2 19 13 0204 mandamus against 2jdc steven elliott 2025 1262 2064 13-05022

8/22/2019 2 19 13 0204 Mandamus Against 2JDC Steven Elliott 2025 1262 2064 13-05022

1/118

FILJ. MICHAEL SUND EVIKTORIYA SOKOL SUNDE2 4790 Caughlin Pkwy., #119 Fp/1 9 2013Reno, NV 89519 -09073 Telephone: (775) 830 - 7578 ReCFacsimile: (775) 787 - 8272 4 .4'4 In Proper Persons5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA67 J. MICHAEL SUNDE, VIKTORIYASOKOL SUNDE,8 Petitioners, Case No. 626179

V.10 THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT11 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADAin and for the County of W ashoe, and12 THE HONOR ABLE STEVEN P.ELLIOTT, Judge thereof,13 Respondents.1415 Emergency Motion Under NRA P 27(e)16 SECOND AMENDED EM ERGENCY PETITION FOR W RIT OFMANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION1718etitioners file this amended petition above referenced so as to subm it the order signe19 by the District Court. On February 13, 2013, Mr. Sunde called the parties including Judg20 S teven P. Elliott and advised them ofthe filing ofthis petition. The next day, Feb ruary 14,201321 of that call to Judge Elliott s chambers, Judge Elliott signed an order that had been pending fo22 m any m onths. Exhibit 12. The purpose of this amended pleading is merely to include that orde23 for this Court s consideration, correct the filed date on the prior filing, and date corrections24 Other very old pleadings filed in Judge Elliott ' s Court remain unanswered by the judge.25 NRAP 27(e) CERTIFICATE2.. Telephone numbers and addresses of the attorneys for the parties:(qv1 i erable Steven P . Elliott David O Mara, 6 2 Araurt dtirceieatl District Court Attorney At Law311 E. Liberty St.Bo 0083 Reno, NV 89501CLERK afr sup.EmE COURT

DUTY CLERK

Page 1 of 28


2/118

Reno, NV 89520 elephone: (775) 323-1321Telephone: (775) 328-3110B. Facts showing ex istence and nature of the claimed emergency: See pages 1-3 .C. W hen and how counsel for the other parties were notified and whether they havbeen served with the motion; Attorney David O'Mara was notified by facsimile onFebruary 12, 2013, of this petition for writ. Judge Steven E lliott's office was calleand notified of the petition for writ on February 13, 2013. Both parties were servethe petition and appendixes by first class mail.

The m ost recent dates of the events supporting this petition were February 14, 2013Second Judicial District Court Order Denying D efendants' Motion For Reconsideration OOrder to Stay and Motion For Relief From Order. Exhibit 12.

J. Michael Sunde and Viktoriya Sokol Sunde ("Petitioners") hereby petition this Court foan Em ergency W rit of Mandamus or Prohibition ordering respondent ("District Court", o"Department 10") to vacate four (4) previous decisions in Petitioners' District Court action thathey consider to be "rigged" and to cease "rigging" d ecisions in Petitioners' District Couraction in the future. The Petitioners demand this court order an investigation by the NevadAttorney General to determine the extent of the corruption, mail fraud and wire fraud committeby the District Court and to determine the numb er of previously "rigged" decisions by thDistrict Court over a period as long as 10 years and which should include the determination othe quid pro quo provided to the District Court by real parties in interest Robert D. CrocketVictoria A. Crockett ("Crocketts") and their attorneys William O'Mara and David O'Mar("O'Maras") to obtain the "rigged" decisions from the D istrict Court. All grounds advanced isupport of the herein petition were submitted to the District Court.

The four (4) decisions rigged by the District Court include: (1) The Order signed bJudge Steven P. E lliott on December 13, 2012 staying the Department 10 action.. Tstated purpose of the motion to stay was to consolidate the Department 10 action with thDepartment 6 action. However, the Department 6 action is on appeal before this Court, CasNo. 57574. Absolutely no commonality between the Department 10 and Department 6 actionwas presented to the District Court by the O 'Maras and no com monality was ruled upon nocontained in the District Court s order staying the Department 10 action. For there waabsolutely no commonality. The Crocketts and O Maras failed to file the compulsory

Page 2 of 28


3/118

counterclaim over 2 years ago when the Department 10 action was filed. Furthermore, over thepast 2 years, Judge Steven P. Elliott and the O Maras admitted dozens of times that theDepartment 6 action was not relative whatsoever with the Department 10 action. District CourJudge Steven P. Elliott ignored the laws of Nevada and falsified his order staying theDepartment 10 action; (2) The Order signed by Judge Steven P. Elliott on December 222011 that the motion by the Petitioners was deemed frivolous. The District Court stated hearing that Petitioners motion was not frivolous three (3) times, but the O Maras when askedby Judge Elliott to prepare an order for him to sign O Mara falsified the Proposed Order statinthe motion was frivolous Judge Steven P Elliott signed said falsified order without eveverifying the findings in the order; (3) The Order signed by Judge Steven P. Elliott oDecember 22, 2011, which asserted that the Petitioner was evicted. The transcript fromJustice Court hearing proved that Petitioners were not evicted from the Greenwich house. Buthe O Maras after being asked by Judge Elliott to prepare an order inserted into the ProposeOrder that Petitioners neither appeared at the Justice Court hearing, which they did, and that thePetitioners were evicted, which the transcript proves Petitioners were not ev icted. These factcenter directly on the action before the court as the Crocketts had given Mr. Sunde a contracfor a lifetime leasehold for said Greenwich home The District Court signed the falsifiedproposed order w ithout verfying the findings in the order; (4) The Order signed by JudgSteven P. Elliott on March 3, 2011 awarding attorneys fees. The O Maras filed a motion foattorney fees based on a lease allowing attorney fees to the prevailing party. Since there hasbeen no trial, no judgment, by law there cannot be a prevailing party. District Court Judge StevP. Elliott ignored the law and falsified the order allowing attorney fees.

Every questionable decision by Judge Steven P. Elliott was ruled against Petitioners. Thonly explanation can be corruption and collusion between Ro bert D. Crockett, Victoria ACrockett, William M . O Mara, David C. O Mara and Judge Steven P. Elliott or a completdisregard of the rule of law and an abuse of discretion.

Page 3 of 28


4/118

23456789

1111213141516

171819202122232425262728

Petitioners pray for justice from this ourt by overturning the orders entered by JudgeSteven P. Elliott which also will eliminate the need to go to federal court for the protection oour constitutional rights.

As the abov e referenced allegations involve criminal conduct by the district Court Judgand the two attorneys who falsified proposed orders, the six-month limitation is inapplicable tthis case. The Court and attorneys engaged in fraud in a fraud upon the court bribery of judge, and fabrication of evidence by the attorneys. Savage v. Salzmann 88 Nev. 193,495 P.2367 1972); Manville v. M anville 79 Nev. 487, 387 P.2d 661 1963); Murphy v. Murphy 1Nev. 185, 734 P.2d 738 1987).

Petitioners will file complaints regarding this corrupt conduct by the Court and attorneyto the Discipline Com mission, State Bar of Nevada, and others.

Page 4 of 28


5/118

23456789

10

1213141516171819202122232425262728

ISSUE PRESENTEDTHE DISTRICT COURT, PRESIDING JUDGE STEVEN P. ELLIOTT, ENTEREDORDERS THAT WERE BLATANTLY WRONG AND SHOULD BE O VERTURNEDAND W HEN A DISTRICT COURT ENGAGES IN COLLUSION AND CORRUPTIOWITH ATTORN EYS IN THE "RIGGING" OF DECISIONS THOSE DECISIONS AREIN CONTRAVENTION TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, AGAINST PUBLICPOLICY, AND THEREFORE THIS COURT IS THE CO URT OF LAST RESORT.

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONSThe corruption and criminal conspiracy engaged in by Robert D. Crockett, Victoria A

Crockett (real parties in interest), District Court Judge Steven P. Elliott, attorneys William MO'Mara and David C. O'Mara has denuded and unlawfully taken Petitioners' constitutional righto substantive due process and procedural due process. The conduct of these co-conspiratorwas not appropriate, proper nor reasonable. The selective justice dispensed by Judge StevenP. Elliott against Petitioners and as alleged herein and many other litigants in Department 1of Washoe County District Court has created unimaginable violations of many party constitutional protections.

DISCUSSIONI. EMERG ENCY RELIEF BY EXTRAOR DINARY WRIT IS APPROPRIATEAND NECESSARY

In general this Court will not issue a writ when there is a "plain, speedy and adequaremedy in the ordinary course of law" (NRS 34.170), such as the ability to appeal a district couorder following the entry of a final judgment. How ever, this Court will consider a writ, evewhen there is a speedy and adequate remedy at law, when an important issue of law has beeusurped by a lower court, and pub lic policy will be served by this Court's invocation of itoriginal jurisdiction. Dayside Inc. v. F irst Jud. Dist. Ct. 119 Nev. 404, 407 (2003), overruon other grounds by Lehrer McGovern Bovis Inc. v. Bullock Insulation Inc. 124 Nev. AdRep. 92, 197 P.3d 1032 (2008).

Without a doubt, the Petitioners' dispute over the "rigging" of decisions by the CrockettO'Maras and District Court through an unknown special arrangement with attorneys Williaand David O'Mara involves an important issue of law. The "rigging" of decisions by the Distri

Page 5 of 28


6/118

2345

6789

10

1213141516171819202122232425262728

Court goes to the very heart of justice in America. The rigging of these decisions involvethe use of wire transfers and the mails and was accom plished through participation in a corrupfraudulent scheme by the Crocketts, O Maras and District Court. Petitioners believe antherefore allege Federal crimes have been committed by the Crocketts, O'Maras and DistricCourt and this corruption could date 10 years or more and could involve additional, unknowattorneys. Furthermore, the issues presented herein need to be addressed because the D istricCourt's decisions and orders con tradict the plain language of the relevant statutes, disregarddecisions of this Court that are directly on poin t, and are inconsistent with decisions of othedistrict courts, and, because corruption was involved in the rendering of these decisions by thDistrict Court.

