addresses. He put in a false address. When he answered my Complaint the
only reason I was able to serve him. He was arrested on a two-year-old bench warrant that’s
how I found out his location.
PLAINTIFF - I did serve him overnight with an order shortening time for some reason it
did not happen.
PLAINTIFF - After the Pretrial Conference, he gave me 25 pages of exhibits, witness list
etc. some of that I never saw before and that’s another problem I have.
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
My former attorneys are holding my personal items, documents files so if he gives me
something indicating that this is valid, I have no way to confirm that. Another thing is he
asked me to sign it after the Discovery deadline was closed. I feel like I’m being conned!
Repeatedly! Now I’m going to have to get depositions of police officers, I’m going to have to
get a deposition of the Arbitrator, I am going to have to again try to get all the police records.
They were served before. It took one year for my former attorney to serve the police
department. They never complied other than giving us the 911 recording. That was it!
JUDGE KISHNER - you have another litigation matter in the Eighth Judicial District
right?
PLAINTIFF - I’m sorry I didn’t mean to interrupt you. (Sarcastic) This is very upsetting to
me. I need to finish this! I do! No one wants to finish this more than I do!
JUDGE KISHNER - Let me hear from Defense counsel.
MR. MAZZIA - Well a lot of things have been brought up. I don’t know what to say other
than none of that is really relevant. What I see as being relevant is that I did say that yes we
would extend Discovery. Why would I agree to such a thing? Well extending Discovery
gives us time to file a dispositive Motion. That’s something on our side. A little quid pro quo.
So we agree to that, we do not agree to extend the five-year rule. The way I see it we cannot
really extend Discovery now with the existing trial date because there isn’t enough time.
Therefore, in fairness from my end and I certainly do not object to a continuance of the trial
within the five years. I think there is enough time. This thing was filed in late March I believe
of 2009. That is five months from now? So there is enough time. There is not enough time
for another afterthought by the Plaintiff, but there is time for that continuance. But that we
were just going to get dates for the Discovery extension today.
JUDGE KISHNER - the Motion before me is also five-year both of those are on for today.
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MR. MAZZIA - We do not stipulate to that. I understand that the rule is that such an
extension has to be stipulated by all parties. In light of the fact that Mr. White is not here I
can’t speak for him. My clients do not stipulate.
PLAINTIFF - I like to add something. I like Mr. Mazzia to explain why it took 208 days to
respond to my requests. 208 days, five written requests and I asked him out in that hallway.
JUDGE KISHNER - Mr. Aymann you’re aware you do not have legal counsel, there is a
self-help center down on the first floor. Legal aid self-help center for people who represent
themselves…………………….
Plaintiff’s Response – after the Pretrial Conference, Plaintiff was handed a 25 page
document including exhibits, witness list etc. and was asked to sign a copy. This was improper in
that Discovery had been closed. These exhibits included police reports with fake and inaccurate
entries. It became apparent to Plaintiff that he would have to depose police officers, the
custodian of records the Arbitrator and his former attorney’s. After this hearing, Plaintiff decided
it would be more prudent and cost-effective to subpoena these individuals to appear as witnesses
at the trial instead of conducting expensive and less effective depositions. Plaintiff submits that
The lawyer for the Defendants has continuously acted in a manner that continuously included
stalling tactics! The purpose of this Hearing was to ensure that Discovery would be reopened in a
timely manner as a result of Mazzia’s continuous stalling tactics.
At no time did Plaintiff express an inability to participate in the trial within the five-
year rule. However, Plaintiff does not trust Judge Joanna S Kishner or Alexander Mazzia,
lawyer for the Defendants! The request for an extension of the five-year rule was simply a
precaution based on past behavior and actions of this lawyer and this Judge. Please note, at
This Hearing Mazzia did not respond to any of Plaintiff’s claims of impropriety. This
Judge even interrupted Plaintiff when he asked for an explanation as to why it took 208
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
days to inadequately comply with Discovery requests and only after Plaintiff was forced to
file a Motion to Compel with the Discovery Commissioner! This Judge is a disgrace!
15. October 15, 2013, the court heard Plaintiff’s Motion to strike the answer of Defendant Robert
Perry White. No party indicated that he/she was not ready for trial.
Please consider the following excerpts from the following hearing:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWER OF ROBERT PERRY
WHITE - 10/15/2013
JUDGE KISHNER - It’s your Motion
PLAINTIFF -Yeah, where is he? He has not responded to anything and there is a legal
basis for my Motion to strike his answer. I believe I submitted it on my Reply to his
Opposition. The bottom line, this seems to be a tactical maneuver on his part (Mazzia)
To harass and evade. NRCP 37 © an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or
staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding
or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.- I also
want to add that he has a criminal record, extensive criminal violent record.
JUDGE KISHNER - I understand the individual is currently not incarcerated.
PLAINTIFF - I don’t know, that’s how he was served.
JUDGE KISHNER - is he still incarcerated?
PLAINTIFF - Not that I know of, he was arrested on a two-year-old bench warrant that’s
how I was able to have him served with the Complaint. This is what I’m dealing with, this
is what I’ve been dealing with. I’d like to read a letter. Already have it in evidence from
Mr. Mazzia. “Dear Mr. Aymann enclosed is a stipulation for extension of Discovery
cutoff. This needs to be agreed to by Robert White. Who is also a party to this Case? I have
not discussed this matter with him. I suggest that if acceptable you forward it to him for his
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
signature.” This is what I’ve been dealing with. I want to remind the Court that this is the
brother of two sisters. Why isn’t he represented by Mr. Mazzia? In fact I would like a
Summary Judgment.
PLAINTIFF - The five-year rule comes into play and this is the very thing that I was
anticipating. These tactics by this individual right here. Why he is not being represented by
Mr. Mazzia is beyond me. Other than the fact that it is some kind of tactic to stall to harass
to evade and it gets old.
JUDGE KISHNER - Aymann you’re getting your day in court. I tried to set this Case
numerous times, each time you requested to be continued for different reasons. So you’re
going to have your day in court. The court has set it so it’s before the five-year rule. I
keep reminding you. For the last couple of years I’ve been reminding you. The time is
where it is. To ensure that you get your opportunity to have your full day in court.
There isn’t going to be anyone who is going to preclude that date for any reason that
this court is aware of right now subject to some emergency that I can anticipate as I sit
here right now. so you’ll have your day in court you have Mr. White coming into the
Case and you can Subpoena Duces Tecum the things you need to Subpoena Duces
Tecum and I’m sure that you will have a full opportunity to present your entire Case
as you wish to do it and If there is an issue of someone not responding the same protocol
that applies to anybody an issue must first be handled by the Discovery Commissioner’s
office. Okay.
