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.
102
Embed
1 MOT JAMES R. AYMANN PO Box 61272 Las Vegas NV …onemansfightagainstcorruptioninlasvegasnevada.com/SecondMotion.pdf · PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY/RECUSE Judge ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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