Dear Ms. Del Papa:
Please consider this letter as a formal complaint for Oppression Under the Color of Office, and related offenses, against Jerry Carr Whitehead and others as follows:
On December 27th, 1990, Jerry Carr Whitehead, acting without authority as a Second Judicial District Court Judge, knowingly and maliciously entered an unlawful ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, purportedly in CV88-4432, against Edwards Industries, Inc. (now known as CRM Corp.), said motion being requested by Harold G. Albright, attorney for Fastpage, Inc. a competitor and Bankruptcy Court judgment debtor of Edwards Industries, Inc. At the time of the specious Order, no case was pending before the Court, and any jurisdiction that the Court may have had prior was lost with the filing of a SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT in CV88-4432 on August 23, 19901.
Literally within days of this Order, on February 8, 1991, Whitehead recognized his failure to retain or obtain any subject matter jurisdiction as of the date of the entry of the SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT and denied all pending motions of Edwards 2. Despite this admission, Whitehead continued to allow the Judgment for sanctions to stand although he knew at that time that the judgment was void, and, over the course of the next several months, Whitehead continued to enter Orders, including Ex-Parte Orders, designed to inflict the maximum damage to the operations, finances and professional standing of Edwards Industries, Inc., M.A. Edwards personally, and those persons and companies known to be allied with Edwards.
On September 18, 1991, Edwards was served by the Washoe County Sheriff, via U.S. Mail, a copy of an Execution seizing a Motorola Paging Transmitter, Serial Number 711CNY0052 located on Peavine Mountain, necessary to the ongoing operations of Edwards but not owned by Edwards. Edwards promptly notified the Sheriff of the wrongful execution.
Fully ignoring Whitehead’s order of February 8, 1991, on September 24, 1991 at 9:30 a.m., Harold Albright filed two ex-parte motions, an EX PARTE MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS and an EX PARTE MOTION FOR HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER PROPERTY IS EXEMPT. Incredibly, on that very same September 24, 1991, file-stamped at 11:51 a.m., Whitehead, without notice or any attempt to contact Edwards’ counsel, issued two ex-parte orders, an EX PARTE MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS and an EX PARTE MOTION FOR HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER PROPERTY IS EXEMPT. Close examination of the file-stamped orders clearly show that Whitehead signed the orders on the 23rd, prior even to the filing of the motions by Albright. <b> There is no way that Edwards or Edwards’ counsel could be expected to respond to an order granting a motion that has not yet been filed and served, ex-parte or not. 3</b>
Edwards was served copies of the signed orders along with the subpoenas dated September 24, 1991 which demanded the production at the October 2, 1991 hearing before Master John R. Petty of virtually every document concerning the operations of Edwards for the previous five years. It is apparent that production of the documents was designed to harass and intimidate Edwards, give competitor Fastpage trade secret, confidential and proprietary information well beyond even the intended scope of the illegal orders, and was not designed to lead to the discovery of the appropriateness of the claimed exemption as stated by Albright in obtaining the orders in the first place.
Both orders were submitted on the stationery of Harold G. Albright and both contained the wording "Failure to appear at the time and place above will result in a bench warrant being issued for arrest of the offending party or parties." This phrase led me to believe that I was being threatened with immediate personal harm or violence by the immediate false arrest and detention if I should exercise my right to ignore void orders issued by a court without jurisdiction. It is at this point that it became absolutely clear that Whitehead and Albright, both "public officers" as defined by statute, in addition to the threat of violence and physical force, had begun to conspire to violate Edwards’ civil and constitutional rights, deprive Edwards of property necessary for the operation of Edwards’ lawful business, and inflict harm to Edwards’ corporate, personal and professional reputation.
On October 1, 1991, Edwards’ counsel put both Petty and Whitehead on notice of their wrongful and illegal acts by filing a MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: AFFIDAVIT OF MARK H. GUNDERSON. This motion clearly and unequivocally spells out the abuse of the Court based upon its admitted lack of subject matter jurisdiction and forcefully states that "It is time for this matter to come to a halt once and for all." Whitehead and Petty clearly ignore the filing at their peril.
