Neilson v. HSBC et al

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding hearings held on September 19, 2016. IT IS TEMPORARILY ORDERED that:1. Ms. Lundahl, Mr. Fritts, Lisa Nelson, E.H. Neilson, Elham Neilson, D. Christinsen, Dillon Christinsen, Dillon Christiansen, K.S. Christiansen, a nd Anthony Kenyon Cross and any agents, servants, employees or other persons under their joint, sole or several control or any entities in which they or any of them have any interest, are instructed as follows: - A. Until further order of the u ndersigned, and except as provided in paragraph 3, the foregoing persons or entities are barred from filing any pleadings or documents in the following cases: Nelson, et al. v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, et al., 8:16CV368-RGK -PRSE; Lundahl, et al. v. Dunn, et al., 4:15CV3133-RGK-PRSE; Telford, et al. v. United States of America, et al., 4:16CV3147-RGK-PRSE; Lundahl, et al., v. Hoffman, et al., 4:16CV3000-RGK-PRSE; Bell, et al., v. The Gerald and Mary Lundahl Living Trust , et al., 7:16CV5001-RGK-CRZ1; and Neilson v. HSBC, et al., 4:16CV3093-RGK-PRSE. - B. The Clerk shall enter a copy of this Memorandum and Order in all of the foregoing cases. Except as noted in paragraph 3, if any of the above persons or entitie s attempt to file a pleading or other document in the foregoing cases, the Clerk shall immediately notify the undersigned and hold unfiled such pleadings or documents until the undersigned provides further direction.2. Until further order of t his court, the persons or entities described in paragraph 1 are barred from filing any new action in this court or removing any new action from state court to this court. If any such action or removal is attempted, the Clerk shall immediately notify the undersigned and hold unfiled such documents until the undersigned gives further direction. 3. On or before 4:30 PM on Monday, October 3, 2016, Ms. Lundahl shall cause the original documents establishing the Shanandoah Trust, the pred ecessor to said trust or any affiliated entities of such trust to be delivered to the Clerk of this Court in Lincoln, Nebraska. The original document(s) must arrive no later than 4:30 PM. Upon receipt of such documents, the Clerk shall notify the u ndersigned and the undersigned will provide instructions about the handling of such documents.4. Anthony Kenyon Cross shall have no obligation to participate in any of these cases on behalf of K.S. Christiansen. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Filed as directed in other cases) (JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LISA NELSON, personally and as assignee
of claims belonging to the Shanandoah
Trust, H. Lundahl Telford personally and as
assignee to the claims of Marti Lundahl, and
H. LUNDAHL TELFORD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MOUNTAIN WEST FARM BUREAU
)
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
)
JEFFREY A. DONNELL, GEORGE E.
)
POWERS, LAW OFFICES OF SUNDAHL, )
POWERS, KAPP & MARTIN, D.
)
CHRISTINSEN, SUSAN AUKEMA,
)
PAMELLA GEE, U.S. Postal Employees,
)
and DOES 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HSBC, BENEFICIAL WYOMING, INC.,
)
WADE WALDRIP, Judge, JAMES
)
BELCHER, LAW OFFICE OF CROWLEY )
AND FLECK, UNITED STATES POSTAL )
SERVICE, K.S. CHRISTIANSEN, and
)
DOES 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

8:16CV368

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

E.H. NEILSON,

4:16CV3093

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

(Direction to Clerk: see Order portion of
this document for specific directions in
these and other cases)

I have a reasonable suspicion that one or more of the plaintiffs and one or more of two
defendants (one defendant in each case) are engaging in a fraud on the court. So, I will take
temporary measures to protect the integrity of the court until I have a firmer handle on what to do.

