As an answer, attorney, client, privileged information. So, if you're not going to discuss it, then let's move on. Do you want to do the lawsuits? These came out. I wrote one and within a day, George Abbott had filed an addendum to his already outrageous paper. And it was only over a continuance of a few days that Brad Ely had requested of the judge rather than do an incredibly sloppy job. Then Horton got it and got the second one. And he joined a case in which he has no standing, has no connection at all, zero zip. And he says it all in the last sentence, so let's be sure and listen. Sometime in 1994, toward the end of the year of 1994, George Abbott filed an action against the Institute to cause it to go into receivership.

And he's been struggling to get that claim or those claims filed ever since, and he simply has not been able to come up with causes of action to do it. Sixteen months later, he did get what is now known as the Second Amended Complaint. First he had the complaint, then he had the First Amended Complaint, and then in June In June, he finally got the... I guess it was at the end of April, he finally got filed the second amended complaint. So what I'm going to read right now, it will be the institute's answer to that second amended complaint. But you have to remember that in one of these complaints, and where he uses the term adduce, adduce, adduce, I'm going to adduce, 16 months later he's not done anything, hasn't found anything. He did that because they had picked up Sherry Yont's paperwork, they thought. But you see, I'm not going to tell Sherry Yont's business in this room or anywhere else.

It isn't at all like they are presenting it regarding Sherry Yont. I'm telling you from beginning to end it is not like they presented it. But they thought they would be able to get their hands on Sherry Yont's stock and they were going to haul it into court and then they'd have a big enough percentage and guess what? Sherry Yont wouldn't have anything to say about it because it would be bearer stock. So it is not as simple as just little Betty going into a corporation agent and picking up three corporations. That whether she stole it or they released it unrightfully, it doesn't matter. Court requested those papers back and they have never come back. That's what they were going to adduce. I'm going to come in here and I'm going to have all this stock and you're not going to be able to do a thing about it. Well, it didn't work that way. It had backfired again on them. So now you'll appreciate this more.

This is called Notice of Motions to Dismiss Complaint, to Strike Complaint, and Request from Sanctions. And it's filed on the part of the Institute against Abbott and Eleanor Shreffer et al. Defendants Phoenix Institute for Research and Education Limited and Carson Capital Corporation by and through their attorney of record, Bradley Paul Ely, Esquire, hereby move this court to dismiss this action with prejudice, to strike the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, and alternatively, portions thereof, and to levy sanctions in the form of attorney's fees against plaintiffs and their counsel, George Abbott, and the striking of the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and sanctions. The grounds for this motion are Rule 12 and and uh... that's number 12B1 and 512F and Rule 11 also Rule 23.

In that plaintiffs and their said counsel have failed to conform their second amended complaint in accordance with this court's February 26th, 96 order. These motions are based upon the pleadings and papers on file herein and the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Introduction. Attorney George Abbott filed the initial complaint in this action in December 1994. Since that time, Attorney Abbott has attempted to frame a complaint using non-existent parties and unwarranted causes of action. Attorney Abbott has a history of such abusive conduct, and defendants in this case have become the latest victims of this predilection.

The court needs to evaluate this response to the second amended complaint with that knowledge. The Supreme Court of Nevada, in upholding a public reprimand of Attorney Abbott by the State Bar of Nevada, defined previous conduct of Attorney Abbott as follows, quote, moreover, your conduct violated disciplinary rules of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, which governed the legal profession in this state during the time in question. Specifically, you engaged in conduct which was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1-102A-5. Further, your conduct adversely reflected on your fitness to practice law in violation of DR 7-102A-6. Additionally, you violated DR 7-102A-1 by taking action when it was quote, obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.

Finally, you violated DR 7102A2 by knowingly advancing a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law. This response will prove that Attorney Abbott continues to pursue the same tactics and there are no valid causes of action in this matter. Procedural background. Defendants incorporate by reference this court's order of February 26, 1996, wherein the procedural history of this case is carefully and clearly delineated to that period of time. Thereafter, Attorney Abbott failed to file this Second Amended Complaint within the ordered time limits, violating yet another procedural rule. Nevertheless, he was granted an additional extension until April 26, 1996. This second amended complaint was filed on April 26.

