Cindy's News    October 10th 2004
It is ALL in the Rules of Procedure. That is where everything is happening  This is like being thrown out on the football field in the middle of the biggest play of the game with everything at stake. .. (51 years, "HERE") ... and the screams from both sets of coaches, teams and fans on both sides of the field are coming in: - "DON'T THINK! Just catch the ball!"
I am moving into the Federal Court of Claims next. Tort claims - for everybody who is targeted for being associated with me. First, Fourth, Fifth, .... more Amendments. I'm going to get their property back. Whoever may be able to donate any money for the cost of filing and mailing and would be well appreciated.
2756 Heritage Circle Las Vegas, Nevada IPU Code: [89121]

First Amendment Writ of Prohibition
Click here
Click here
Cindy's CD
Well, I have something to show you. This is what I have been doing to breathe life into the Constitution of the battle born state.
On Monday, I will file a First Amendment Writ of Prohibition upon all of the United States Attorneys, all of the Judges and Magistrates in the United States Courthouse. I am filing the action for the second time here in the Clark County District Court. I believe that since we are "HERE", we may as well find out what the State has to say about all of these constitutional violations going on.
I am Petitioning the State Court to arrest all of the federal cases pending in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT and, to intervene in all of the proceedings to investigate the constitutional violations in the raid, search, seizure, concealment of evidence, injunction and criminal indictments with no notice, no assessment, no deficiency, no "Please stop", and to tell us about where jurisdiction lies and to demand authority of the prosecutors and agents.
The First Amendment Writ must be heard within 30 days whether the government shows up or not. Anyone with the same question regarding speech, assembly, searches and seizures and property rights in Nevada when the claimant is the federal government can intervene in this case and ask a question for a judicial declaration of rights.
The Judiciary Act, The Supremacy Clause, the Exclusionary Rule, the district court of the United States of America vs. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, the McDade Amendment, are the issues presented. Maybe the Buck Act, too - Ken Nicholson intervened in this case back in April when we filed it the first time. (Ken was physically attacked by the Team Manager of the Appeals functions at the IRS a couple of years ago). His question revolves around the Buck Act, and he wants to speak to the Court.

The government is on all-out-attack against Irwin's students. They are running amuck drunk on their "court-authorized" power. This phony "tax shelter injunction scheme" is working for them all across America....without putting on one real trial  it works like magic. We are getting the giant runaround in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, where no one will talk about authority and jurisdiction or law.

I can't make a move. I can't make one more move in the federal courts. I'd be an idiot if I did.

No one came into the Courts with their "proper papers" their Congressionally mandated NOTICE, administrative procedures, agency referral letter, certification and authority and continued supervision by the Attorney General of the United States as required by Supreme Court Rules 28USC§509-519, and a delegation order to Eileen O'Connor who assigns the cases to the attorneys and the chiefs of the criminal investigation division. The rules and regulations commanding these papers are found in the Federal Register, the Federal Regulations, the CODE, the USAM, the Executive Orders...It's everywhere! TOO MUCH ammunition. The whole chain of events that produce the authority to bring the cases    the criminal surveillance, the enjoining, banning, charging, stalking, harassing... It's ALL missing.

Therefore, I'm serving another writ of prohibition, alternatively mandamus, and motion for declaratory judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Uniform Act to find a judicial finding:
What Court should we be in  Or, should we be in any court at all and is the government estopped from all of the targeting - even administratively - until a trial is held and somebody gets convicted of a crime. A real trial with a real jury and with government witnesses like the Custodian of Records and all of the employees I met with at the IRS who "aided and assisted" in all of the alleged crimes for 5 years.