In the most ludicrous on the long list of aberrations laughingly called due process under Whitehead, Master John Petty stated that "Debtor has the burden of proving that it does not own the transmitter in question. 4" As usual, Albright had prepared a document on his stationery entitled MASTER’S RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER for Petty’s signature at the end of the hearing. In yet another of the abuses of process, Albright failed to file the document in order to allow Edwards’ counsel to object to the findings, instead choosing to have Whitehead sign the undisclosed and unfiled document on October 3, 1991, said signature would declare that the transmitter "is not exempt and the scheduled execution proceedings shall continue unabated." Obviously, the complicity and collusion of Petty was required to continue the charade and to deprive Edwards its rights to due process. Edwards claims that Petty is equally culpable in his former position as Master, and in his current position as a member of the State Bar of Nevada has a continuing obligation to correct his errors, misrepresentations, and wrongful orders 5.
Despite the wrongful actions of Petty and Whitehead, Edwards’ counsel filed an OBJECTION TO MASTER’S RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER THEREON again arguing the lack of subject matter jurisdiction of the Master and the Court, and restating the import of the orders of February 8, 1991 and February 28, 1991, "wherein this Court expressly found that it had no further subject matter jurisdiction over any aspect of this case following entry of Satisfaction of Judgment on August 23, 1990." In what has become the hallmark of Albright’s law practice, Albright responded to this filing and Edwards October 1, 1991 motion with an OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AFFIDAVIT OF MARK H. GUNDERSON, substituting fantasy for fact, misrepresenting prior filings, decisions, and testimony, and you guessed it, demanding more sanctions, and a REPLY TO OBJECTION TO MASTER’S RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER in which Albright, in a rare moment of candor, admits that Edwards was correct in its assertion that the actions of the Master and the Court fail to comply with the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, but, he further states, what the hell, it simply doesn’t matter 6.
On or about October 11, 1991, Edwards was served with a notice of SHERIFF’S SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER EXECUTION dated October 7, 1991 which stated that the transmitter would be sold at public auction on October 24, 1991.
On October 11, 1991, Edwards’ counsel filed a REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OF MOTION so that the matter of jurisdiction would be decided before the scheduled public auction of the property necessary for the operations of the business of Edwards. Edwards’ counsel informed Edwards that it was unlikely that Whitehead would act on the motion and that alternative relief must be sought. Accordingly, Edwards’ counsel filed a PETITION FOR WRITE OF MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF PROHIBITION with the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada on Thursday, October 17, 1991. This filing clearly enumerated the wrongful and illegal acts of Albright, Whitehead, and Petty, and sought relief from same said acts by granting of requested writs as well as granting an emergency stay against execution.
On Friday morning, October 18, 1991, Edwards’ counsel was informed that the posting of a cash bond in the amount of $6,000.00 would prevent the sale of the transmitter scheduled for the following week. Without consulting Edwards, and despite the ultimate objections of Edwards, Edwards’ counsel agreed to file the requested bond with Whitehead that afternoon. On that Friday afternoon at 4:42 p.m. an order was entered staying execution pending further action of the Court.
On Monday, October 21, 1991, the Supreme Court entered an ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION stating "We have considered the petition on file herein, and we are not satisfied that this court’s intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted at this time. Accordingly, we deny the petition." In a footnote, the Court stated "In light of this order, we deny petitioner’s motion for an emergency stay of proceedings in the district court 7."
Edwards believes that it is unlikely in the extreme that the Supreme Court was able to digest the full filing submitted on a Thursday afternoon and issue a ruling by the following Monday morning. Further, Edwards believes that some ex-parte contact was had between one or more members of the Supreme Court and/or its employees and Whitehead. It was highly unusual that Edwards’ counsel would be approached with a method to avoid execution ONE DAY after seeking relief by writ from the Supreme Court, and that the results of the offer were related to the Supreme Court in time for a decision by that following Monday, without direct contact between Whitehead and the Supreme Court 8.
On October 22, 1991, the seized transmitter was released to Edwards by the Washoe County Sheriff.
Finally, on November 11, 1991, Edwards’ counsel filed a REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AFFIDAVIT OF MARK H. GUNDERSON, pointing out the specious arguments of Albright.