Attorney Abbott was paid, has paid, belatedly, the $1,100 in sanctions as ordered by the Court on February 26, 1996. Defendants sought and obtained by this Court's May 30, 1996 1996 order, their first requested extension of time to file and serve their response to any complaint version no later than June 10, 1996. Case background. In its order of February 26, the Court made the following observations and orders in part. These come from the Court. A. Plaintiffs, that's the Institute, a correction, that's Abbott et al., plaintiffs have never filed a pleading in response to the order to show cause. B. Attorney Abbott has doggedly pursued a spurious claim and violated the court order by failing to respond to the order to show cause.

chosen specifically because that's exactly what the judge stated. These are from the judge's order. C. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss with regard to any claims by Eleanor Shreffer as the conservator of John Shreffer in any fashion is granted. Motion to dismiss. You see, she didn't have any right, John. And the judge said, you're out. D. The first amended complaint was to be prepared in compliance with Rule 8 and Rule 12. procedural rules of the current, September 26, 1995, ordered was not followed. F. Counsel, Abbott, is cautioned to follow Rule 11 before making what may be scandalous allegations.

G. Particularity in pleading a racketeering case is needed to comply with Hale Burkhart. Argument and points and authorities. 1. All of the claims of Shreffer should be stricken and dismissed. A. Attorney Abbott still has not filed a response to the order to show cause, as issued by this court, and in fact flagrantly displays his disrespect for this court and the judicial system by continuing to allege in the Second Amendment complaint the second amended complaint, the position of Mrs. Shreffer in her capacity of a conservator for John Shreffer. She, Mrs. Shreffer, appears also as the former short-term conservator of the person and estate under California court decree of her then husband, John Shreffer.

Attorney Abbott could not have innocently overlooked the court's admonition set forth in the February 26, 1996, order as it reads in part. Plaintiffs should have simply admitted that Eleanor Shreffer was never the conservator of the person John Shreffer or file an affidavit explaining why it was believed at any point in time that she was a conservator. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss with regard to any claims by Eleanor Shreffer as the conservator of John Shreffer in any fashion is granted. b. Attorney Abbott has no standing and no authority to be representing Mrs. Shreffer in any capacity for the recovery of any alleged unreturned funds. The previous sanctions in monetary form have not deterred his spurious conduct. By previous affidavits filed with this court, defendants have produced documentary evidence that John O'Connell was the California-appointed, and still is, conservator for all and any assets of the separate and community property of the parties which includes Tejo and the Eleanor Shreffer Family Trust.

For all legal purposes, Mrs. Shreffer, in any capacity, is a non-existent party, and therefore her claims should be stricken as to each and every cause of action as immaterial matter, per Rule 12, and should be dismissed for her failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Rule 12b-5. Attorney Abbott should be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 11 and 23 for his flagrant abuse and for his dogged refusal to accept the realities of the situation and totally ignoring the import of the Court's previous directions and orders. C. Because Attorney Abbott has no standing to represent the claims and the conservator of the estate of John Shreffer in any fashion per this Court's order of February 26, 1996, and because the separate and community assets of the Shreffers are under the conservator John O'Connell and Because attorney Abbott is not the designated attorney to represent this court-appointed Conservator the following claims causes of action and paragraphs must be stricken Then there's a list of about 20 paragraphs Number two and all other paragraphs to the extent the Shreffer interests are collectively referred to under the capacity as plaintiffs.

That as a result of his brazen and contemptuous conduct of Attorney Abbott, Attorney Abbott in pretending to continuing, allegedly, to represent the Shreffer interests in violation of this Court's orders and of the laws of the State of Nevada, He should be sanctioned under Rule 11 and 23, and this entire complaint should be dismissed with prejudice, and Attorney Abbott should be held in contempt of court. The previous monetary sanctions have not proven to be an effective deterrent. Number two. The claims on behalf of Leon Fort should be stricken. allegations that are immaterial, impertinent, and are scandalous, and in violation of Rule 12, and in apposite to this Court's warning that Attorney Abbott, quote, is cautioned to follow Rule 11 before making what may be scandalous allegations.

Paragraphs 19, 20, and 21 concerning plaintiff Fort's damage claim are scandalous, redundant, impertinent, or immaterial. Paragraphs 20 and 21. In these two paragraphs, Attorney Abbott alleges that he is entitled to some $42,000 in attorney's fees from having represented Mr. Fort, wherein Mr. Fort was alleged to be a Kost conspirator with George Green in the theft of some $350,000 in gold coins from Phoenix in the Department 2 case number 29507 of the above entitled court. Wait, right there.

