| The State Bar
Complaint ~ Complaint Against Attorney Kelly R. Chase,
Esq., of Minden, Nevada RE:
Part I ~ COMPLAINT OF JOAN CAROL SERFOSS AGAINST THE
FOLLOWING ATTORNEYS (June 2003 ~ Present):
David H. Neely III (Second or Alternate Receiver 2006 to
Present)
Carl M. Joegger (First Receiver 2004 ~ 2005)
Kelly R. Chase (2003 to 2008)
Steve Evanson (2001 to 2003)
Patricia D. Cafferata (2001 to 2004)
RE: Part II ~ COMPLAINT OF JOAN CAROL SERFOSS AGAINST THE
FOLLOWING ATTORNEYS (1992 ~ 1996 ~ December 2004):
Peter Knight (1992 to @ 1996) (Churned by Jed Courtney
shortly before his demise to Peter Knight)
Steve Evanson (2001 to 2003)
Patricia D. Cafferata (2001 to 2004)
~~~~~~~~~~
Kelly R. Chase (2003 to 2008)
1) This Attorney began his part in the case with
misconduct by making an offer on a closed case, which
Respondent's Attorney entertained against Respondent's
wishes and charged her for. Attorney Chase allegedly
arrived on the case on July 18, 2003. This was contained
in the "Notice of and Motion for Relief from
Judgment of Dismissal," dated August 4, 2003, as
signed by Kelly R. Chase Esq. Dannie G. Serfoss Jr's
Affadavit was signed on the 1st day of August, 2003,
which accompanied the "Notice."
2) In item 2, line 13, it is claimed by Attorney Chase
that he had been engaged in settlement negotiations which
terminated on July 29, 2003. Attorney Chase was not
engaged through my Attorney with me in regards to
settlement negotiations. This Respondent believes that if
Mr. Chase if referring to the illegal offer made through
Attorney Cafferata on a closed case, made on July 29,
2003, that his information is misleading, exaggerated and
frankly, a downright lie since one offer on a closed case
does not constitute "settlement negotiations"
(plural, or negotiations over an extended period of
time).
Further, at no time during any offer made by Dannie G.
Serfoss Jr., or in reference to the "$1,000.00"
alleged offer made by decedent, Dannie G. Serfoss Sr.,
have Plaintiffs ever provided proof that they had the
money to back the offers or even had the $1,000.00 which
they claimed the decedent "had in his bank account
at all times," under penalty of perjury to the
Court. In fact, Respondent possessed a letter that the
decedent himself did not have the $1,000.00 at a given
point in time. More importantly, his $1,000.00 offer was
substandard and the offer terminated by the refusal of
Mr. Frank Reget to release the decedent or respondent
from the lien. Finally, there was no signed contract as
required in Real Estate Law and as cited as being
required by the Judge.
Later, at trial, Attorney Chase Assisted Non-certified
Real Estate Agent's Appraisal of the property in question
and upon which a Judge based an incorrect value of the
property in question wrongfully, deliberately and
willfully with intent to violate Respondent's Civil and
Property Rights, in that NRS 645C.555 identifies
situations where the Attorney or another (b) Assists or
offers to assist another person to commit a violation
described in paragraph (a). Others providing this
assistance included Judge John P. Davis, Attorney
Patricia D. Cafferata who questioned the witness, but did
not properly object to her presence despite complaint
from Respondent client that resulted in an intial removal
of witness Trish Rippie from the witness list. Trish
Rippie was then presented by Plaintiffs and their counsel
regardless, with both Counsels knowing of Respondent's
objections and yet Chase presents her, and Respondent's
own Counsel raises no objections and merely questions the
witness as the the fact that she's not Certified,
followed by the Judge doing nothing against the unlawful
testimony and the unlawful witness providing it, no
sanctions against Attorney and clients, then bases his
asking price on a property which is rightfully the
Respondent's on this illegal and unethical testimony by
Trish Rippie.