Plaintiff’s Response – Please consider the following Statements verbalized by Judge
Joanna S Kishner at this hearing:
“Aymann you’re getting your day in court.”
“So you’re going to have your day in court.”
“To ensure that you get your opportunity to have your full day in court.
There isn’t going to be anyone who is going to preclude that date for any reason.”
“So you’ll have your day in court.”
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“I’m sure that you will have a full opportunity to present your entire Case as
you wish to do it.”
Judge Joanna S Kishner in contradiction to these statements sabotaged
Plaintiff’s entire lawsuit and there is absolutely no doubt that this was contrived and
manipulated by this Judge!
Joanna S Kishner is a liar!
Please consider this chronology following this hearing:
10/17/2013 Plaintiff’s first request for Production of Documents for Robert Perry White
10/17/2013 – Plaintiffs second request for Production of Documents for Alana Peterson
and Elaina Peterson
10/17/2013 – Notice of deposition of Robert Perry White
10/18/2013 – Plaintiffs first list of exhibits involving Defendant Robert Perry White
10/18/2013 – Subpoena dukes talcum - police records – police refused to fully comply
10/24/2013 - Plaintiff’s Pro Per Motion to hold Defendant in contempt of court, to Compel
Discovery; or in the alternative, to strike Defendant’s answer and proceed to default, for fees
and costs and related relief.
10/28/2013 – Plaintiff’s pro per Motion to Compel Response to subpoena, sanctions, for
fees and costs and related relief.
11/8/2013 - Motion for Summary Judgment
11/20/2013- Opposition to Motion to hold Defendant in contempt of court, to Compel
Discovery
11/21/2013 - Supplemental Statements and exhibits in support of Plaintiffs Motion to hold
Defendant in contempt of court
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11/25/2013 - Hearing for Motion to hold Defendant in contempt of court to Compel
Discovery
11/25/2013 – Plaintiffs Notice of Intent to place Alexander Mazzia on witness list
11/25/2013 – PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ON DEFENDANTS
MOTION TO DISMISS SET FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE
AN OPPOSITION
11/27/2013 - Plaintiff’s Supplemental Exhibits and witness list.
12/4/2013 – Opposition to Motion of Defendants Summary Judgment
12/5/2013 – Hearing on five separate Motions to dismiss a Plaintiff’s lawsuit against his
former attorney’s.
12/10/2013 – Motion for Summary Judgment
12/13/2013 – Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration
12/16/2013 – Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court
12/16/2013 – Civil Proper Person appeal Statement to the Supreme Court
12/19/2013 - Case appeal Statement
12/19/2013 - Pretrial Conference – Case is on appeal to the Supreme Court
12/27/2013 – Status check – Case is on appeal to the Supreme Court
1/3/2014 – Status check – Case is on appeal to the Supreme Court
1/3/2014 – Order maintaining the January 21, 2014 trial setting and expiration of the five-
year rule
1/9/2014 – Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to file a Plaintiff’s second Motion for request for
extension of five-year rule under NRCP RULE 41 (e) and to file Plaintiff’s second Motion to
Disqualify/Recuse Judge
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1/13/2014 – Order requesting expedited setting on Notice of Intent to file Motion to
Disqualify Judge Joanna S Kishner
1/14/2014 – Calendar call – Case is on appeal to the Supreme Court
1/14/2014 Affidavit of Joanna S Kishner pursuant to NRS 1.235 in Response to Plaintiff
1/14/2014 James R Ayman’s Notice of Intent to file second Motion to Disqualify/Recuse
Judge
1/17/2014 – Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling on Defendants Motion for
Summary Judgment. – Motion denied by Judge Joanna S Kishner
1/21/2014 - Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court
1/21/2014 – Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court
1/21/2014 – Jury trial – Case is on appeal to the Supreme Court
2/7/2014 – Decision and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration – denied
2/7/2014 Decision and Order on Defendants counter Motion to dismiss for failure to
prosecute – Case is on appeal to the Supreme Court
FINDINGS – continued
16. On December 10, 2013 the Court heard oral argument on Defendants Alana Peterson and Elaina
Peterson’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court minutes reflect the oral
Determination that the Motion was granted in part and denied in part. All parties remained in the Case
at the hearing, none of the parties present Stated that they were not able to proceed to trial. Defense
counsel agreed to prepare the draft order and circulated to the other parties in compliance with EDCR
7.21. As of today, no formal order has been filed.
Plaintiff’s Response – the details of this Hearing have already been covered in great
detail in this document. Once again, the manner in which Judge Joanna S Kishner
conducted herself at this Hearings a complete and utter disgrace!
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17. In contravention of the rules, as no order had been filed or any notice of entry, Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Reconsideration on December 13, 2013.
Plaintiff’s Response – Please note, Plaintiff has been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress
disorder as a result of his involvement in intense and continuous combat in the Vietnam War.
Plaintiff’s difficulties include anxiety attacks followed by bouts of depression. Plaintiff knew
that as a result of this Judges ruling the forthcoming anxiety attacks and subsequent bouts of
depression would be severe. Plaintiff knew that he would have to prepare necessary documents
as quickly as possible prior to the full force of the imminent anxiety attacks and subsequent bouts
of depression.
18. As agreed by the parties at the September 3, 2013 hearing, and as further memorialized in writing to
a new Subpoena Duces Tecum order scheduling jury trial, the court held a pretrial conference on
December 19, 2013. Plaintiff Aymann did not appear at the court ordered pretrial conference.
Plaintiff’s Response – Plaintiff had in fact filed a Notice of Appeal and filed a Civil Proper Person
Appeal Statement with the Supreme Court of Nevada on 12/16/1013.This Court and this Judge no longer
had Jurisdiction over this Case!
Plaintiff wonders why it is so crucial for Joanna S Kishner to preside over and force a trial
that she had clearly and intentionally sabotaged and no longer has any jurisdiction over!
19. Although the court cannot and did not review any ex parte communications, it was
made aware that Plaintiff may not be appearing to the pretrial conference. To the court’s
knowledge, however, there was not an appropriate request to reschedule the pretrial conference
or to appear telephonically or to appear by any other means.
Plaintiff’s Response - These were not ex-parte communications, copies were sent to
Alexander Mazzia. Once again this Case was under appeal to the Supreme Court of Nevada and
Plaintiff was severely incapacitated as a result of this Judge’s vicious and ruthless ruling.