Are we considered to be voluntarily appearing because we did not know the difference between an Article III court and an administrative legislative territorial court - It's all in Rule Number 1. (Right under our noses.) Have we been going through hell for a year and a half and haven't even gotten to "real court" yet? Can you believe this? Rule Number 1 and the Mookini case. See Advisory Committee Notes 1 and 2 under Rule Number 1. FRCP

Both courts are in the same courthouse. But there is only one district court of the United States, and there is only one judge that sits there. In southern Nevada, it is Philip Pro, Senior Judge. If the people want to talk about the law and the First Amendment or common law or anything real  they must appear before Judge Philip Pro, (or request a special circuit judge to come in), AND they must set the court correctly for the remedy they seek. They have to put down the proper heading and say: This is an Article III Court.

The legislative courts do not have to obey any of the Title 28 Supreme Court Rules, and when they cite these rules, it is a fraud upon the targets for it leads the targets to believe that the Rules apply. The district court of the United States of America is the Article III constitutional Court where the Supreme Court Rules apply.

It is up to the Movant or the Respondent to set the court right. Where there involves a seizure, the proper move is the district court of the United States, Chief Judge, moving in Supplemental Admiralty Rules A-G. Yes, all seizures of persons and property are admiralty in rem proceedings. The only court that can hear this proceeding is the district court of the United States of America.

Anyway, the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT In The DISTRICT of NEVADA is not a court of law. It is a court people use to "settle" a matter. It does not involve real hearings  and it has nothing to do with the law - not even the prima facie evidence of the law. They just use the Code Section Numbers and the "tweaked" headings put next to them - but no one wants to really talk about the statutes charged.
They want to "settle a matter" and they used the Code Numbers to bring the targets in who know they can beat them with the very statutes they pretended to charge. This is part of their strategy and they do this purposely - They file false charges knowing they are false, knowing you will beat them on the merits, but also knowing you are stunned and shell-shocked reeling from the CID Attack and fully disarmed by the seizure, so you would not notice where you were appearing and you would not notice the Rules and you would not notice that it all operates on knowing and willing waiver and consent, and as soon as you come in arguing the phony charges, you gave your knowing and willing waiver and consent - until you take it all back in an Amended pleading relation back.

The people have to consent to everything. Without the help of the people continuing to show up, the government could not do anything. None of them have any authority for any of this - except what we give them when we go into their tribunal.

Once in "COURT", no one wants to discuss the statutes anymore. There are 160 court cases everybody wants to talk about now, and that is just in one of the four cases at "work" so far. If the people cannot find "case law" to back up statutes, then the statute does not count. Appearing in Footnote #1, I think, in the Preliminary Injunction Order. It is a newly enacted burden of proof statute (26USC  §6751) that Judge George said did not count because I didn't find a judge who agreed with me. Of course, it is new and may have never been an issue before a court - not even the pretend court, so it did not count as a defense. Burden of proof requirements as enacted by Congress in the year 2000 did not constitute a defense. What does that say?

The government attorneys are testifying no one is taking the witness stand, the judge wants to help the government attorneys so we get more than a few "right hooks" from them.
Here's the latest! You are going to love this:
The NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS issued an Affirmation of Judge Lloyd D. George's June 16, 2003 Order of Preliminary Injunction, meaning that if we cannot stop the Court from issuing its mandate, Irwin's book is banned again, maybe more than one, and, I cannot speak to anyone anymore. (My telephone is still "tapped"). In the Opinion of the 9th Circuit, of August 9, 2004, in paragraph [9] way at the back - the Court built-in a guilty verdict for the criminal trial and set-up everyone we know for criminal indictments.

We are in the wrong courts. I do not know for sure where we fit if anywhere, but I asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals whether they are "stuck" in whichever capacity the case comes to them? Should we be changing venues now? Can we do it when we are stuck together as defendants when one is too stubborn to understand this and too busy to read Rule Number 1?

The Ninth Circuit Ordered me to make my Motion to Dismiss or Sever from Irwin in the district court where the "government's case on the merits against Neun remain". Then, the same court, eight months later issues a First Amendment Only Opinion delivering a criminal verdict as the knock-out punch!
So, I Petitioned for a PUBLIC en banc re-hearing. All 50 Judges calling witnesses. From both sides. This could be our First Amendment Redress of Grievance Conference that the government hid from in January 2003 and we do not even have to mention the income tax.