In this regard, I am seeking advice from the General Counsel’s office of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts.
Brief Background
Both of these pro se cases were removed from state court by a defendant variously named
D. CHRISTINSEN and K.S. CHRISTIANSEN. Both of these cases named plaintiffs with similar
names, LISA NELSON and E.H. NEILSON. In both cases, D. CHRISTINSEN and K.S.
CHRISTIANSEN removed these cases from the state courts and sought leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Both of these cases involve suits against state judges and other defendants. H.
LUNDAHL TELFORD is listed as a plaintiff in one case. For the reasons described next, this
person will be referred to as Ms. Lundahl.
Ms. Lundahl frequently uses aliases. See Lundahl v. Zimmer, 296 F.3d 936, 937 (10th Cir.
2002) (noting Ms. Lundahl filed a suit in the District of Utah under the name of Holli Telford); see
also Lundahl v. Nar Inc., 434 F. Supp.2d 855, 860 n.2 (D. Idaho May 24, 2006) (“Plaintiff has
employed numerous aliases in her past litigation including, but not limited to, H.M. Telford, M.H.
Telford, Marti Telford, Holli Lundahl, H. Lundahl, H.T. Lundahl, Marti Lundahl, and Holly Mattie
Telford”). This Memorandum and Order shall apply to Ms. Lundahl even if she improperly
proceeds under any alias.
Ms. Lundahl is known for filing abusive, vexatious and frivolous actions and pleadings
throughout this nation and even in the Supreme Court of the United States. As one court has noted:
Plaintiff Holli Lundahl has a lengthy history of filing abusive, vexatious, frivolous
actions and pleadings, both in this Court and in other state and federal courts. For
example, in 2003, the Utah Supreme Court noted Ms. Lundahl filed 19 appeals, for
[sic] writ petitions, two petitions for certiorari, and two petitions for interlocutory
appeal before that court, all in approximately four years. Lundahl v. Quinn, 67 P.3d
1000, 1001 (Utah 2003). That court found her filings were “routinely frivolous” and
“with the apparent purpose, or at least effect, of harassment; not only of opposing
parties, but of the judicial machinery itself.” Id. at 2002. The Utah Supreme Court
imposed filing restrictions against Ms. Lundahl.
A non-exhaustive list of additional courts that have imposed filing restrictions
against Ms. Lundahl includes:
1.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Lundahl, No. 97-80258 (9th Cir.
Jul. 17, 1997);
2

2.

The United States District Court for the District of Utah, In re Lundahl (D.
Utah July 8, 2004) (general order imposing filing restrictions);

3.

The United States Supreme Court; Lundahl v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 USLW
3631, 2005 WL 461288 (Apr. 25, 2005);

4.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Johnson v. Stock, No. 03-4219, 2005
WL 1349963 (10th Cir. June 8, 2005);

5.

The United States District Court of the Western District of Texas, Lundahl
v. Hawkins, 2009 WL 3617518 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2009), aff’d, 407
Fed.Appx. 777 (5th Cir. 2011); and

6.

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho, Lundahl v. Nar
Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 855 (D. Idaho May 24, 2006).

Ms. Lundahl worked hard to earn these previous filing restrictions. Her litigation
tactics have been “abusive, harmful, and intended to harass and annoy both the
parties she names in her lawsuits and the entire judicial system she purports to
invoke.” Lundahl v. Nar Inc., 434 F. Supp2d 855, 859 (D. Idaho May 24, 2006).
Ms. Lundahl’s lawsuits are often blatant attempts to relitigate previously
unsuccessful claims in new forums. See id. at 856. Her abusive litigation is
extensive. A United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas
described Ms. Lundahl’s litigation history:
A review of the U.S. Party and Case Index reveals that [Ms. Lundahl]
has filed more than sixty pro se lawsuits in the federal courts of
California, Utah, Nevada, Montana, Texas, and Idaho, and over
eighty appeals in the federal appellate courts of those states.
Civil Action No. H-08-3786, Order of Dismissal (S.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2009) (citations
omitted). Those numbers have only increased substantially over the last five years.
Lundahl v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 13-CV-241-SWS, 2014 WL 347157, at * 1-2 (D. Wyo. Jan. 30,
2014), aff'd sub nom. Lundahl v. Halabi, 600 F. App'x 596 (10th Cir. 2014).
Brief Summary of Hearings held on September 19, 2016
I held back-to-back hearings in these cases on September 19, 2016. Every person appearing
without counsel was sworn under penalty of perjury.