Guess what? Until this very minute, none of you realized how close you were and how close Leon was to his own admission that he had something to do. He obviously knew about the gold, didn't he? He loaded the gold. So why wouldn't unsuspecting people name him? They would. And that's the way the law works. Go on. Prior to the start of that trial, Mr. Fort was voluntarily dismissed as a defendant by Phoenix, not by Plante Fort as falsely alleged by Attorney Abbott.

Attorney Abbott merely made an oral motion for an order that Phoenix pay his attorney fees. The court declined to hear the motion indicating to Attorney Abbott the probability that he could not recover attorney's fees, but allowing him 30 days to file his motion including points and authorities supporting such right to attorney fees claimed by Attorney Abbott. This statement was made in open court by Judge Gamble on October the 3rd, 1994. A copy of such statement is attached here too as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein. Without offering any plausible excuse, some twelve-plus months later, Attorney Abbott filed his motion for attorney's fees under the self-styled caption, quote, circumstances delayed. The motion was not supported by any points and authorities, and circumstances delayed has never been explained. To compound this wrong, Attorney Abbott has used this imaginary and non-existent sum of monies to assist in a desperate effort to reach 10 percent of the alleged debts of Phoenix as a reason why Phoenix should be placed under receivership.

Other allegations should be stricken as gratuitous violations of Rule 12. In paragraph 25C on page 15, Attorney Abbott states, Defendant Dixon has also been constant in slandering and attacking Nevada's courts and the Nevada judiciary, sharing that role with the Echres, Defendant Morehead, and others. Defendant Dixon, who has never been served in this action, is entitled to his opinions and free speech, and even if Attorney Abbott's allegations were accurate, it is immaterial that Attorney Abbott would use freedom of speech to further his ill-gotten gains or causes of action. Paragraph 24 should be stricken as being immaterial, irrelevant, impertinent, and scandalous utterings not identified as to what, when, where, and by whom, and inserted solely to interject bias and prejudice upon the Court. and the complaint dismissed in that Attorney Abbott has totally disregarded the court's order, quote, to be cautious before making scandalous allegations and to, quote, provide specific facts to substantiate the claims.

Consistent with the lack of specific facts disclosed in paragraph 24, in paragraph 25, in these paragraphs Attorney Abbott has made terribly scandalous allegations against defendant Dixon in that he has been a, quote, major player in the illegal, willful, and oppressive conduct, and has also been an enterprise architect, a criminal conspirator, a point man, etc. But what has Dixon specifically done? And when? Where? And how has Dixon done this? And to whom? None of these specific facts are stated. The factually unsupported conclusions, as drawn by attorney Abbott in regards to Mr. Dixon are reprehensible, vengeful, malicious, and scandalous and these paragraphs should be stricken. In paragraph 26, defendant Moorhead is excused is accused of quote having aided and abetted the described unlawful acts by delivering a radio broadcast on October the 7th 1994 that distorted the actions of the 9th Judicial District.

Attorney Abbott does not tell the Court and the defendants the specific details as ordered by the Court in its order of February 26, 1996. To compound his violation, Attorney Abbott has the gall to then misstate as a fact that quote, this Court, Judge Gamble, on October 3, 1994, granted the Fort motion to dismiss Fort. This statement is an unmitigated lie. The transcript of that court proceeding attached as Exhibit B clearly shows that the motion to dismiss Fort was at the request of Phoenix and not at the request of Fort or Fort's attorney. Attorney Abbott then cites at page 16 that a false or grossly inaccurate report of court proceedings is a violation of Rule 199.340, a crime in Nevada. The actions and conduct of Attorney Abbott in this detailed paragraph are false, misleading, scandalous, and probably violate Rule 199.340, a crime in Nevada. Throughout this proffered second amended complaint, and in a variety of paragraphs, and all in a conclusionary framework, Attorney Abbott alleges that all of the corporate defendants were the alter egos of the Eckers.

That's spelled A-D-D-U-C-E-D. Adduced. I suppose that means found in the cosmos somewhere. Well, it's obviously one of those adducements. You know, you mutilate cows and adduce people. Here's a quote. This apparently is a quote out of the Second Amendment complaint. Number seven. Defendant Phoenix Institute since its chartering inception on March the 13th, 1990, on information and belief and provably upon evidence to be adduced.