I am filing a Writ of Prohibition in the State Court on Monday. I would like to have some nicely dressed professional Constitution lovers to go with me. I would very much like to reach Joel Hansen on the ballot for Supreme Court Justice here in nevada who is a loyal constitutionalist and believes that Congress makes laws - not judges. He should go into judges chambers with me when I bring the Emergency Writ just in case it must go directly to the Supreme Court of this State. I want him to take it to the Supreme Court in Nevada on the Constitution only with Andre Lagomarsino.

These two men could pull back all injunctions and incarcerations without ever mentioning the income tax. It is all jurisdiction and where is the authority, and where do we find the Constitution and the laws of this State? "Where does Cynthia Neun's case on the merits against the government remain?" That's my question.

Here are some photographs taken tonight and the documents surrounding me are the First Amendment Writs of Prohibition. Well, there you go. See what you can do to shed some light on this situation, okay?
Love and Peace~ Cindy Neun

Excerpt from the Memorandum of Law Showing the difference between district courts of the United States and the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

At the time of initiation of these actions of course, Petitioners in Prohibition, not being lawyers, were stunned  and not even aware of the fact that two distinct and separate courts were held in the same building, and the differences between the district courts of the United States and the territorial legislative courts are very significant. Only recently, as the cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the return of the seized evidence and working litigation files causing Petitioners in Prohibition to prepare their First Amendment Writ for the April 6, 2004 filing in this Court, did they find that the territorial courts are legislative tribunals. This important difference is found in the small print type under Rule 1 Advisory Committee Notes. First, the Rule:
Scope and Purpose of Rules.

"These rules govern the procedure in the United States district courts in all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity or in admiralty, with the exceptions stated in Rule 81. They shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action."

Advisory Committee Notes: 28 U.S.C. Rule 1.
1. Rule 81 states certain limitations in the application of these rules to enumerated special proceedings.
2. The expression, "district court of the United States" appearing in the statute authorizing the Supreme Court of the United States to promulgate rules of civil procedure does not include the district courts held in the territories and insular possessions. See Mookini et al, v. United States, 1938, 58 S.Ct. 543 303 U.S. 201, 82 L.Ed. 748.

Then the case referred to in the Note, Mookini:
The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance.  It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution.  Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States.  We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a District Court of the United States.
Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended.

Now, the Petitioners in Prohibition point out that the first line of Rule 1 states:
"These rules govern the procedure in the United States district courts in all suits of a civil nature" It does not say, District Court of the United States in the Rule, but, evidently, that is what is meant. After reading all of Rule 81, exceptions and many of the references contained therein, the Petitioners are still not sure which court they were in or which court they should have actually been in over the past year and a half, but they are certain that they have been in the wrong courts, the legislative, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS. Perhaps this explains why they could not find any answers to the questions of authority and challenges as to jurisdiction  None exists.

Pursuant to 1 Stat. 73. The Judiciary Act of 1789, Chap. XX., the Act of the 24th of September, 1789, c.20. (below), establishing the judicial tribunals, further supports the fact that the State Courts  not the UNITED.STATES DISTRICT COURT  has the power and the venue to decide the matters of interest in the common law.
"The 34th section enacts, that 'the laws of the several States, except where the constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the Courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.'"

I. STANDING: this is a case of first impression

Come Now the Plaintiff-Intervenors invoking the sovereign jurisdiction of this Honorable Court seeking relief where the Plaintiff-Intervenors have standing for they are the victims and the injured real parties in interest where the relief sought will remedy the injury in fact and the federal, United States District Court, has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate herein and claim again all prior appearances and pleadings for the convenience of this Court, and this demand for hearing for the proposed Writ shall be considered as an Amended Supplemental Pleading to perfect the pleadings already on the Record.           

