450. Respondent CR&R and/or REESE and Grant Thornton, by and
through accountant MURPHY knew or should have known that Petitioner was a
remainderman of the LFT and that Petitioner had and has a right and interest in
the corpus principal, capital and undistributed income of the LFT.
451. Respondent CR&R and/or REESE and Grant Thornton, by and
through accountant MURPHY knew or should have known that Petitioner had
a right to receive notices of the filing of the annual accounts of the LFT and
to be served with and receive each year's annual account.
452. LFT Trustees, for a period exceeding twenty years, have willfully
neglected, failed and refused to provide any accountings to Petitioner any
legal notice, notice of litigation or threatened litigation against the LFT that might and did adversely affect Petitioner's rights and interests therein.
453. LFT Trustees in collusion with CR&R and/or REESE and MCDONALD,
CARANO, WILSON, LLP, Grant Thornton, and others violated Petitioner's rights to
due process and equal protection of the law by failing and refusing to serve
Petitioner with legal process.
454. LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE while knowing that Petitioner
was a beneficiary of the LFT willfully
neglected, failed and refused to perform their fiduciary duties toward Petitioner for a period exceeding twenty (20) years while fraudulently billing and receiving
remuneration for the performance of duties that were not performed.
455. When this Petitioner and Christian William Lear (CWL) who is also the grandson
of the Settlor and Creator of the LFT, WPLSr, and an LFT remainderman beneficiary
demanded specific performance from LFT Trustees, these same Trustees including TUCKER and DTC and CR&R and/or REESE engaged in hostile,
unethical and malicious acts and bad faith pleading, had covert and
sanctionable communications with the State District Court Judge, misused Trust
funds to disqualify and wholly abrogate and alienate CWL from his rights and
interests in the LFT in violation of the Last Will and Testament of WPLSr and the LFT, maliciously attempted to disqualify this Petitioner from the LFT on unfounded, bare
and baseless accusations all for the purpose of obstruction, hindrance and
delay and to conceal their multiple breaches of duty, breaches of Trust, breach of oath, breach of contract, mismanagement, misallocations of funds and to conceal their
untruthful, incorrect, incomplete and inaccurate accountings.
456. Since March 2004, Petitioner has made numerous requests for production
of documents, one of which is for the original inventories of LFT assets, which
were attached, and are a part of the LFT principal and capital. These
inventories are known as Schedule A and Schedule B in the LFT. Exhibit
3, article THIRD. LFT Trustees are in possession of Schedule A and Schedule
B of the LFT and in contravention of affirmative duties, LFT Trustees have
continually and still are refusing to produce these two documents among many
other documents which were requested by this Petitioner from the Trustees and
were related to the management, distribution and accounting of the LFT.
457. Respondents TUCKER by and through DTC, as professional Trustees
knew or should have known the laws, rules and regulations of the State of
Nevada in regard to the duties and obligations of Trusts and Trustees and while
knowing these duties and obligations, failed, neglected and refused to report
and correct the mismanagement problems with the LFT and to account for the
continued misallocation of LFT assets.
458. Respondent TUCKER failed, refused and neglected to report the
continued centralized control exerted by accountant MURPHY and Grant Thornton over the LFT and has effectively replaced the recently deceased Trustee DAYTON as a straw-man Trustee and is currently billing and receiving compensation
for services that he has not performed. NRS §163.110 & §163.115.
459. Respondents TUCKER by and through DTC, as professional Trustees
knew the laws, rules and regulations of the State of Nevada in regard to the duties and obligations of Trusts and Trustees, knew or should have known that the
LFT Trustees were bound by NRS §165.040 and that the LFT's annual intermediate
account for the year 2004 was required to be produced, filed with this Court
and served upon the LFT beneficiaries no later than March 2, 2005.
460. Respondents TUCKER by and through DTC, as professional Trustees
knew or should have known the laws, rules and regulations of the State of
Nevada in regard to the duties and obligations of Trusts and Trustees, knew
that the LFT's annual intermediate accountings were to be produced, filed and
served in accordance with NRS §165.030 et seq. and while knowing that the LFT Trustees were required to produce their accountings in
accordance with NRS §165.030 et seq. failed, neglected and refused to
report the LFT Trustees' failure, neglect and refusal to abide by this Court's
Order of August 13, 1982.
461. Respondents TUCKER by and through DTC, as professional Trustees
knew or should have known the laws, rules and regulations of the State of
Nevada in regard to the duties and obligations of Trusts and Trustees, knew or
should have known that the Court Order of December 2, 1991 prohibits LFT outright
beneficiaries from seeking a partition of unliquidated non-cash trust principal
assets which remain in the trust estate and that the Trustees are to make no
distribution of non-cash assets until such time as the non-cash assets are
converted to cash and the expenses attributable to the particular assets are
paid and while knowing these duties and obligations, as well as the contents of
this Court's Order of December 2, 1991, did petition this Court for
distribution of non-cash assets to outright beneficiaries upon the request of
these same beneficiaries and while knowing the foregoing, failed, refused and
neglected to produce the LFT's 2004 Annual Intermediate Accounting according to
law and this Court's Order of August 13, 1982.
462. Respondents TUCKER by and through DTC, as professional Trustees
knew or should have known the laws, rules and regulations of the State of
Nevada in regard to the duties and obligations of Trusts and Trustees, and
while knowing and having access to LFT books, records, documents, minutes and
other information aided and abetted LFT Trustee MURPHY, Grant Thornton,
accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE in the violation of
laws of the State of Nevada, the violation of the LFT, the violation of the
last Will and Testament of WPLSr as well as multiple acts of contempt of this
Court's Orders, failed and refused to report said violations and engaged in new
violations since his appointment and confirmation as LFT co-Trustee.
463. Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY and TUCKER, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE while knowing that they have fiduciary obligations toward this Petitioner and other LFT remaindermen, have continuously
failed, neglected and refused to perform their duties in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the Will and intent of testator and trustor, WPLSr, the William P. Lear and Moya Olsen Lear Family Trust Agreement, the Constitution
and laws of the State of Nevada and the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America.
464. On or about October 30, 2003, Trustees wrote a letter to income and
outright beneficiaries which contained a proposal for the buy-out of the
outright beneficiaries' interest in certain land owned by the LFT with
remaindermen funds. Exhibit 53, p. #425.
465. On or about December 2, 2003, this Petitioner obtained a copy of LFT
Trustees' letter and proposal of October 30, 2003 from an LFT income
beneficiary and not from Respondents LFT Trustees.
466. Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY,
CR&R and REESE, while knowing that LFT remaindermen had an
interest in this transaction neglected, failed and refused to serve a copy of
their letter and proposal upon this Petitioner.
467. On December 4, 2003 Petitioner wrote to LFT Trustees with numerous
questions regarding the proposed buy-out of outright beneficiaries. Exhibit 55.
468. Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY,
CR&R and REESE, while knowing that LFT remaindermen had an
interest in the proposed land buy-out transaction, failed and refused to
respond to Petitioner's letter of December 4, 2003.
469. On December 16, 2004, while having failed and refused to respond to and
answer Petitioner's questions of the previous year, December 4, 2003, Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY and TUCKER, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, wrote another letter and proposal to LFT beneficiaries with a substantially
similar land buy-out proposal to their October 30, 2003 proposal. Exhibit 72.
470. On December 28, 2004, Petitioner wrote a letter objecting to the
proposal contained in Trustees' December 16, 2004 letter. Exhibit 73.
