|0.00|> Howard versus Daly on page 8 of Appel's reply brief dated February 17th claiming the same in the reply brief as in the petition for rehearing.<|8.00|><|8.00|> To wit, that such authority does not allow the court to impose a constructive trust.<|12.00|><|12.00|> Back up, back up.<|13.00|><|13.00|> This is a good romantic.<|15.00|><|15.00|> Prince is up.<|16.00|><|16.00|> All right, Jean, would you date Tate for February the 4th?<|19.00|><|19.00|> All right, Tate should be dated...<|20.00|><|20.00|> Number two.<|21.00|><|21.00|> Number two for February 4th.<|23.00|><|23.00|> Thank you, sweetie.<|24.00|><|24.00|> It really did work out this way.<|26.00|><|26.00|> You know, Mary that was here,<|28.00|><|28.00|> she and Jean got into a terrible argument<|30.00|><|30.00|> because they both thought Paul was so cute. As a matter of fact just the other day I suggested that perhaps Paul and I, I live out the ranch out there which is about 10 miles out and rather rough surroundings, I said maybe I should rent a room or two from Paul and Paul says well Mary's come in for two months in about two weeks or so. I said, Paul, you're just going to have to make up your mind, me or Mary.

Or, maybe he's still concerned about you and Mary. Well, we do have a lot of fun around here, guys. To wit that such authority does not allow the court to impose a constructive trust where the person upon whom the trust was imposed was supposedly not heard." This same argument was made, and our attorney refers to page 8, lines 14 to 21 of the appellant's reply brief. Remember what I said, you can't rehash the same argument. This is what he's doing here. The same argument was made. Such and such a page. This argument was also made at the December 14, 1995 oral argument. I hope everybody's seen or heard that tape. The argument that Green was not heard was already made in his opening brief under the argument entitled, George Green stands condemned as a swindler without being heard.

Hm? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What?

What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What?

What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What?

What? What? What? What? What? What? of his third argument, commencing on page 4, was, George Green was not heard. This argument consumed approximately one and one-and-a-half pages of such reply brief.

The response to the argument, Green had not been heard, was capably made, and the respondents answering brief filed her in on March 22, 1995. The first argument of such answering brief states, a party who has been heard may lose wrongfully held property. This argument commences on page 5, line 18 of such brief and concludes at page 9, line 8. Yes, their argument. The litany of another argument... Wait, there's something missing here somewhere. There's something written in.

The litany of incredulous prevarications is noted for George Green himself. Another argument in the answering brief similarly shows that Green had been hurt. It states, a swindler who has been hurt may be called a swindler. Wait a minute. Was that in Mr. Horton's brief? Yeah, that's in Horton's brief. Would you read it again, please? This is Horton presenting the best picture of his own client. He says, wait a minute, court. This is our, a swindler who has been heard may be called a swindler. This argument commences on page 12, followed by the next argument concerning Green being heard sufficiently at trial for the court to determine that Green did not deserve to be heard any further.

Remember at the trial the judge said he'd heard enough. He'd heard Mr. Green change his mind so many times, he really came down hard on Green during the actual trial. This argument states, the judge had the power to terminate the action after Green testified and plaintiff rested its case. Commenced on page 14, lines 13, and terminates on page 50. The petition for rehearing is nothing more than a blatant effort to re-argue the previously addressed issue of whether Green was entitled to prevaricate more than he already had. Third, this is our attorney's summation. He says, the petition for rehearing. By reattaching numerous and unauthenticated exhibits to his petition for rehearing, Green attempts to raise new points contrary to Nevada rules appellate procedure. A party may not raise new point for the first time on rehearing.

This is another ground for striking the frivolous petition. Fault four. The Supreme Court did not misapprehend or overlook anything. The court may consider re-hearings in the following circumstances. When it appears that the court has overlooked or misapprehended a material matter in the record, or for such other circumstances as will promote substantial justice. Although Green claims the Nevada Supreme Court misapprehended or overlooked Green's claim right to be heard, and to be allowed to commit further perjury, it is clear from the decision that nothing was misapprehended or overlooked. In fact, in the January 4, 1996 order dismissing the appeal, the per curiam dismissed the language. That means that the entire court was in agreement, not just the majority, the whole court. Concluded on page 4 with the following language, After thoroughly, underlined, examining the substantive plausibility of all of Green's arguments on appeal, we conclude that Green's arguments lack merit. This quote of language should be regarded as an admonition to Green not to waste even more time and resources of the Nevada Supreme Court by filing any motion for reconsideration. Alternatively, if a waste more time and resources of the Nevada Supreme Court by filing any motion for reconsideration.