There were other violations at trial, however, Defendant
is awaiting her paperwork from her Attorney since the
alleged lien was paid, which includes the issue of the
Transcript, of which a partial copy is all that is
currently available, and all are required to be returned
by her Counsel whom, has refused their return since
obtaining dismissal from the case based on grounds of
Fraud, Perjury and violation of time limites. Among these
violations are, but not limited to, the following:
1) Failure and/or refusal to meet Discovery in regards to
Cashier's checks, the return of personal property and
documentation stolen by the decedent and maintained by
the Plaintiffs unlawfully; a personal check from the
Respondent's own funds to make the down payment on the
Dyer property, and from which items were purchased to
immediately improve the Dyer property and likewise,
support the family move to Dyer; and then in what
Discovery was met, the documents proved Plaintiffs case
false and frivilous. These were the items demanded under
Discovery:
"Any and all documents showing Dannie Serfoss Jr.'s
and/or Joan Lee Serfoss' ownership interest in the
Fishlake Valley property in dispute."
"Any and all correspondence from Dannie Serfoss Sr.
to Dannie Serfoss Jr. and/or Joan Lee Serfoss regarding
the ownership of the Fishlake Valley property after the
divorce in 1986."
"Any and all correspondence from Dannie Serfoss Sr.
to Dannie Serfoss Jr. and/or Joan Lee Serfoss regarding
his attempt to sell the Fishlake property after the
divorce in 1986."
"Any and all evidence that Dannie Serfoss Sr.
complied with the terms of the Divorce decree."
"Although not relevant to the lawsuit, send any and
all documents showing Dannie Serfoss Jr.'s and/or Joan
Lee Serfoss' ownership interest in the Colorado
property."
Not returned: Personal check for $500.00 down payment on
the property in Dyer from the proceeds of the sale of the
Lancaster property.
Not returned: Cashier's Check of @ $860.00 for equipment
needed for the well, including the pipe and the water
pump, out of the proceeds of the sale from the Lancaster
property.
Not returned: Cashier's Check for $2,700.00 for the
4-wheel drive truck used to support the family from the
proceeds of the Lancaster property.
Not returned: Cashier's Check for Refrigerator and
Freezer, side by side, brand new.
Not returned: Plus receipts and financial statements
applying to additional, multiple, purchases from the
proceeds of the Lancaster property.
Not returned: Personal property and other papers
Court-ordered to be returned, not once, but twice, with
decedent and his family taking and maintainig possession
and never returned.
Not returned: Other documentation relating to the sale of
Roberta's pony and saddle, along with the cashing of a
$500.00 that went to supporting the family (including
Dannie and Vicki when neither one was working...) before
the move to Dyer.
2) Inserting hearsay evidence and opinion in regards to
deals made on handshakes and "how wonderful" it
was that people do business in such a manner, to cover-up
for the fact that his clients could not prove what they
alleged to be true.
3) Advising his clients as how to continue with their
violations of the Law.
4) Continuing with a false and frivilous case as filed
initially by Attorney Steve Evanson, which the Judge
ultimately ruled that neither side had proven their case,
though the burden of proof was on Plaintiffs, however,
after three years, the Plaintiffs failed to meet their
case in its entirety.
5) Making arguments of "what the Law says" that
are contradicted by the Law itself, including the issue
of the property being vested in the decedent's estate
following his death, when Joint Tenancy was in operation
and Joint Tenancy supercedes a divorce decree or a Will.
An Act of Law in fact severed Joint Tenancy at the moment
of the decedent's death and vested ownership in the
Respondent, whom later made the formal filing of the
Severance of Joint Tenancy, which was ultimately declared
"Lawful," but not until February 1, 2008,
because the Esmeralda County Court Clerk's Office
withheld the Severance of Joint Tenancy from the
Assessor, whom didn't discover the document in her files
until February 1, 2008, after repeated recordings of
documents previously. The current Court Clerk, whom was
working in the Office of the Clerk at that time, is
identified as a friend of the Serfoss family along with
her husband, one of his Deputies and that man's wife.
6) In regards to contradictory declarations of Law versus
the actual Law, Attorney Chase throughout, has included
documentation and references to Law that not only
indicate that he is wrong, but are even more clear cut ~
spelling out issues simply, in black and white ~ in
proving that he was lying about the Law and knew it.
Chase would later expand upon this tactic in Court after
the final hearing and in his documentation, including
correspondence sent to the Defendant in the fraudulent
OSC RE: Motion for Contempt and correspondence
unauthorized by the Defendant and/or the Court, between
Chase and the Real Estate Agent, who not only breached
his contract, but continued to violate his client's
privacy and confidentiality in communications with Chase
after his contract had ended.