471. When Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, TUCKER, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE filed their Petition for Instructions of April 1, 2005, Respondents knew that this Petitioner objected
upon the grounds that Respondents' proposal was not authorized and premature: (1)
Pursuant to the Court Order dated December 2, 1991, (A. LFT Outright
Beneficiaries have no right to seek partition of unliquidated non-cash trust
assets which remain in the trust estate, and B. LFT Trustees are to make no
distribution of non-cash assets until such time as the non-cash assets are
converted to cash and the expenses attributable to the particular asset are
paid) Exhibit 27; 2) With due consideration of the Trustees' "Report
to Beneficiaries" dated October 21, 1991, and in accordance with
Petitioner's "Objection to 17th Annual Intermediate Account" as filed
with this Court on October 11, 2004 and Petitioner's "Reply to Opposition to
Motion for Reconsideration of Order" dated December 24, 2004, there is a continuing
and pending objection before the Court related to the LFT and those objections
remain; 3) On August 11, 2003 and November 4, 2003, the Court ordered an
objective audit of the LFT and until such time as an independent, full, true,
correct, complete and accurate accounting of the Lear Family Trust is
performed, including but not limited to calculations of principal, income,
costs, expenses, allocations and distributions are properly audited and accounted
for, the LFT Trustees proposed action is premature. While knowing of
Petitioner's numerous objections, Respondents continual failure and refusal to
respond to this Petitioner's written communication of December 28, 2004, Respondents
imprudently wasted and squandered LFT resources by drafting and filing the
April 1, 2004 Petition for Instructions while knowing that a hearing on
the accountings is scheduled for August 15, 2005 and that the August 15, 2005
hearing would be reviewing the LFT's management, allocations, distribution and
accountings.
472. LFT Trustees MURPHY, TUCKER, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE knew that the LFT's outright beneficiaries have already received
benefit of disbursement from the LFT in excess of the amounts which LFT Trustees
state are due to these same beneficiaries and while Respondents knew of this discriminatory
practice and inequity, Respondents attempted to cause further damage to the interests of the LFT remaindermen by filing a Petition for Instructions on April 1, 2005 which continues the same pattern of
misconduct and policy of running roughshod over the rights of remaindermen for
the benefit of other interested parties, at least one of whom, LFT outright
beneficiary Jacqueline Lear, was well aware of the violations of law and fraud
perpetrated by Respondents but was willing to let the violations continue on
the condition that she can continue to derive a benefit thereby showing her
corruption and compromise.
"13. I stated that "there are significant problems with the
Trustees' administration" of the trust and that "the trustees are violating the
law."
14. Jacqueline Lear replied: "I know they are violating the
law, they've been violating it since 1978". Jacqueline Lear stated that
the legal fees were going to be very significant, that this legal controversy
served no purpose and that "there isn't going to be anything left anyway so
just let it go, let everyone have their money, it's not like we had to work for
this money anyway."
Declaration of Christian William Lear relating his telephone
conversation with Jacqueline Lear of April 5, 2005,
dated April 7, 2005
[Emphasis added]
Exhibit 83, p. #643
473. The attorney fees and charges billed by CR&R and/or REESE to the LFT were taken out of and charged against the LFT remaindermen accounts
and interest in the LFT. NRS §164.340.
474. Petitioner reiterates and incorporates all of the allegations set forth
in this Petition as if they were set forth herein in their entirety.
475. On September 1, 1983, the law firm of Respondent CR&R was
retained as the attorneys for the Trustees. Respondent REESE is now the
attorney of record for the Lear Family Trust. Exhibit 12.
476. On May 24, 1984, the Second Judicial District Court entered an order
approving the retention of Respondent CR&R as attorneys for the
Trustees of the Trust effective September 1, 1983. Exhibit 13.
477. Patricia Lear, Esq. is a named heir in the Estate of William Powell
Lear, Sr. and an income beneficiary of the LFT.
478. On October 22, 1991, LFT Trustees along with Patricia Lear, Esq., and with the knowledge and consent of Respondent CR&R did covertly,
secretly and arbitrarily determine that they would change the terms and
conditions of the LFT and willfully and knowingly neglect and refuse to give
notice of any kind or nature to remaindermen beneficiaries of the LFT. Exhibits
20, 21, 22.
479. Petitioner has never delivered a written instrument to the Respondents
LFT Trustees DAYTON, MURPHY, ROWLEY, DTC, TUCKER, Grant Thornton,
accountant MURPHY, CR&R and/or REESE relieving them from any or all
of the duties, restrictions, and liabilities, which would otherwise be imposed
on the LFT trustees by NRS 163.010 to 163.200, inclusive. See also NRS §163.170 & NRS §165.170.
480. On October 29, 1991, Patricia Lear, Esq. drafted a document for her own
use and for the use of other income beneficiaries in the LFT, which was signed
and submitted to LFT Trustees for the purpose of: (1) excluding certain
beneficiaries from receiving certain notices, information or accountings, (2)
changing the terms and conditions of the management of the LFT, and (3)
changing the allocations and distributions made there under. Exhibit 21 & 22.
481. On November 6, 1991, LFT Trustees, with the advice and by and through Respondent CR&R, filed a Petition for Instructions in the Second
Judicial District Court for approval of the change of the terms and conditions of the LFT as proposed by Patricia Lear, Esq. and the LFT Trustees without the
knowledge or written consent of Petitioner. Exhibit 23. Petitioner has reason
to believe that this was done without the knowledge and written consent of any LFT
remaindermen beneficiaries. Exhibit 23.
482. On November 20, 1991, LFT Trustees, by and through Respondent CR&R and/or REESE, filed a Supplement to Trustees' Petition for Instructions to further effect the change of terms and conditions of the management of the LFT as proposed by Patricia Lear, Esq. in her October 29, 1991 written communication to the Trustees, substantially increasing the percentage of LFT
funds payable to Patricia Lear, Esq. and to other beneficiaries similarly
situated, at the expense of remaindermen beneficiaries, without the knowledge
or written consent of said remaindermen beneficiaries and in violation of said
remaindermen beneficiaries' rights to due process and to equal protection of
the law. NRS §163.170. Petitioner has reason to believe that this was done
without the knowledge and written consent of any LFT remaindermen beneficiaries. Exhibit 24.
483. On December 2, 1991, Patricia Lear, Esq. caused her approval to the
change in the terms and conditions of the LFT to be filed in the Second
Judicial District Court with the knowledge and participation of Valentina Lear
(a.k.a. Valentina Lear Jackson). Exhibit 21, 22. Said consent by Patricia
Lear, Esq. was filed with the knowledge and consent of Respondent CR&R and/or Respondent REESE, having been filed and submitted in the Second
Judicial District Court on paper displaying the name of the law firm of CR&R in the lower left-hand corner. Exhibit 26.
484. On December 2, 1991, the Second Judicial District Court entered its Order
Interpreting Trust Instrument and Instructing Trustees as drafted and submitted
by Respondents LFT Trustees DAYTON, MURPHY, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton,
accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE. Said order
approved the changes to the LFT's terms and conditions as proposed and requested by Patricia Lear, Esq. in her written communication of October 29, 1991 to the LFT Trustees and as presented in Trustees' Petition for Instructions and in the LFT Trustees' Supplement to Trustees' Petition
for Instructions dated November 6, 1991 and November 20, 1991, respectively, in conspiracy with Respondents CR&R and/or REESE, all
without the knowledge or written consent of Petitioner. Exhibit 27.
485. From March 2004 to the present, Petitioner was presented with
untruthful, incomplete, incorrect and inaccurate LFT accountings for the years
2001, 2002, 2003 by and through Respondents CR&R and/or REESE.
LFT Trustees mismanaged the LFT, misallocated principal and income, failed to
account for valuable missing property, distributed assets and funds to income
and outright beneficiaries of the LFT in violation of the terms, conditions and
limitations of the LFT and changed the terms and conditions of the LFT all with the knowledge of and in collusion with Respondents CR&R and/or REESE and Patricia Lear, Esq.