Alternatively, oh I see he's repeating himself here, we didn't catch that one Karen. Alternatively, if a motion for reconsideration is filed, it's Karen's fault, it had better be meritorious rather than a repeat of previously failed arguments. It is apparent that Green failed to heed such warnings and that sanctions in accordance with NRAP 38 should be levied against the self-proclaimed multimillionaire George Green and or his consul David Horton for the blatant misuse of the appellate process by unnecessary delaying it with Green's frivolous petition for rehearing. Phoenix provided ample authority for the proposition that one who prevaricates is not entitled to be indulged to be heard in a protected trial. Respondents motioned to dismiss appeal based upon lack of standing filed herein on June 16, 1995.

Green's credibility was so destroyed and the facts were so beyond refute from the testimony that Green had already given at trial that Judge Gamble saw no point in prolonging the inevitable. Green never provided anything to attempt to dissuade the Nevada Supreme Court justices that a confirmed liar has no right to be heard further. Green should be thankful that he has not been incarcerated for his embezzlement instead of boldly asserting that all five members of the Nevada Supreme Court were mistaken when they applied their respective signatures to the aforesaid order, dismissing appeal, which recited a thorough examination of all of Green's arguments as undertaken. The petition for rehearing is an affront to the Nevada Supreme Court, which should not be condoned. Conclusion, a thorough examination was undertaken of all of Green's arguments, simply repeating some of his arguments for further review should not be tolerated. Greene and or his attorney Dave Horton should be sanctioned for filing such frivolous petitions. And hopefully we're going to hear a response within the next two weeks on that.

Okay, okay. What do we have left here? This is a... Well, you've got the one. This, this of course was Judge Gamble. And most of you know who that is. Now, you have to change your sheet and hood and move back to Judge Gamble's court, realizing that this is where George Abbott is now petitioning all of his stuff. Okay. You have to remember, when we respond to anything by George Abbott, and when we read anything by George Abbott, his forte is in journalism, newspaper writing. I apologize to Rick about this one. George Abbott is a graduate of the journalism school of Nebraska University, and he loves to play with words and sentences and phrases and all that type. He is an exponent, really an exponent, of yellow journalism at the worst.

And works with the Associated Press. Yes, he has a direct feed in line with the Associated Press and he uses that contact and his knowledge of that to the utmost. This is called the reply of plaintiffs to defendants' opposition to motion for appointment of a receiver, plaintiffs' opposition to cross motion for sanctions. And plaintiffs, George Abbott is the one who filed this ridiculous complaint in December of 94.

We have thrown all of his complaints and amended complaints out of court. To this date he does not have a complaint on file yet. And he's not going to be able to have a complaint on file. So he's trying desperately to do something with the court. So he says here plaintiff's by and through their undersigned attorney, submit herewith a plaintiff's reply to defendant's opposition to motion for appointment of receiver and plaintiff's initial opposition to defendant's cross motion. Then he goes on. All right. AJ says the only thing we need out of this is... You have to also note that every paper that this man files will not have a standard motion. He develops his own, and he creates his own cases. you will find that on his first motions he will have listed Eleanor Schrafer with John Schrafer and Rod McBroom and etc. etc.

And it will be different. George Green will be off the bottom, but in the meanwhile George Green will make his series of calls saying that he now had Sherry Yont and Betty Tootin joining with him and others and others because he wasn't quite sure what would fly with Robb Ince at the time that was being negotiated. So he would tell ones that Echols already packed ready to leave Peru, Chile, South America, you name it, he told. And you better get on my bandwagon because I am your knight in shining armor. I'm going to spearhead this attempt once and for all into receivership and pull them down. Logic. Put it into receivership, pull it down, and you are expected to join with him when his lawyer cannot even get the right names on the front of the paper.