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20. On the day of the pretrial conference, the court was also made aware that Plaintiff had
filed a purported “appeal” regarding the court’s granting in part and denying in part Defendants
Alana Peterson and Elaina Peterson’s Motion for Summary Judgment despite the fact that no formal
order had issued, nor was there a final judgment or other ruling appealable pursuant to NRAP 3A (b).
Plaintiff’s Response - Plaintiff finds this Judges repeated insinuations of his implied
incompetence as tiresome. Plaintiff, had in fact filed a proper Appeal to the Nevada Supreme
Court and this appeal was accepted. Plaintiff was no longer going to play the stalling game of
this Judge in concert with the opposing attorney! Plaintiff has no intention of ever entering a
court room again with this Judge sitting at the bench!
ORDER REQUESTING EXPEDITED SETTING ON NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY – filed 1/13/2014
Since the date of this document, Plaintiff has been extremely impacted in a negative manner to
the extent that he was severely incapacitated. Plaintiff has recovered to the extent that he has
managed to slowly complete to separate and lengthy civil proper person appeal Statements to the
Supreme Court of Nevada and is in the process of completing a third.
Plaintiff wishes to point out that Judge Joanna S Kishner’s refusal to recuse herself from
Plaintiff’s Case has cost the taxpayers of this county and State well over $100,000!
Plaintiff also wishes to point out that Judge Jennifer P Togliatti’s Denial of Plaintiff’s
Motion to Disqualify Judge Joanna S Kishner has cost the taxpayers of this county and State
well over $100,000!
Plaintiff wants to be perfectly clear that his treatment at the hands of Judge Joanna S
Kishner has been a continuous and despicable nightmare for Plaintiff James R Aymann! If
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Disqualify Judge Joanna S Kishner is denied, he will once again
appeal it to the Supreme Court of Nevada, en route to appealing it to the Federal Courts.
Plaintiff will be filing Complaints with the Commission on Judicial Discipline of the State of
Nevada, another obvious exercise in futility for Plaintiff in this corrupt state.
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff is a student of human behavior. It is his contention that this Judge has numerous
behavioral issues. The incessant and unwarranted interruptions by this Judge indicate control issues.
Plaintiff has documented difficulties with confusion and presence of mind. These interruptions by this
Judge can easily interfere with an individual’s thought processes and chain of thought. These
interruptions created a very difficult and confusing environment for
Plaintiff. There is no doubt on Plaintiff’s part that this was intentional on the part of Judge
The simple solution is obvious, why didn’t this Judge simply recuse herself from this
Case? Instead she initiated an undeniable cover-up that includes Presiding Judge Jennifer
P Togliatti. Now she is clearly and precisely taking the same tact again and once again
initiating another undeniable cover-up that once again includes Presiding Judge Jennifer P
Togliatti!
Also her contention that she can push a Case to trial that is under appeal is paranoiac. She is
clearly very manipulative as demonstrated by her treatment of Plaintiff at numerous hearings.
Her vindictiveness is unquestionable. Her ruling on 12/10/2013 was nothing less than payback
for Plaintiff’s very legitimate Motion to have her disqualified and an effort to prevent Plaintiff
from exposing the corruption involving government officials, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department and his former lawyers.
PLAINTIFFS CORRESPONDENCES ROSE NAJERA ASSISTANT TO JUDGE
JENNIFER P TOGLIATTI
Plaintiff had occasion to communicate by telephone and correspond with Rose Najera
assistant to Judge Jennifer Togliatti.
On numerous occasions Rose Najera ended telephone conversations with Plaintiff by
saying “Thank you sir, you have a good day” and hanging up!
Plaintiff had never been anything less than kind, friendly and courteous on the telephone
with Rose Najera. This woman’s behavior is nothing less than disgraceful!
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s letter to Rose Najera dated 8/26/2011: (please refer to Exhibit 33)
On 19 August, one week ago today, I filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Kishner from
presiding over my Case. I was informed that this matter would be decided by Judge Togliatti in
chambers on the 22nd
September. Since that date I have received correspondence that indicates
that an ongoing Motion is still going to be presided over by Judge Kishner. I am confused. Is this
proper? I am vehemently opposed to Judge Kosher being involved in any facet of my Case! I
would appreciate any information or explanation as to why this situation is happening. Please
send your Response to my designated fax number 434 – 6565. Thank you. – James R Aymann
Plaintiff’s letter to Rose Najera dated 9/29/2011: (please refer to Exhibit 34)
“On the 5th
of September I started preparing a “Reply” to Judge Kishner’s “Affidavit”.
Due to personal time constraints it took me two weeks to complete this document. Per
instructions this document was e-filed at the District Court Clerk’s office on the 19th of
September. I requested and received assistance throughout the process of e-filing this document
and was assured that it was in the system.
The Motion to Disqualify Judge Kishner was set to be reviewed by Presiding Judge Togliatti
on 22 September. On the 27th of September I contacted you to inquire as to the disposition of my
“Motion”. I was put on hold and then you informed me that it was extended for one week. I
asked what the reason was for this extension. This was unresolved in this conversation.
You contacted me by telephone a little after 3 PM to inform me that my “Reply” had not
been filed. I assured you that it had been filed. You were curt with me throughout that
conversation even though I dealt with you in my normal affable manner. You ended this
conversation with an abrupt “Thank you sir, you have a good day” and hung up.
At the District Court Clerk’s office I spoke with the supervisor and she determined that it was
not in the system. She gave me a copy with the appropriate stamp. I rushed home and
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
immediately faxed you a copy of the stamp document. You verified that it was acceptable I then
asked you why you had been curt with me in our previous conversation even though I had been
friendly with you. Your Response was “like you said sir you are a very……. person and you
have personality issues. Then in a stern manner you said “Thank you sir, you have a good day”
and ended the conversation
In 1967 I was a combat Sergeant in Vietnam the effects of which you probably don’t have a
clue. The VA has diagnosed me with a progressive Case of PTSD a stress disorder. This disorder
can be debilitating at times, but has no bearing on personality which in my Case was established
over 60 years ago. I have the privilege of dealing with hundreds of co-workers on a regular basis
and I am well-liked. In every conversation that I have had with you I have been nothing less than
kind and friendly which is my nature. I submit that an observer would indicate that you are the
one with “personality issues” you are way out of line.
Secondly you indicated that Judge Togliatti extended her ruling for one week, because
my “Reply had not been filed. Why didn’t you simply contact the Court Clerk’s Office? In any
event why wasn’t I contacted? What would have happened if I had not contacted you? Would my
“Reply” had been disallowed without my knowledge? Due to the nature of my “Motion to
Disqualify Judge Kishner”, I find that what has transpired as very disturbing!