486. From March 2004 to March 2005, Petitioner has attempted to verify the
accountings of the LFT. Over that time period, Respondent REESE, while
acting on behalf of LFT Trustees and certain LFT beneficiaries, continually
engaged in unethical and hostile practices and misrepresentations for the
purpose of hindering, delaying, and obstructing Petitioner's access to Trust records.
487. Notice will be taken that Patricia Lear, Esq. formally appeared before
this Court on September 20, 2001 and filed her Opposition to Request for
Independent Audit. Patricia Lear, Esq. did not serve said Petition upon
Petitioner and other interested beneficiaries. Exhibit 48.
488. On or about November 5, 2004, Patricia Lear, Esq., without formally
appearing in Second Judicial District Court case #78-2800 in person or through
an attorney of record, authored and caused an ex-parte communication to
be faxed to District Court Judge Peter I. Breen with the intent to covertly and
secretly influence the Judge to change the terms and conditions of the LFT by alienating, prejudicing and abrogating any and all of Petitioner's brother's,
Christian William Lear, rights and interests in and to the LFT. Exhibit 67, p.
#546 & 549.
489. On or about November 5, 2004, Patricia Lear, Esq. without formally
appearing in Second Judicial District Court case #78-2800, in person or through
an attorney of record, engaged in ex-parte communications with District
Court Judge Peter I. Breen with the intent to covertly and secretly influence the Judge to change the terms and conditions of the LFT by alienating, prejudicing and
abrogating this Petitioner's rights to due process and equal protection of the
law. Exhibit 67, p. #546 & 549. Supreme Court Rule 174 states in pertinent
part:
Rule 174. Impartiality and decorum of the tribunal. A lawyer
shall not:
2. Communicate ex-parte with such a person except as
permitted by law;
490. Petitioner has reason to believe that on or about November 5, 2004, Patricia Lear, Esq. advised and counseled other beneficiaries to participate in
the scheme and ex-parte communications to Judge Breen by soliciting and
advising said beneficiaries to sign said communication and for the purpose of
secretly and covertly influencing Judge Breen's decisions. Exhibit 67, p. #546
& 549. Supreme Court Rule 189 states in pertinent part:
Rule 189 (4)(a) No lawyer is authorized to provide legal
services under this rule if the lawyer:
(1) Is an inactive or suspended member of
the State Bar of Nevada, or has been disbarred or has received a disciplinary
resignation from the State Bar of Nevada..
491. Patricia Lear, Esq., as an out of State attorney is subject to the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar of Nevada. SCR 42.
492. On November 10, 2004, Respondent REESE was fully aware of the
covert, secret and ex-parte communications of Patricia Lear, Esq. and
admitted in open Court that he had possession of Patricia Lear, Esq.'s covert
communications to Judge Breen. Exhibit 68, p. #559-560. Transcript,
November 10, 2004, p.3, lines 22-25 and p.4 lines 1-6. SCR 174(2), SCR
202.
493. On November 10, 2004 attorney John B. Galvin, Esq. (Nev. Bar #2708,
phone: 775-322-0635) stated that he was aware of the contents of the covert
letters and witnessed Respondent REESE's acknowledgment of having
possession of said covert ex-parte communications. Exhibit 68, p. #560. Transcript,
November 10, 2004, p.3, lines 22-25 and p.4 lines 1-6.
494. Petitioner has reason to believe that Court Reporter Lesley A. Clarkson,
CCR #182 (phone 775-323-3411) also witnessed Respondent REESE's
acknowledgment of having possession of said covert ex-parte communications.
495. Petitioner has reason to believe that attorney Patrick James Martin,
Esq. (Nev. Bar #842, phone 775-329-1571) witnessed Respondent REESE's
acknowledgment of having possession of said covert ex-parte communications.
496. On November 10, 2004, Judge Breen entered a judgment, as requested by
Patricia Lear, Esq. in conspiracy with Respondent REESE, denying Petitioner's
standing to object to a Settlement Agreement directly affecting Petitioner's substantive
rights and interests in the LFT in violation of due process and equal
protection of the law.
497. On or about November 16, 2004, Patricia Lear, Esq. without formally
appearing in Second Judicial District Court case #78-2800 in person or through
an attorney of record, engaged in secret ex-parte communications to
express her relief and gratitude to Judge Peter I. Breen for his "efforts and
decisive action in this regard", and in effect, thanking Judge Breen for
considering her covert communication requests and for issuing an order in
accordance with the influences and representations made in the covert,
secretive and ex-parte communications. Exhibit 69, p. #564-569.
498. In addition and with the intent to covertly and secretly influence Judge Peter I. Breen, Patricia Lear, Esq. also expressed her concern and opposition to Petitioner's
legal actions before this Court and plead for the Judge's "assistance" in
terminating the actions of Petitioner on the basis that Petitioner's brother
and LFT remainderman beneficiary Christian William Lear "may in fact have no
legal claim whatsoever" and that Petitioner's actions were "disruptive" and
resulted in the Trustees' actions to "put all Trust business matters on hold
pending Court resolution" including "disbursement of monthly checks to
beneficiaries". Exhibit 69 - signature page. Notice will again be taken here
that Patricia Lear, Esq. is not licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada, did not enter a formal appearance in any capacity, and is also a direct recipient
of monthly checks issued by the LFT.
499. By signing her covert and ex-parte communication to Judge Peter
I. Breen, Patricia Lear, Esq. represented that her requests to the Judge were
well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law and that they were not
interposed for any improper purpose such as to harass or to cause unnecessary
delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. NRCP 11. As a
result of Patricia Lear, Esq.'s misconduct, Petitioner's brother and LFT
remainderman beneficiary Christian William Lear has been prejudiced and
alienated of any and all rights in the LFT. In fact, Patricia Lear, Esq., by
signing and forwarding her covert ex-parte communications to Respondent REESE and then to Judge Peter I. Breen seeking to influence the Judge's decisions,
Patricia Lear, Esq. engaged in conduct prejudicial to Petitioner's rights and
implied an ability to influence improperly a government official:
SCR 203 Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to:
4. Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice;
5. State or imply an ability to influence improperly a
government agency or official;
500. On November 23, 2004, while specifically addressing Respondent REESE's
knowledge of these ex-parte communication, the Court ordered that the
secret ex-parte communications of Patricia Lear, Esq. and others were to
"stop" and that said communications were "inappropriate" and subject to
sanctions. Exhibit 70, p. #574. Transcript November 23, 2004, morning
session, p.22, lines 6-17.
501. On November 23, 2004, the Court ordered that "all the income tax"
returns of the LFT be provided to Petitioner. The Court also ordered that LFT
Trustees and Respondent REESE could not refuse to provide information to
Petitioner and that they "have an affirmative duty to disclose" or "suffer the
financial consequences of refusing to disclose [I]f it's a refusal to discover
and cooperate in discovery. Exhibit 70, p. #573. Transcript November 23,
2004, morning session, p.17, lines 10-17. The Court ordered Respondent REESE to cooperate in discovery.
502. On January 18, 2005, Petitioner sent a set of "Admissions and
Confessions" to LFT remaindermen beneficiaries for relevant discovery
purposes. Exhibit 74, p. 587 et seq. These "Admissions and
Confessions" were NOT sent to Patricia Lear, Esq. and were NOT sent to
Respondent REESE. The following LFT remaindermen beneficiaries were
sent discovery by Petitioner relevant to the issues before the State District
Court in case #78-2800: Jesse Jackson, Saralo MacGregor, Marisa Eckelberry,
Erin Lear, Celeste Lear, Chloe Jackson, Luke Jackson, Eric Lear, Lorin Davis
Lear, Jennifer Lear, Saskia Gem-Lear, Valente Bertelli, Vanessa Bertelli, and
Mara Bertelli.
503. On or about January 24, 2005, Patricia Lear, Esq. received a copy of
Petitioner's "Admissions and Confessions" dated January 18, 2004 through
an LFT remainderman beneficiary who is neither this Petitioner nor Christian
William Lear.