1990, did you say? Yes. Well, that's when the Institute was formed. Buzz has been and is now an alter ego, etc. etc. This complaint was filed in December of 1994. It is now June 1996. Attorney Abbott has had more than 16 months to develop any facts to support this alleged alter ego theory, yet he has adduced and alleged none. This is yet another example of careless, ineffectual, and scandalous pleading, devoid of any specific fact pleading, and this particular paragraph should be stricken and the complaint should be dismissed.

D. Paragraphs 31, roughly through 43, among other paragraphs set forth the allegations that defendants Dickey, Dixon, successive defendant attorneys, House Counsel, and other defendants are charged with having received fees, salaries, expenses, and other remuneration, knowing and should know that such monies were monies loaned to Phoenix from Shreffer and the Fort interests, and with knowledge that said monies was in a trust. By Attorney Abbott's own exploited and exploded version of the monies loaned and allegedly owed to Plaintiff Fort, they allegedly amount to $203,882.30. See paragraph 20 of the Crawford Second Amendment complaint. By Attorneys Abbott's own admission in paragraph 12 and supplemented by paragraph 3, the Phoenix Echors brought in quote more than ten million dollars in donations, gifts, and loans. Attorney Abbott's claims do not meet the 10% as required for this receivership demand. Again he fails to comply with the court's February 26, 1996 order. No allegation is set forth concerning the total claims of all creditors or the jurisdiction of this court to entertain such cause.

Consequently, the fourth and fifth claims for relief of the second amendment complaint are fatally defective and must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter appearing on the face of the pleading. This careless and malicious attack upon the persons who are assisting the defendants in this case, as attorneys and paralegals, is a very obvious and visible effort to deprive the defendants of counsel and of due process of law. More than that, it is scandalous, and this complaint should be stricken for such contrived wrongs. Per Rule 12. Now, in one of George's mailings, recent mailings, he has stated, or actually, maybe it was on the phone message, so possibly I misspeak, but George Green himself has stated, and I believe it was to Paul Linthoff, that he didn't know Leon Fort's attorney, but his attorney really knew what he was doing, and he is going to go after the attorneys.

And let me tell you, friends, he has. That's the kind of games the man plays. In addition to the terrible defects in pleading, as already discussed, the defendants object that the following paragraphs contain allegations, speculative and conclusionary, as opposed to factual pleading. And at such phrases as, one, from paragraph 69, plaintiffs have been advised of the existence of documents that will arguably prove, and provably upon evidence to be adduced, as proofs to be adduced are expected to show, plainness have alleged and stand ready to prove evidence to be further adduced, plainness by motion and subsequent filings will make known, all of these should be ignored as imaginary, wishful thinking, and illusory, and non-existent, when more than sixteen months have elapsed since the original filing. Plaintiffs have on page 30 in paragraph 61 of the second amended complaint, continued to incorporate by reference the December 30, 1994, affidavit of George W. Abbott along with its voluminous 35 exhibits. The February 26, 1996 order expressly prohibited such incorporation by reference of exhibits.

Paragraph C.3 on page 7, lines 20 to 28, line 2 specifically, permits incorporation by reference of previous allegations in the complaint and specific exhibits. However, it expressly precludes the wholesale incorporation, by reference, of the 35 exhibits as Attorney Abbott has previously done. This additional, willful violation of said February 26, 1996, order by Attorney Abbott is further grounds for sanctions against Attorney Abbott, as well as sanctions in the form of dismissal of the entire action with prejudice, Rule 11 and 23. Defendants submit that it is safe to state that the entire complaint as drafted by Attorney Abbott is a kaleidoscope of legal mispleadings and procedural errors, and Attorney Abbott has never defined with clarity what any one defendant is specifically alleged to have done or one specific act that is wrong of itself or as it is shown to be part of a known conspiracy. this section. Defendants quote from Mohammed versus Union Carbide Corporation.

Quote, notwithstanding counsel's duty to zealously represent his client, an attorney is obligated to refrain from raising claims without first conducting reasonable inquiry into the underlying facts and law on which those claims are predicated. Counsel has a duty to his client and he has a duty to the fair administration of justice as well. An attorney is obligated to dissuade his client from pursuing specious claims and thereby avoid possible sanctions by the court, as well as unnecessary costs of litigating a worthless claim. Heading number five. This is not a RICO civil case. Defendants incorporate by reference all of the previous failings, misdeeds, and wrong deeds as cited in all of the foregoing paragraphs herein.