7) Conspiracy with Judge and Cafferata evidenced during
April, 2004, hearing, in which Dannie G. Serfoss Jr.
refused to answer the question in regards to the
whereabouts and status of the $1,000.00 he claimed his
father had left and nothing was done by Judge Davis or
Cafferata. Cafferata was seen in fear of Chase, to whom
she had prevailed in a case in which Chase lost money,
with Chase attempting revenge through Court cases as
though a stalker, this opinion based on Cafferata's
comments. Cafferata was seen visibly shaking when
Defendant and her sons appeared with her at Cafferata's
request in Court before Judge Lane and Chase. Cafferata
later indicated that Judge Davis "hates women and
hates me in particular," however, appearing before
Davis and Chase, she was completely calm and even
obnoxious, towards her own client, ultimately
blackmailing, coercing and intimidating this Defendant in
proceeding ahead with Davis based on extortionate charges
caused by a second appearance. In that regard, Cafferata
withheld information that Judge Lane could have returned
to Goldfield to complete the case since recusal of Davis
would have resulted in Lane's return as Davis' alternate,
indicating she would have to make Motion for Change of
Venue to Pahrump and double-charge this Respondent for
the additional appearance there. Cafferata had
deliberately, willfully and intentionally, withheld the
mention of the change of Judges until one hour before
Court, allegedly possessing the information as much as a
week earlier. Defendant now believes Cafferata actually
possessed the information earlier, therefore, Opposing
Counsel would have to as well.
8) Chase indicated falsely that Defendant had not paid
the Esmeralda Market bill assigned to her by the Divorce
Court of 1986, when in fact she had, the final two
payments being refused by the original owners whom
indicated she believed the Defendant didn't owe them more
money. Chase indicated the Defendant had
"bargained" regarding the bill, which was
totally untrue.
9) Conspiracy with the Court and Cafferata in regards to
the fact that the above is not the only use of, influence
with and misconduct involving a Real Estate Agent by the
Judge, Opposing Counsel and the Plaintiffs. Use of a Real
Estate Appraisal by the Non-certified Real Estate Agent
Trish Rippie that resulted in the Court's devaluation of
the property in its unlawful, unreasonable seizure of the
property from Defendant in 2004, who was maintained as
"Property Owner" and forced to sell her
property none the less to appease Plaintiffs' collective
greed and vanity, was in violation of NRS 645C.555, which
states that:
Administrative fine for engaging in certain conduct
without certificate, license, registration card or
authorization; procedure for imposition of fine; judicial
review; exceptions.
1. In addition to any other remedy or penalty, the
Commission may impose an administrative fine against any
person who knowingly:
(a) Engages or offers to engage in any activity for which
a certificate, license or registration card or any type
of authorization is required pursuant to this chapter, or
any regulation adopted pursuant thereto, if the person
does not hold the required certificate, license or
registration card or has not been given the required
authorization; or
(b) Assists or offers to assist another person to commit
a violation described in paragraph (a).
2. If the Commission imposes an administrative fine
against a person pursuant to this section, the amount of
the administrative fine may not exceed the amount of any
gain or economic benefit that the person derived from the
violation or $5,000, whichever amount is greater.
3. In determining the appropriate amount of the
administrative fine, the Commission shall consider:
(a) The severity of the violation and the degree of any
harm that the violation caused to other persons;
(b) The nature and amount of any gain or economic benefit
that the person derived from the violation;
(c) The person’s history or record of other
violations; and
(d) Any other facts or circumstances that the Commission
deems to be relevant.
4. Before the Commission may impose the administrative
fine, the Commission must provide the person with notice
and an opportunity to be heard.
5. The person is entitled to judicial review of the
decision of the Commission in the manner provided by
chapter 233B of NRS.
6. The provisions of this section do not apply to a
person who engages or offers to engage in activities
within the purview of this chapter if:
(a) A specific statute exempts the person from complying
with the provisions of this chapter with regard to those
activities; and
(b) The person is acting in accordance with the exemption
while engaging or offering to engage in those activities.
(Added to NRS by 2003, 1297)
10) Fraudulent and substandard offers costing the
Respondent Attorneys fees in regards to responding to
them, including one such offer filed after a case had
been dismissed and had not been ruled re-opened.