504. On or about January 24, 2005, Patricia Lear, Esq. contacted Respondent REESE without the knowledge of Petitioner and faxed Respondent REESE a copy of
Petitioner's "Admissions and Confessions" as addressed to and served
upon other LFT remaindermen beneficiaries. Exhibit 76, p. #617.
505. On January 24, 2005, Patricia Lear, Esq., caused a written communication
to be sent via email to various LFT beneficiaries and engaged in illegal
practice of law by providing the email recipients with her written
communication containing legal advice based on Respondent REESE's
statements that remaindermen beneficiaries who received Petitioner's "Admissions
and Confessions" "are not required by Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure to
respond to this letter". Neither Patricia Lear, Esq. nor REESE, have
entered an appearance for or represent the remaindermen beneficiaries to whom
the discovery requests were sent. SCR 189; SCR 42. Respondents REESE and Patricia Lear, Esq. conspired in obstructing Petitioner's discovery, in
violation of Judge Peter I. Breen's Order of November 23, 2004, and of the Nevada Code of Professional Conduct. Exhibit 76 & Exhibit 70, Transcript
November 23, 2004, morning session, p.17, lines 10-17.
506. Not only did Patricia Lear, Esq. violate the rules of professional
conduct but also Patricia Lear, Esq. knowingly assisted Respondent REESE to do so in an effort to obstruct Petitioner's discovery. SCR 203.
SCR 203 Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer
to:
1. Violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional
conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts
of another; ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration
of justice;
507. By this covert and secret method, Respondent REESE, Esq., after
being solicited by Patricia Lear, Esq., provided legal advice through unlicensed Patricia Lear, Esq. to remaindermen beneficiaries of the LFT in an effort to
obstruct Petitioner's discovery of relevant information. The name and address
of the recipients of Patricia Lear, Esq.'s email are included herewith as Exhibit
77. Supreme Court Rule 173, states in pertinent part:
Rule 173. Fairness to opposing party and counsel. A lawyer
shall not:
1. Unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or
unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to
do any such act;
2. ...
3. ...
5. ...
6. Request a person other than a client to refrain from
voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:
(a) The person is a relative or an employee or other agent
of a client; and
(b) The lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests
will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.
508. On January 20, 2005, Judge Peter I. Breen entered a capricious Order
without conclusions of fact and law. Exhibit 75. Said Order was made in
accordance with the covert, secret and ex-parte communications of
Patricia Lear, Esq. and as requested by Patricia Lear, Esq., and with the
knowledge of and in conspiracy with Respondent REESE, thereby wholly
alienating and abrogating Petitioner's brother and LFT remainderman beneficiary
Christian William Lear of any and all rights to the Estate of William P. Lear,
Sr. and under the LFT, in violation of the LFT and Petitioner's rights to due
process and to equal protection of the law as secured by the laws and
Constitution of the State of Nevada and the laws and Constitution of the United
States of America.
509. On January 20, 2005, Judge Peter I. Breen entered a capricious Order
without conclusions of fact and law. Exhibit 75. Said Order was made in
accordance with the covert, secret and ex-parte communications of
Patricia Lear, Esq. and as requested by Patricia Lear, Esq., and with the
knowledge of and in conspiracy with Respondent REESE, thereby prejudicing,
abrogating and damaging Petitioner in his rights to due process and to equal
protection of the law as secured by the laws and Constitution of the State of
Nevada and the laws and Constitution of the United States of America. Exhibits 67, 69 & 76.
510. On February 1, 2005, Petitioner entered the covert communications of
Patricia Lear, Esq. and of other LFT beneficiaries, dated November 5, 2004 and November 16, 2004 in the record in case #78-2800 in support of certain
objections to abuse of legal process. Until then, these covert communications
were not a part of the record of this case but were in the possession of Judge
Peter I. Breen, as well as Respondent attorney REESE and unlicensed
attorney Patricia Lear, Esq. Exhibit 67 & 69.
511. Petitioner has reason to believe that Patricia Lear, Esq. advised the
following LFT remaindermen beneficiaries to sign the covert ex-parte communication dated November 5, 2005 to District Court Judge Breen, as referred
to in paragraph 509 above, and to submit the same to Judge Peter I. Breen:
Jesse Jackson, Saralo MacGregor, Marisa Eckelberry, Erin Lear and Celeste Lear.
512. On November 23, 2004, District Court Judge Peter I. Breen, directed
Respondent REESE that these ex-parte communications "stop".
Respondent REESE replied: "... I have contact with the beneficiaries, as
does [Trustee] Mr. MURPHY, and we can certainly simply advise them that
the Court has asked that that stop." Exhibit 70 p. #574, page 22 line
12-14. To Petitioner's knowledge and belief, Respondent REESE did not
advise the beneficiaries who participated in the ex-parte communications
to the Court to cease and desist with said communications or to appear in their
own proper person or obtain their own legal counsel and appear in the case.
Instead, on January 24, 2005, Respondent REESE and Patricia Lear, Esq.
advised the LFT remaindermen beneficiaries not to participate in and to
obstruct discovery and Court process. Exhibit 76.
513. After directly or indirectly receiving Patricia Lear, Esq.'s email
communication advising the LFT remaindermen beneficiaries of Respondent REESE's
representations to them not to participate in discovery, these same
remaindermen beneficiaries are believed to have followed the advice of Patricia Lear, Esq. and Respondent REESE. To date, the remaindermen beneficiaries have
failed or refused to accept service of process and to participate in Court
discovery while knowing of the litigation and issues before the State District
Court in case #78-2800.
514. To date, the LFT remaindermen beneficiaries who are known to have declined
service of Petitioner's discovery are Eric Lear, Jesse Jackson and Luke
Jackson. Exhibit 78. To date, Petitioner is still awaiting one (1) USPS return
receipt cards from his January 18, 2004 mailing to LFT remaindermen
beneficiaries.
515. To date, Petitioner has received no reply to his discovery request from
any LFT remainderman beneficiary. Discovery was mailed to the several LFT
remaindermen beneficiaries on January 18, 2005 allowing three days for
delivery. The approximate date of response was presumed to be about February
22, 2005. Exhibit 78.
516. Submitted herewith as Exhibit 12 is the contract of Respondent CR&R with the LFT Trustees. Respondent CR&R through REESE is in
breach of contract and the Code of Ethics for the following reasons:
517. On August 13, 1982, the Second Judicial District Court ordered LFT
Trustees to provide accountings pursuant to NRS §165.030 through 165.120. Exhibit 8. Respondents CR&R and/or REESE were hired and / or retained by
the LFT Trustees on September 1, 1983 to prepare the LFT's annual accountings
pursuant to NRS 165.030 through 165.120:
"This retainer shall cover routine legal work in connection with
annual accountings, pursuant to NRS 165.030 through 165.120, ..."
CR&R Letter of Engagement, Sep. 1, 1983, page 1,
numbered §2
Exhibit 12
518. LFT Trustees by and through Respondent CR&R and/or Respondent REESE had a legal obligation to provide Trust accountings to all Trust
beneficiaries, including remaindermen beneficiaries. NRS §165.020(b) and NRS §165.045. LFT Trustees by and through the counsel and advice of Respondent CR&R and/or Respondent REESE did not provide
Petitioner with any Trust annual accountings, notice thereof or any other legal
notice from August 24, 1983 to approximately January 9, 2004, a period
exceeding twenty (20) years, while misrepresenting to the Second Judicial
District Court that all LFT beneficiaries had been noticed according to law, in
violation of SCR 172. Supreme Court Rule 172 states in pertinent part:
Rule 172. Candor toward the tribunal.
