[KITCHIE]

This is a little taste of what I did to the judge in the Household Auto case. I filed this and two days later (before the other attorney was served) he filed a motion for Summary judgement. To date the court has been silent.

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, WASHOE COUNTY



HOUSEHOLD AUTO FINANCE
]
Plaintiff
]
vs ] Case No. CV05-00637 ] Dept. No I Katherine Elizabeth Snedigar ]
Defendant/Counterclaimant ]
]
vs ]
]
]
HOUSEHOLD AUTO FINANCE ]
BAKER COLLECTION COUNSELOR ] NOTICE AND DEMAND THIS
GERALD A. PHILLIPS, ESQ ] COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
THE LAW FIRM OF PHILLIPS, HARPER AND ]
HARPER, AMERICAN ALLIANCE OF ]
CREDITOR ATTORNEYS et al ]
MACHELLE BOMENKA NOTARY ]
Commission # 1508176 ]
GLOBAL ACCEPTANCE CREDIT ]
CORPORATION et al ]
jointly and Individually
Counterdefendants ]

The Court is sworn by its oath of office under which it sits to uphold the Constitution and to grant fair and impartial consideration to all claims and to know nothing in this case except fact in evidence proven before it.
Snedigar hereby demands this Court take judicial notice on the following statements of fact filed in this Court, under penalty of perjury.
STATEMENT OF FACT I
SNEDIGAR’S STATUS
Judge Berry is profoundly incorrect by Judge Berry recasting Snedigar’s status of appearance. Snedigar has never appeared Pro se or in Proper Person. Snedigar throughout all her filings Motions and Pleadings has always appeared Specially and not Generally, in Propria Personnae and Sui juris, in my own person, one not under or for another. Snedigar has never agreed to appear as the FICTION known as SNEDIGAR (Pro se) nor as a suitable substitute for SNEDIGAR (Proper person) and hereby demands Judge Berry recognize Snedigar as declared in Snedigar’s motions and pleadings, in Propria Personnae and Sui juris, a human woman. Snedigar spelled out the exact definitions of Pro se and in Propria Personnae. Snedigar now notices Judge Berry that Katherine-Elizabeth: Snedigar is not a suitable stand in for KATHERINE SNEDIGAR, as was recast by Judge Berry. Snedigar demands Judge Berry recognize Snedigar as declared in Snedigar’s motions and pleadings. See your ORDER page 2 line 2.
STATEMENT OF FACT II
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
Snedigar agrees with the Court page 2 line 17: Summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Snedigar reminds Judge Berry that in Miller v. Jones, 114 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 136, December 29, 1998 the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada referred to Bulbman, Inc. v. Nevada Bell where it was stated; While we construe the pleadings and proof in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, that party is not entitled to build its case on "gossamer threads of whimsy, speculation, and conjecture." Id. We review orders granting summary judgment de novo. Bulbman, Inc. v. Nevada Bell, 108 Nev. 105, 110, 825 P.2

If anyone is interested in what I filed in this case I will be happy to provide.

Kitchie