So you have to know that this is gone and gone and gone and gone, and the very last one he entered was on the basis of an affidavit of Leon Ford and Ann Beam. It's just, it's insane. But then came along, and the reason that they felt free to do this was because they had taken the corporate records out of Court Christie's office. And the reason that he can't find any notation about the ordering of those documents is because the little notation was put in the box with the records. Remind Court of that, please. He continues to look to see if he was asked by phone or asked by... when he originally pulled those documents out and the reason they were separate.

So now we've gone all this way and they are trying to hold these cases up, the gold part, in Gamble's court, because see, the Supreme Court would hand it back down to that original order by Gamble. It's where Abbott has gone to plead for more time for receivership. And they are pleading for an oral argument so that these ones will be required to bring the nothing that they have in there so that everybody in the world can see what nothing looks like. Oh, my goodness, I am torn between pushing that thing through and demanding an oral viewing viewing and wiping them out before it stops. Because I can't wait to see them come in there and lay out those corporate records that they have tampered with and stolen.

So I won't divulge the status of the corporate records or the merits of the Institute. I believe that Mr. Dixon came over and worked for an evening with E.J. and I believe that he has been shown exactly how things are managed and I think it was a mind blower. And you're dealing with gold on the rise, people. And Mr. Ecker is handling it just exactly like we decided to do it. And it will not be long before there will not even be a question, not a question, about the management of the Phoenix Institute. But I would like for you to hear, if you've got it there, Mr. Abbott's last petition to them. Every time you think he cannot come up with another silly thing, he does.

And the reason that he can get away with it is he never pays the fees. He goes down and he enters these things, and because he is an attorney, he can get away with it. You see, it didn't cost Rick Martin very much to go down and file on his own behalf. It is when you start paying lawyers and therefore they haven't seen anything yet because so many people have been personally slandered and liable here that you can go for the next 200 years on improper cases and they've got to answer because they are under the shelter of their corporations. And the law did pass just as unconstitutionally that if you're a corporation you have to have an attorney. But it stands with more merit in a court than all the rest of this.

So if you've got it there for the pure interest of it, I think you should put it on the record. Well, first of all, I'd like to speak in defense of George Abbott. George Abbott usually operates from alcoholic stupor. But the situation is even more worse than you described, Mr. Mayor. The reason he's asking for this oral argument is we have thrown him out of court so many times and he has not been able to prepare a complaint. He has the nerve out of this alcoholic stupor to ask us, to force us to come into court and help him prepare the complaint so that he can sue us. That's what he wants. Well, he's interesting.

And he has two, he has one thing going, the old boys club, of which Gamble, of course, in that local little community is obviously they share social activities. And yet, in the trial, where George didn't get his hearing that he keeps complaining about but he was on the witness stand for a day and a half, you know, this sort of thing, the judge actually made him leave the courtroom, threw him out of the courtroom. He had no business in there to start with and they parked Leon out in the hall. And there was Leon telling all of their secrets to Jim Dixon. They weren't going to sign that. They were going to get as much money from you, from your institute, as they could, before you discovered they hadn't signed the agreement. Now that is evil. It suits my purpose.

Did you say the gold is still being held up and not delivered? Right. The motion for rehearing held up the gold. So Mr. Dave Woolverton won't get the gold for probably another two or three weeks. Okay, before I read the short conclusion, I should add to what the commander just said. In 1986, if everybody remembers, the State Bar of Nevada came down hard on George Abbott, issued a public recommend, and made a finding that he was an attorney who would file cases where no causes of action existed, he would dream up cases and he would do so with malice in his heart. This was 1986? 1986.

Now here's the conclusion. On all of the foregoing, the opposition of the defendant should be rejected and the cross motion summarily rejected. Now this is George Abbott saying this. Plaintiffs then will file supplemental papers related to receivership and based upon very informative documents received in the past 96 hours. Now this is dated the 18th and the 22nd of January of 1996 and here it is sometime in February and we have not received anything further than this one here. Well, they don't know what to do with those corporate records. Be damned if they do, be damned if they don't. We know what to do with them if they surface.