1. A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a
tribunal;
(b) Fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when
disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
519. To the best of Petitioner's knowledge and belief, LFT Trustees by and
through the counsel and advice of Respondents CR&R and/or REESE did not provide any other LFT remaindermen beneficiaries with any Trust annual
accountings, notices thereof or any other relevant information from 1983 to
approximately March 4, 2004, a period exceeding twenty (20) years. SCR 172.
Petitioner's January 18, 2005 discovery requests to LFT remaindermen
beneficiaries were relevant to Respondent CR&R's and/or Respondent REESE's
acts and omissions, willful refusal to provide LFT remaindermen beneficiaries
with legal notice and LFT annual accountings for a period exceeding twenty (20)
years. Exhibit 74.
520. Respondents CR&R and/or REESE failed, neglected and
refused to advise LFT Trustees, in breach of contract, to produce, file with
this Court and serve upon LFT beneficiaries accounts pursuant to NRS §165.040. CR&R and REESE knew that the failure and refusal to afford
Petitioner with due process of law would deprive Petitioner of equal protection
of the law and the right to secure and defend his rights and interests in the
LFT.
521. Respondents CR&R and REESE knew or should have known
that their failing, refusing and neglecting to prepare the LFT Intermediate
Accountings in accordance with NRS §165.030 through §165.120 resulted in their
being in contempt of the August 13, 1982 Court Order and are in breach of
contract. Exhibits 8 & 12.
522. Respondent REESE counseled LFT remaindermen beneficiaries through
unlicensed Patricia Lear, Esq. in an effort to obstruct Petitioner's discovery
and Court process for the purpose of covering up Respondent CR&R's
and/or Respondent REESE's breaches of contract, willful failures and
refusals to provide annual accountings of the LFT to the LFT remaindermen
beneficiaries in violation of Petitioner's rights to due process and equal
protection of the law. Notice shall again be taken that neither Respondent REESE nor Patricia Lear, Esq. have entered an appearance for and do not represent the
LFT remaindermen beneficiaries to whom the discovery requests were sent.
Preventing or dissuading the remaindermen beneficiaries from producing evidence
with the intent of obstructing Petitioner's discovery or causing or inducing
the remaindermen beneficiaries to evade the process that require them to
produce a record or document, in this case Petitioner's request for Admissions
and Confessions is punishable by law. NRS §199.230.
523. Respondents CR&R and REESE knew or should have known
that by counseling some of the LFT remaindermen beneficiaries, they were in
breach of contract with regards to said agreement entered into by the Trustees
of the LFT on September 1, 1983. Exhibit 12. Said agreement states in
pertinent part:
"We are not aware of any firm clients or matters which would
pose a conflict of interest situation, but should we become aware of any such
situation, we will of course terminate our services in any such matter that
would conflict with our obligations to you herein, and we will accept no new
cases or matters that would conflict with our duty to you as expressed in this
agreement."
CR&R Letter of Engagement, Sep. 1, 1983, page 1,
numbered §4
Exhibit 12
524. Respondents CR&R and REESE knew or should have known
that the legal advice provided to LFT remaindermen beneficiaries by Respondent REESE through inactive attorney Patricia Lear, Esq. on or about January 24, 2005 created a conflict of interest for Respondents CR&R and REESE and
that said Respondents were in breach of contract and in violation of SCR 166.
525. During the month of June 2001, Respondents CR&R and REESE billed the LFT and were paid by the LFT for rendering services to income and
outright beneficiaries such as (1) providing legal advice to Jacqueline Lear regarding
her private pre-nuptial agreement and (2) provide professional services to
William P. Lear, Jr. (WPLJr) by investigating the possibility of assigning
WPLJr children's interest in the LFT to WPLJr's wife, thereby causing
significant LFT sums to be expended for the personal and private affairs of LFT
outright beneficiary Jacqueline Lear and LFT income beneficiary WPLJr. Exhibit 46.
526. LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY,
CR&R and REESE knew that providing private legal services to LFT
beneficiaries at LFT expense was a misuse of LFT funds and unethical but while
knowing this, CR&R and REESE billed the LFT and were paid by
the LFT for rendering legal services to income and outright beneficiaries such
as (1) "T/C Jacqueline Lear re: her interest in Lear Trust and pre-nup issue,
advice"; (2) "T/C Jim Murphy re: ... & William Lear, Jr. request regarding
possible wife's interest & children assignment in lifetime interest in Lear
Trust"; (3) "research on William Lear Jr. inquiry and issue of future
distribution to heirs of income beneficiaries" and (4) "Dictate opinion ltr re:
William Lear Jr. request & distribution of non-cash assets" thereby causing
LFT funds to be expended on certain LFT beneficiaries' personal matters at the
expense and to the damage of LFT remaindermen beneficiaries. Exhibit 46.
527. Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE knew or should have
known that providing private legal professional services directly to other LFT
outright and income beneficiaries for their personal and private affairs and
charging the LFT for said legal services was fraudulent and a misuse of LFT
funds. Respondents knew or reasonably should have known that the aforesaid acts
of rendering private legal services to LFT beneficiaries at LFT expense violated
the duty of undivided loyalty to the LFT beneficiaries and the impartial and
prudent trust administration requirements set forth under the common law and Nevada
State law.
528. Respondents CR&R and REESE knew or should have known
that providing legal and professional services for certain LFT income and
outright beneficiaries, including but not limited to Patricia Lear, Patricia
Lear, Esq., Jacqueline Lear, and William P. Lear, Jr. created a conflict of
interest, and that Respondents were in violation of SCR 157.
529. On or about September 18, 2001, LFT income beneficiary Patricia Lear and
attorney Patricia Lear, Esq. contacted Respondents CR&R and REESE,
requesting the assistance of CR&R and REESE in preparing her
opposition to LFT income beneficiary Mrs. Shanda Lear-Baylor's request for an independent
audit of the LFT. Exhibit 49.
530. On September 18, 2001, Respondents CR&R and REESE called Respondents LFT Trustee and Grant Thornton accountant MURPHY to
discuss LFT income beneficiary and attorney Patricia Lear, Esq.'s request for
assistance in the preparation of a legal document. Exhibit 49.
531. On September 18, 2001, Respondents CR&R and REESE called LFT income beneficiary and attorney Patricia Lear, Esq. and dictated the
opposition to Shanda Lear-Baylor's request for an independent audit for said
Patricia Lear, Esq., with the knowledge and consent of Respondents LFT Trustees DAYTON, MURPHY and ROWLEY, Grant Thornton and Grant Thornton accountant MURPHY. Exhibit 49. Petitioner has reason to believe that Respondent REESE in fact
dictated said opposition to his legal or secretarial assistant and that the
entire pleading was produced directly or indirectly by Respondents LFT Trustees DAYTON, MURPHY, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE.
532. On September 19, 2001, Respondents CR&R and REESE finalized Patricia Lear, Esq.'s Objection to Request for Independent Audit. Exhibit 49.
533. September 20, 2001, LFT income beneficiary Patricia Lear and attorney
Patricia Lear, Esq. caused the Objection to Request for Independent Audit as prepared, dictated and finalized by Respondents CR&R and REESE to be filed in case PR-78-2800, stating, in pertinent part:
"5. I am opposed to the use of trust income or assets for the
purpose of conducting an independent audit to satisfy the unfound and
unjustified request of a co-income beneficiary.
...
7. I am aware of no further circumstances which would justify
the Trust incurring the expense of any independent audit to satisfy what I
believe to be the unfounded curiosity or suspicions of Shanda Lear-Baylor, as
to the accuracy of the ongoing Trust accountings by Grant Thornton and the
Trustees."
Objection for Independent Audit, September 20, 2001, p. 2 §5
[Emphasis added].