On Tuesday, December 17, 1991 at 9: 48 a.m., Whitehead, on his own stationery for a change, filed an ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT; ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS which substantially restated that which has been before the Court on many occasions prior, that is, the Court had no authority, period. Whitehead, condescendingly states "The court recognizes and regrets its error" and refuses to grant sanctions which would have made Edwards whole 9. Sorry, Jer, your apology, such as it is, is simply not enough, and your conduct cannot go unchallenged. As usual, lip service is given to the record; behind the scenes, however, the unlawful conduct continues at an even more furious rate.
Edwards has continued its attempt to enforce the rights granted by the Bankruptcy Court, and Fastpage, Inc., through Albright, has continued to run to Whitehead for relief. Whitehead has ordered additional hearings, again without jurisdiction, only to find that he is unable to issue any further orders. Every trip to court as ordered by Whitehead imposes additional costs on Edwards, yet Whitehead fails to issue sanctions for Rule 11 violations in order to make Edwards whole. It is a never ending cycle, and Whitehead, in his last order rejecting subject matter jurisdiction threatened to enter the case on his own volition and punish Edwards for its attempts to exercise its rights. Clearly the man is unbalanced, and must be muzzled. In fact, Whitehead has used Edwards as an example of how to handle a "recalcitrant litigant" in his dissertation on training to new judges, forever closing the door to a fair hearing in any department in the Second Judicial Court and, more importantly, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada.
So that there can be no misunderstanding, Edwards is accusing Whitehead, Albright, and Petty, as public officers as defined in NRS 193.019, of Oppression Under the Color of Office, NRS 197.200 1(A), 1(b), and 1(d), with the threat of immediate physical force (false arrest), 2(a). Additionally, the acts alleged encompass Fraud, Conduct Constituting Crime, Omission to Perform Duty, Misconduct of Public Officer, Wrongful Exercise of Official Power, Fraudulent Appropriation of Property, Perjury, Offering False Evidence, Malicious Prosecution, Inducing Lawsuit, Criminal Contempt, Combination to Resist Process, Conspiracy, Harassment, Theft, Extortion/Threats, Removal or Sale to Defraud, False Written Statements, Coercion, and Racketeering (RICO). The offenses are ongoing….
This complaint is filed with full knowledge of the likelihood of retribution both by Whitehead and others 10. Edwards and related companies and individuals currently have the Fastpage, Inc. case and one other on appeal before the Supreme Court. As sad a commentary as it is, we fully expect to suffer there for the filing of this complaint. Simply put, however, if we don’t stand up for our own rights, and take the courts back, who will? Edwards has expected those responsible for oversight of the process to honor their oath, duty, and obligation. We have been sorely disappointed. There is, however, a light at the end of the tunnel and that light is the light of public disclosure of the wrongdoing as discovered by the Federal Grand Jury, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is a sorry situation that the citizens of the State of Nevada have to depend upon the intervention by federal authorities for preservation of the basic rights of the people supposedly guaranteed by the Nevada Constitution, the statutes of the state, and by the oath of the elected and pointed person swearing to uphold those rights. To those who would subvert or corrupt the right of due process, let them understand without doubt the seriousness with which Edwards considers this matter; paraphrasing a U.S. Supreme Court Justice: If sunlight is the best disinfectant, you may rest assured that the full noon-day sun of public exposure will shine in each and every nook, crevice and corner of these cases; there will be no place to hide.
Without doubt, it is time for Whitehead’s style of frontier justice to come to an end 11. In the event that those Nevadans responsible for the elimination of this type of conduct fail to exercise the appropriate powers, outsiders will be more than willing to fill the void. This misconduct can be stopped by Nevadans, under existing law, without interference from those with vested interests in continuing to conceal the true operations of the courts.
Whitehead has publicly squealed loud and long about the failure to be confronted directly about purported wrongdoing and about how his special "rights" have been violated. With this complaint, that diatribe ends. Would Whitehead be willing to subject himself to the same laws and courts as the common man, the same laws and courts he has chosen to corrupt, or must he hide behind the rules written especially for these elite lawyers, heard behind closed doors, by his cronies, both social and professional? 12 One questions if there is a judge capable of hearing these charges against Whitehead. And if one was found, would the Supreme Court step in to stop the proceedings?