Okay, this is number gene three. It's called corrected reply plaintiffs to defendants opposition to motion for appointment of a receiver, plaintiffs opposition to motion. Okay. If I remember this just had some very minor thing. Is there anything in this? Okay, that looks longer. Memorandum of Points and Authorities. For points and authorities in support of plaintiff's reply to defendant's opposition to appointment, to motion for appointment of a receiver, as well as in support of plaintiff's initial opposition to defendant's cross motion for request for sanctions, the matter set forth, set out following, is submitted.

One, opposition to appointment of a receiver. Defendant, that has to be us, opposes the motion for plans for appointment of a receiver on two basic grounds. Oh, I see what George Abbott is doing. He's going back, taking excerpts from what we have done. These are the arguments he claims we're raising. He's going to respond to them. He says, first of all, he's going to respond in reverse order. The courts always appreciate that. I'll get it.

This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this receivership application, arguing summarily that Attorney Abbott has failed to even attempt to establish a jurisdiction of this court by sending forth any fact indicating the registered office is located within Douglas County, Nevada. The opposition of defendants on the jurisdiction defect, often used plaintiffs believe where venue is a more or only appropriate term must be rejected by reference only to the handful of items cited. Defendants' assertion that under NRS 78, any application must be made in registered office. Plaintiffs believe that defendants waive their right to move for change of venue by failing to comply with the provisions of NRS 13-050 reading, cases in which venue may be changed. If the county designated for that purpose in the complaint be not the proper county, the action may notwithstanding be tried therein unless the defendant before the time for answering expires demand in writing that the place of trial thereon by consent of the parties.

In other words, this is basic, basic law. If you're an attorney and you get a client that served with his complaint, if you want to raise the issue of wrong venue, you have to do it before you answer. If you answer, it's just common sense. You just waive that right. However, the man has never got a complaint on file, so we have no duty yet to raise that issue. He's too dumb to realize that. Then he goes on, when presented, a defendant shall serve his answer within 20 days after the service of the summons and complaint upon him. Then he refers to the requisite rule 12a, service by mail was completed October 5th, defendants did not, before the time for answering expired, make demand in writing that the trial be held in the proper count.

That's true, we didn't. Thus, defendants, by not making such demand within the required 23 days, waived the right to do so. Wrong, George. From the moment then, for more than 100 years, Nevada Supreme Court decision such and such, the object of the demand is to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to correct his error by amendment, stipulation, or otherwise without the expense and delay of a motion. By failing to make the demand respondents waived the right to have the case heard in Eureka County and the action became triable in Lincoln County. Those are both in Nevada, I hope.

Should defendants arguably How do you know that, John? You don't even know where your goal is. Points. Should defendants arguably and predictably on performance of their counsel to date attempt a different spin on the foregoing, then the citations to other statutory and case authority will make unnecessary sole dependence by plaintiffs upon the application of NRS 78. Caption heading. Full jurisdiction for the receivership motion to be heard in this Douglas County venue resides in the provisions of NRS 32. He still relied upon the fact that we didn't move for change of venue.

He says, for whatever reason, whether from oversight or pure intent to deceive them in this court, whether from accident or simple negligence, defend us, 11 pages and some 3,000 words, including traditional Phoenix Institute and Council, add homonym, invective and unbridled, what's that last word? Unvital. Unvital. Unvital. Inextricably and inextricably. Betrayal, sorry. Betrayal.

I've practiced 30 years and never used that word. Betrayal. Have laced their opposition and their inextricably admixed cross-motion with the words and language unceasingly employed by the current law firm in their counsel of record. Filing such frivolous motions contempt the court for allegedly... I'm a lost commander, Andy. Laughter Okay.

Contempt the court for allegedly abusing process of proceedings of the court. Attorney at it cannot feign mistake or ignorance of the law as an excuse for this defective application. Defendants have done so pretending or demonstrating their own feigned mistake or ignorance of the law or the avenue open to the complaining plaintiffs. Defendants and their attorneys, two of the successors to six previous attorneys who have represented the Phoenix Institute in the incident dispute, know or are probably charged with knowing the following side effects.