Exhibit 48, p. #407
534. On October 3, 2001, Respondents CR&R and/or REESE caused a bill to be mailed to Respondents "Trustees of the Lear Family Trust,
c/o James L. MURPHY, Grant Thornton, P.O. Box 30, Reno, Nevada 89504" in
the amount of $1,103.75 for "Professional Services Rendered", including but not
limited to, 1.75 hours, or $350.00 dollars, to prepare, dictate and finalize
LFT income beneficiary and attorney Patricia Lear, Esq.'s Objection to
Request for Independent Audit. Exhibit 49, p. #410.
535. On December 2, 2001, Respondents LFT Trustees DAYTON and ROWLEY made and signed check #3237, drawn on the account of the LFT in the amount of
$1403.75 dollars to the order of Respondents CR&R and REESE for
legal services rendered to LFT beneficiaries. Exhibit 49, p. #411.
536. On December 3, 2001, LFT check #3237 in the amount of $1403.75 dollars
was deposited and credited to the "general account" of Respondent CR&R. Exhibit 49, p. #411.
537. Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE knew or should have
known that providing private legal services directly to LFT income beneficiary
and attorney Patricia Lear, Esq. in order to oppose LFT income beneficiary Mrs.
Shanda Lear-Baylor's request for an independent audit, and charging the LFT for
said professional services was self-serving, created a conflict of interest,
was not in the best interest of the LFT beneficiaries, discriminated against
certain LFT beneficiaries while favoring others like Patricia Lear, Esq., was
unethical, was fraudulent and a misuse of LFT funds and violated the duty of
undivided loyalty owed to the LFT beneficiaries and the prudent and impartial
trust administration requirements set forth under the common law and Nevada
State law.
538. The attorney fees and charges billed by CR&R and/or REESE to the LFT were taken out of and charged against the LFT remaindermen accounts
and interest in the LFT. NRS §164.340.
539. Respondents CR&R and REESE knew or should have known
that SCR 202 requires them to report professional misconduct and that Respondents
had a duty to report Patricia Lear, Esq.'s violations of professional conduct
and did not.
540. Respondents CR&R and REESE knew or should have known
that the legal advice provided to LFT income beneficiary Patricia Lear and
attorney Patricia Lear, Esq. in preparing, dictating and finalizing Patricia
Lear, Esq.'s Objection to Request for Independent Audit resulted in the excess
and breach of their contract with the LFT Trustees, and that the collusive acts
were deceitful, dishonest, fraudulent, unethical and prejudicial to the
administration of justice in violation of SCR 203(3) and SCR 203(4). See also CR&R Letter of Engagement, Sep. 1, 1983, page 1, numbered §4, Exhibit 12.
541. Respondents CR&R and REESE are also in breach of
contract and have acted in violation of the Nevada Supreme Court Rules of
Professional Conduct. SCR 158.
542. The September 1, 1983 retainer agreement further states, in pertinent
part:
"We will make every effort to expeditiously and efficiently
represent you according to the highest legal and ethical standards." [Emphasis added]
CR&R Letter of Engagement, Sep. 1, 1983, page 2,
numbered §7
Exhibit 12
543. Respondent REESE reasonably knew of the terms of his engagement
with the LFT Trustees and is in breach of contract with regards to his
obligations to act according to the "highest legal and ethical standards." Respondent REESE reasonably knew of the Nevada Supreme Court
Rules of Professional Conduct and of the attorney's oath under Supreme Court
Rules 73, which states:
Rule 73. Attorney's oath. Upon being admitted, each
applicant shall take and subscribe to the following oath:
I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR, OR AFFIRM, THAT:
I will support the Constitution and government of the United
States and of the State of Nevada;
I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and
judicial officers;
I will support, abide by and follow the Rules of
Professional Conduct as are now or may hereafter be adopted by the Supreme
Court; and
I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of an
attorney at law to the best of my knowledge and ability.
544. Petitioner has reason to believe that the covert, secret and ex-parte
communications of LFT income and outright beneficiaries of November 5 and
November 16, 2004 to Judge Breen were prepared, dictated and/or finalized by
Respondents LFT Trustee MURPHY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and/or REESE
and paid for by the LFT out of remaindermen beneficiaries' interests in the
LFT. NRS §164.340.
545. Respondent REESE willfully and knowingly engaged in breaches of
contract, violations of these Nevada Supreme Court Rules of Professional
Conduct, breach of Oath, numerous violations of the laws and Constitution of
the State of Nevada and the laws and Constitution of the United States of
America.
546. In Petitioner's numerous pleadings filed in case #PR78-2800 before the
Second Judicial District Court since March 18, 2004, Petitioner has
consistently outlined Respondent REESE's hostile and dilatory practices,
unethical obstruction and misrepresentations of fact and law.
547. In Petitioner's and Christian William Lear's pleadings dated and filed in
the instant case on February 1, 2005, Petitioner and Christian William Lear
have each outlined some of the violations of the Constitution and laws of the
State of Nevada by Respondents CR&R and REESE and Patricia
Lear, Esq.
548. As a result of Respondents CR&R and REESE's willful
abuses and violations of the Constitution and laws of the State of Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Constitution and
laws of the United States of America, this Petitioner's rights to due process
and equal protection of the law have been prejudiced, abrogated and alienated.
549. The willful abuses and violations of the Constitution and laws of the
State of Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct and the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America were committed by CR&R and/or REESE for the purpose of concealing breaches of contract, breaches
of Oath, breaches of Trust, misaccountings and fraudulent transfer and conversion of Trust property.
550. While engaging in the same systematic scheme, Respondents LFT Trustees DAYTON,
MURPHY and ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, Grant Thornton accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE have continually acted in breach of duty, breach of contract,
breach of oath, breach of numerous provisions of the Nevada Supreme Court Rules
of Professional Conduct and have engaged in multiple violations of the
Constitution and laws of the State of Nevada, of the Constitution and laws of
the United States of America and have wrongfully and fraudulently billed and
received payment for their unethical conduct, breaches, violations and frauds
from the LFT.
551. Petitioner has been damaged by the collusive, deceitful, discriminatory,
dishonest, fraudulent and unethical acts and omissions of Respondents LFT
Trustees DAYTON, MURPHY and ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, Grant Thornton accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE.
552. Respondent REESE was retained and/or hired by the LFT Trustees to
assist the Trustees in preparing true, correct, complete and accurate LFT
accounts in accordance with the statutory requirements of NRS §165.030 through §165.120. Exhibit 12.
553. Since their appointment by this Court on January 17, 1983, LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON and ROWLEY did not provide to this Court or
to Petitioner any account prepared and presented in accordance with this
Court's Order of August 13, 1982 or in accordance with NRS §165.030 through NRS §165.120 nor reflecting LFT management in accordance with the provisions of NRS
Chapter 163 and Chapter 164 as ordered by this Court.
554. Respondents LFT Trustees and Respondents CR&R and REESE have continually breached duties and obligations owed to Petitioner and other
beneficiaries, acted in contempt of this Court's Orders, and in violation of
the law and the rights of this Petitioner and as a result did significant
damage to the LFT and to the rights and interests of LFT beneficiaries.
555. Trustees' attorneys CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that
CR&R and/or REESE had a duty to beneficiaries akin to that between the
trustee and beneficiary.
"[i]n all matters connected with his trust a trustee is bound to
act in the highest good faith toward all beneficiaries, and may not obtain any
advantage over latter by the slightest misrepresentation, concealment, threat,
or adverse pressure of any kind (Civ. Code, §2228; Jones v. Stubbs (1955
136 Cal. App.2d 490, 499-500 [288 P.2d 939].) An Attorney who acts as counsel
for a trustee provides advice and guidance as to who that trustee may and must
act to fulfill his obligations to all beneficiaries. It follows that when an
attorney undertakes a relationship as adviser to a trustee, he in reality also
assumes a relationship with the beneficiary akin to that between trustee and
beneficiary."