Citing Walser v. Moran 42 Nev. 111, 173 P.1149 (1918) this Court stated, In the casof State ex rel. Marshall et al. v. District Court 50 Mont. 289, 146 Pac.743, Ann.Cas. 1917C164, the Supreme Court of M ontana, in considering the question, took occasion to remark tha

A remedy is speedy when having in mind the subject-matter involved, it can be pursuewith expedition and without essential detriment to the party aggrieved, and it is neithspeedy nor adequate if its slowness is likely to produce immediate injury or mischiefIn Walser this Court cited the case of Bell Davidson et al. v. First Judicial District CourtNev. 280, 81 Pac. 875, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 843, 113 Am . St. Rep. 854, 6 Ann. Cas. 982, and thCourt said:

The ob ject of the writ is to restrain inferior courts from acting without authority of lawin cases where w rong, damage, and injustice are likely to follow from such action. **The writ should not be granted, except in cases of usurpation or abuse of power, and nthen, unless the other remedies provided by law are inadequate to afford full relief. ***If the entire proceedings are without authority of law, * * * certainly the remedy to bobtained by the slow process of appeal, which could only follow a vain , fruitless, anperhaps expensive trial, could not be considered an adequate remedy.Petitioners in the case at bar have no remedy, not even appeal. The District Court has stayethe action pending consolidation with another non-existent district court case, a case on appealPetitioners not only do not have a speedy and adequate remedy, they have no remedy.

Accordingly, the District Court rigging of decisions and corruption by opposing partieand their attorneys is flatly inconsistent with the law, morals and ethics of the District Court anthe attorneys. A definitive ruling by this Court on these issues would therefore serve publi

Page 6 of 28


7/118

policy by putting an end to this corruption with certainty regarding the rights and Constitutionarights and remedies of Petitioners and dozens or even hundreds of other litigants who have hatheir rights stolen by the District Court and attorneys w orking in collusion.

II. INTRODUCTIONAll disputed or questionable decisions of the District Court favored real parties in interes

the Crocketts, and their attorneys, the O'Maras. None favored Petitioners. Such collusion ancorruption can only be explained by an unknown quid pro quo between the Crocketts, O'Maraand District Court. It is natural for petitioners to assume the quid pro qu o was m oney.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTSA. FIRST ALLEGED CORRUPT ORDER BY JUDGE STEVEN P. ELLIOTT

Real parties in interest Robert and Victoria A. Crockett filed a motion to stay the DistricCourt, Department 10 action. Appendix V, Bates Stamp No. 0903-0907. The basis for the stwas to consolidate the Department 10 ac tion with the Department 6 action. However, thDepartment 6 action is on appeal before the District Court, Case No. 57574, there is ncommonality between the two (2) actions, and the Department 6 claims occurred 2 years aftethe Department 10 claims. Petitioners filed opposition to the motion to stay, Appendix V, BatStamp No. 0911-0973, and real parties in interest have filed a reply. Appendix V, Bates StamNo. 0974-979. Department 10 issued its Order Staying the Action on Decem ber 13, 2012.

The Crocketts and O'Maras have lied repeatedly in arguing that, ..and many of the factuand legal issues are the same. ' Worst of all, is that O'Mara asked the District Court to join thaction with the Department 6 action, but, there is no Department 6 action, and there may nevebe a Department 6 action. Or if there is any future Department 6 action, it could be years away

a. Crocketts, O'Maras District Court Have Repeatedly Admitted The Department action Is Not Related to Department Action

During each hearing in the District Court case, the Crocketts, O Maras and the District Couargued and ordered that this case is distinctly different that the Department 6 action and nothing in th

Appendix V, Bates Stamp N o. 0980-0982, Motion to Stay Pending ActionAppendix V Bates Stamp No. 904 1. 18 Motion to Stay The Pending Action

Page 7 of 28


8/118

23456789

10

1213141516171819202122232425262728

Department 6 action is relevant to the District Court action, Department 10. They all argued there ino commonality between the Departments 10 and 6 actions.

During the February 4, 2011, Hearing nume rous claims of irrelevant were voiced by O'Mara anvalidated by the D istrict Court. 3 At the Hearing on September 20, 2012, the Crocketts, O'Maras anthe District Court voiced much stronger arguments and rulings that the Department 6 case w as irrelevan(page numbers in the transcript of September 20,2011 are included). 4 Some of those argumen ts/rulininclude: O'MARA: Objection, Your Honor. This trust is not even in question in this case. It hanothing to do w ith it. It has to do with the lease agreement of the property". p. 72,1. 13-15; "COURTWe ll, I understand his argum ent, but it's not relevant". p. 72, 1. 24; "O'MA RA: It's not relevant to iregards to this case. There's nothing in regards to her. She's not being sued as the trustee in her capacityat all as the trustee. She's individually being sued on an avenue of this breach of contract that they'rclaiming. It's not relevant in this case. It's already been determined in Department 6 in regards to aof the issues in regards to the trust..." p. 73,1. 2-9; "COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection as going into the trust in that I don't believe the trust is directly involved in this matter today. But I'going to ...sustain the objection. I don't feel the trust is directly involved in our proce eding today". p73,1. 10-22; "O'MARA: Objection, Your Honor. This is also irrelevant. It has nothing to do with thcase. COURT: I don't believe that the car is really at issue today . p. 74, 1. 8-11; O'MARAObjection, Your Honor. This is also not relevant at all . COURT: Sustained. I'm not reallconcerned about..." "We have a limited concern." p. 75, 1. 10-15; "COURT: I'm going to sustain tobjection to going into the fam ily history. I don't really need to know that for this proceeding." p. 71. 4-6. "Q: Is that suit regarding the trust that the judge doesn 't want to hear about. A : Yes. Q: Is thbecause you stopped paying your father dividends? p. 78, 1. 20-24. O'MARA: Objection, YoHonor. Not relevant." "COURT: Sustained." p. 79, 1. 1-3.

At the Hearing o n Nov emb er 8, 2011, the District Court issued additional rulings that theDepartment 6 action is irrelevant.' O'MARA: Objection, Your Honor. This is totally outside the

3 Exhibit 9, Hearing Transcript dated February 4, 2011, p. 11, 1. 16-17; p. 21, 1. 18-24; p. 21. 5-24; p. 24,1. 6-7, 12-13 ; p. 23, 1. 13; p. 41 , 1. 3-10.4 Exhibit 5, Hearing Tran script dated Septembe r 20,2011, p. 72,1. 13-24; p. 73,1. 1-12, 21-2p. 74, 1. 1-2, 10-11, 23-24; p. 75, 1. 1-2. 8-15; p. 76, 1. 4-6; p. 78, 1. 20-24; p. 79,1. 2-3.5 Exhibit 1, Hearing transcript dated November 8, 2011, p. 14, 1. 11-18

Page 8 of 28


9/118

realm of this hearing, and it's already been decided in against and in our favor by Department six.COURT: I would have to sustain the objection to that matter because in the realm of another court a

this point.During no hearing nor order of the District Court has any issue of the Department 6 case bee

ruled relevant to the District Cou rt, Department 10, action.Furthermore, the complaint in the District Court action discloses that, that action is betwee

individuals related only to the house on Greenwich Way.How ever, the Department 6 action, has no claims related to the house, and is related to a Nevad

Trust and Nevada Corporation.' The causes of action in Department 6 include: breach of fiduciary duby Trustee Victoria Crockett; replacement of trustee and contingent trustees; elder abuse for theft sole trust beneficiary Sunde's dividends required for his and his family's support and m aintenance bRobert Victoria Crockett; breach of contract related to the trust agreement by Trustee VictoriCrockett; personal injury resulting from the loss of Sunde's dividends from the trust; embezzlemenof trust dividends by Trustee Victoria Crockett and Robert Crockett; and, negligence in thmanagement of the Nevada trust. Id.

Consolidation of similar or even identical cases is governed by NRCP 42, which states:RULE 42. CONSOLIDATION; SEPARATE TRIALSa) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact apending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters iissue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may m ake sucorders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delab) Separate Trials. The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separattrial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separatissue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, oissues, always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury.

Rule 42 is clear that consolidating the Department 10 action with the Depa rtment 6 actiosometime in the distant future , if at all, does not meet the language of or the intent of Rule 42

The most important purpose of Rule 42 is to avoid unnecessary costs and delay. ThDepartment 10 action has been set for trial and a Scheduling Order has been issued.' Th

6 Appendix II: Bates Stamp No. 271-290, Supplemental Complaint Department 107 Appendix II: Bates Stamp No. 291-317, Complaint Department 6Appendix V: Bates Stamp No. 908-910, Scheduling Order dated October 30, 2012

Page 9 of 28


10/118

23456789

10

1213141516171819202122232425262728

Scheduling Order set deadlines for: Submission of Motions to Amend Pleadings or Add PartiesInitial Expert Disclosures for November 30, 2012; Rebuttal Expert Disclosures for Decembe31, 2012; Completion of All Discovery Proceedings for February 28, 2013; Filing oDispositive Motions for March 29,2013; and, submission ofDispositive and all Other Motionfor April 26, 2013.

NRC P 42(a) requires actions to be pending before a district court. The Department 6action is not pending before a district court. It has been closed at the d istrict court level whilan appeal is pending.