Receivers. Cases in which a receiver may be appointed. A receiver may be appointed by the court in which an action is pending or by the judge thereof. Five. This is five out of six. In the cases where a corporation has been dissolved or is insolvent or in imminent danger of insolvency or has forfeited its corporate rights. Six. In all other cases where receivers have heretofore been appointed by the usages of the Courts of Equity. Remember, we've got the Law of Equity. Defendants must agree that the Ninth Judicial District of the Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Douglas is the court in which an action is pending, and that within case is a subject action pending.

Defendant must agree that plaintiffs' motion for appointment of a receiver have based their request enter alia, among other things, upon the verified First Amendment complaint file that was served in these proceedings on October 6 and pursuant to NRS chapters 32 and 78. Defendants' arguments characterizing various amended complaint allegations as defective are misplaced. He says we completely misunderstand his position. Defendants have, that's us, for the tenth or eleventh time since October 5th and 6th the allegations of the pending amended complaint. The pending amended complaint. We've been through five or six of those pending amended complaints, I think.

Uniformly expressing the belief or conviction or undoubtedness that this court will dismiss or will throw out the scandalous and frivolous and baseless amended complaint out of the court and besides defendants have full and adequate defenses against plaintiffs' phony claims. True. We suggest this ignores guidelines heretofore laid down by the Senior Department, Department 1 presiding judge. Under circumstances very closely paralleling the incident case, case number one now appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada, Judge Gamble, by order entered on March 15, 1993, laid down these guidelines where motions to strike and dismiss had been filed by defendants. On January 20th, he says that Judge Gamble issued a defendant's file of motion to strike portion of plaintiff's complaint and a separate motion to dismiss plaintiff's second, third, and fourth claims for relief. True. Motion to strike. Defendants argue that portions of paragraph two of the complaint are immaterial as plaintiff does not seek relief in this complaint for the alleged abuse. Impertinent and scandalous and should be stricken. From the time of the original filing of this action, continued abuse of the litigation process by the defendants and their counsel, as well as undertaking by each of them to engage in actions to increase costs unreasonably and fictitiously. Defendants further argue that plaintiff's complaint is in violation of NRCP 8, which sets forth general rules of pleading, that is, that the complaint shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment. You see, he's been thrown, the court has thrown him out because he has not been able to respond with that type of a complaint.

Plaintiff in opposition argues that motions to strike are not favored and are usually denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to controversy and may cause prejudice. That's true. So the courts don't throw him out unless they're totally frivolous. He's been thrown out at least three times in the last year. He's just hanging by the odor of his breath. As FRCP 12-F is identical, the court noted with regards to motions of strike, such motions will not ordinarily be granted unless it is apparent that the allegations sought to be stricken can have no possible relation to the controversy. Such motions are considered time wasters and are not favored.

Where the allegations cannot harm the defendants under proper judicial supervision, they should be permitted to remain in the pleading. This is where he's pleading with the court to allow him to bring us into court under judicial supervision and have us help him prepare this complaint so he can sue us. We don't like that. Conclusion. On all the foregoing, the opposition of the defendant should be rejected and the cross motion summarily rejected. Plaintiffs will file supplemental papers related to receivership and based upon very informative documents received in the past 96 hours. And that was way back on the 18th of January. We have duplicate page there. Carrie missed that one too. That would be good help.

When you overpay them like that. This is our reply to his opposition. Okay. Comes now, Defendants Phoenix Institute for Research and Education, the Nevada Corporation, represented by our attorneys. Plaintiffs, okay, plaintiffs, this is us, plaintiffs have failed to oppose the requested sanctions and contempt issuance. Plaintiffs' opposition filed by Attorney Abbott fails to squarely address the cross-motion requesting sanctions. May I clear that up? This is us speaking. This is not us. When you said, this is us, this sounds like this is what we're saying, and this is actually what Abbott is saying.

Yeah, I criticize you, Abbott. Yeah, yeah. Laughter. We've got to get a lawyer to sort this out. One of us is a straight man here. Laughter. We can't have a lawyer. We've got all these high priced people. Laughter. Plaintiff's opposition filed by attorney Abbott fails to squarely address a cross motion requesting sanctions and the issuance of an order to show cause in re contempt for allegedly abusing the processes of the court.