New issues are raised regarding jurisdiction and new facts have developed since the case was wrongly removed to the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT and a hearing held on August 2, 2004. (Order attached, Motion for Reconsideration attached.)
Standing of the Plaintiffs and Intervenors is further supported by the facts that the Plaintiffs First Amendment rights and protections continue to be violated; the unlawful detainer of the illegally seized property; the libelous and prejudicial effects of the oppressive nature of the size, scope, and severity of the working simultaneous complex civil and criminal proceedings; the risk of waiving the authority and certification requirements of the prosecutors and invoking the jurisdiction of the wrong courts, (or waiving challenges as to jurisdiction therefore), to pursue available remedies of cross-claims, counterclaims, and the joining of third-party culpable and contributing defendants; the potentiality of more civil lawsuits against Plaintiffs for breach of contract where Plaintiffs promised customers, (of which some are Intervenors here), that their names and other confidential information would be protected; the bills of pains and penalties from Federal Matching Programs; the extreme prejudicial advantage gained by the Respondent having teams of lawyers and staff working in a number of courts simultaneously against three (mostly) self-represented individuals; and, where the silence of the Respondent and the federal courts on the matters as to authority, jurisdiction and the facts as to want of administrative notice and procedures constitute estoppel for fraud.

Plaintiffs and Intervenors ask that formal judicial notice be taken of the following: Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F. 2d 90, 91 (1983):

"Implicit in the right to [self-representation] is the obligation on the part of the Court to make reasonable allowances to protect Pro Se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of legal training." And the "Court's duty is even broader in the case of a [Pro Se] defendant who finds [himself] in court against [his] will with little time to learn the intricacies of civil procedure and law." See 28 U.S.C.A. 1654.

As evidenced on the Records made in the instant case, the Plaintiffs and Intervenors are seeking intervention and review for the prejudice and confusion caused by the conflicting rules of decisions in the lower federal courts and the Bankruptcy Court particularly the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions U.S. v. Long and U.S. v. Kimballand other equitable, operative and materially relevant Court decisions including Supreme Court Decisions relied upon by the Plaintiffs-Intervenors where the Defendant and the lower federal courts neglect to notice them in favor of the interests of the executive branch in its prosecutorial campaign targeting this group of people. This is contrary to Nevada law.

Nevada supreme court is bound by decisions of U.S. Supreme Court but not by decisions of lower federal courts. Prior decisions of Nevada supreme court, made in light of latest U.S. Supreme Court decision on point, would not be overruled because in conflict with later decision of lower federal court, because, while Nevada court is bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions under Nev. Art. 1, § 2, it is not bound by decisions of other federal courts, and point of law, once determined, will not be unsettled except for weighty and conclusive reasons. Bargas v. Warden, 87 Nev. 30, 482 P.2d 317 (1971), cited, Blanton v. North Las Vegas Mun. Court, 103 Nev. 623, at 633, 748 P.2d 494 (1987).

Pursuant to Rule 2.17 The Court of the State of Nevada shall rule on the First Amendment Writ within 30 days after the writ and accompanying points and authorities are filed.