The Nevada Racketeering Act was enacted in 1983 and became effective July 1 of that year. The act provided for criminal and civil racketeering are defined in section NRS 207-360 and do not include the activities identified by Attorney Abbott as taking property from another under circumstances not amounting to robbery, extortion, embezzlement of property or money valued at $250 or more or obtaining a signature by means of false pretenses. Attorney Abbott has correctly copied these sections from Rule 207 and other sections. However, this court informed Attorney Abbott in no uncertain terms by its February 26, 1996 order that in making the alleged outrageous conduct by defendants into a cause of action, counsel Abbott is cautioned to follow Rule 11 before making what may be scandalous allegations. And two, particularity in pleading a racketeering case is needed to comply with Hale v. Burkhart. Attorney Abbott has failed to follow the dictates as set forth by the court and has not met the guidelines of Hale v. Burkhart or any other requirements of specific pleading and continues to disguise his lack of knowledge of law with his complete repertoire of scandalous phraseology.

In paragraph 6, attorney Abbott outlines the alleged secret conspiracy scheme that the defendants allegedly put together to fraudulent borrow money from the victims of the schemes as set forth in subsection 6a through 6g of said paragraph. Basically, the allegations are that the Institute borrows funds from lenders, buys gold with the funds, and borrows against the gold to supply the necessary funds for publishing or other purposes. Two, there are no specific allegations alleged as to who, when, where, or how these allegations are made, or that they were relied upon by the lenders when the loans were procured.

Further, there is no allegation that the representations that were allegedly made are untrue. Number three. In paragraph 9A, Attorney Abbott alleges, Phoenix Institute, from its inception, has been and is now an ecker and ecker dominated and controlled combination of persons, so structured that the organization has continued its operation even when individual members enter or leave the organization. Attorney Abbott has captured in this paragraph the definition of a criminal conspiracy is defined by rule 207-370 but has failed to specify by factual allegations exactly what the defendants have done as opposed to merely a conclusionary statement.

Have there been individual members who have left? Who are they? When did they leave? When were they replaced? How were they replaced? What is the definite structure that provides for this alleged criminal enterprise in specific terms? In paragraphs 15a, b, and c, Attorney Abbott alleges that his clients did rely upon the written and recorded communications made to or made available to them, and this does not state a case of action, but this does not state a cause of action. It is relevant to know when the statements were made, to whom and by whom.

Were the statements false? If the lenders knew that gold was to be purchased with their loans and then borrowed against to promote projects, what proof does Attorney Abbott have that this was not done? What was the price of gold at the time their loan was used to buy gold. If the lender knew that gold would be the basis for security to develop the project, where is the proof that the defendants have any funds to return to the plaintiffs that is unreasonably withheld? End Quotes Number five in paragraphs 31 and 32, Attorney Abbott states that funds paid to attorneys, House counsels, successive attorneys for services and salaries expenses and cost reimbursement and or the like, was known by defendants to be money belonging to the plaintiffs. Attorney Abbott does not attempt to explain in any detail how it arrives at this conclusion. The complaint as filed is permeated with references to a factual scenario that defendants have received more than 10 million dollars in gifts loans and donations. Attorney Abbott has failed to adequately allege that funds paid to these persons for services came from improperly diverted specific loans as opposed to being paid from gifts and donations.

Sixth, in paragraphs 14 and 15, Attorney Abbott alleges that his clients did rely upon the Phoenix representation, quote, that each such loan when received was immediately invested in its gold equivalent. With the gold equivalent then earmarked and set aside for the account of the particular lender investor. Also, that Phoenix stated, quote, this is your gold, we will only have use of it with your permission for general projects or as you direct. Attorney Abbott has not set forth any allegations that the loan money was not immediately converted into gold or that the funds borrowed against the gold was not used for the specific or general projects as directed. Attorney Abbott has not made any statements that his clients did not want to participate in any particular project of Phoenix. The implication is readily apparent that the purpose of their loan was to participate and further the projects of Phoenix and that plaintiffs were willing participants in their corporate or trustee capacities of the lenders concerned.