Actually E.J. this was in reference to this, maybe I should take this one out of order. Comes now to Defendant's Phoenix Institute and hereby moves to strike the reply of plaintiffs to defendant's opposition to motion for appointment of receiver. Okay, this motion is based upon the ground that every such reply was due no later than January the 18th. This is another thing, again, he's late on it. Alright, this is in the 9th Judiciary District, right? He had a reply due by January the 18th in this court. He missed that. So this motion based upon the pleadings and papers filed herein are memorandum of points of authorities. Phoenix and Carson filed and served upon defense by mail their defendant's opposition to motion for appointment of a receiver in cross motion. In response plaintiffs filed and served by mail a reply of plaintiffs defendant's opposition to motion for appointment of a receiver. This was filed by filing and serving on January 24th a corrected version of such document. George Abbott even corrected himself, but it was still wrong.

Both documents were filed in an untimely manner and therefore should be stricken. See, the court has very precise rules. You must stay within those rules, and Abbott just keeps ignoring those rules. The reply was supposed to be filed and served no later than January 18th, eight days after service and filing of the opposition to which it replies. Nevada Rule 6b, there has been no required showing or excusable neglect to attempt to seek relief from this latest missed deadline by Attorney Abbott. This reply has been a timely file. So we just, we're just trying to be like the surgeon going over the scalpel and go right to the heart of the matter and bypassing all of this BS. This is our reply to plaintiff's opposition to cross motions for requests for sanctions. One, plaintiffs, that means the bad guys, have failed to oppose the requested sanctions and contempt issuance. Plaintiff's opposition filed by Attorney Abbott fails to squarely address the cross motion requesting sanctions and the issuance of an order shall cause in rank contempt for allegedly abusing the process or proceedings of this court.

The opposition starts with room maneuver one on line seven, page two, of his purported opposition. This section is entitled, Opposition to Appointment of a Receiver, but it is followed by the conclusion, Consequently, it appears he left out a Roman numeral II, pertaining to why sanctions in the order show cause in which contempt should not issue. Incidentally, any proffered reply to the opposition to the reply of appointment of a receiver is also untimely, the reply deadline being January 18th. If the so-called opposition to if the so-called reply to opposition to appointment of the receiver can be construed as an opposition to the sanctions in order to show cause and write contempt, it fails in this aspect for the reasons set forth below. One, Attorney Abbott has concealed, oh this is interesting people, listen to this, Attorney Abbott has concealed controlling venue authority. Attorney Abbott claims a venue waiver has occurred because Phoenix and Carson have not demanded within 20 days of service of the amended complaint that venue be changed.

Attorney Abbott, in citing several authorities pertaining to waiver of venue, surely must have read the controlling case of Rendano v. Ballot. This is a 1984 case. In Rendano, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the time for filing a demand in motion for change of venue runs from the time to respond to the amended complaint. He's never been able to file the amended complaint. Not the original complaint which was in Rendano, as it are in fact, ordered to be amended pursuant to a successful challenge to the original complaint. Phoenix and Carson successfully challenged the original complaint and have successfully filed a timely challenge to the amended complaint, which remains pending. Even if this latest challenge is unsuccessful, Phoenix and Carson will still be permitted additional time to file the respective answers and to make the demand for change of venue. It appears much more likely that the amended complaint will be ordered amended again.

By the way, we did change that. This is not our changed version. We didn't like the way that our attorney had that, so we changed that. In the event this action is not dismissed, we struck all that the court might grant an amended complaint again. We went strictly for a motion to dismiss. The suggestion the venue has somehow been waived in view of the vendetta holding is totally baseless and it has been made in bad faith. Next paragraph. Attorney Abbott attempts to mislead this court to justify the appointment of a receiver. In order to circumvent the patent jurisdictional defects of the receivership application, determination, Attorney Abbott asked this court to ignore the allegations of his sixth claim for relief set forth in the complaint. These allegations commence with paragraph 56 of line 26 of page 18 and terminate on line 8 of page 20. The gist of this claim is that plaintiffs have established sufficient facts to justify the appointment of a receiver in accordance with NRS 78. Phoenix and Carson have conclusively demonstrated that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the motion and subsequent required hearing on the appointment of a receiver because the complaint is filed with the wrong county. Further, plaintiffs concede that they have not established themselves as requisite holders of 10% of the outstanding indebtedness of Phoenix. They also have failed to show that Phoenix is insolvent, that Phoenix has suspended its ordinary business for one of money to carry out its ordinary business, or that its business has been and is being conducted at a great loss and greatly prejudicial to the interests of its creditor.