Furthermore, as argued herein, there is no common question of law, damages, facttransactions or parties in these two actions. These cases may not be consolidated. Two actionmay not be consolidated unless they arise out of the same transaction and the transactions arconnected to the same subject. Wells, Inc.v. Shoemake et al., 64 Nev 57, 177 P .2d 451 (194[ ...property damages arising out of motor vehicle collision were properly joined ; Plaintimay unite several causes of action in the sam e complaint, when they all arise out of...8. Claimarising out of the same transaction, or transactions connected with the same subject oaction... ]; Marcuse v. Del Webb Communities, 123 Nev. 278, 163 P.3d 462 (2007) [ ... tricourt did not abuse its discretion in denying unnamed class mem bers' motions to consolidatheir claim and for separate trials ; (1) contrary to the requirements of NRCP 42(a), thMarcuses had failed to demonstrate any pending action involving a common question of laor fact, and (2) there were no common questions of law or fact between the M arcuses' claimand the class's claims, since the class action sought recovery for future damages, not resultadamages ]. While the courts enjoy broad discretion, the courts do not enjoy unfetterediscretion in ordering consolidation. Id. See also, Havas v. Alger, 85 Nev. 627,461 P.2d 8(1969); Mikulich et al. v. Carner, 68 Nev. 161, 228 F'.2d 257 [(1951) [ Where two causes action against same defendants arising out of same accident were tried jointly, extent odamages and recovery were entirely independent issues in each action, even if other issues olaw and fact were identical ]; California State Auto. Ass 'n. v. Eighth Jud icial Dist. Court rel. County of Clark, 106 Nev. 197, 788 P.2d 1367 (1990); Verner v. Nevada Power Co., 1

Page 10 of 28


11/118

5

10

15

20

25

I Nev. 551, 706 P .2d 147 (1985) [where the issues of liability and damages were inextricabl2 intertwined bifurcation is inappropriate].3 In the District Court case there is no similar issues of liability no similar damage4 common questions of law, nor comm on questions of fact, comm onality of time , pendin

before a District Court. Consolidation, even if warranted, is not available in this action as ther6 is no other case which can be consolidated with this action. NRCP 42(a).7 b No District Court Action May be Stayed For Consolidation Pending An Appe8 In the District Court action, Department 10, there is no commonality of facts, damages9 law, transactions, parties, or the same transaction, and no comm onality of time with th

Department 6 action. The claims in the Department 6 action occurred in 2008-2010 and thcomplaint 9 was filed in April 2010, a judgment was rendered in December 2010, and that actio

12 was appealed on January 10, 2011. The claims in the Department 10 action occurred in 20113 and 2012, and the complaint was filed on January 28, 2011. 1

14 Even in similar cases of comm on facts, law, transactions, and parties, staying a lowcourt action while waiting for an appeal to be decided is contrary to law. Landis v Nor

16 American C o., 299 U.S. 248,249 1936) [ If a second stay is necessary during the course of 17 appeal, the petitioners must bear the bu rden, when that stage shall have arrived, of makin18 obvious the need. Enough for present purposes that they have not done so yet. (299 U.S. 2419 258) From the stay in its operation during the course of an appeal, we pass to the stay in it

operation while the test suit is undetermined. That aspect of the order is subject to separat21 consideration and calls for separate treatment. ...We do not find it necessary to determine a sta22 to continue until the decision by the D istrict Court, and then ending automatically, would b23 moderate or excessive if viewed as of the time w hen the order differently conditioned wa24 placed upon the files ]. andis cited in: Maheu v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 89 Nev. 21

510 P.2d 627 1973); Tonnemacher v. Touche Ross Co., 186 Ariz. 125, 920 P.2d 5 (19926 [this claim arose out of the sam e facts as the claim in the federal action, stay denied].2728 9 Appendix II, Bates Stamp N o. 291-317, Complaint, Department 6 action10 Appendix II Bates Stamp N o. 271-290, Department 10 Supplemental Complaint

Page 11 of 28


12/118

c. No com pulsory Coun terclaim W as Filed by PlaintiffsThe Crocketts and O'Maras attempted to join the Department 6 and 10 actions even thoug

there was comm onality of facts, law, damages, parties, time, or transactions. If comm onaliexisted when plaintiffs filed the Department 10 action in 2011, a m andatory counterclaim w arequired to be filed in the Department 10 action, including the claims now in the Departme6 action. No counterclaim was filed in the Department 10 action claiming the alleged damagas contained in the Department 6 action. Comm onality is impossible as the alleged damagein Department 6 occurred in 2008-2010, even before the Department 6 action was filed in 2011Executive Management v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. 114 Nev. 823, 963 P.2d 465 (1998[ Com pulsory Counterclaim. A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at thtime of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of thtransaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim ]. Id.

Having failed to file the required compulsory counterclaim, the Department 6 and 1actions may not now be joined.

d. Crocketts Adam s Cited Cases do Not Support StayAll four (4) cases cited by the Crocketts and A dams are distinguishab le from the District Cou

action. In the cited case of Tonnemacher, the dispute centered on an abatement claim for a case in stacourt and another case in federal court. The lower cou rt did not enter any stay because the defendandid not mov e to seek a stay, and the superior court mad e no ruling on a stay. Tonnemacher v. ToucRoss Company, 186 Ariz. 126, 920 P.2d 5 (1996 ). In the cited case of Landis the court pointed othat the facts have now been settled by stipulation and also a decision was expected withinreasonable time. The court of appeals was reversed, and the order of the district court was vaca ted, athe case was remanded to determine the motion for a stay, which was not yet entered. Landis v. NoAmerican Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). In the cited case o f Mikulich the court stated: Where twcauses of action against same defendants arising out of same accident were tried jointly, extent dam ages and recovery w ere entirely independent issues in each action, even if issues of law and fawere identical. Even in Miku/ich, with identical parties, identical facts, two (2) different verdicts werendered: Not only were there two separate verdicts, but two separate judgments. Id. No stay w

Page 12 of 28


13/118

ordered in Mikulich contrary to the claims of the C rocketts and O'Maras. Mikulich v. Corner 68 Ne161, 228 P.2d 257 1951). In the cited case of Maheu the court pointed out that the appeal was basesolely, with the court's calendaring of the pending motions. Id. at 217. Maheu v. Eighth JudiciDistrict Court 89 Nev. 214, 510 P.2d 627 (1973).

All of the Crocketts' and O'M aras' cited cases are distinguished from the D istrict Court case ando not su pport a stay in the District Court action.

e. Crocketts & O'M aras Failed to Identify any Com mon L iability, Damages, Question oLaw, Q uestion of Fact or TimeWh ile the Crocketts and O'Maras argued four cases supported their motion to stay, above cited

they failed to correlate any cited case with the D istrict Court action. More important, the Crocketts anO'Maras listed no common liability, common parties, common damages, common question of lawcommonality of time , nor common question of fact. Lacking any such analogy this case idistinguishable from those four (4) cases cited by the Crocketts and O'Maras.

f. Petitioner Filed Motion for R econsideration & Motion for R eliefPetitioners filed a M otion For Recon sideration of the stay order ; Plaintiffs filed an opposition

Petitioners filed a reply to Plaintiffs' opposition'. Petitioners also filed a Motion for Relief FromOrder ; Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Motion For Relief From Order ls ; and Petitioners filed a Repto Opposition to Motion For Relief From Order.'

To date the District Court has ignored those filings.g. District Court's Stay Was a C overup

The stay issued by the District Court was a coverup of the corruption already engaged in bJudge Steven E lliott. Petitioners have attempted to obtain discove ry from Plaintiffs since February 212012. ' Following several Recommendations For O rder by the discovery Com missioner and three (

Appendix V, Bates Stamp No. 0983-1144, Motion For Reconsideration12 Appendix V I, Bates Stamp N o. 1151-1155, Opposition to Defendants' Motion St al.13 Appendix V I, Bates Stamp N o. 1156-1158, Reply to O pposition to D efendants' et al.4 Appendix VI, Bates Stamp No. 1162-1329, Motion for Relief From O rder

15 Appendix VI, Bates Stamp No. 1330-1334, Opposition to Motion For Relief From Order16 Appendix V I, Bates Stamp N o. 1335-1336, Reply to O pposition to M otion For Relief et a17 Exhibit 11, Motion For Contempt; Sanctions

Page 13 of 28


14/118

orders from the District Court to produce requested discovery Petitioners filed the Motion FoContempt; Sanctions. Exhibit 11.B SECOND ALLEGED CORRUPT ORDER BY JUDGE STEVEN P ELLIOTT

Falsified Order R egarding False Allegations of Frivolous at HearingAt a Hearing on November 8, 2011, on Petitioners retitled EX PART E MOTION FO

TEMPORARY REST RAINING ORDER AND PREL IMINARY INJUNCTION'', the DistriCourt stated three (3) times that Petitioners' motion was not frivolous. The District Coustated:

1) ...and I don't know that the motions up to this point in time are frivolous... ; 2) I'mnot going to hold that, you know, this desire to file an injunctive relief trying to stop thsale of the property is frivolous... ; and, 3) So anyway, I wouldn't say that this ifrivolous, but it's just not something that can be granted. 19The Crocketts and O'Maras stated in the Proposed Order: That the motion filed for

protective order was frivolous... 2 This statement was dishonest and was a fraud upon thcourt. The District Court signed the falsified Proposed Order and included the statement: 7That the motion filed for a protective order was frivolous... 21

The Crock etts' and O'M aras' claim to the D istrict Court that Petitioners' motion w afrivolous was an outright lie, and was done for a reason, to assist the O'Maras in obtaining aorder for attorney fees based on a frivolous pleading argument, pursuant to, without limitationNRS 7.085.