I expect Judge Togliatti will read this letter. – James R Aymann.
CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT IN THE STATE OF NEVADA
THE STATE BAR OF NEVADA
In numerous previous court documents Plaintiff has stated that “the greater Las Vegas
area reeks of corruption” and “this town is rigged”. Plaintiff moved to Nevada from California in
1989 and can report from first-hand experience that the difference in the level of corruption in
government between California and Nevada is the difference between night and day!
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
There is a website on the Internet titled “Investigating corruption in your State
government – State integrity investigation” (please refer to Exhibit 35)
Please note, this website indicates that “ethics enforcement agencies” in the State of Nevada
received a grade of F. Plaintiff completely concurs with this failing grade based on first-hand
experience dealing with corruption with the Department of Labor, OSHA, Workmen’s
Compensation, the division of real estate, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the
Atty. Gen.’s office, the State Bar of Nevada etc. This is to include attorney for the Defendants
Alexander Mazzia, these are not frivolous or specious statements made by Plaintiff and he is
prepared to back up these statements with documents.
Also please refer to “study: Nevada ninth most corruptible state” dated 3/19/2012 by
Anjeanette Damon of the Las Vegas Sun. (Please refer to Exhibit 36) “The Silver state emerge
as the ninth most corruptible state in the nation, according to an exhaustive $1.5 million year-
long investigation by a partnership of public integrity organizations. Investigators rated states on
15 indicators of public accountability and transparency in an effort to gauge the risk of
corruption in the three branches of state government. Nevada failed on nearly every indicator,
including ethics enforcement, lobbying transparency, internal auditing and pension fund
management Nevada’s overall grade: a dismal D-.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the State Bar of Nevada regarding his former attorneys to
include Paul C Ray, John Peter Lee, John C Courtney and Yvette Freedman. (Refer to Exhibit
37)
Plaintiff received a receipt of Complaint from the SBN. (Please refer to Exhibit 38)
Plaintiff received a Response to this Complaint from attorney Paul C Ray (please refer to
exhibits 39 and 40)
Plaintiff’s Reply to Paul C Ray’s Response. (Please refer to Exhibit 41)
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff sent a letter of inquiry to the SBN requesting clarification. (Please refer to
Exhibit 42)
Plaintiff served the SBN with a Subpoena Duces Tecum on 6/27/2011. (Please refer to
Exhibit 43)
Plaintiff received a letter of refusal to comply with Plaintiffs subpoena from the SBN on
6/27/2011. (Please refer to Exhibit 44)
Plaintiff sent a letter to the SBN to add “Motion to Subpoena Duces Tecum Complaint”
on 7/25/2011 (Please refer to Exhibit 45)
For Philip J Pattee – RE: grievance #SC 11-0156 – June 15, 2011)
Please allow me to express my gratitude for allowing me the extra time that I needed to
complete my Response.
I am a bit confused. On 25 January I submitted, “Complaints regarding the law firm of
John Peter Lee”. This was two days before a court date to address a Motion by the law firm of
John Peter Lee to ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS OF COUNSEL FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
ATTORNEY’S LIEN AND FOR JUDGMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES. This Motion was
heard again two days ago on 13 June. I informed the Judge that I had submitted a Complaint
against the law firm of John Peter Lee with the State Bar of Nevada that clearly included a fee
dispute. The attorney representing the law firm of John Peter Lee claimed that they had not
received any correspondence from the State Bar of Nevada regarding this matter. The Judge set a
new court date for 15 August in anticipation of a decision from the State Bar of Nevada
involving a fee dispute and all other matters.
Essentially what is happening is that I had already paid this law firm over $16,000 in
attorney’s fees. On 20 August the law firm of John Peter Lee fired Paul Ray who had been my
attorney. 10 days later I was awarded costs including attorney’s fees. Now the problem is that the
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
maximum amount of awardable for attorney’s fees in arbitration is $3000. I was never informed
by anyone of that fact. Now John Peter Lee is attempting to extract an additional $36,000 from
me. Compounding the confusion is that I received a letter from you dated 5 April, indicating
“………. Receipt of your Complaint concerning Paul Ray………..” Nothing was mentioned of
the law firm of John Peter Lee and attorney John Courtney. To further add to the confusion, I
received another letter from you dated 6 May stating, “Enclosed is a copy of correspondence
from attorneys Paul Ray, John Courtney and John Peter Lee in Response to your grievance
letter”. All that was enclosed was the Response from Paul Ray.
The last sentence in the first letter States “Our function is to determine whether an attorney
has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, and if so, to take measures sufficient to avoid a
recurrence. This Statement asserts a preclusion of any disciplinary action in my present situation
including a fee dispute. Have I been wasting my time? I have to question your resoluteness in
dealing with my extremely serious matter. – James R Aymann
Plaintiff sent a strong letter of dissatisfaction to the SBN on 8/8/2011. (Please Exhibit
46) refer to please consider the contents of this letter: for the discipline office – September 8,
2011
On 1/25/2011 I submitted multiple grievances. Grievance # (SC 11 – 0156) while he
received a Response from attorney Paul Ray. I submitted a detailed Reply to his Response.
Three months have passed since I submitted that Reply and I am and have been completely in
the dark as to what is going on I have left numerous voicemail messages with no Response
from your end! Is this intentional? Is this your standard operational procedure or am I simply
being jerked around! Make no mistake I’m serious as a heart attack regarding these very
legitimate grievances!
On 5/15/2013, Plaintiff faxed the following request to the SBN. (Refer to Exhibit 47)
For the State Bar of Nevada/office of bar counsel:
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“I have recently checked my files and I am missing at least one letter addressed to me from
your office involving this grievance, specifically the letter notifying me that the Case had been
closed. I would greatly appreciate it if a copy of that letter could be emailed to me. If this is not
possible I am willing to drop by and pick it up personally. Time is of importance. I would greatly
appreciate it if this could be done as soon as possible. Thank you so much. – James R Aymann”
(Fax number, phone number and address included)
Plaintiff’s Response – The fact that of the matter is that the State Bar of Nevada never
actually sent Plaintiff a letter indicating that his Case had been closed! In fact the State Bar
of Nevada never even responded to this request for a copy of a letter that Plaintiff had
never received!
“This town reeks of corruption” and Plaintiff’s despicable and disgraceful experience
with the State Bar of Nevada regarding legitimate Complaints leveled at Nevada attorneys
is a detailed example!