3

In Case No. 8:16CV368, I ordered Defendant D. Christinsen and Plaintiffs Lisa Nelson and
H. Lundahl Telford to appear before me. I warned that the failure to appear as ordered could result
in the imposition of sanctions including, but not limited to, the imposition of monetary sanctions,
barring one or more of the summoned litigants from prosecuting or defending cases in this court,
and dismissal with prejudice of the claims or defenses of one or more of the summoned litigants.
The other parties to this action were not required to attend the hearing, but they could appear if they
so desired.
I entered a similar order in Case No. 4:16CV3093. There, I ordered Defendant K.S.
Christiansen and Plaintiff E.H. Neilson to appear.
In Case No. 8:16CV368, Plaintiff Lisa Nelson failed to appear as ordered. Instead, a person
by the name of Steven Fritts appeared. He declared in a sworn pleading that: “Due to a family
emergency requiring Lisa Nelson to relocate to Panama on or about September 3, 2016, I revoked
the assignment to Lisa Nelson, terminated Lisa’s services as a subordinate trustee, and re-assigned
the causes of action underlying this action to myself pursuant to my duties under the trust
instrument; said instrument originally created by Hollie Telford in 1991.” Ms. Lundahl also
appeared, together with a person claiming to be “D. Christinsen.” (He later identified his first name
as “Dillon.”)
I examined each of these three individuals other oath. Among many other things, it is
apparent that the application to proceed in forma pauperis that accompanied the removal notice filed
by “D. Christinsen” is wholly insufficient because the financial affidavit that went with it contains
both material omissions and misrepresentations. For example, he admitted under oath that he listed
a dead child as a dependent and failed to disclose that he and Ms. Lundahl jointly own a tractor
worth approximately $10,000. Additionally, he had no knowledge of a debt described on his
affidavit. (“Primo equity lenders- $720/mo.”)
Furthermore, it became apparent that D. Christinsen did not prepare the notice of removal.
Rather, he had the assistance of someone else. As will become clear in a moment, it is also
noteworthy that on the notice of removal, he listed his address this way: 710 South 13th St. #900
PMB #170 Norfolk, NE 68701.
In Case No. 4:16CV3093, the plaintiff E.H. Neilson appeared for the hearing. She denied
any knowledge of Ms. Lundahl, Lisa Nelson, Steven Fritts or D. Christinsen. She admitted under
oath that her full name was Elham Neilson. I take judicial notice that a person by the name of
4

Elham Neilson filed a verified complaint in Neilson v. Clarence Williams, et. al, Case No.
6:11CV228 (filing no. 1) in the Eastern District of Texas. While that pleading contains the signature
Elham Neilson, it appears that the document’s signature line was manually altered by striking the
words “HM.Telford” and adding “EL” and then “A” before and between the signature line for “HM
Telford.” A copy of that document is attached and marked as Exhibit 1 RGK.
I questioned E.H. Neilson under oath about whether she had help preparing pleadings. She
admitted that she did have help, but refused to give the address of the person who helped her. She
did, however, provide an e-mail address.
K.S. Christiansen did not appear as ordered, but Anthony Kenyon Cross did appear as the
“assignee” of K.S. Christiansen. An assignment was filed by K.S. Christiansen after the entry of
my hearing order. It is noteworthy that K.S. Christiansen has given her address in a change of
address notice as K. Christiansen 710 S. l3th St., Ste 900 PMB #710 Norfolk, NE 68701. This
address is nearly identical to the address provided by D. Christinsen in Case No. 8:16CV368.
In questioning Mr. Cross, it ultimately became clear that he was instructed by someone else
(perhaps his parents) to show up for K.S. Christiansen with little or no knowledge about what he was
responsible for doing. After further questioning, Mr. Cross indicated he wanted nothing further to
do with this matter.
Protecting the Integrity of the Court
Independent of my duty to insure all litigants are treated fairly and according to the
Constitution, the statutes, the relevant rules and the precedents, I have a separate obligation to
protect the integrity of the court. “‘Courts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by
their very creation, with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and
submission to their lawful mandates.’” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (quoting
Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 227, 5 L.Ed. 242 (1821) and noting that this “inherent power of
the federal courts” allows a federal court “to vacate its own judgment upon proof that a fraud has
been perpetrated upon the court”; stating that “tampering with the administration of justice . . .
involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to
protect and safeguard the public. Moreover, a court has the power to conduct an independent
investigation in order to determine whether it has been the victim of fraud.”) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). See also Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2006) (federal
court's “inherent power” encompasses court's authority to dismiss an action sua sponte “‘when a
5