The Crocketts, O'Maras and the District Court colluded to falsify the December 22,2011Order After Hearing, which brings embarrassment and ridicule to the judicial system in NevadaWhile engaging in this conspiracy to defraud by way of wire transfers and use of the U.S. maito complete their fraudulent scheme, Petitioners are informed and therefore allege that federacrimes have been committed.C THIRD ALLEGED CORRUPT ORDER I Y JUDGE STEVEN P ELLIOTT

a False Claim of Eviction by Justice Court18 Appendix II Bates Stamp No. 0250-0270, Ex Parte Motion of Prohibition retitled Ex et al.9 Exhibit 1 Transcript Hearing November 8 2011 p. 74 1. 1-1220 Exhibit 2, Proposed Order drafted by Attorney O'Mara for the November 8, 2011, Hearin

2 Exhibit 3, Order After Hearing dated December 22 , 2011, p. 4, 1. 23-24Page 14 of 28


15/118

The Crocketts and O Maras falsely claimed that Petitioners were evicted from thGreenwich hom e by the Justice Court. How ever, Victoria A. Crockett, O'Maras' own clientestified in the District Court action that Petitioners were not evicted. And the Justice Coustated that defendants were not ev icted.' One of the main issues of the action at bar is that thCrocketts had contracted with Mr. Sunde for a lifetime leasehold for the Greenwich hom e. ThCrocketts admitted this lifetime leasehold during the Hearing of September 20, 2011. But thCrocketts and O 'Maras persisted in repeatedly falsifying this claim of eviction, for the purposof showing Petitioners no longer had a viable claim of breach of contract for lifetime leaseholfor the Greenwich home, to v itiate Petitioners breach of contract damages for the terminatioof Petitioners' contracted lifetime estate in the Greenw ich hom e.

In the Proposed Order' the Crocketts and O'Maras lied and falsely alleged:7. That after being served with a notice of eviction, Mr. and M rs. Sunde did not contethe notice of eviction in the Reno Justice Court that has exclusive jurisdiction of landlorand tenant issues and the Reno Justice Court ordered the eviction of Mr. and MrsSunde. 6

In truth, Petitioners did in fact contest the eviction and O Maras own client, Victoria ACrockett, even removed the eviction request at the Justice Court Hearing. Victoria A. Crocketestified that the eviction request was removed :

We are not obviously now attempting to evict because payment has been made.They called the hearing. What we asking for is to have them pay us directlyinstead of the mortgage so we can follow paym ent.The Justice Court ruled that this was not an eviction action as falsely claimed by the O 'Maras

Well, after reviewing the Lease Agreement and hearing testimony, Mr. And Mrs.Sunde, I'm going to find in favor of the Crocketts for the limited purpose of theamoun t of the rent and where it should be paid. [Emphasis added].

22 Exhibit 4, Justice Court Hearing Transcript dated December 20, 2010, p. 4,1. 13-1423 Exhibit 4, Justice Court Hearing Transcript dated December 20, 2010, p. 18,1. 1-424 Exhibit 5, Transcript of Hearing on September 20, 2011, p. 79,1. 5-1825 Exhibit 2, Proposed Order for Hearing dated Novem ber 8, 20112 ' Exhibit 2, Proposed Order for Hearing dated November 8, 2011, p. 3, If 727 Exhibit 4, Justice Court hearing transcript dated Decem ber 20, 2010, p. 4,1. 13-1428 Exhibit 4, Justice Court hearing transcript dated Decem ber 20, 2010, p. 18,1. 1-4

Page 15 of 28


16/118

The purpose of these lies and dishonesty by the Crocketts and O'Maras is because Victoria ACrockett had testified at the September 20, 2011, hearing that the Crocketts had contracted withMr. Sunde for a lifetime leasehold for the Greenwich home.' Victoria Crockett testified:

Q W as it contemplated between you and your father that he would live in thathouse for the rest of his life if he chose to?A: Yes.Q I'm sorry?A Yes.

The C rocketts and O'Maras are attempting to show that Petitioners were the cause of theivoluntarily vacating the Greenwich home rented by the Crocketts to Mr. Sunde for 10 years, home Mr. Sunde invested over $224,000. to remodel, done by Mr. Sunde based on multiplpromises of a lifetime leasehold for said home. The C rocketts are attempting to show thaPetitioners abandoned their lifetime estate voluntarily, when in truth the only reason defendanleft said home was due to the Crocketts' illegal eviction attempt and unlawful lockout actionsin violation to the lifetime leasehold given to Mr. Sunde. First, the Crocke tts filed an evictionotice against Petitioners.' When that was unsuccessful, as Petitioners had in truth paid thrent, the Crocketts filed a No-Cause Termination Notice to Vacate.' The Crocketts followethat with an unlawful lockout on Janua ry 25, 2011, Mr. Sunde's 68th birthday, preventindefendants access to their home.' These actions may certainly not be construed as "voluntary"leaving by Petitioners as repeatedly and falsely alleged by the Crocketts and 0' Maras.

Victoria A. Crockett lied repeatedly and falsely claimed that defendants abandoned thGreenwich home voluntarily so many times, she cannot now testify honestly. VictoriCrockett's statements, without limitation include: "We did not remove him from the house""Again, we did not remove him. We got a call from a neighbor that saw a truck unloading stufrom the house." 4 "We never filed an eviction."' "So it's your testimony that he voluntarilleft the house? A "Y es." id.

29 Exhibit 5, hearing transcript dated September 20, 2011, p. 79 Exhibit 6, FIVE-DAY N OTICE OF U NLAW FUL DE TAINER et al.'Exhibit 7, NO-CAUSE TERMINATION NOTICE TO VACATE32 Exhibit 8, locksmith changes locks on Greenwich home33 Exhibit 5, hearing transcript dated September 20, 2011, p. 69,1. 3'Exhibit 5, hearing transcript dated September 20, 2011, p. 76,1. 11-1535 Exhibit 5, hearing transcript dated September 20, 2011, p. 78,1. 2-3

Page 16 of 28


17/118

23456789

10

1213141516171819202122232425262728

But in apparent moments of confusion Victoria Crockett also admitted: I filed an evictionotice in December... and we also filed a no-fault end of lease letting him know that we woulnot continue the lease after February 28th, 2011. 36 Nevertheless, the Crocketts attempted targue voluntary leaving by Petitioners to vitiate their damages for the termination of Petitionerscontracted lifetime leasehold in the Greenw ich home.

As far back as the hearing of February 4, 2011, the Crocketts and O'Maras havmisrepresented the truth and lied in this action. At that Hearing the C rocketts and O'Marastated: It wasn't a life estate for life, and he was never promised to be able to stay there.O'Maras' own clients testified that Petitioners were given a lifetime lease, but their ownattorney argued the opposite.

Therefore, the Crocketts and O'Maras lied in claiming: 1) defendants did not contest thnotice of eviction; and, 2) the Reno Justice Court ordered the eviction of Mr. and M rs. SundeThe Sundes contested the eviction, Exhibit 4, and no eviction was ordered as falsely alleged bthe Crocketts and O'Maras.

The District Court's signing of the corrupt Proposed Order signifies the Order waobtained through corruption and collusion between Robert D. Crockett, Victoria A. CrocketAttorneys William 0 Mara, David O'Mara and District Court Judge Steven P. Elliott.b. Pleadings Filed in Second Third Alleged Corrupt Orders by Judge Steven

lliottPleadings filed herein related to Subsection A include: Ex Parte Objection to Propose

Order, Motion For Sanctions, dated December 12, 2011, Appendix II: Bates Stamp No. 03180326; Am ended Ex Parte Motion to Correct Clerical Error or In The Alternative to CorrecErrors Due to Mistakes, Inadvertence, or Excusable Neglect, Request For Sanctions &Attorney Fees & C osts, dated January 30, 2012, Appendix II: Bates Stamp No. 0327-0485Opposition to Defendant's Ex Parte Motion to Correct Clerical Errors or in The Alternative tCorrect Errors Due to Mistake, Inadvertence, or Excusable Neglect, Request For Sanctions

36 Exhibit 5, hearing transcript dated Septemb er 20, 2011, p. 77,1. 3, p. 78,1. 2-537 Exhibit 9, transcript hearing dated February 4, 2011 , p. 39,1. 10-12

Page 17 of 28


18/118

Attorney Fees and Costs, dated February 8, 2012, Appendix II: Bates Stamp No. 0486-0489Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Ex Parte and Amended Ex Parte Motion tCorrect Clerical Errors or in The Alternative to Correct Errors Due to M istake, Inadvertenceor Excusable Neglect, Request For Sanctions & Attorney Fees and Costs, dated February 152012, Append ix III: Bates Stamp No. 0490-0710; Order Denying D efendants' Ex Parte anAmended Ex Parte Motion to Correct Clerical Error or in The Alternative to Correct Errors Duto Mistakes, Inadvertence, or Excusable Neglect, Request For Sanctions & Attorney Fees &Costs, dated M arch 15, 2012, Appendix III: Bates Stamp No. 0711-0714.D FOURTH ALLEGED CORRUPT ORDER BY JUDGE STEVEN P ELLIOTT

In clear violation of law, the District Court has repeatedly ordered attorney fees be paid bPetitioners. The District Court on March 3, 2011, again in a clear sign of corruption and collusionordered attorney fees for a motion under which attorney fees were based on a lease ag reement betw eePetitioners and the Crocketts. The lease allowed attorney fees to the prevailing party. 8

Following a hearing, the Crocketts and O 'Maras filed Plaintiffs' Motion For A ttorney Fees?' Thmotion sought attorney fees and costs in the amount of $4,047.50. Id. Said motion only cited NRC54(d) and a single case referencing their reasonable argument. Id.