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Please consider this entry titled “protecting Nevada’s seniors” by the Atty. Gen. of the State
of Nevada. (Please refer to Exhibit 48)
“The senior population is the fastest growing population in the State of Nevada and the
Nevada Atty. Gen.’s office is stepping up its efforts to protect our seniors. Our senior protection
unit combines several different divisions in our office, which come together with one goal in
mind: to educate and protect seniors and to prosecute those who take advantage of Nevada’s
seniors.”
On 2/7/2011 Plaintiff sent a written criminal Complaint against his former attorneys.
On 1/17/2011 the Atty. Gen.’s office responded with the following email (please refer to
Exhibit 50)
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dear Mr. Aymann: this letter is in Response to your February 7, 2011 correspondence,
concerning your Complaints against the law firm of John Peter Lee of Las Vegas Nevada John
Courtney, Esq. of that firm and Paul Ray Esq. formerly of that firm.
You stated that you were dissatisfied with the legal representation you received in a Clark
County District Court arbitration Case, James R Aymann versus Alana Peterson, et al. You
contend that the above-mentioned law firm and attorneys violated the rules of professional
conduct to include breaches of communication so you could not make an informed decision
about representation. You also State that you were not reasonably informed about the status of
the Case, and that the scope of representation was violated.
Please understand that the office of the Atty. Gen. does not have legal jurisdiction over your
Complaint. This office represents various State agencies, boards, and commissions charged with
a duty to enforce our State laws, and Nevada law prohibits this office from rendering legal
assistance and/or providing legal advice to anyone other than our assigned agencies, boards and
commissions. Therefore, this office cannot provide legal advice, opinions, or interpret Nevada
law for private citizens.
Investigating the disciplining attorneys for malpractice is a function of the State Bar of
Nevada. If you wish to contact the bar, their contact information is listed below.
Plaintiff responded with the following letter. (Please refer to Exhibit 51)
To be submitted to: the Atty. Gen. of the State of Nevada:
NRS 193.167 additional penalty: certain crimes committed against person 60 years of age
or older or against vulnerable person.
1. A person who commits the crime of:
(I) obtaining money or property of a value of $250 or more by false pretenses.
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff is a 65-year-old combat veteran of the Vietnam War with a 70% service-connected
disability for posttraumatic stress disorder. Plaintiff received an honorable discharge. Las Vegas
Nevada has been my home for over 21 years. Plaintiff has been a taxpaying and law-abiding
citizen. I believe this qualifies Plaintiff as an elderly and vulnerable person. Please note:
1. Plaintiff’s Case was placed into arbitration under “false pretenses”. He was never
aware that the award for legal fees and arbitration may not exceed $3000. Plaintiff wonders
why the Nevada State legislature did not include a provision for the common citizen that
would hire a lawyer would be advised in writing that they are going to have to cough up any
attorney’s fees over $3000! This ladies lawyers clients who are not advised of this rule at the
mercy of these unscrupulous lawyers
a. An award of $50,000, b. a $3000 cap for attorney’s fees and c. is not binding.
Had I known any of this at the onset I never would have hired Paul Ray or any attorney to
represent me under these circumstances and conditions.
On 15 July 2010, eight days after the final arbitration hearing, Paul Ray telephone me.
For my protection I recorded this conversation. This conversation clearly indicates and
establishes that attorney Paul Ray and the law firm of John Peter Lee plan to obtain more than
$250 under “false pretenses”! Attached to this Statement is a four-page Transcription of the first
six minutes of that conversation.
Please note:
1. Plaintiff ultimately ended up paying over $16,000 to law firm of John Peter Lee.
2. They are currently taking me to court to retrieve an additional $36,000
3. The Arbitrator initially awarded me costs including attorneys’ fees.
4. Because of the arbitration rules, I was only awarded $2500 in attorney’s fees.
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. On the 26th of August, eight days before the Arbitrator rendered her decision, Paul
Ray’s employment with the law firm of John Peter Lee was mysteriously terminated. I was
never informed by Paul Ray personally.
It is the contention of the vast majority of my friends, neighbors and coworkers that
government at all levels and all facets spend their time referring to their individual checklists as
to why they can’t help or why they can’t get involved. I’m hoping this is not the Case because
quite frankly I’m tired of being jerked around! I’m serious as a heart attack about demanding that
criminal charges be brought against these people!
Thank you. – James R Aymann
On 3/14/2011, the Office of the Atty. Gen. of the State of Nevada sent a letter of Reply as
follows: (please refer to Exhibit 52)
Re: Complaint against the law firm of John Peter Lee, Paul Ray, Esq., and John
Courtney, Esq.
Dear Mr. Aymann: -thank you for taking the time to write to the State of Nevada, office of
Atty. Gen. This letter is in Response to your letter that was dated February 24, 2011. Your
correspondence was in reference to a Response correspondence for legal researcher, Marc Fox
Please note, I will reiterate what Mark Fox said in his email dated February 17, 2011, the
Nevada Atty. Gen.’s office represents the State of Nevada and is not authorized to provide legal
advice to private citizens. Our office represents various State agencies, boards and commissions
charged with a duty to enforce our State laws. Nevada law prohibits anyone from this office from
rendering legal assistance, legal advice and/or representing anyone other than our assigned
boards and/or commissions. Therefore, we are unable to provide legal advice, opinions and/or
interpret Nevada law for private citizens. In addition, our office does not become involved in
pending litigation.
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I will also reiterate what Mark Fox wrote in his email. Investigating and disciplining an
attorney is a function of the State Bar. Below I have listed their relevant contact information:
Sincerely, CATHERINE CORTEZ-MASTO Attorney General
Plaintiff’s Response – Plaintiff clearly cited NRS193.167-1(e) - additional penalty: certain
crimes committed against person 60 years of age or older or against vulnerable person. – A
person who commits the crime of obtaining money or property of a value of $250 or more by
false pretenses.
Plaintiff submits that this is clearly not a request for “legal advice”, but a legitimate
criminal Complaint submitted in writing to the Atty. Gen. of Nevada with substantial
supporting documents by an individual that has established that he is both a vulnerable
person and a person that is over 60 years of age.
Lawyer John Peter Lee owner of the law firm that bears his name, Paul C Ray who
was subsequently fired by John Peter Lee and this fact is still being concealed by all parties
involved Yvette Freedman who was complicit with John Peter Lee in the act of submitting
fraudulent documents to the court’s in an attempt to cause further harm to Plaintiff are all
guilty of this statute to the tune of over $16,000 and an additional $34,000 lien that they
successfully obtained in a court order from Judge Joanna S Kishner.
Plaintiff submits that the actions and non-actions of the Atty. Gen. of the State of
Nevada constitutes a cover-up of the felonious crimes committed by these Nevada lawyers
against Plaintiff!