party deceives [the] court or abuses the process at a level that is utterly inconsistent with the orderly
administration of justice or undermines the integrity of the process.’”) (quoting United States v.
Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 462 (4th Cir. 1993)); Walsh v. Comey, 118 F. Supp. 3d 22, 28
(D.D.C. 2015) (court has obligation to protect the “orderly and expeditious administration of
justice”) (internal quotation and citation omitted); Simons v. Freeport Mem’l Hosp., No. 06 C 50134,
2008 WL 5111157, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2008) (courts have obligation to protect and preserve the
integrity of the judicial proceedings before them); Ward v. Nierlich, No. 99-14227 CIV, 2006 WL
5412626, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2006) (federal courts have inherent authority to protect the
integrity of the judicial process and to sanction Plaintiffs and their counsel for abuse of that process);
State of Colo. ex rel. Colorado Judicial Dep’t v. Fleming, 726 F. Supp. 1216, 1221 (D. Colo. 1989)
(“Federal courts have both the inherent power and constitutional obligation to protect their
jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out the functions mandated by Article
III. . . . In order to protect and maintain the integrity of our docket and protect other individuals who
seek access to the court, this trial court may place reasonable restrictions on litigants who abuse the
judicial process.”).
Therefore,
IT IS TEMPORARILY ORDERED that:
1.

Ms. Lundahl, Mr. Fritts, Lisa Nelson, E.H. Neilson, Elham Neilson, D. Christinsen,
Dillon Christinsen, Dillon Christiansen, K.S. Christiansen, and Anthony Kenyon
Cross and any agents, servants, employees or other persons under their joint, sole or
several control or any entities in which they or any of them have any interest, are
instructed as follows:
A.

Until further order of the undersigned, and except as provided in paragraph
3, the foregoing persons or entities are barred from filing any pleadings or
documents in the following cases:
Nelson, et al. v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual
Insurance Company, et al., 8:16CV368-RGK-PRSE;
Lundahl, et al. v. Dunn, et al., 4:15CV3133-RGK-PRSE;
Telford, et al. v. United States of America, et al.,
4:16CV3147-RGK-PRSE;
6

Lundahl, et al., v. Hoffman, et al., 4:16CV3000-RGK-PRSE;
Bell, et al., v. The Gerald and Mary Lundahl Living
Trust, et al., 7:16CV5001-RGK-CRZ1; and
Neilson v. HSBC, et al., 4:16CV3093-RGK-PRSE.
B.

The Clerk shall enter a copy of this Memorandum and Order in all of the
foregoing cases. Except as noted in paragraph 3, if any of the above persons
or entities attempt to file a pleading or other document in the foregoing
cases, the Clerk shall immediately notify the undersigned and hold unfiled
such pleadings or documents until the undersigned provides further
direction.

2.

Until further order of this court, the persons or entities described in paragraph 1 are
barred from filing any new action in this court or removing any new action from
state court to this court. If any such action or removal is attempted, the Clerk shall
immediately notify the undersigned and hold unfiled such documents until the
undersigned gives further direction.

3.

On or before 4:30 PM on Monday, October 3, 20162, Ms. Lundahl shall cause the
original documents establishing the Shanandoah Trust, the predecessor to said trust
or any affiliated entities of such trust to be delivered to the Clerk of this Court in
Lincoln, Nebraska. The original document(s) must arrive no later than 4:30 PM.
Upon receipt of such documents, the Clerk shall notify the undersigned and the
undersigned will provide instructions about the handling of such documents.

4.

Anthony Kenyon Cross shall have no obligation to participate in any of these cases
on behalf of K.S. Christiansen.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2016.

1

H. Lundahl and Telford-Lundahl Trust are listed as additional plaintiffs in this suit.

2

At the hearing, I gave her until 5:00 PM. However, since the Clerk closes at 4:30 PM, I
have been required to shorten the deadline by 30 minutes.
7

BY THE COURT:

s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
and Pro Se Docket Supervisor

8