They have failed to prove any of those things. Attorney Abbott still has not responded to the previous order to show cause requiring him to establish said counsel's right to represent Eleanor Schofield's related claims. Attorney Abbott now asks that this court ignore this flagrant deficiency in its contemptuous conduct and instead appoint a receiver based upon an as yet unpleaded claim for relief. This unstated claim ignores requirements of NRS Chapter 78 concerning the specific allegations and requirements for the appointment of a receiver, and instead relies solely on the general language of NRS Chapter 32 concerning the appointment of a receiver. A further insult to this Court's intelligence is found on page 5, lines 19 to 22 of the opposition, in which without addressing any of the shortcomings of the motion for appointment of a receiver, Attorney Abbott persists in claiming he has met all of the requirements of NRS chapters 32 and 78, based upon the conclusory allegations of the First Amendment complaint. Attorney Abbott's arguments for appointment of a receiver are a gross distortion, lacking substantiation of the allegations of his own First Amendment complaint. Next paragraph. Enough is enough. The sanctions and orders you'll cause must issue. In Attorney Abbott's conclusion on page 7, lines 16 to 18 of his opposition without first asking Lee for yet another untimely filing, he dictates to this court that he will file supplemental papers relating to the receivership. Attorney Abbott is a proverbial tail and this court is a proverbial dog being wagged by it. We took that out, by the way. We thought, when you're winning, this is no time to call the court a dog.

We took that out. E.J., you've got to keep up with the ways of squeaking here, E.J. The time is long past within which to file supporting documentation for the appointment of a receiver. Any subsequent filings without a showing of excusable neglect must not be tolerated. The only way to get an attorney Abbott's attention is the imposition of sanctions and the issuance of an order to show cause in re contempt. Conclusion, for all the foregoing reasons it is respectfully urged that sanctions be levied against Abbott and an order to show cause in re contempt be issued compelling said counsel to answer for his alleged abuse of process and proceedings of this court. That's it everybody. What it amounts to is we are doing an absolutely tremendous job. We are going to keep beating him down and beating him down and sooner or later the court is going to rule everything in our favor and we're going to come out of this smelling like a rose. I expect gold coins to be ordered returned to Mr. Horton sometime within the next two or three weeks. I think you misspoke.

Pardon? What's holding him up? No, no, the motion for a re-hearing that he filed on the 18th day. So that held it up. Right. And this reference is here to their filing some sort of action for receivership. That's what you call an action in equity. A few minutes ago in the reading, there was references to equity, and I said, see we have two courts, a law and an equity. And the receivership action is an equity action, and in order for anyone to file an action of equity, they have to come into the equity court with what we call clean hands. They cannot themselves have dirty hands and ask the court to give them help. For example, if they come in here with some stolen records or something and say, based upon the stolen records, we're asking that the court grant a receiver. The court would totally throw them out. That's what you call dirty hands.

You have to have a clean conscience and clean hands coming into a court of equity. And there's another interesting thing, too. If they go into court and say, well, Phoenix owes this amount of money or that amount of money, if they can prove you haven't paid this person or that person. In this situation, where you have George Green, who has stolen $150,000 by his failure to pay, has stolen the collateral that could have been used to pay those debts, has stolen $350,000 in gold coins, now in a solid lock court decision, a court of equity is going to look at him and his attorney and say, what kind of fools are you?

If they're having financial problems, it's because you bastards stole all the money. That's how it lays out. Well, it goes on when you talk about dirty hands. George Abbott took $40,000 of his own clients' money. I can't comment on that one yet. Can't top that. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Well, it seems like that... I apologize for the inadequacy of my friend here. It just got to the point where there's... I can't tell anymore. It's so confusing, but I can't tell whether we're having fun and you're missing it. This is so awful, we really need somebody in there helping us. But it's sure really nice for us to be able to come down here now and talk about these things and share it. And I don't think anybody minds sitting through it.

And it's our way of getting it on to the record. Let's have a break and then we'll listen to that tape and it is good.