This complaint is not undertaken lightly. Edwards fully realizes the severity and seriousness of the charges made. The time to stand and be heard is, however, at hand. Edwards cannot in good conscience allow the public misrepresentations of Whitehead and his protectors to go unchallenged. In speaking with other authorities, Edwards was advised to take personal protection precautions, and that advice has been taken literally. That in and of itself is truly the saddest of all commentaries on how far the state of Nevada has fallen in the eyes of those involved in the legal profession outside the state.
Your office has in the past shown that it is willing and capable of fulfilling those duties required of your oath of office. The diligence with which you and your associate discharged those duties in representing the Judicial Discipline Commission in spite of the unrelenting political pressure applied speaks volumes for the integrity of the persons involved. Perhaps by and through this complaint the truth of the matter will be fully and finally disclosed and addressed.
If there is any additional information required, please feel free to call at any time.
Respectfully submitted,
M.A. Edwards
President,
Edwards Industries.
Footnotes:
1 It is Edwards’ position that Whitehead and the Second Judicial Court never obtained subject matter jurisdiction over the default issues reserved for determination solely by the Bankruptcy Court in accordance with statute and Bankruptcy Court Orders, and that ALL orders issues by Whitehead are void. Corporate debtor Fastpage, Inc. and individual debtors Kent and Maria Steglich and Wayne and Rebecca Alexander voluntarily relinquished any right to state court relief by filing the voluntary petitions for bankruptcy protection in Federal bankruptcy Court. Further, on June 16, 1988 the Honorable James Thompson, United States Bankruptcy Judge specifically reserved jurisdiction on all matters "directly related to ARC’s [Fastpage, Inc’s.] Seconded (sic) Amended Plan of Reorganization dated August 7, 1987, and its implementation." (emphasis added). After having his motion for relef denied by Thompson, Albright sought the same relief from Whitehead despite the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the fact that the case to determine the right to Edwards site lease was properly before Judge Guinan, with Thompson’s approval, in Department 6.Back to top
2 In his order of February 8, 1991, Whitehead expressly stated, "It is a well settled rule that once satisfaction of judgment has been entered, jurisdiction of the court ceases." (citations omitted) "Therefore, upon consideration of this law, this court finds itself without jurisdiction to enter any further orders in this case." (emphasis added). Curious indeed that Whitehead would only quote this rule when considering the motions of Edwards and not before entireing judgment in favor of Fastpage. One must conclude that the intent of Whitehead, a supposedly learned jurist, was to circumvent the rules of Civil Procedcure and law to inflict additional punishment on Edwards for questioning his jurisdiction in the first place. After refusing to assign the rights granted at trial in Bankruptcy Court to Whitehead despite being threatened with incarceration and financial ruin during the Stettlement Conference in chambers prior to trial in CV88-4432, Edwards and Edwards’ counsel were told by Whitehead that he "would see to it that this was the sorriest day of your life." From that point on, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure simply did not apply to Edwards.Back to top
3 This should strike a familiar note. It would seem that a number of others have complained to the Judicial Discipline Commission regarding this very issue. The failure of Whitehead to follow even the simplest of the Rules of Civil Procedure makes it impossible for the victim of his abuse to adequately defend themselves in court. Had it not been for the intervention of the Supreme Court, sitting as the Jerry Carr Whitehead Proectionist League, this misconduct would have been properly addressed and corrected. Instead, this panel of Nevada’s finest has determined that the rights of an accused miscreant judge are superior to those of the citizens of the state. Perhaps a yearly review of the oath of office by each public officer should be mandated by the people. This might remind our public servants that they are to serve the people, not belittle them. After all, no one held a gun to their heads to run for office, and once empowered are entitled to no privileges and rights beyond those of the people they serve – try as they night to pass rules and regulations that insulate them from the very laws they have sworn to uphold.Back to top
4 Petty, who owed his position as Master to the lobbying effort of Whitehead, clearly had no clue as to the prpceeding before him. Were it not for the fact the Edwards remained committed to fight the unlawful process, it would have been in Edwards’ best interest to allow the phony execution and sale, allowing the debt to be satisfied without to Edwards at all. Taken to the extreme, it would be most expedient for a creditor to arbitrarily execute upon and seize any convenient property of an unrelated entity in statisfaction of judgment debtor’s debt and force that debtor to prove that it did not own the property. That the outcome of this hearing was fixed was clearly a foregone conclusion; after attending such a hearing, one must question on which side of the looking glass Petty resides.Back to top