This Court has the power to issue writs of mandamus, Nev. Const. Art. 6, §6; NRS 34.160; prohibition, Nev. Const. Art. 6 §6; injunctions, Nev. Const. Art 6 §6; NRS 33.010; quo warranto, Nev. Const. Art. 6 §6; NRS 35.080; certiorari, Nev. Const. Art. 6, §6, NRS 34.020; habeas corpus, NRS 34.710; and all other writs proper and necessary to complete exercise of the Courts jurisdiction, Nev. Const. Art. 6 §6.
1. That the District Court of the State of Nevada has jurisdiction over the parties inhabitants of the territory of Nevada, Clark County, and the Respondents significant business contacts and activities in Las Vegas, Nevada; and, where the papers, lists of names of Intervenors and other interested parties, litigation files and other property at issue was seized on the land in the city of Las Vegas in Nevada the subject matter of this action is also under the jurisdiction of this Court. The Supremacy Clause, the McDade Amendment, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, Supreme Court Rules, and, Federal Court Opinions show personal and subject matter jurisdiction lies in the Court of the State of Nevada under these rules, laws, facts, evidence, and special extraordinary circumstances.
2. That venue is proper in this Court where the cause of action arose; the property seized and to be recovered is local; violations of the State privacy and property rights occurred; oppression and interference with the rights of parties to work and to maintain a business violated by trespass; guaranteed rights and securities to freely assemble and associate are abridged; statutory guarantees of pre-seizure or post-seizure due process were denied to find a lawful remedy under the Constitution of the State of Nevada; and, pursuant to law, NCP §6.04[3] Actions Against Public Officers NRS 13.020 and EDCR Rule 44 Proof of Official Record and 28 USC §530B Ethical Standards for Attorneys for the Government, 28 USC §§509-519 and CFR 0.57 authority and certification of the United States Attorneys and EDCR Rule 17(b) Capacity to sue or be sued, and where the matters are ripe for review and the venue is proper for the emergency relief sought. (See Application for writ Filed April 6, 2004, Declaration Exhibit A)
3. That all claims for relief set forth in the Application for First Amendment Writ filed on April 6, 2004 and the Complaint filed on April 29, 2004 and this amended pleading arise from a common nucleus of operative facts and state law predominates over these facts.
4. That this entire action constitutes a single case, which should be heard in a single judicial proceeding.
5. That immunity does not extend to federal employees or government officers acting under the color of authority and in violation of the Constitution and statutes.
6. That 28 USC§530B vests the courts of the state with exclusive jurisdiction for the matter of authority and conduct of attorneys and federal employees working at their direction, where there is presented a question of estoppel by fraud, and where no federal common law exists save pursuant to admiralty maritime claims, the remedial remedy of judicial declaration of rights and prosecutorial misconduct or the final remedy for Writ of Prohibition Alternatively Mandamus lies exclusively in the courts of this State to settle an issue or question of the controversy.

7. That The Territorial Laws of Nevada constitute the roots of Nevada statutory law and as such are still cited in the opinions of the Nevada Supreme Court. The Act of Congress Organizing the Territory of Nevada, established Nevada's first court system with "chancery as well as common-law jurisdiction, and authority for redress of all wrongs committed against the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the Territory, affecting persons or property." 12 United States Statutes at Large 209-14 (1863).

8. That pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1, Advisory Committee Notes [2] revealing that upon the 1937 adoption, the Supreme Court Rules clearly contemplated two distinctly separate federal courts in the Organization of Courts: the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS and the district courts of the United States, the former executive legislative administrative, and the latter judicial constitutional statutory and equitable, and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine is inherent in these Rules save for the fact that challenges as to jurisdiction are preserved for any stage of the litigation, may be collaterally attacked, and including for the first time on Appeal. Further, the courts of the several States are empowered with wide discretion to exercise concurrent jurisdiction where unauthorized federal employees are violating rights including First Amendment prior restraint, property rights and due process rights.
9. That in causes of forfeiture such as the case at bar, (attached Clerk's Docket Sheet) Respondents attorneys and agents and the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT have no jurisdiction save for that related to property subject to forfeiture of which the property seized does not qualify; and, personnel applying for the search warrant, conducting the search and seizure on the land in Nevada on the premises of Freedom Books are not law enforcement officers and not authorized to execute searches and seizures; and, the federal magistrate issuing the search warrant was not authorized to issue it; and, the federal employees are therefore conducting "business" under the color of authority and under the color of lawful legal processes and have no jurisdiction to do any of it. And, in support of this claim of lack of federal
jurisdiction, the Records made in the legislative courts show that neither the Courts nor the attorneys for the Respondent deny that no authority or jurisdiction exists; show that the matters adjudicated are of a dispute regarding title; involve recordkeeping and not law, public policy and not the Supreme Court or Local Rules.