Morales v. Field, DeGoff, Huppert & MacGowan,
99 Cal.App3d 307; 160 CalRptr 239
Also cited in Charleson v. Hardesty108 Nev. 878, 882.
556. The Nevada Supreme Court in Charleson v. Hardesty 108 Nev. 878,
882 in regard to Morales v. Field, DeGoff, Huppert & MacGowan, supra
stated:
"We agree with the California Courts that when an attorney represents
a trustee in his or her capacity as trustee, that attorney assumes a duty of
care and fiduciary duties toward the beneficiaries as a matter of law."
Charleson v. Hardesty 108 Nev. 878, 882-883, 839 P.2d
1303 (1992)
557. Respondents Trustees' attorneys CR&R and/or REESE did
not provide the competent legal advice, counsel and services with the highest
legal and ethical standards to the LFT Trustees, and while conspiring with
Trustees to violate the terms of the LFT agreement and law and while engaging
in maladministration of the Trust to the damage of Petitioner's rights and
interests, did breach the contract and did wrongfully and fraudulently bill and
receive payment from the Trust for gross negligence and malpractice.
558. Respondents Trustees' attorneys CR&R and/or REESE knew
or reasonably should have known that they were and are bound to perform all
legal services to LFT Trustees pursuant to the Nevada Supreme Court
Professional Rules of Professional Conduct, the laws and Constitution of the
State of Nevada and the laws and Constitution of the United States of America.
559. Respondents Trustees' attorneys CR&R and/or REESE, are
in breach of oath and breach of numerous provisions of the Nevada Supreme Court
Rules of Professional Conduct.
560. While knowing the terms of the contract with Respondents LFT Trustees as
well as the Orders of this Court and the requirements of the LFT agreement and
law, Respondents CR&R and REESE grossly neglected and failed
to apply and provide competent and ethical advice, counsel and services to LFT
Trustees and as a result neglected and failed to timely produce, timely file
and timely serve any true, correct, complete and accurate annual accountings
for the LFT from 1983 until 1989 and from 1989 until and including 2004. Petitioner
incorporates and reiterates herein in its entirety section 6.5.3 in particular.
561. While knowing the terms of the contract with LFT Trustees as well as the
Orders of this Court and the requirements of the LFT agreement and law, CR&R and REESE grossly neglected and failed to apply and provide competent
and ethical advice, counsel and services to LFT Trustees and as a result
conspired with LFT Trustees to change the terms and conditions of the Last Will and Testament of WPLSr and the LFT agreement by withholding and failing to
timely and annually pay beneficiaries of the LFT from 1983 about 1992.
562. While knowing that this Court's Orders, the laws and the terms and
conditions of the LFT agreement had been violated, and while knowing that the
distributions of the Trust property and assets had not been properly accounted
for and disbursed, CR&R and/or REESE, in conspiracy with LFT
Trustees coerced, influenced and bribed LFT income and outright beneficiaries
to give their written permission and consent to change the terms and conditions
of the LFT agreement. Exhibit 20.
563. While knowing that this Court's Orders, the laws of the State of Nevada and
the terms and conditions of the LFT agreement had been violated, and while
knowing that the distributions of the Trust property and assets had not been
properly accounted for and disbursed, CR&R and/or REESE, in
conspiracy with LFT Trustees coerced, influenced and bribed LFT income and
outright beneficiaries to give their written permission and consent to exclude
remaindermen beneficiaries from receiving any notice, annual accountings or
other relevant information about the LFT, including but not limited to settlements, litigation, management, or the unlawful conversion, and prohibited transfer and
distribution of LFT property and assets. Exhibit 20.
564. While knowing that this Court's Orders, the laws and the terms and
conditions of the LFT agreement had been violated, and while knowing that the
distributions of the Trust property and assets had not been properly accounted
for and disbursed, CR&R and/or REESE, in conspiracy with LFT
Trustees changed the terms and conditions of the LFT agreement without the
knowledge and consent of this Petitioner and other remaindermen beneficiaries,
and thereafter willfully and knowingly refused to give and serve notices, annual accountings or any other relevant information about the LFT and its
management to Petitioner and other remaindermen beneficiaries. Exhibit 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24.
565. While knowing that this Court's Orders, the laws and the terms and
conditions of the LFT agreement had been violated, and while knowing that the
distributions of the Trust property and assets had not been properly accounted
for and disbursed, CR&R and/or REESE, in conspiracy with LFT
Trustees, secretly and covertly engaged in activities to wrongfully and
fraudulently convert and transfer principal capital, property, income and
assets of the LFT in which Petitioner and other remaindermen who have and had a
vested right and interest to LFT beneficiaries who have no right to such
distributions or to third parties.
566. By devising and implementing the systematic scheme to continually
deprive Petitioner and others of notices, annual accountings, other information
and due process, CR&R and/or REESE in collusion with LFT Trustees, did secretly transfer, convert, reduce and alienate Petitioner from his rights and
interests in the valuable property and assets of the LFT.
567. Petitioner reiterates and incorporates all of the allegations set forth
in this Petition as if they were set forth herein in their entirety.
568. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents knew or should have known that
the LFT was to be managed for and in the best interests of all the
beneficiaries pursuant to NRS §164.720 and the principles of equity.
569. Respondents LFT Trustees and in particular LFT Trustee and Grant Thornton accountant MURPHY in collusion with Respondent Trustees' attorneys CR&R and/or REESE, in furtherance of their schemes to defraud or otherwise
imprudently impoverish the LFT and thereby reduce and alienate remaindermen
beneficiaries' rights and interests in the LFT, have acted in a hostile,
malicious, retaliatory and vindictive manner towards beneficiaries of the LFT
and have continually obstructed this Petitioner's discovery of relevant Trust
records and information regarding the accountings and management of the LFT.
570. Respondents LFT Trustees and LFT Trust attorneys CR&R and/or REESE have devised and implemented a systematic scheme to improperly induce, threaten,
and coerce LFT beneficiaries. This methodology was used when LFT beneficiaries
did not submit to Trustees' dictatorial and capricious designs and edicts.
Respondents' scheme and acts include but are not limited to: 1) LFT Trustees
and their attorney have withheld, threatened to withhold or diminished payments
due and owing to income beneficiaries 2) have purposely escalated the costs of
managing the LFT in their unsuccessful litigation against the audit of the LFT
3) engaged in a series of discriminatory and hostile actions to prevent
Petitioner from securing his rights and interests under the LFT 4) used undue
and improper influence on the Court as a means to disqualify and alienate all
of the rights and interests of a remainderman beneficiary, Christian William
Lear 5) improperly influenced and enlisted the aid of other beneficiaries to go
against those seeking to secure their rights and interests under the LFT 6)
improperly used Trust funds for legal fees in order to disqualify and wholly
alienate Christian William Lear, 7) obstructed legal process and used unethical
practices with the aid of others including but not limited to Patricia Lear,
Esq. 8) acted in a hostile, malicious, retaliatory and vindictive manner toward
beneficiaries 9) filed a Petition for Instructions with this Court which sought
to abrogate beneficiaries' right to information 10) improperly used LFT funds
to bribe and corrupt the LFT's income and outright beneficiaries and 11) made a
veiled threat to have this Petitioner disqualified under the LFT.
571. Respondents' pattern of conduct of hostilities and excesses were and are
still being used against those beneficiaries who sought and seek to have the
Trust managed in accordance with one or more of the following: 1) the intent of
William P. Lear, Sr., his Last Will and Testament, 2) the LFT agreement, 3) the
Constitution and laws of the State of Nevada and 4) the Constitution and laws
of the United States of America, and require specific performance.
