|
Opposition to Motion for Enlargement of Time (Summarizes and illustrates, in part, the bias and prejudice of the lower court )
to view or download complete Adobe Acrobat file with exhibits click on button below
(Adobe Acrobat Reader 7.0 or later required. www.adobe.com)
OR to view document without downloading Adobe Acrobat file, scroll down. |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ) WILLIAM POWELL LEAR, also known as ) WILLIAM P. LEAR, W.P. LEAR and BILL LEAR ) ) Patrick Christopher Lear, ) Petitioner / Appellant, ) v. ) No. 45856 Harold P. Dayton, James L. Murphy ) Richard B. Rowley, ) Trustees / Appellees ) v. ) DUNHAM TRUST COMPANY, ) Tommy L. Tucker ) Successor Trustees / Appellees ) v. ) COOKE, ROBERTS AND REESE, LTD., ) David J. Reese, ) Attorneys / Appellees ) v. ) GRANT THORNTON, LLP, James L. Murphy, ) Accountants / Appellees ) )
APPELLANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
APPELLANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Comes now, Patrick Christopher Lear, Appellant, appearing in propria persona for the purpose of opposing Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time filed with this Cofurt on January 17, 2006 with regard to the Order entered by this Court on January 12, 2006. Pursuant to NRAP 26 and NRAP 27, Appellant opposes the Motion for Enlargement of Time upon grounds that 1) the lower Court’s Orders were entered by a biased and prejudiced Judge who intended to protect and lend judicial assistance to Respondents without authority or justification and did so brazenly and in violation of the Constitution and laws of Nevada and of the United States of America, 2) that Respondents have continuously been in breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, have engaged in malpractice for a period exceeding twenty years, and 3) together Respondents and the lower Court Judge have already caused considerable and irreparable damage to this Appellant’s rights and interests in and to the Lear Family Trust, and each passing day affords them a continued opportunity to further and compound that damage. Respondents are continuing to damage the LFT and are proceeding in total disregard for the law and the rights and interests of beneficiaries to and in the LFT. Therefore, Appellant has reason to believe that Respondents have no substantive ground to provide this Court in answer to this Court’s January 12, 2006 Order and the Motion for Enlargement of Time is frivolous and dilatory. The pattern of bias and prejudice of District Court Judge Peter I. Breen against Appellant is again made evident by four recent Orders issued by Judge Breen since October 2005. These four Orders are prejudicial and damage Appellant in the following manner: 1) the Order re Motion for Clarification of Order entered on January 5, 2006, isolates this Appellant from all other LFT remaindermen in the same class by stating that the Order of August 2, 2005 determining that the rights of this Appellant before the lower Court are not identical to the rights of the other LFT remaindermen beneficiaries. Exhibit 1. By this unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious Order, Judge Peter I. Breen completely segregates and alienates Appellant from all the other beneficiaries in his class and thereby discriminates against Appellant. 2) The Order Denying Motion for Sanctions entered on January 13, 2006 once again misrepresents the facts before the lower Court. Exhibit 2. The Order was craftily written to induce the reader and this Court into believing that Appellant sought sanctions against Respondents and their attorney for responding to a motion. This is totally incorrect and unsupported by the record. In fact, this Appellant requested that sanctions be imposed against David J. Reese, Esq. for engaging in yet another violation of NRCP Rule 11, of Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR) 172, and SCR 203 in his Opposition to Motion for Clarification of Order. Judge Peter I. Breen thereby evaded the purpose of Appellant’s motion and stated, in a complete reversal of his August 2, 2005 Order, that Appellant has a right to object. The lower Court’s Order of January 13, 2006, is clear evidence of Judge Peter I. Breen’s willful and malicious abuse powers and pervasive bent of mind. The continuing misrepresentations of fact made by District Court Judge Peter I. Breen in his Order of January 13, 2006 in effect gives Respondents and David J. Reese, Esq. safe harbor to continue in a pattern of misrepresentations, malpractice, breach of duty, breach of contract, violations of right and other serious acts and omissions that have already lasted two decades and irreparably damaged Appellant. With District Court Judge Peter I. Breen on the bench in case PR#78-2800, the laws of the State of Nevada are unenforceable and the rights of Appellant will be continually emasculated, violated and abolished. 3) In his Order Granting Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs entered on October 21, 2005 in favor of Respondents, District Judge Peter I. Breen acknowledges being aware of David J. Reese’s, Esq. repetitive improprieties and states as his reason[1] to grant Respondent Attorney’s Fees and Costs that Appellant did not submit any proof or legal argument to the Court. Specifically, Judge Breen states “[B]esides the numerous and repetitive allegations of Reese’s impropriety, PCL [Appellant] does not actually submit any proof or legal argument that Attorney’s fees are unwarranted here.” Exhibit 3, p.2, lines 6-7. To the contrary, Appellant filed numerous meritorious motions, including a Motion to Strike Document Entitled “Affidavit and Proof of Attorney’s Fees and Costs.” District Court Judge Peter I. Breen either misrepresented the facts or refused to take cognizance of Appellant’s numerous meritorious motions in his determination of the matter. All this was done while being fully aware of David J. Reese’s continuing