You are on page 1of 4

ALEXANDER J NEIGHBORS

1411 W Megan St
Chandler, AZ 85224
(480) 734-8649

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA


AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COUNTY
In Re the Marriage of:

JORDAN NEIGHBORS , )
Petitioner, )
)
And ) Case No. FC2016-009166
) Case assigned to the Honorable Fox, Dewain
ALEXANDER J NEIGHBORS, ) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Respondent )

MOTION FOR SANCTION


Pursuant to Rule 11

ALEXANDER J NEIGHBORS “State Citizen”, is here by special appearance until informed by


you that I am proceeding in a court of Constitutional Due Process [under Article III of the
Constitution of the united States for America, and the common law] … a neutral judge,
Petitioner/ Respondent adversarial system, which means the court cannot impose the same
standard up on me as are imposed on a licensed attorney, and states: Attorneys are expected
to perform a reasonable

“Pre-filing investigation.” Rule 11 states in part that attorneys must not file suit without
evidentiary support for the allegations contained in the complaint.

I. Pre- Filing Investigation:

A reasonable inquiry into the facts is a threshold requirement that first examines whether the pre-filing

investigation was unreasonable based on the circumstances—in which case sanctions should be

1
imposed—rather than whether there was a reasonable belief that the facts supported the

allegations. See Chandler v. Nw. Bank Minn., Nat’l Ass’n, 137 F.3d 1053, 1057 (10th Cir. 1998)

(imposing sanctions when attorney failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry, despite a reasonable

belief that the allegations were based in fact); see Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 127 F.R.D.

154 (C.D. Ill. 1989) (imposing sanctions when claim was not well grounded in law, despite being

adequately investigated). In the current jurisdiction, only after it is determined that an initial

investigation was reasonable, the focus then shifts to whether there is any factual support for the

allegations. Thus, sanctions would be appropriate only if either the pre-filing investigation was

unreasonable or the pre-filing investigation was reasonable but the claims are baseless.

II. Allegations Based in Fact

The standard for determining whether a pleading is well grounded in fact for Rule 11 purposes
is, according to Hillsborough County v. A & E Road Oiling Service, Inc., 160 F.R.D. 655, 659
(M.D. Fla. 1995), “objectively reasonable under the circumstances.” A filing meets this
requirement if there is some evidentiary basis for the position taken at the time the pleading is
signed. Even if the factual assertions in a paper are later disproven or are insufficient to survive a
summary judgment motion, the paper is not sanctionable.

Whether or not there is factual support can shift as parties learn new information. Thus, the
attorney has a continuing obligation to ensure that the allegations are not baseless each time he or
she files a paper with the court. An attorney might be subject to sanctions if he or she
continued to assert baseless allegations after learning of the facts or legal precedent that
undermined them. For example, in Mercury Air Group, Inc. v. Mansour, 237 F.3d 542, 549
(5th Cir. 2001), the Fifth Circuit affirmed sanctions in the form of reasonable attorney fees and
expenses against an attorney who conducted 150 hours of investigation prior to filing suit but
who continued to pursue the claim even after learning that claim was baseless.

2
III. Request for Sanctions Summary:

Counsel in this case clearly failed to manage this case to the standards necessary to avoid
sanctions and “personal liability.” This case was filed absent a Pre-filing investigation. A
reasonable inquiry into the facts is a threshold requirement to be considered before filing a case.
This case was filed without a supporting affidavit from a “real party of interest”, no pre-filing
investigation was performed. This case was filed without any admissible evidence placed on the
record and under intentional fraud.

This Case Was Filed With Fraudulent Intent:

This case was filed in “Fraud” which removed the court’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner’s JORDAN
NEIGHBORS listed address of residence is Not the “factual residence” she lives at. She Lives in
Central Phoenix with Katelyn Nelson at an address she refuses to tell me . Jordan attempted to
de-fraud the court by claiming she lived at her parents house listed at 748 w Gary Dr chandler Az
85224, She did this in order to prevent me Alex Neighbors from moving to a new location. When
I confronted her father the property owner and asked him to sign an affidavit of fact addressing
the issue that she filed a false address on the petition. Gregory Stewart said he would not sign
anything unless he spoke to Jordan about it first. When I addressed the fact she lied on court
documents he told me that he would not sign anything and that he would only address the fact
she does not live at his house if he was called into court to testify. Greg Stewart: Cell 623-349-
3491. Jordan Neighbors is trying to manipulate the court system into thinking she currently only
lives 1 mile from me. When in fact her parents live one mile from me. Even though Yvette
Stewart’s daughter Jordan Neighbors Moved in with Katelyn Nelson in Central Phoenix at an
address unknown to me or her parents on Aug 31, 2016. Jordan Neighbors currently lives with
Katelyn Nelson and pays $700 a month in rent to Katelyn. Jordan Neighbors is currently not on
the official Lease for Katelyn’s apartment. Attached is the affidavit of fact I requested Jordan’s
father to sign. Jordan Neighbors has AZ Drivers license that currently has the Address of the
marital home at 1411 W Megan St Chandler Az, which she left and moved many of her
belongings out of Aug 31, 2016. No pre-filing investigation has ever performed in this case, and
no admissible evidence was ever filed on the record.

3
4