The Supreme Court Rules define the difference between the Court of Law and the legislative courts, in Advisory Committee Notes: 28 U.S.C. Rule 1. Scope and Purpose of Rules.
58 S.Ct. 543, 303 U.S. 201, Mookini v. U.S., (U.S.Hawai'i 1938):
The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance.  It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution.  Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States.  We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a District Court of the United States.'  Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended.

10. That pursuant to jurisdictional point No. 9 above, and as provided in 1 Stat.73. The Judiciary Act of 1789, Chap. XX., the Act of the 24th of September, 1789, c. 20. (below), establishing the judicial tribunals, the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT lacks jurisdiction absent knowing and willing
waiver and consent, and, to reach the common law remedy, the case is properly before the State of Nevada District Court.
"The 34th section enacts, that 'the laws of the several States, except where the constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the Courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.'"
That this merely gives the ground of decision; it does not give the means of attaining the decision, or of giving it effect.

Where the common law, as distinguished from statutory, equitable and decisional law, is a body of rules and principles, written or unwritten, of fixed and immutable authority, and which must be applied to controversies rigorously and in their entirety, and cannot be modified to suit the particularities of a specific case, or colored by any judicial discretion, and which rests confessedly upon custom or statute, as distinguished from any claim to ethical superiority, (Klever v. Seawall, C.C.A.Ohio, 65 F.395, 12 C.C.A. 661), [Black's Rev. 4th] and where there is no federal common law, see revision notes under 28 U.S.C. 1333, save that which is cognizable in admiralty, the common law embraces all methods of enforcing rights and redressing injuries known to the common law or statutory law.
Where the Plaintiffs and Intervenors here are not belligerents as contemplated in 50 USC TITLE 50, APPENDIX - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the jurisdiction for these causes shall be vested in the sovereign powers of courts of the people's States pursuant to the will of the people's servant legislators in cases such as the instant case where the original jurisdiction, that being the Art. III Constitutional judicial court, whether found to be the District Court of the State or the district court of the United States, has not been touched.

"From the very beginning of statehood, the Nevada Supreme Court proclaimed that common law also governed judicial authority and procedure"

The application of common law in the courts had already been established by the Territorial Legislature when during the Civil War the State of Nevada joined the Union (1864) and, as currently codified under NRS 1.030, "the common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or in conflict with the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or the Constitution and laws of this state, shall be the rule of decision in all courts of this state." From the very beginning of statehood, the Nevada Supreme Court proclaimed that common law also governed judicial authority and procedure, [Burling v. Goodman, 1 Nev. 314 (1865)] and which cannot be abridged, and, claims statutes do not apply to actions for inverse condemnation, "for to do so would deny due process of a constitutionally guaranteed right." Alper v. Clark County, Nevada, 93 Nev. 569, 571 P. 2d 810 (1977), cert. Denied, 436 U.S. 905 (1978)

Nevada Civil Practice Manual Chapter 1 gives guidance on the sources of Nevada Law, and §1.03[2] Federal Law, states:
"Federal statutory and Ninth Circuit decisional law also constitute fertile sources of Nevada law. Indeed, the Act of Congress organizing the Territory of Nevada in 1861 stated: "That the Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Nevada as elsewhere in the United States." 12 United States Statutes at Large 209-14 (1863). Furthermore, the Nevada Supreme Court has concluded that a federal court decision in a case arising within Nevada is persuasive of what the common law is in Nevada." Carlton v. Manuel, 64 Nev. 570, 187 P 2d 558 (1947).
"....Moreover, since Nevada substantially has adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal court opinions discussing the federal rules are often a productive resource. However, Nevada has not adopted most of the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence made during the 1980's and 1990's."