572. Respondents LFT Trustees and Trust attorney REESE are furthering
their bad faith management of the Trust by maliciously making veiled threats to
disqualify and alienate Petitioner from the LFT upon false and unfounded
grounds that Petitioner has questioned the Trust instrument when Petitioner was
and is in fact questioning the legitimacy of Trustees' acts and omissions after
the Trustees and their attorney REESE engaged in numerous violations of
their fiduciary duties to Petitioner and others and have violated Petitioner's
rights to due process and equal protection of the law, over a period exceeding
twenty years. See Motion to Correct Order and to Issue Order (Nov 23,
2004) by Petitioner, Feb. 1, 2005 and Trustees' Opposition thereto, filed Feb.
14, 2005, see also Petitioner's Objection to Seventeenth Intermediate
Accounting of Trustees of Lear Family Trust filed in the instant case on
October 11, 2004.
573. Respondents LFT Trustees and Trustees' attorneys CR&R and/or REESE threatened Petitioner in an improper and unethical attempt to intimidate
Petitioner out of securing and protecting his rights and interests in the LFT.
Said Respondents knew or should have known that their acts and omissions are
arbitrary, capricious, hostile, malicious, retaliatory, and vindictive and
grossly exceed the powers vested in Trustees and Trust attorney REESE. Huey
v. Davis 556 S.W.2d 680, 865, Cornell v. Swisher County 78 S.W. 2d
1072, 1074.
574. Respondents LFT Trustees knew or should have known that they are not
excused by this Petitioner from fully and faithfully performing their fiduciary obligations under the LFT agreement, and as required by law. NRS §163.170, NRS
§165.170.
575. Respondents LFT Trustees knew or should have known that they are not
authorized to exceed the authority granted by the Trust instrument. See 90 CJS Trusts §293 & 90A CJS Trusts §345 and NRS §163.115, NRS §163.023.
576. Respondents knew or should have known that all of the above acts, omissions,
threats of disqualifications and alienations were performed and given effect
under the advice, counsel and consent of CR&R and/or REESE. CR&R are liable for any and all malpractice and damages that result from
malpractice, unethical conduct, and abuse of legal process. Jewett v. Patt, 591 P2d 1151, 1979. See also Ronald E. Mallen and Jeffrey M. Smith, Legal Malpractice 5th Edition, (West Group, St. Paul, Minn., 2000) Volume 4,
Chapter 32. Trustees are removable under NRS §165.200 and NRS §163.190.
577. Respondents LFT Trustees and Trust attorney REESE have
consistently litigated against greater transparency of their management and
accounting practices and while knowing of the non-existent and deficient
accountings and mismanagement of the LFT, used threats of enlarged costs to the
LFT for performing the work of LFT Trustees, enlarged and extra costs of
performing true, correct, complete and accurate accountings of the LFT,
threatened reduction or complete shutoff of benefits to outright and income
beneficiaries, enlarged and extra costs for litigation, exclusion and alienation of beneficiary rights and interests in the LFT, and other methods of fear,
damage and retaliation while Respondents evaded and breached Trust duties and
obligations, breached contracts and used the LFT for self-serving purposes and
enrichment that was not in the best interests of the LFT or the LFT
beneficiaries.
578. Respondents LFT Trustees, knew that many if not all of the income and
outright beneficiaries suffered from the weakness of self-interest and greed
and that by corrupting and compromising these same income and the outright
beneficiaries they could then use these same beneficiaries to further LFT
Trustees' schemes, artifices, mismanagement, imprudence, and fraud, at the
expense of remaindermen beneficiaries by 1) enlisting the aid of income
beneficiaries to prevent remaindermen beneficiaries from gaining access to any
information about the LFT and then 2) by causing division and strife within the
Lear family if the LFT's income beneficiaries did not remain silent or support the
LFT Trustees' concealment and continued mismanagement, imprudence and fraud in
regard to the LFT.
579. Respondents LFT Trustees' implementation of their systematic scheme
caused family duress and severance of any and all relationships between this
Petitioner and his father,
580. WPLJr. On or about April 17, 2004, Petitioner's father, William P.
Lear, Jr., hereinafter WPLJr, wrote to Petitioner threatening Petitioner:
"While I have not always been happy with some of the decisions
the Trustees have taken, it is, nonetheless, not incumbent upon you to inject
yourselves into these matters. You may be successful in obtaining the
various documents you have requested but at your own peril because you risk
the alienation of all other participants in the Trust - including me. It
also increases the costs to all of us."
April 17, 2004 email from William P. Lear, Jr. to Petitioner
[Emphasis added]
Exhibit 60, p. #478
581. On April 22, 2004 Petitioner responded to WPLJr in part and as follows:
"Finally, I am unable to reconcile your present position, asking
us to reconsider our position regarding obtaining Trust documents - which we are
entitled to - and
your statements during one of the last conversations we've had. During said
conversation you stated to me that the Trustees were corrupt, their attorney
was corrupt and that attorneys in Reno in general are corrupt and that all
those involved, and others, have been living at the expense of the Lear family
for years, that it would cost way to much to bring an action in court to
correct matters and that you certainly were not prepared to sue, that it was
too complicated, too expensive and that you wouldn't get a fair trial in Reno. What happened?"
Petitioner's April 22, 2004 letter to WPLJr
via email and certified mail
[Emphasis added]
Exhibit 61, p. #481, 5th paragraph
582. WPLJr's only response to Petitioner's letter of April 22, 2004 confirmed
that WPLJr's threat of April 17, 2004 was real:
"This is Part 1 of a two-part response to your emailed message
to me of April 22nd. Part 2 to follow in due course.
Please remove our email and other addresses from your address
books.
Please do not contact us any further by mail, phone, fax or
email.
William P. Lear, Jr.
Brenda V. Lear"
April 26, 2004 email from WPLJr to Petitioner
[Emphasis added]
Exhibit 62, p. #484
583. The second phase "Part 2" of WPLJr's response to Petitioner and CWL was
to collude with LFT Trustees and REESE to aid in hindering and
obstructing this Petitioner and his brother's from gaining reasonable access to
LFT books, records, papers, documents and information and to introduce them to
Mr. Luc Hafner, Esq. an attorney in Switzerland who, despite a conflict of
interest, Mr. Hafner is WPLJr's attorney, also provided an opinion to the LFT
which was made in aid of the disqualification of Petitioner's brother,
Christian William Lear. Exhibit 65, p. #540 & 66 p. #542.
584. Respondents LFT Trustees and Trustees' attorney REESE have continually
engaged in this hostile pattern of conduct in furtherance of Trustees'
concealments of missing assets, mismanagement, misallocation of principal and
income, misconduct, negligence, nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance.
585. Respondents LFT Trustees and CR&R and REESE knew or
should have known that they are not allowed or entitled to use LFT funds in
defense of their breach(es) of Trust and while knowing that no allowances are
to be made for costs and expenses which are unnecessary and avoidable, LFT
Trustees, CR&R and REESE, engaged in a pattern of imprudent
dealings as well as unnecessary and avoidable litigation that were billed and charged to the LFT and as against this Petitioner's rights and
interests in the LFT. 90A C.J.S. Trusts §648.
586. Respondents LFT Trustees DAYTON and ROWLEY were grossly
negligent and are liable for their failure to restrain LFT Trustee MURPHY and LFT attorneys CR&R and/or REESE from engaging in a
pattern of hostile, malicious, and retaliatory actions and for breach of Trust
and contract. NRS §163.110.
587. Respondents LFT Trustees and Trustee's attorney REESE have
continually obstructed this Petitioner's requests for relevant books, records,
papers, documents and information, through discovery and other legal process
and communications.
588. Due to the aforesaid hostile, malicious and retaliatory acts and the
continued obstruction and refusal to provide Petitioner with relevant
information Respondents have also caused Petitioner excessive costs in
litigation and have unnecessarily delayed and obstructed said litigation
process in furtherance of the same pattern of hostile and malicious acts as
continually exhibited by LFT Trustees, CR&R and REESE.