THE LASVEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
There was a pool table in the basement of the old San Mateo Police Department in the
1950s. Plaintiff was an adolescent then and was allowed to shoot pool for free with his friends. A
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lifelong friendship ensued between Plaintiff and numerous police officers and subsequently their
children and now their grandchild.
Plaintiff was offered a lucrative temporary job in Las Vegas in 1989. Plaintiff considered
it a paid vacation with no intention of staying more than just a few months. Regrettably, Plaintiff
has been in Las Vegas for over 25 years.
Police corruption and police abuse has been a common topic of conversation throughout
the years. For the most part Plaintiff presented arguments in support of and defended the Las
Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. This is no longer the Case. The horror stories that
Plaintiff has been Hearing for years concerning the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department,
the North Las Vegas Police Department and the Henderson Police Department are now regarded
by Plaintiff as possibly being the truth! Plaintiff now has several of his own horror stories
regarding law enforcement in Clark County Nevada.
As depicted in detail in this document, with supporting exhibits, Plaintiff was viciously
and brutally attacked by defendant Robert Perry White of Las Vegas Nevada at the behest of his
sister defendant Alana Geneva Peterson of Torrance California.
Peterson described Plaintiff’s assailant as a “friend” in her 911 call, and then described
Plaintiff’s assailant as a “stranger” who mysteriously appeared then disappeared. There can only
be one explanation and one explanation only Peterson has been less than honest with the Las
Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in her representation of her involvement and what
actually transpired in the vicious attack involving Plaintiff who was subsequently taken to the
hospital in an ambulance with head and rib injuries. Plaintiff submits that Alana Geneva Peterson
of Torrance California and while visiting Las Vegas Nevada involved herself in a felonious
crime against an older and vulnerable person and then submitted a version of what transpired on
her 911 telephone call and then changed that version to an opposite and contradictory version in
her voluntary Statement submitted to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department less than
one hour later.
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The handling of this “event” by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was
flawed from the start. Detective Jill James of the “violent crimes” Division, is a complete and
total disgrace! In his first conversation with this woman, 18 days after he was attacked, Plaintiff
correctly offered Robert Perry White as the most likely suspect in this very first telephone
conversation with this woman. She informed Plaintiff that because there were no witnesses there
would be no investigation. What was Plaintiff James R Aymann? He was there! In contrast to
Defendant Alana Geneva Peterson’s version, Plaintiff’s version is not contradictory. In fact,
Plaintiff’s version is devoid of any contradiction and is in fact the complete and total truth!
Please note, Plaintiff volunteered to submit to a polygraph in that very first conversation with
detective Jill James. Her Response, silence! The truth of the matter is that Detective Jill James
simply chose to side with a fellow female that falsely claim that she was attacked by Plaintiff.
The fact that the victim in this brutal attack involving serious injury to an older and
vulnerable law-abiding and long-term citizen of the State of Nevada appears to be meaningless to
the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department!
Plaintiff was then unaware of the content of Peterson’s 911 call and Peterson’s voluntary
statement at that time. Plaintiffs out of State law Enforcement friends have unanimously
indicated that Defendant Alana Geneva Peterson should have been arrested for submitting
false Statements to the police involving a felonious crime against an older and vulnerable
person!
After repeated requests and subsequent demands by Plaintiff to his lawyer Paul C Ray to
subpoena all records and documents pertaining to event # LL090208001971, Paul C Ray finally
filed and served a Subpoena Duces Tecum to the custodian of records of the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department. This subpoena was for “any and all records, files and
documents, including 911 call records and Transcripts pertaining to the incident at 733
Greenbrier
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Townhouse Way, Las Vegas, NV 89121 on February 8, 2009 at approximately 14:00; James
Richard Aymann, victim; Alana Peterson, witness; Richard Lee Burch Junior witness.” (Please
refer to exhibit 52)
All that was provided to Plaintiff was the 911 recording. Plaintiff’s lawyer Paul C Ray
did absolutely nothing to remedy the situation. He had in fact already conducted depositions, at
great expense to Plaintiff, prior to receiving any additional information from the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department!
As a result, with upcoming trial looming, Plaintiff served the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department with his own Subpoena Duces Tecum. Their Response to this subpoena by
the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was clearly incomplete and insufficient. (Please
refer to exhibit 53)
Included with this Response was a letter from the Director of Police Records Bureau.
(Please refer to exhibit 54)
State of Nevada, County of Clark – Affidavit: October 29, 2013
I Susanna S McCurdy, being duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: that I am their records
director of official police records maintained by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
That I am in receipt of your Subpoena Duces Tecum served to us on October 18, 2013,
requesting the diligent search for any and all documents and 911 call records pertaining to event
number 090208 – 1971. That the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has redacted
privileged private personal information in which a reasonable person would have a legitimate
expectation of privacy. Therefore, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department objects to
the subpoena on the foregoing grounds pursuant to NRCP (45) (2) (B). That I have provided
true and correct copies of all responsive documents under my hand and not privileged by
law, except as otherwise indicated above, 19 pages in all. – Susannah S McCurdy – Dir., police
records Bureau.
Plaintiff considers this overt refusal to comply with his subpoena for all documents
and all records as nothing less and nothing short of a cover-up by the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department.
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff submits that the actions and non-actions of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department constitutes a cover-up of their actions and non-actions involving the felonious
crimes committed by Defendant Alana Geneva Peterson and her brother Defendant Robert Perry
White against Plaintiff James R Aymann.
Plaintiff has since decided that he will never ever contact any law enforcement agency in
Clark County Nevada for any reason!
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Once again Plaintiff has stated in previous documents that “this town is rigged”. This
corruption actually begins with the legislature of the State of Nevada. There are laws that clearly
favor the few (big business) at the expense of the many. (The general working population)
The State legislature has bestowed enormous powers and latitude to the courts and
government agencies. Consequently, what has been transpiring for decades is a status quo of
nonresponse and noninvolvement or to the other extreme whereby the actions and involvements
of the court’s and/or government agencies and their officials are so profoundly unjust as a result
of missing and incomplete statutes or the common practice of simply disregarding existing
statutes. Plaintiff has repeatedly experienced what can only be described as thinly disguised
corruption by the courts and government agencies to include the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department time and time and time again!
Hard-working and law-abiding citizens of this State are repeatedly neglected and/or
abused by the overwhelming powers that have been bestowed upon the courts and these
government agencies by this State’s legislature to the dismay and frustration of these citizens as
a result of what can only be described as rampant and unbridled corruption by the legislature, the
court’s and government agencies/officials of the State of Nevada.