However, NRCP 54 d) is only applicable to judgments. And there still is no judgment in thDistrict Court action. Rule 54(d) states:

d) Attorney Fees. 1) Reserved.2) Attorney Fees. A) Claim to Be by M otion. A claim for attorney fees must be made by motion.The district court may decide the motion despite the existence of a pending appeafrom the underlying final judgment.[Added; effective May 1, 20091 B) Timing and Contents of the Motion. Unless a statute provides otherwisethe motion must be filed no later than 20 days after notice of entry of judgment isserved; specify the judgm ent and the statute, rule, or other grounds en titling themovan t to the award; state the amount sought or provide a fair estimate of it; andbe supported by counsels affidavit swearing that the fees were actually andnecessarily incurred and were reasonable, documentation concerning the amountof fees claimed, and points and au thorities addressing appropriate factors to beconsidered by the court in deciding the motion. The time for filing the motion manot be extended by the court after it has expired. [Added; effective May 1, 2009 .]

38 Appendix V I, Bates Stamp N o. 1162-1329, Lease Agreement39 Appendix I, Bates S tamp N o. 0001-0019, Plaintiffs' Motion For Attorney Fees

Page 18 of 28
http:///reader/full/4,047.50http:///reader/full/4,047.50


19/118

(C) Exceptions. Subparagraphs (A)-(B) do not apply to claims for fees andexpenses as sanctions pursuant to a rule or statute, or when the applicablesubstantive law requires attorney fees to be proved at trial as an dement ofdamages.Rule 54 requires there to be an underlying final judgm ent , which the District Court case ilacking. The very definition of judgment, includes a decree and any order from wh ich aappeal lies. As the District Court's order is not a final order it is not appealable. Thereforethe District Court's Order is not a judgment. Furthermore, this court has consistently held tha party cannot be a 'prevailing party' where the action has no t proceeded to judgment. Dimiv. Dimick 112 Nev. 402,915 P.2d 254 (1996) citing, Works v. Kuhn {112 Nev.405} 103 Ne65, 68, 732 P.2d 1373, 1375-76 (1987).

Petitioners filed an opposition to the motion for attorney fees. The Crocketts anO'Maras filed a reply.' The District Court entered its Order Granting Motion For Attorney Feeon March 3, 2011. 4 In that Order, District Court Judge Steven P. Elliott stated: ...nonethe lessnot a single argument advanced by Defendants warrants the denial of Plaintiffs' Motion. Tbegin with, Defendants argue that NRCP 65 does not provide for an award of attorneys' fees;however, as the District Court noted above, the District Court based the award of attorney' feeon the terms of the lease agreement, not N RCP 65.... Finally, as it relates to NRCP 54, the rumerely governs the procedure for obtaining a judgment and an award of attorneys fees.Now here in the rule does it require that a judgment be obtained before seeking an award attorneys' fees as Defendants apparently contend. Id.

Petitioner reminded the District Court that our recent pleading was denied because wfailed to cite an applicable rule or statute. But District Court Judge S teven P. Elliott exhibiteoutright bias, prejudice, collusion and corruption against Petitioners by approving this impropmotion for attorney fees. Id.

District Court Judge Steven P. Elliott has exhibited unbelievable collusion and corruptioand has engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Robert D. Crockett, Victoria A. Crocket

4 Appendix I Bates Stamp No. 0020-0022, Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion Attorney Fees4 ' Appendix I Bates Stamp No. 0023-0027, Reply In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion AttorneFees4 Appendix V Bates Stamp No. 0028-0031, Order Granting Motion For Attorney Fees

Page 19 of 28


20/118

attorneys William M. O'Mara and David C. O'Mara. Disbarment of all three (3) attorneys more than appropriate as this conspiracy may have been in p lace for as long as 10 years. .E. DAVID WILLIAM O'MARA HAVE VIOLATED NEVADA RULES O

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCTDefendan ts allege that David William O'Mara have violated Rule 8.4, Misconduct o

the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 8.4 states as follows:It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist oinduce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;(b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers' honesty, trustworthinesor f fitness as a lawyer in other respects;c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;e) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official oto achieve results y means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other lawor knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicabrules of judicial conduct or other law.

By their actions in falsifying the proposed order of December22, 2011, followed bactions of collusion with the District Court, the O'Maras have violated sections (a) - (f) of thRules of professional Conduct. Defendants believe and therefore allege that the O Maramisconduct alleged and proven herein are disbarable offenses.

Whenever allegation is made that an attorney has violated his moral and ethicresponsibility, an important question of professional ethics is raised; it is the duty of this Couto examine the charge, since it is this Court which is authorized to supervise the conduct members of its bar. Erickson v. Newman Corp. 7 F.3d 298 (1996).

The scope o f this Court's inquiry in determining what is appropriate Rule 11 sanction, what will deter attorneys and/or their client from future misconduct, and what will deter othattorneys and clients from adopting a similar course of conduct. In re Martinez 393 B.R. (208).

This Court, as well as state bar, have responsibility under Nevada law to maintain publconfidence in the legal profession; this means that this Court may disqualify an attorney for nonly acting improperly but also for failing to avoid appearance of impropriety. EricksonNewman Corp. 87 F .3d 298 (1996). Lack of candor toward tribunal, knowing disobedience

Page 20 of 28


21/118

23456789

1111213141516

171819202122232425262728

obligation under rules of a tribunal filing frivolous and dishonest claims engaging misconduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or m isrepresentation warrants disbarment.re Discipline of Schaefer 117 Nev. 496, 25 P.3d 191, modified on denial of rehearing 31 P.3365, certiorari denied 122 S.Ct. 1072, 534 U.S. 1131, 151 L. Ed . 2d 974 .

The seriousness of the O Maras falsifying proposed orders and colluding with the DistriCourt system that resulted in the signing by this Court of that falsified, rigged orders aroffenses demanding the disbarment of William and David O M ara. Defendants request thiCourt refer this conduct to the Nevada Attorney General, Supreme Court of N evada and NevadBar Association so as to determine and verify the misconduct and possible criminal conduct the O Maras and Judge E lliott.

a O Mara H as Gouged His Clients By Running Their BillsO'Mara has run his clients bills in this action to over 100,000. And O'Mara gouged and sto

from his clients by first filing many contradictory pleadings, so as to fraudulently bill his clients prioto filing of the motion to stay. O Mara filed 119 document requests, a motion for sum mary judgm ena motion to w aive attorney client privilege and, finally, the motion to stay. Such dishone sty by O Mamust not be laid at our doorstep by the rendering of any adverse order against Defendants by the DistricCourt.

The entire purpose of the motion to stay, is to once again obfuscate Defendants discovery efforand to sidestep four (4) Orders of the District Court to produce documents requested by DefendantsOver 400 da ys into the discovery process and P laintiffs have yet to fulfill their requirements as orderby the D istrict Court.

O Mara has run u p his billings to his clients, a very substantial bill remains unpaid, and O Maseeks to stall this case to allow his clients to continue their monthly pay men ts of his billings. Un paclient billings does not justify stalling this case for 473 days or w hat is now so ught, 600 or m ore day

b. O Mara Has Already Stalled Discovery in this Case Nearly 500 Days and Now Seethe Assistance of the District Court to Stall discovery Another 5 Days in ViolationDefendants Constitutional Rights to Equal Justice Under Law and D ue Process

Page 21 of 28


22/118

23456789

10

1213141516171819202122232425262728

O Mara has previously stalled discovery hundreds of days. The complaint in this action wfiled on January 28, 2011. From the date of the filing of the complaint to this date, is 523 days.Reducing this time by 20 days to file an answer and 30 days within which to hold a 16.1 conferencO'Mara has stalled discovery over 473 days.

c. O Mara Continues to Lie To The District Court With ImpunityO'Mara has already lied to the D istrict Court with impunity. He has ludicrously claimed, "Indee

Mr. Sunde is claiming in the Nevada Suprem e Court that Six Claims for relief in the CV10-01187 wernot heard or decided in Departm ent 6 that is currently on appeal. If Mr. Sunde is correct, then it appeathat Mr. Sund e is litigating claims that are related to the Departmen t 6 action and thus, this matter, the interest of judicial economy should be consolidated with the Department Six matter."

O'M ara made no sen se in this statement. Of course the six (6) causes of action are related to tDepartment 6 ac tion, as they are contained in the Department 6 action. O'Mara provided no relationshbetween the 6 causes o f action and this case, nor did he even list those 6 claims so as to determine arelationship to this case.

Firstly, defendants remind the District Court that the Department 6 action was filed in April 201How ever, O'Mara filed the complaint in this action on January 28, 2011. The 6 causes of action wefiled in the Department 6 action over 2 years ag o, substantially prior to O 'Mara filing the complaintthis action. In filing this action, O'Mara represented to the D istrict Court that this action was filed onafter an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances; that it was no t presented for improper purpose to cause unn ecessary delay or nee dless increase in the cost of litigation; that the claims, defenses aother legal contentions were warranted by existing law; that the allegations and other factucontentions have evidentiary support. NRCP 11. O Mara failed to perform any rudimentary dudiligence prior to filing this action. It was only about how much money the O'Maras could bill theclients. It was just about money. The O 'Maras violated virtually every section of Rule 11 and sanctiomust be ordered. Failure to order sanctions can only be explained by bias and prejudice againDefendants.

" See, Defendants first motion to dismiss filed November 14, 201144 O'Mara statements in f as contained in Plaintiffs' prior pleadings

Page 22 of 28


23/118

O'Mara also claims that This is the first extension requested, and in made in good faith and nfor purposes of delay. In this false claim alone, O'Mara lied 2 times. He lied in claiming the motiwas filed in good faith. O'Mara lied in claiming the referenced m otion in not for the purpose of delaIt has been proven beyond question that most everything O'M ara has done in this case is for the purpoof delay, and O'Mara virtually never acts in good faith. The proof, the actions of O'Mara, the pleadinspeak for themselves. The District Court is fully aware of O'Mara's dishonesty and failure to act in gofaith, but as yet has refused to comply with the law and sanction O'Mara.