11) Attempting to have the Court rule that a prior Court
order was a "Marital Agreement" and not a Court
order.
~~~~~~~~~~
CRITICAL DOCUMENTS
3) CRITICAL DOCUMENTS # 1 ~ Much of Attorney Chase's most
serious and unlawful misconduct began after the Final
Hearing of April, 2004, occurring almost immediately
after the Final Hearing, when he instructed Attorney
Cafferata to have this Defendant hold off from listing
the property for sale as his clients wanted to make
another (substandard) offer:
~~~~~~~~~~
Letter of December 22, 2004 from Kelly R. Chase:
Paragraph 1 ~ Chase indicates to advise if Respondent
obtains "other Counsel." Attorney Chase was
informed that search was on for "other Counsel"
and that "Self-representation" was not of this
Respondent's choosing. Chase should have obtained his
information from Ms. Cafferata through the Court as
necessary and not contacted an individual looking for
Representation who did not wish to be In Pro Per.
Paragraph 2 ~ Respondent feels that Mr. Chase lies in
sentence one as he offers no proof of attempted contacts
and further, treats the matter like Ms. Cafferata doesn't
have offices or contact information. This was an attempt
by an Attorney to take advantage of a situation of
someone being forced into self-representation by an
Attorney churning them and before new representation
could be obtained. The Date Judge Davis signed approving
her Motion for Withdrawal was December , 2004, and the
date of Attorney Chase's letter was December 6, 2004,
Decmeber 22, 2004. Additionally, as evidence shows, both
Attorneys were working together for the benefit of his
clients and Respondent's Attorney (Patricia D. Cafferata)
was not working in her client's best interests, but
rather, deliberate against the same. In sentence two, the
threat of Court action is made when in fact, if Mr. Chase
needed assistance, particularly in contacting Attorney
Cafferata for information, he should have gone to the
Court in the first place.
Paragraph 3 ~ Another lie by Mr. Chase in that he tries
to take advantage of the Respondent's limited knowledge
of Law by indicating to a person without legal
representation (but in search of the same) that the
"Order clearly contemplates listing the property
with a licensed Nevada Realtor and does not allow you to
make private efforts to sell the property."
Respondent's position as based on her understanding of
the Law is that the Court order must be specific as to
instructions and no other instructions were given by the
Court other than:
"The Defendant, who has legal title, subject to the
rights of the Plaintiff, is ordered to list said property
for sale for the sum of $20,000.00 with the proceeds to
be split between the parties after the allowance for any
sales costs and commissions. If the property is not sold
within 90 days the listing price will be reduced by
$1000.00 and the above reduction in the listing price by
1000 dollars after the lapse of additional periods of 90
days will be followed until the propertyis marketed.
The court concludes that neither party has prevailed in
this matter and that they should bear their own costs and
attorney fees.
Failure to list the property within 30 days from the date
of this order is filed will be considered an act of
contempt. The plaintiff is to within 10 days expunge the
lis pendens recorded in this matter."
~ Contrary to Attorney Chase's lies, the Court Order does
not "clearly contemplate" listing the property
specifically with a "licensed Nevada Realtor,"
which was accomplished anyway. Realtors in neighboring
California were appropriate for the sale as well.
However, the term "Nevada Realtor" was not
mentioned nor even contemplated by the Court, nor was
"listing" with a Realtor even required by the
Court. As Bishop, California is a mere 90 miles away and
Real Estate is sold through Bishop Realtors, it's only
logical that to make a diligent effort, one would list
wherever they possibly could.
~ Contrary to Mr. Chase's lies, there is nothing in the
order ~ which must be specific as to its instructions
according to Law, and cannot be changed as to content or
"spirit" thereafter ~ which prohibits
Respondent from making "private efforts to sell the
property."
~ Respondent alleges that Mr. Chase's contacts with
Nevada Realtors in Central Nevada was for the purpose of
sabotaging any attempts by Respondent in which to obtain
a new contract for the listing of the property. Mr. Chase
gives no indication as to whom he contacted. Mr. Chase
should have gone directly to the Court to file and
inquiry and determine what efforts were being made. As
Mr. Chase made no effort to contact this Respondent as to
her efforts, his statement is filled with lies as was his
subsequent OSC ~ Motion for Contempt.
|