pattern of improprieties. Then, on January 20, 2006 or three (3) months after granting the Attorney’s Fees and Costs to Respondents, Judge Peter I. Breen realized that Appellant’s Motion to Strike was still pending determination by the Court and in a backpedaling effort, enters a circular Order Denying Motion to Strike Document Entitled “Affidavit and Proof of Attorney’s Fees and Costs” that states “[I]mplicit in this Order [October 18, 2005 Order entered October 21, 2005] was the Denial of PCL’s Motion to Strike filed on October 17, 2005.” Exhibit 4, p.1, lines 21-22. Judge Breen further states that “the reasons[1] for such denial [are] set forth in the Court’s October 18, 2005 Order Granting Attorney’s Fees and Costs.” Exhibit 4, p.2, lines 1-2. However, Judge Peter I. Breen’s circular orders based upon bare and unsupported statements are again wholly insufficient. Based on the pattern of misrepresentations by REESE in the lower Court and the twisted, inaccurate, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and circular Orders of Judge Peter I. Breen, Appellant has reason to believe that Respondents do not have a reasonable legal argument to present to this Court and that the Motion for Enlargement of Time, as admitted by REESE himself[2], was filed for unnecessary delay. The Respondent REESE and Peter I. Breen are proceeding as against the best interest of the LFT and its beneficiaries and will do further damage. As a result of Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing and as reflected in this Court’s Order of January 12, 2006, this Court has already taken judicial notice of the misrepresentations contained in the lower Court’s Orders which are the subject of Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated August 30, 2005 and August 31, 2005. The continual bias and prejudice of the lower Court causes dishonor to the judiciary of the State of Nevada, which is bound to enforce the laws of the State and of the United States of America pursuant to the Constitutions of each of them. So far, the lower Court has shown itself only to be a symbol of disrespect and dishonor to the judicial office, and causes public distrust and limits and erodes public confidence in the legal system. The more time Respondents are afforded to postpone the review by this Court of the merits of the case, the more damage will Respondents inflict on this Appellant and other LFT beneficiaries by their acts and omissions in and out of court. The Respondents and Peter I Breen have abused the court and retaliated against those that complained or sought remedy or relief. Appellant has good and sufficient reason to believe that the two Orders of January 5, 2006 and January13, 2006, respectively, were entered for the purpose of retaliation and to confuse and confound this Court upon appeal by this Appellant. The bias and prejudice of the District Court Judge Peter I. Breen against this appellant is obvious, even to the layman. The Orders which this Appellant appealed from and which this Court is considering pursuant to Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing are tainted by the same abuse of power by the Court below, the same malicious retaliation and biased and prejudiced frame of mind of District Court Judge Peter I. Breen. Respondents and in particular Respondents’ attorney David J. Reese, Esq. have been in breach of contract and fiduciary duty for a period exceeding two decades thereby compounding the damage done to the Lear Family Trust (LFT). Respondents have obviously enlisted the aid of the lower Court to aid and cover up Respondent’s two-decade long pattern of abuse and gross negligence. The lower Court refuses to adjudicate the matters before it pursuant to the verifiable facts and the laws presented, and to afford Appellant his rights to due process and equal protection of law. Since Appellant has entered the case in the lower Court, Respondents’ have engaged in a continuing pattern of misrepresentation of facts and law, a continuing pattern of breach of trust and a continuing pattern of breach of contract, which has been documented in part to this Court by Christian William Lear in Supreme Court Case #44768. In his Petition to Set Aside Accountings, which is the subject of Appellant’s appeal and Petition for Rehearing, Appellant made a more in depth investigation into the gross and willful violations by Respondents. The effect of the wanton and willful breach of duty committed by Respondents with the aid of Judge Peter I. Breen and others is causing further and irreparable damage to Appellant and to the LFT with each passing day. Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time is dilatory. Respondents have no substantive ground to provide this Court. The only two reasons given by Respondents is that David J. Reese, Esq., (REESE) was out of the office on Friday January 13, 2006 and as a result did not receive this Court’s Order of January 12, 2006 until he returned to his office according to his normal schedule the following Monday, and (2) that REESE has a Court date on January 26, 2006. These are insufficient grounds to afford Respondents and David J. Reese, a legal professional, with an extension of time to respond and will only afford them time to cause further damage to the LFT and to Movant. This Appellant has reason to believe that Respondents’ attorney has no authority which he can submit in good faith to this Court pursuant to the Order issued by this Court on January 12, 2006 and that the purpose of the Motion for Enlargement of Time is wholly frivolous. WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully requests this Court 1. Deny Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time, and; 2. for other relief this Court deems just and proper, according to law, justice, and equity. Respectfully submitted this _____[26th]_____ day of January 2006.
[signed] Patrick Christopher Lear In Propria Persona Appellant |