O'Mara claimed in the District Court on num erous occasions that the department 6 action was nrelevant to this action. In fact, the District Court also stated the department 6 action is not relative this action.

O'Mara claimed, The Courts and the parties should not have to litigate what is essentially ocase in two different courts if Mr. Sunde's relief is granted by the Nevada Suprem e Court. But O'Mis the one that filed this as a separate action, by said filing he claimed this action was a distinctdifferent case, with different proof, different facts in support of their allegations and defenses tdefendants' counterclaim. But now he claims it is the same case.

So, was O 'Mara lying then or is he lying now ? Rule 11 sanctions must be ordered against O'Maras.

O'Mara is stalling this action solely for the purposes of extending the time to complete this actito allow plaintiffs to pay their seriously delinquent billings to O'Mara, to deny justice to defendants ato obfuscate his discovery obligations under law.

O'Mara has turned this case into a circus with his lies. Defendants have recently filed a copyour reply brief in the appeal of the Department 6 action, proving O'M ara lied to the Nevada SupremCourt 20 or 3 0 times. An attorney who lies to the District Court and the N evada Supreme Court often as O'Mara, has an obvious deficiency in his mental acuity. We therefore, request the DistriCourt order a mental examination of David O'Mara and submit a request to the Nevada Supreme Coand State Bar of Nevada recommending disbarment of David O'M ara and William O'Mara.

d Rule 11 Sanctions and Attorney Fees

Page 23 of 28


24/118

23456789

10

123

145

16171819202122232425262728

NRCP Rule 11 mandates that pleadings and motions must contain allegations and factuacontentions which have evidentiary support, and claims and legal arguments must b

warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument. NR CP Rule 11(b)(2)(3). ThO'Maras and Judge Elliott have defrauded the en tire legal system by the filing and signing pleadings, papers, they have certified as being factual, accurate and truthful. Rule 11(b) and

it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessadelay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. Rule 11(b)(1). And pursuant to Rule 11(cdefendants' requested sanctions, costs and attorney fees must be awarded against the attorneyand law firm. Naimo v. Fleming 95 Nev. 13, 588 P.2d 1025 (1979); Morrow v. Beach CiLLC 991 P.2d 982 (2000); Bergman v. Boyce 109 Nev. 670, 856 P.2d 560 (1993).

The plain language of NRS 7.085 specifically requires the issuance of sanctions anattorney fees in this action due to the abuses of the litigation process in this action, dishonestand collusion engaged by the O'Maras and Judge Elliott. NRS 7 .085 independently from Ru11 requires this Court to issues sanctions, costs and attorney fees against plaintiffs' and theattorneys, the O'Maras and Judge Elliott.

The O'Maras, Plaintiffs and Judge Elliott certainly cannot argue that their misconduct acollusion were well-grounded in fact or law, when in fact their conduct was a fraud upon tentire court system. This Court must order sanctions attorney fees and costs against thO'Maras, plaintiffs and Judge Elliott.

CONCLUSIONFor all the reasons stated above, this Court should grant the Petition and issue a writ

mandamus or prohibition. Even though the Petitioners have extremely limited legal expertior experience, They have m ade every effort to follow the rules of this Court. The criminconduct proven herein cries out for justice, not picking apart every rule to find an excuse fdenying the enclosed application for writ protection. Petitioners demand justice,

Petitioners request the following:1. Overturn the District Court Order dated February 14,2013 in which the Court deni

Petitioners' Motion For Reconsideration and motion to set aside the order.Page 24 of 28


25/118

23456789

10

123

141516171819202122232425262728

2. Overturn the District Court Order dated December 13 2012 in which the CouOrdered the Stay of The Pending A ction;

3. Overturn the District Court Order dated March 15 , 2012, in which the Court deniPetitioners' ex parte and amended ex parte motion to correct clerical error, et al.

4. Overturn the District Court Order dated December 22 , 2011 which asserted that tPetitioners pleadings were frivolous;

5. Overturn the District Court's Order dated December 22,2011, which asserted that thPetitioners were evicted from the Greenwich home;

6. Overturn the District Court Order dated March 3, 2011 which illegally awarded thO'Maras attorney fees.

7. Disqualify William and David O'Mara from any future participation in this action8. Refer and recommend the disbarment of Steven P. Elliott, David and William O 'Ma

to the State Bar of Nevada and the Discipline Commission;9. Order Sanctions pursuant to NRC P 11 and 56 that summ ary judgment be ordere

against the Crocketts' original Complaint and Supplemental Complaint;10. Order the Crocketts and the O 'Maras to pay Petitioners' attorney fees, hired leg

research fees, and costs associated with this m otion.11. Award to the Petitioners any and all other remedies allowable under the law.The parties certify that no social security number of any person is contained in the

documents.Dated this / 4 lay of rekiky 2013

Dated this Kday of I Xucki, 2013

Page 25 of 28


26/118

23456789

10

1213141516171819202122232425262728

CERTIFICATE O F M AILINGI hereby certify that on the of February, 2013,1 deposited in the United States mail, at RenNevada, w ith certified postage thereon fully prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoinSECOND MENDED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF M ND MUS OPROHIBITION, addressed as follows:

The H onorable Steven P. ElliottSecond Judicial District Court75 Court StreetP.O. Box 30083Reno, NV 89520David O MaraAttorney At Law311 E. Liberty StreetReno, NV 89501

Page 26 of 28


27/118

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEVADACOUNTY OF WASHOE

Under penalties of perjury the undersigned declares that he is one of the Petitioners herein the within-captioned Second Amended Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus Prohibition ( Petition ); that he is familiar with the facts set forth in this Petition and knowthe contents thereof; that such facts are true to the best of his knowledge and as to those factuallegations therein contained which are stated on information and belief he believes them to btrue as well.

Dated this ( Yday of February, 2013.J. Mich* SundeP efitiontr

SUBSc RIBED and SWORN to before methis I day of- Pii2Art_r1.4 2013 byJ. MICHAEL SUNDE.K. GANISNotary Public - State of Nevada

Appointment Recorded in Washoe CountyNo:08-5571-2 - Expires December 12 2015

NOTARY PUBL

Page 27 of 28


28/118

23456789

10

1213141516171819202122232425262728

INDEX OF EXH IBITS

Number escription No. Pagesearing Transcript dated November 8, 2011 6

2roposed Order for Novem ber 8, 2011, Hearing 93rder After Hearing dated December 22, 2011 54ustice Court Hearing Transcript dated Decemb er 20, 2010 45earing Transcript dated September 20, 2011 106ive Day N otice of Unlawful Detainer For Non-Payment of Rent 27o Cause Termination Notice to Vacate 38ocksmith changing locks on Greenwich Hom e9earing Transcript dated February 4, 2011 810ecommend ation For Order 17otion For ontempt 1212rder Denying Defendants Motion for Reconsideration of Order 3To Stay and M otion For Relief From O rder

Page 8 of 8


29/118

EXHIBIT 1


30/118

rockett vs Sunde Writ of MandamuNovember OS 2011

Pane ICODE:185NICOLE LI. ALEXANDER, CCR446PeggyHoogs&Associates435MarshAvenue35MarshAvenueReno,Nevada89509 I ERTIFIED775)327-4460CourtReporter OPYSECONDJUDICIALDISTRICTCOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEVADAINANDFORTHECOUNTYOFWASHOETHEH 4ORABLESTEVENP.ELLIOTT,DISTRICTJUDGE--o0o--R&VCROCKETT, CaseNo.CV1I-00307

Plaintiff, Dept.No. 1Cvs.

J MICHAEL/VIKTORIYASUNDefendant.

TRANSCRIPTOFPROCEEDINGSWRIT-MANDAMUS/PROHIBITIONTUESDAY,NOVEMBER 0 2011

APPEARANCES:ForthePlaintiff: INPROPRIAPERSONA,ESQ.

5200SummitRidge Ridc,7e Dr. ft422[Reno,Nevada

FortheDefendant: WILLIAMM.O'MARADAVIDC.O'MARA,ESQ.311EastLibertyStreetReno,Nevada

Peggy Boogs ssociates775-3274460


31/118

Crockett vs Sunde Wnt of MandamusNovember OR, 70) I

Page 2-000-

RENO NEVAD A TUESDAY NOVEM BER 8 2011 8:30 A.M.

THE COURT:OURT: Now, this matter is in the case:rockett versus Sunde, and initially, it was filed as

6 a motion for writ of prohibition, and then the defendants7 had this other document -- of course, it s on the8 bottom -- the ex parte motion to amend motion for writ of9 prohibition to be retitled ex parte motion for temporary10 restraining order and preliminary injunction. And 111 would say that what we're here for is probably2 preliminary injunction. I think that that is the proper3 thing.

The Sundes are seeking to prevent the sale of

5 the residence, and it's really an injunctive relief6 matter rather than a writ of prohibition. I just think7 it was incorrectly made, and then we can go from there.8 So, Mr. Sunde, I see you're here representin

19 yourself; is that correct?20R. SUNDE: Yes, sir, Your Honor. Yes, sir,21 Your Honor. we've been unable to be in touch with our22 lawyer, and all of a sudden, he shows up today. We had23 some planning conferences and so forth, so not knowing

4 what to expect, I had no choice but to substitute myselfPeggy Hoogs Associates

775-327-4460


32/118

Crockett vs Sonde Writ of MandarnoNovember 08 2

Page 141 unfortunately, when you look at their income tax return2 for that year, It's $55,923. Sot's not $204,000.obviously, they defrauded the banks in applying for that4 loan with fraudulent information. You'll surely hear5 s omebody say w e ll w e submitted a new one later. well,6 the problem is, we never see that. We never see that7 document. Where is that document? It's the same thing8 with the claims I've made that Victoria Crockett9 embezzled money from Nevada Divorce. I've asked about

10 that money she stole and --11 MR. O'MARA: Objection, Your Honor. This is12 totally outside the realm of this hearing, and it's13 already been decided in against him and in our favor by14 Department Six.