For the past several years Plaintiff has been asking his friends, neighbors and
acquaintances and even complete strangers this question, “Do you feel that corruption in
government is a serious problem in Nevada?” In the course of this time. Plaintiff has had
occasion to ask this question to several thousand people that have dealt with Nevada government
and the response has been a unanimous 100% “yes” many of these individuals chimed in with
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
their own specific and personal horror stories involving government corruption in Nevada.
Individuals that have relocated to Clark County Nevada and have resided here for more
Than a few years have all unanimously indicated that corruption in government in Clark County
Nevada is far worse then what ever corruption in government that they were exposed to in their
previous location. Chicago has a long history and reputation for corruption in government. There
exists a large number of individuals that have relocated to Clark County Nevada from Chicago
Illinois. Without exception these individuals have indicated that the corruption in government
that they have experienced and been confronted with here in Clark County is more prevalent and
severe than that of Chicago Illinois.
It is Plaintiff’s contention that judges, politicians and government officials need to
remove their “professional regalia” and put on a T-shirt, Levi’s and sneakers and mingle among
the working masses of Clark County Nevada and ask a simple question “Do you feel that there is
corruption in government here in Clark County, Nevada?”
The point that Plaintiff is trying to make is that corruption in government is rampant in
Clark County Nevada. The common theme regrettably is a deep sense of impotence and
frustration because there is no resolution to solve this problem in sight.
Plaintiff filed a legitimate Motion to Disqualify a Judge because she was allowing lawyer
Yvette Freedman to incessantly and repeatedly stated one fraudulent statement after another with
impunity and Yvette Freedman was introducing documents while representing the law firm that
terminated his former lawyer Paul C Ray and these fraudulent documents submitted by Yvette
Freedman were all signed by John Peter Lee the owner of the law firm. (Refer to Exhibit 5)
As described earlier in this document, Plaintiff’s Motion for the Disqualification of Judge
Joanna S Kishner was denied by presiding Judge Jennifer P Togliatti. (Please refer to Exhibit 2)
Plaintiff was forced to take the next logical step and that was to appeal this Denial to the
Supreme Court of Nevada. After waiting 9 ½ months Plaintiff received this order dismissing
appeal States, “Proper Person Appellant seeks to challenge a District Court order denying a
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion to Disqualify a Judge. As no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from the
challenged order, it is not substantively appealable. As we lack jurisdiction to consider this
appeal, we order this appeal dismissed. (Please refer to exhibit 55)
Plaintiff has made it perfectly clear, on several occasions, that he is dumbfounded and
bewildered as to how any State in this union can block an appeal of a Denial of a legitimate
Motion to Disqualify an extremely corrupt and subsequently incompetent Judge from an older
and disabled combat veteran let alone anyone for that matter!
The disqualification of any Judge in the United States of America is an extremely serious
matter and it is Plaintiff’s contention that this is just another example of a long list of
differentiations between the State of Nevada and the rest of the other 49 States. This corruption
in the State of Nevada is so rampant and widespread that it is as if Nevada was an entirely
different country altogether! The pervasiveness of this corruption in the State of Nevada clearly
originates with its legislature in its shameless and repeated abandonment of the hard-working
and law-abiding citizens of this “silver” State by opting to satisfy their own agenda and the
corrupting elements that successfully lobby their support!
Rule 16. (E) Of the arbitration rules forms and directions States, “Attorney’s fees
awarded by the Arbitrator may not exceed $3000, unless the compensation of an attorney is
governed by an agreement between the parties allowing a greater award.” It was Plaintiff’s
understanding that his lawsuit would be litigated for an amount between $10,000 and $12,000.
Also Plaintiff was assured that it is customary for a Plaintiff to be awarded costs if he prevails to
include attorney’s fees. At no time did anyone at the law firm of John Peter Lee to include
Plaintiff’s lawyer Paul C Ray, advise Plaintiff that his lawsuit would be placed into arbitration
and that any attorney’s fees awarded by the Arbitrator may not exceed $3000.
Plaintiff was awarded costs to include attorney’s fees, however Plaintiff paid this law
firm over $16,000 and this law firm took Plaintiff to court retrieve an additional $38,000 for a
total of $54,000. Once again this is a criminal act. These lawyers cannot induce their clients into
signing any fee agreements without making certain that their clients are completely aware of
what they are getting into!
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s presence of mind is poor and he has difficulties with confusion, but in no way
has this affected his intelligence there is absolutely no way that Plaintiff would have entered into
a situation where this law firm can run up tens of thousands of dollars in their fees when Plaintiff
can only retrieve a maximum of $3000 if he was awarded costs there is a statute NRS 183.167
that States “additional penalty: certain crimes committed against person 60 years of age or older
or against vulnerable person who commits the crime of obtaining money or property of value of
$250 or more by false pretenses.”.
ARGUMENT
It is Plaintiff’s contention that it is unnecessary to elaborate on the numerous details
submitted in this 90+ page document to support Plaintiff James R Aymann’s Motion to
Disqualify Judge Joanna S Kishner and subsequently remove her from any further involvement
with Case A 586400.
“Judge Kishner Stated in her Affidavit, filed January 14, 2014, that she bears no actual or
implied bias toward Plaintiff, and that she has been, and will continue to be, fair and impartial
when presiding over the instant matter” (Please refer to exhibit 56) is contrary to the facts,
circumstances, conditions and incidents presented in this document! Furthermore, for the valid
reasons presented in this document, Plaintiff James R Aymann strongly protests the involvement
of Presiding Judge Jennifer P Togliatti in the rendering of any decision in this Motion.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s five year excursion through the legal system in Clark County in the State
of Nevada has been a living nightmare! The extent of this corruption is rampant and
nauseating! The difference between legality and morality has been described as ethics. It is
Plaintiff’s contention that the legal system in and out of the court rooms in Clark County in
the State of Nevada is simply unethical!
The inferences in this document involving wholesale corruption by government officials
involving Plaintiff James R Aymann, a 69-year-old taxpaying and law-abiding citizen of the
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
State of Nevada who is also a disabled combat veteran of the Vietnam War, are not mere
allegations but fact, as substantiated by this document with its supporting exhibits and Plaintiff’s
Affidavits. The continued interference by numerous individuals to include Joanna S Kishner and
Jennifer P Togliatti must stop and must stop now! Plaintiff has been induced, duped, tricked,
cheated, lied to and essentially has been jerked around by numerous government officials of the
State of Nevada! This must stop and Plaintiff must be allowed to present his entire Case to a jury
of his peers without any hindrance to his presentation of the whole truth and the entire truth!