5 Petty is aware of the obligation of all attorneys to correct misrepresentations to the court. To date his silence speaks for itself; had Petty shown the testicular fortitude to confront Whitehead with the truth. Further action by, and subsequent expense to, Edwards would have been unnecessary.Back to top
6 Again, as Whitehead has bluntly, boldly, and candidly stated, in his court, he is the law; if he chooses to ignore the Nevada Revised Civil Procedure, then so be it. As one can see from the conduct of Whitehead in this case as well as others, if one insists upon equal rights and protection under the law, one will receive full benefit of the warped and twisted legal reasoning of an equally warped and twisted legal mind. Whitehead’s actions against Edwards are the judicial equivalent of a Rodney-King-like traffic stop, and the beating continues unabated.Back to top
7 Given what Edwards now knows about the predilections of the Supreme Court with regard to the protection of Whitehead, Edwards is not surprised at the denial of the writs. At the time, however, it was absolutely astounding that the Court would throw duty, oath, obligation and their own rules of conduct to the wind while turning a blind eye to the unlawful conduct placed squarely before them. Justice may be blind, but it isn’t stupid.Back to top
8 Edwards has suggested to the appropriate Federal authorities that such ex-parte communications might be of interest if located on the wiretaps of the Supreme Court as such collusion, if found, could constitute obstruction of justice among other charges.Back to top
9 Whitehead has established a pattern of punishment against those who oppose him. By inflicting the maximum financial damage through endless specious litigation before him, or initiated by him, litigation which has no chance of success by his opponent, Whitehead literally bankrupts his opponent. Should this tactic be unsuccessful, he will simply loose his political machine, including his croniew in high places, destroying the professional reputation of his opponent, particularly if his opponent is a poliltical figure. When all else fail, Whatehead simply seeks legal sanctions against the attorney representing his opponent. Should they be one and the same, so much the better. Witness Nash-Holmes, Shipler, Lefebvre, Del Papa, Campbell, etc., ad nauseam.Back to top
10 Whitehead’s legal beagle, Vivian Lynch, has managed to interfere with the completion of a contract between Edwards and a potential indipendent agent for Edwards operations. By failing to file appropriate documents with the court after rpeated demand, a default judgment was wrongfully entered against the prospective agent, destroying his ability to obtain credit necessary to purchase products of Edwards. The matter remains unresolved, but has been submitted to the Bar for resolution. Edwards is convinced that the acts of Lynch were deliberate, knowing, and malicious, designed to inflict harm on both Edwards and the potential agent, and her refusal to respond to the Bar a knowing insult to the authority which governs her conduct. Associated with a connected judge seems to allow such flagrant disregard for the rules which govern the common folk. Now that the Bar records are public, anyone can determined for themselves whether or not an attorney acted properly. One might wonder whether Whitehead actually pays for his legal representationwith real money, like the people appearing before him and subject to his abuse, or, whether his counsel simply offers services in exchange for his influence. Back to top
11 Judge Roy Bean is dead both as a "person" and as an icon. Those that still subscribe to this philosophy would do well to remember that displeasure expressed by the citizens of the time against the judiciary was unpleasant in the extreme. Certainly a modern-day, environmentally-safe version of tar-and-feathers is available, although the rail may be hard to find. The good-old-boy wink-and-nod method of deciding a case behind closed doors, still popular today, is an anachronism that has no place in modern legal practice. Female counsel cannot be treated as an outsider, unfamiliar with the secret handshake that allows admission to the courtroom. After all, aren’t lawyers supposed to be able to bring wrongdoing to the attention of the appropriate authority without fear of reprisal, or, to paraphrase Leona Helmsley, "only the little lawyers and pre pers follow the rules." Back to top
12 The Nevada Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear that if one is to challenge Whitehead, one will do so on the playing field created especially for him, and that the Court will act to insure that Whitehead is treated "fairly." Let Whitehead rise or fall on the same laws that each and every other citizen of the state must live by, adjudicated by the same courts set to try the common man; special treatment of this self-defined Back to top