15HE WITNESS And that case is on appeal.16HE COURT: I would have to sustain the17 objection to that matter because in the realm of anoc,her18 court at this point.19HE WITNESS: One of the other things that20 expended for that house over the years, of course, is21 that when the house was first purchased there was a22 first mortgage $207, $208,000, and there was a second23 mortgage for something like $23, and I paid for both th24 first and the second. The $2,000 that they claim was the

Peggy Hoogs & Associates775-327-4460


33/118

Crocken vs Sun Wru of MandamusNovember M 2011

age n1 and that the deed has already been recorded. This is a2 done deal and there s a new owner there, you know.

MR. O MARA: Your Honor, proof of that

4 document is in our pleadings, so if the Court wishes to5 look at Exhibit 1 to our answer to this, it s already in6 there

THE COURT: Well, it would appear that ifthat is true, that the issue is moot, that the sale hasalready taken place. Primarily, I would say that the

10 injunct ive relief is not appropriate property for the11 reasons I ve just gone over.12 Now, with regard to future motions,13 understand the issue that the Crocketts don t want to14 have additional legal expenses while the issue of their15 motion to strike and dismiss are pending. And, you know,16 I understand your desire to, you know, hold down legal17 expenses18 What Mr. Sunde is claiming is that there s a19 16.1 violation, that somehow the 16.is due, and that20 you re in violation of that. And I haven t considered

21 that issue. I suppose I don t know that somebody can,22 you know, not be able to present that issue. So I m not

any more23 going to grant your request that you re not file24 m otions There m ay be something valid and appropriate to

Peggy Hoogs Associates775-327-4460


34/118

Crockett vs unde Writ of MandamusNovember O 2011

Page /I be filed, and I can't prejudge that, and I don't know2 that the motions up to this point in time are frivolous,3 although in this case, I would say that the Crocketts are

4 victorious on this matter. I'm not going to hold that,5 you know, this desire to file an injunctive relief trying6 to stop the sale of the property is frivolous, but atleast it doesn't seem to bear something that the Court

8 could reasonably be expected to grant when there's not a9 claim of the title, at least that's my understanding at

10 the law. So anyway, I wouldn't say that this is11 frivolous, but it's just not something that can be12 granted. Its inappropriate for injunctive relief.

o anyway, I'll authorize you to apply for14 attorney's fees since you're the victorious party on this15 matter. And if you wish to prepare an appropriate16 f indings of fact and conclusions of law in this, I would

on7 entertain that so that we could get a written ord ?ar

18 this.19 MR. O'MARA: That's fine, Your Honor.20HE COURT: All right. Court will stand in21 recess.

(The proceedings concluded at 3:40 p.m.)-00o-3 4 Peggy Hoogs Associates775-327-4460


35/118

Crocken vs Sunde Writ of andamusNovembcr 08, 2011

Pa9e 71 STATE OF NEVADA )COUNTY OF WASHOE )5.I, NICOLE J. ALEXANDER, Certified Court

4 Reporter in and for the State of Nevada, do hereby5 certify:

hat the foregoing proceedings were taken b)7 me at the time and place therein set forth; that theproceedings w ere recorded s tenographica lly by m e and

9 thereafter transcribed via computer under my supervision;M that the foregoing is a full, true and correct

transcription of the proceedings to the best of my2 knowledge, skill and ability.

I further certify that I am not a relative14 nor an employee of any attorney or any of the parties,15 nor am I financially or otherwise interested in this16 action.

I declare under penalty of perjury under thelaws of the State of Nevada that the foregoing statements

9 are true and correct.20ated this November 14, 2011.

Nicole J. Alexander

Nicole J . A lexander, CC R 446, RPR

Peggy Hoogs Associates775-327-4460


36/118

EXHIBIT 2


37/118

Code Nu. 38602 II THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.WILLIAM M. O'MARA (Nevada Bar No. 0083DAVID C. O'MAPA (Nevada Bar No. 8599)311 East Liberty Street4HReno, NV 89501Telephone: 775/323-1321Facsimile:75/323-40826,Attorneys for PlaintiffIN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADAN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE101IROBERT & VICTORIA CROCKETT,) Case No. CV11-00307

Plaintiffs, )) Dept No. 102 S. ) EQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OFJ. MICHAEL SUNDE, individually, ROPOSED ORDER AFTER HEARINGVIKTORIYA SOKOL SUNDE, of November 8, 2011)4llindividually, and DOES I-XDefendants.

167 IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED that the proposed Order After Hearing8 (of November 8, 2011), a true and correct copy of which is attached

19 hereto as Exhibit 1, be submitted to the Court for decision.2 AFFIRMATION21 (Pursuant to NRS 239B.030)22 The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding23 4document filed in the above referenced matter does not contain24 the social security number of any person.25 DATED: December 7 2011.HE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.2627 /s/ William M. O'MaraWILLIAM M. O'MARA, ESQ.28


38/118

10

5

20

25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify under penalties of perjury that on this

date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document4 IIbY:

Deposlting for mailing, in a sealedenvelope, U.S. Postage prepaid, atReno, Nevada7 Personal delivery

Facsimile9

Messenger ServiceFederal Express or other overnightdelivery

12 addressed as follows:3 J. Michael Sunde11Viktoriya Sokol Sunde5200 Summit Ridge Dr. #4221Reno, Nevada 8952316 DATED: December 7 2011.s/ Valerie Weis17 VALERIE WETS819

2222324

262728


39/118

INDEX OF EXHI ITS2 II Exhibit No Description o of Pages3 Proposed Order After Hearing467891

121314151617181922122232425262728


40/118

Inc. V. Second Judicial District Court, 103 Nev. 473, 745 P.2d2 7 00 (1987).

7.hat after being served with a notice of eviction, Mr.4 and Mrs. Sunde did not contest the notice of eviction in the5 Reno justice Court that has exclusive jurisdiction of landlord6 and tenant issues and the Reno Justice Court ordered the7 eviction of Mr. and Mrs. Sunde.

8.hat on or about October 25, 2011, the property in9ilquestion in this matter was sold by Mr. and Mrs. Crockett toSandra Brooke.That this Court refrains from making findings of other

12 facts as this matter is continuing and the Court will make3 appropriate findings at the end of the case, when all of the14 evidence has been presented.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW6hat the change of name of the writ of prohibition was9.1.7 made by Defendants under MRCP 15 and accepted by this Court.

hat the purpose of injunctive relief is. to maintain19 the status quo at the time of the hearing pending court20 determination. All Minerals Corp. V. Kunkle 105 Nev. 835, 837-1 38, 784 P.2d 2, 4 (1989).22hat the status quo is proper if "injury to the moving.party (Mr. and Mrs. Sunde) will be immediate, certain and great24 if it is denied, while the loss of inconvenience to the opposing25 party will be comparatively small and insignificant if it is26 granted." Rhodes Mining Co. vs. Belleville Placer Mining Co. 3227 Nev. 230, 239, 106 P.2d 561, 563 (1910). Mr. and Ms. Sunde are28 claiming their rights under a lease and Mr. and Ms. Crockett


41/118

sold the property prior to the hearing. Therefore, the harm is211not immediate, certain and/or great, since Mr. and Mrs. Sunde

can exercise their lease rights if, and only if, their lease isdistill valid - a question which this court is not willing or

capable of deciding at this time.6r. and Mrs. Sunde are not entitled to reconsideration7, of the court's decision to cancel the us pendens.Reconsideration of motions is proper if the district judge to91Iwhom the first motion was made consents to a rehearing.10 Harvey s Wagon Wheel, Inc. v. MacSween, 96 Nev. 215, 217 (1980).11 Additionally, under District Court Rule 13(7) "No motion once12 heard and disposed of shall be renewed in the same cause, nor

4

3 shall the same matters therein embraced be reheard, unless by14 leave of the court granted upon motion therefor, after notice of5 such motion to the adverse parties." Here, Mr. and Mrs. Sunde6 did not file a motion for leave to file a motion for7 reconsideration. Thus, such a request now is denied.

5

9 maintain the status quo the motion should be denied.20he present status of the real property and house, is8astly, since a motion for injunctive relief is to61 that the property is presently owned by Ms. Sandra Brooke, who22 is not a party to this action. Thus, the issue of a temporary2 estraining order is moot at this time.24 7 hat the motion filed for a protective order was25 frivolous and the amended request for a temporary restraining26 order in view of the property having been sold prior to hearing,27 makes the change of the motion from protective order to a motion28 for temporary restraining order moot.


42/118

ORDER

Based upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law,he writ for prohibition, as renamed as a motion for injunctiveelief be, and hereby is, DENIED.