Included as an exhibit is Plaintiff’s sworn Affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court of
Nevada, notorized on 3/21/2014
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff James R Aymann requests the above prayed for relief be
granted.
DATED and DONE this ______ day of ____________, 2014
_____________________________________
James R Aymann – Plaintiff in Proper person
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES R AYMANN
STATE OF NEVADA ) ss.
COUTY OF CLARK ) ss.
I, JAMES R AYMANN being first duly sworn, depose and say:
1. I am the Plaintiff in this matter, and my Motion is true and correct.
2. I request the court acknowledge the irregularities in this matter.
3. I request nothing more or less than justice. I do not feel this Judge has complied with
the canons of judicial ethics as set forth herein and has conducted herself in a manner contrary to
the criminal statutes of the State of Nevada.
.FURTHER TOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT
_________________________
JAMES R. AYMANN
Sworn and subscribed to me
This ______day of ________, 2014
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1. Register of Actions – Case # A586400
2. Denial of Motion to Disqualify Judge Joanna S Kishner – filed 10/12/2011
3. Denial of Record Motion to Disqualify Judge Joanna S Kishner – filed 1/16/2014
4. Biography of Jennifer P Togliatti
5. Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge – filed 8/19/2011, includes three supporting exhibits
1. Reply to Opposition to Motion to Adjudicate the Rights of Counsel for Enforcement of
Attorneys Lien and for Judgment of Attorney’s fees – filed 6/6/2011, and 3. Motion to
Adjudicate the Rights of Counsel for Enforcement of Attorneys Lien and for Judgment of
Attorney’s fees.
6. Motion to Adjudicate the Rights of Counsel for Enforcement of Attorneys Lien and for
Judgment of Attorney’s fees – filed 12/21/2010 – please refer to Exhibit 3 of Exhibit 5
7. Affidavit if Joanna S. Kishner pursuant to NRS 1.234 in response to Plaintiff – dated –
8/29/2011
8. Reply to Affidavit of Joanna S Kishner pursuant to NRS 1.235 in Response to Plaintiff
James R Aymann’s Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Judge – filed 9/19 2011
9. Plaintiffs Affidavit with Supplemental Exhibits filed 6/10/2011
10. Public Censure of Joanna S Kishner by the State of Nevada Standing Committee on
Judicial Ethics and Election Practices – filed 9/16/2010
11. Substitution of Attorney’s – signed by john peter lee - 9/16/2010 and Letter of
termination faxed to Matthew Callister – dated 2/7/2011
12. Response of Paul C Ray to Plaintiff’s Complaint to the State Bar of Nevada – dated 4/21
13. Reply to Opposition to Motion to Adjudicate the Rights of Counsel for Enforcement of
Attorneys Lien and for Judgment of Attorney’s fees – filed 6/6/2011 – please refer to
exhibit 1 of exhibit 5)
14. Professional Transcript of telephone conversation from lawyer Paul C Ray to Plaintiff on
7/15/2010 – dated 2/23/2011
15. Sworn Affidavit of John Williams and Dawn Cato – dated
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16. Sworn Affidavit of Joanna S Kishner – not motorized – dated 1/13/2014
17. Opposition to Motion of Defendants Alana Peterson and Elaina Peterson for Summary
Judgment – filed 12/4/2013
18. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Exhibits and Witness List – filed 11/27/2013
19. Plaintiffs Notice of Intent to place Alexander Mazzia on Witness List – filed 11/25/2013
20. Transcript of Hearing for Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment – held on
12/10/2013
21. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration – filed 12/13/2013
22. Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Nevada – filed 12/16/2013
23. Decision and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Defendants Counter
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute – dated 2/6/2014
24. NRS 200.471 Assault: definitions; penalties
25. Second Amended Complaint – filed 1/22/2013
26. Order Re: Maintaining the January 21 Trial Setting and Expiration of the five-year rule –
dated 1/3/2014
27. Motion to hold Defendants in Contempt of Court and to Compel Discovery – filed
12/13/2011
28. Notice of Appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court – filed 11/8/2011
29. Defendants Opposition to Motion to Compel Discovery – filed 1/19/2012
30. Transcript of Hearing for Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery – held on 1/23/2012
31. Objection to Discovery Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation – filed 2/23/2012
32. Transcript of Pretrial Conference – held on 6/27/2013
33. Fax sent to Rose Najera – dated 8/26/2011
34. Fax sent to Rose Najera – dated 8/29/2011
35. “Investigating Corruption Risk in your State Government – State Integrity Investigation”
36. “Study: Nevada ninth most Corruptible State – Las Vegas Sun article – 3/19/2012
37. Complaint regarding former attorneys to State Bar of Nevada – dated 1/17/2011
38. Letter of receipt of Complaint from State Bar of Nevada dated 4/5/2011
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39. Letter from State Bar of Nevada dated 5/6/2011
40. Response to Complaints from lawyer Paul C Ray – dated 4/21/2011 (no response from
lawyer John Peter Lee)
41. Plaintiff’s reply to Paul C Ray’s Response – dated 6/3/2011
42. Plaintiff’s letter requesting clarifications to SBN
43. Plaintiffs Subpoena Duces Tecum to SBN – dated 6/27/2011
44. Letter of refusal to comply with Plaintiffs Subpoena from SBN – dated 7/13/2011
45. Plaintiff’s letter to SBN to add Motion to Subpoena Duces Tecum Complaint – dated
8/8/2011
46. Plaintiff ‘s strong letter of dissatisfaction to SBN – dated 8/8/2011
47. Letter of Dismissal from the SBN – date 11/10/2011
48. Mission Statement of Atty. Gen. of Nevada “Protecting Nevada’s Seniors” – dated
2/25/2011
49. Attorney General’s Response to Plaintiff’s Complaint – dated 1/17/2011
50. Plaintiff’s Reply to Atty. Gen.’s Response to Complaint – dated 2/20/2011
51. Attorney General’s Response to Plaintiff’s Reply – dated 3/14/2011
52. Subpoena to Custodian of Records – Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department – dated
1/22/2010
53. Subpoena to Custodian of Records – Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department dated
10/18/2013
54. Letter from Police Records Bureau – Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department – dated
10/29/2013
55. Order Dismissing the Appeal – filed 8/21/2012
56. Affidavit of James R Aymann submitted to the Supreme Court of Nevada – notarized
3/21/2014
57. Arbitration, Rules Forms and Directions – page 11 Rule 16 (E) Revised 4/07/2008
58. Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance on Defendants Motion to Dismiss - 11/25/2013
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Please note, the Defendants have been previously provided with all of the above exhibits.
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28