Attorney Abbott has made no specifics showing that his clients did anything but participate in the projects as apparently developed by Phoenix and Attorney Abbott, has not specifically shown how the lender could recover any funds absent the success of the project or the doubling of the price of gold. Further, Attorney Abbott has not shown that Phoenix has any funds from a project that is being withheld or wrongfully withheld from being returned to the lenders. Certainly, Attorney Abbott is not attempting to represent that Phoenix should repay lenders from funds loaned by other lenders. Number seven. In paragraph 37 of the first claim for relief, Attorney Abbott makes the conclusionary allegations that the actions of defendants, and each of them described here and above, constitute racketeering activity, embezzlement of money valued at $250 or more, obtaining of money valued at $250 or more, extortion by threats, embezzlement by defendants, etc. Hale Burkhart dealt with that issue and with the predicate crime of a violation of Rule 205-380 and specifically a violation of obtaining money from property or labor under false pretenses. This court has indicated that Hale versus Burkhardt is the standard that the plaintiff should meet as to the proof of predicate acts.

The Hale court noted that a false pretense is a representation of some fact or circumstance which is not true and is calculated to mislead. Applying the Hale case to the factual allegations of this complaint clearly establishes the deficiencies in this complaint. There are no specific factual allegations presented by Attorney Abbott of the individual defendants having made any individual statements to the plaintiffs that were untrue, that were relied upon by plaintiffs and or were calculated to mislead. It held that the plaintiff's failure to state the nature or content of any concrete representations and his failure to describe the context in which any representation might have been made is fatal to that claim of the complaint. The Hale court noted that even if the allegations of the three supposed schemes stated the elements of a false pretense as crime, that the pleading lacked the kind of specificity that is called for in making such allegations. Hale also stated that a civil RICO pleading was required to be a sufficiently plain, concise, and definite statement of the essential facts that would provide a person of ordinary understanding with notice of the charges and with sufficient specificity due to the consequences that can arise from the allegations of criminal conduct.

Number eight. The allegations of the remaining claims for relief suffer the same lack of specificities as has been mentioned for the cited claims. The complaint does not meet the standards of Hale and fails to inform the individual defendants of what they each supposedly did, to whom, and when, and how it was false or misleading, and how it was relied upon the plaintiffs, among other deficiencies. Plaintiffs have been given enough chances already to follow the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure.

Their failure to do so, in light of the February 26, 1996 order, mandates such dismissal. Conclusion. Instead of taking advantage of an opportunity to show with sufficient detail the supposedly legitimate claims of his clients, Attorney Abbott has made it clear that there is no hope for the plaintiffs to file a legitimate complaint and no hope for Attorney Abbott to avoid his vexatious litigation traits. Consequently, the Second Amendment complaint should be stricken and dismissed with prejudice as a result of such inappropriate pleading and as a component of the requested sanctions. Defendants also seek attorney fees incurred herein against Attorney Abbott and plaintiffs in having to defend this action.

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of June. Yes. And we will make a copy of these tapes available to the fire. But there have been others, and they're right back again. The second answer here, for some reason Horton thinks that if he jumps in as a joiner in these cases that that's helpful. So last, I believe it was January, he jumped in with a joiner asking for receivership. We had asked for an extension of 30 days to answer this complaint. That extension expired on the 10th of June. So here comes Mr. Horton's paper, dated May 30th, and he is, in this, he is trying to get, in his paperwork, he was trying to get an expedited hearing. So...

Now, it's not part of the case, but... Kate. He was trying to object to the now 20 day old extension. Yeah, right. Anyway, this one has a caption that says defendants motion to strike joined her by George Green in request for receivership contained in the Second Amended Complaint and motion for sanctions. In other words, we're asking for sanctions against them for filing this silly joinder. Come Now, Phoenix Institute for Research and Education Limited, a Nevada corporation, Phoenix, and Carson Capital Corporation, a Nevada corporation, Carson, by and through their attorney of record, Bradley Paul Ely, Esquire, and hereby move this court to strike that certain joinder by George Green in request for receivership contained in second amended complaint, opposition to defendant's motion for extension of time, and request for expedited hearing on application for receivership, dated May the 28th, 1996.

Said defendants will also move for sanctions against attorney David Horton and his client George Green for willfully violating this court's February 26, 1996 order pertaining to such joinder and receivership. contrary to Rule 11, as well as violations of Rule 23, on account of the failure to comply with Nevada rules of civil procedure and Ninth Judicial Court rules. Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $1,500 for reasonable attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of this motion. Dated the 14th of June.