Mr. and Mrs. Crockett may file a motion for attorney's fees6 and any costs within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.7 IT IS SO ORDERED.8 DATED: 2011.910

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

14

15161718

192021

22232425262728


43/118

EXHIBIT 3


44/118

FILEDElectronically17-22-2011103716AM

Craly FrandenCierk ot the CourtTransaction 2662351

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

t

9 BERT VICTORIA CROCKETT)Plaintiff,)vs. ) Case No. CV 11-00307)

J MICHAEL SONDE, individually, ) Dept No. 10VIKTORIYA SOKOL SUNDE,individually and DOES I through )Defendants.1617 ORDER AFTER BEARINGThis matter came upon hearing this 8 t day of Novem ber ,

initially a writ of prohibition, which apparently waslischaracterized and should have been identified as a motion for

I4 i injunctive relief.r. Sunde, although represented by Mr.luery, filed a paper dismissing Mr. But, ty as hiS ocunse...Although Mr. Suery was present, Mr. Sunde proceeded in prop Pr24 person on his and Mrs. Sokol-Sunde s behalf.laintiff Victoria

Crockett was present in person and represented by her counsel,26 William M. O Mara, Esq., of The O Mara Law Firm, P.C.27 This Cou r t took ev idence from M r . Sunde , hea rd te eS t iM ony28 from Victoria Crockett, the only witnesses called by the

V e with the Second Judicial District Court


45/118

parties, and received exhibits_ The matter was then suhm, :ted2 for decision.

having considered the testimony given and thehe Court,4 exhibits submitted in court and in the written motion,

opposition and reply, finds as follows:FINDINGS OF FACT

1. That on or about dune 5, 1996, Victoria and RobertCrockett purchased the house and/or real property located at

9111090 Greenwich, Reno, Nevada.2 That in 2009, Victoria and Robert Crockett entered

Ilinto a lease agreement with J. Michael Sunde and his wife,121 Vjktoriya Sunde, for reasons unknown 17o the "Our

3. FThat Viktoriya and J. Michael Sunde make no claim14Hownership to the house and/or the real property.4. 2011, this Court enteredhat on the 26th day of July,611an order voiding any improper us pendens filed by J. MichaelSunde. That notice of entry of naid order was cjiven o the 26hday of July, 2011, and no timely motion for I ecr)nslderation Wdfl;:iled by Mr. and/or Mrs. Sunde.

20 E.hat on the 19th day of October, 2011, Uefehdants,21 luough Mr. Buery, filed a writ of prohit ition regardina t_he2211reinstatement of the 1is pendens. On the 3rd day of Novembel,23 Plantiffs filed an opposition to the writ ot prni t24 6.hat the Court finds that the writ of prohibition25 appropriate as there is an adequate remedy at law to26 establish Mr. and Mrs. Sunde's lease provided that said leas :27 had not been otherwise terminated by the Reno j1j.5iCe, Court,1

Ach has exclusive jurisdiction (see NRS 4.370(q)) and K,7.R,28

2


46/118

/nc. v. Second Judicial District Court, 103 Nev. 473, 45 P. 2d100 (1987).

hat after being served with a notice of eviction, Mand Mrs. Sunde did not contest the notice of eviction in theReno Justice Court that has exclusive jurisdiction of Itindlord

tenant 13sue3 and the ena justice Court: ordered the7 eviction of Mr. and Mrs. Sunde.8 hat on or about October 25, 2011, the property in

5

8. question in this matter was sold by Mr. and Mrs. Crockett to0 'Sandra Brooke.I Ihat this Court refrains from making findings of other.

acts as this matter is continuing and the Court will makeappropriate findings at the end of the case, when all of theevidence has been presented.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. That the change of name of the writ of prohibitor wis

made by Defendants under NRCP 15 and accepted by this ':jdurt.2. That the purpose of injunctive relief is to maintain

20 he status quo at the time of the hearing pending court2 determin tion 837-ll Minerals Corp. v. Kunkle 105 Nev. 835,22 38, 784 P.2d 2, 4 (1989).23 3. That the status quo is proper if - injury to fhe mcv)1124 party (Mr. and Mrs. Sunde) will be immediate, certain and cfrat

if it is denied, while the loss of inconvenience to the opposirl25party will be comparatively small and insignificant if it in26

27 granted." Rhodes Mining Co. vs. Belleville Placer Mining Co. A228 Nev. 230, 239, 106 P.2d 561, 563 (1910).r. and Ms. sunde areon File with the Second Judicial District Court


47/118

71aiming their rights under a lease and Mr and M s Crocke t t211sold the property prior to the hearing. Therefore, the harm is3 not immediate, certain and/or great.4 Mr. and Mrs. Sunde are not entitled to reconsideration

f the court's decision to cancel the us pcndens.6 Reconsiderat Ion Qf motions Is proper if te di3triot judge to7 whom the first motion was made consents to a rehearing,

Harvey s Wagon Wheel, Inc. v. MacSween, 96 Nev. 215, 217 (198C)9 Additionally, under District Court Rule 13(7) "No motion oncelopeard and disposed of shall be renewed in the same cause, nor

shall the same matters therein embraced be reheard, unless 1 - y

12 leave of the court granted upon motion therefor, after notice of3 such m ot ion to the adverse parties." Here, MT. and Mrs SundeI4 did not file a motion for leave to file a motion for

econsideration.hus, such a request now is denied.ince the motlon for injunctive relief Is to mai7ltdih7 1 do not own the home,(the status quo, and the Crocketts

otion must be denied.

9 ii he present status of the real property and house, is2oUthat the property is presently owned by Sandra Brooke, whoHis not a party to this action. Thus, the issue of a temporary22 restraining order is moot at this time.hat the motion filed for a protective order was24 frivolous and the amended request for a temporary restrainin g25 order in view of the property having been sold prior to hearing,

26 makes the change of the motion from prOt.eCtivr order, to a mo7.)n

27 for temporary restraining order moot.28

4


48/118

RDERBased upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law,

3 the writ for prohibition, as renamed as a motion for injunctiverelief be, and hereby is, DENIED.

Mr. and Mrs. Crockett may file a moticr for attorney's fees6 and any cost.!.: within twenty (20) days of the date of ti j5 Order.7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2011.9

1011

12

17181920212/2324

262728

of oriOnal on File with the Second Judicial District Court


49/118

EXHIBIT 4


50/118

2

IN THE LANDLORD TENANT COURTIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

-00o-CROCKETT .

7 Plaintiff,8 Case No. 2010-002102S

SUNDE,1 Defendants,

12

13 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS14 HEARING15 December 20, 201016 Reno, Nevada17

18

19

2 SUNSHINE REPORTING SERVICES2 (775) 883-7950 or (775) 323-341122 Transcribed By:IL R WILLSEY, CSR f359, CA CSR23 9748 COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION BY:24 CERTIFIED COPaseCATalyst 11

SUNSHINE REPORTING SERVICES775) 323-3411


51/118

3

,

5:6

9

10

11 PPE R NCES12

13 VICTORIA CROCKETT

14 ROBERT CROCKETT

15 MR. MRS. SUNDE16

17

18

19

2

21

23

24

SUNSHINE REPORTING SERVI ES775) 323 3411


52/118

April 19th and afterwards, we h d asked for them topay it direct] to us so we can follow proofpaymento date, they have refused to do so.

We filed and posted the Notice of Eviction ontheir door December 11th of 2010.p to them on the14th, filing their affidavit they claimed in theaffidavit that the rent was paid.he rent was notWe had to personally pay it ourselves through

9 the mortgage company.statements forid. do have our10 prcof.

They did finally pay directly to the mortgage12 on December 16th.o it was Quite a bit after the13 eviction.e are not obviously now attempting to14 evict because payment has been made. They called the15 he ring to have them pay ushat we're asking for is16 directly instead of the mortgage so we can follow7 payment8 They did reference that they have overpaid

our mortgage for the last years, however, we do have a2 copy of the lease.he lease does say that they are21 required to us 2.100 per month,hey historically

So we are23 asking to now make them responsible for the $2,1004 dollars per month which is in the lease and pay us

22 have just kind of covered the mortgage.SUNSHINE REPORTING SERVICES411775) 323


53/118

We'!1, after reviewing the Lease Agreement andhearing testimony, Mr. And Mrs. Sunde, I'm going tofind in favor of the Crooketts for the limited Purposeof the amount of the rent and where it should be pa id

5 I understand. Mr. Sunde, there are a lot of6! other complications and entanglements, equitable

onsiderations as it sounds like you have considered61 with legal counsel.hose are issues that need to hecd considered and decided in another venue, in another

10ot another venue, but another forum not hereorum.n Landlord Tenant Court.Please don't interrupt at this time, sir.3ust one mom en t have to decide what's before this4ourt and it's very limited, it doesn't mean you don't5ave a cause of action for other issues that you a re6aising.t means this is what I can't decide.his17i is the authority that I have today Yes or No, that8ype of thing, it doesn't mean that you can't go9lsewhere20f you already are in District Court, if you21ou may have another cause of action, if lthink

oesn't rise to the jurisdictional amount, it could hesmall claims as far as the work you put intems you purchased.3 or theIt could be Justice Court if it IPSUNSHINE REPORTING SERVI ES775) 323-3411


54/118

EXHIBIT 5


55/118

ag.,CODE;4105NICOLEJ.ALEXANDER.CCR446PeggyHoogs4AsSOciates435 marsh AvenueReno,Nevada89509(775)327-4460CourtReporter

SECONDJUDICIALDISTRICTCOURTOFTHESTI.TE or NEVADAINANDFORTHECOUNTYOFWASH

THEHONORABLESTEVENP.ELLIOTT,DISTICT.JUDGE--o0o-'

R.&V.CROCKETT, CaseNo.CV11-:10307Plaintiffs, Dept.No.10

S

J MICR/ :L/V1KTORIYASUND.E,

Defendant.

TRANSCRIPTOFPROCEEDINGSMOTIONSREARINGTUESDAY,SEPTEMBER20,2011

APPEARANCES:

For thePlaintiff: DAVIDC.O'MARA,EEO.311Ea

2 19 13 0204 mandamus against 2jdc steven elliott 2025 1262 2064 13-05022

Documents