Visits: 797

Who framed Roger Rabbit? The Hillygus Case Forensic Timeline Analysis! Published September 18th, 2023 @ 01:09am P.S.T., Updated 9-19-2023 @10:52 AM P.S.T.- By Stephen Phillips

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Hillygus Case Forensic Timeline Analysis! Cover Photo
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Hillygus Case Forensic Timeline Analysis! Cover Photo

In this forensic analysis i will be presenting an evidentiary video timeline of the chain of events in chronological order.

This Real Life Who Framed Roger Rabbit Story and Forensic Timeline Analysis is the Abridged (short version). I Will be putting together an Extended In-Depth Version which will cover all of Roger’s Exculpatory evidence that the courts have been ignoring and or not allowing in discovery, as well as all of Roger’s Nevada Supreme Court Filings and the rejections resulting from this. Which is what led to him seeking his right to a jury (inviolate) forever.

I will also include the horizontal scrolling source table as shown below the video. Just as we did for our launch article, Plandemic InDoctorNation – FACT CHECK! An in-depth analysis. This format of presenting evidence is unique to News4us.world and can be extremely useful for user and or reader independent verification of the evidence. No Scrolling Needed to access the sources. They will automatically appear underneath the video as it plays and reaches each time code for the corresponding source. It can also be used to find where you last left off at in the video by unchecking the Auto scroll check box, then clicking the time code link above the corresponding source you are trying to find and it will automatically jump to that time code in the video and resume from there.

You can also help Mr Hillygus and Mr. Handte by following instructions on our Malicious Prosecution – A Call To Action Page. where you will be guided step by step to create a bar complaint regarding this case against Mr. Amos Stege, and Mr. Christopher Hicks. They are acting outside the bounds of the role of a Prosecutor which is not to win but rather to Ensure Justice is Served.

Let us begin our analysis of this case starting with the video timeline followed by the corresponding article.


Verified Sources From Video(With Clickable Video Seek Time Stamps, Source Url, and Source Links for reader and/or user independent verification checking):



  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link: Introduction

Source Domain:www.news4us.world


  • DIRECT SOURCES
Source Link:

News4us.world Terms of Service Code of Conduct

Source Domain:www.news4us.world


  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

Nevada Judges Oath of Office

Source Domain: leg.state.nv.us


  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

Rogers Application for a T.P.O. Case #: FV13-04189-4106319

Source Domain: www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

Roger’s Claims in his Application for a T.P.O.(Temporary Protective Order)

Source Domain: www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

OBJECTION TO MASTER’S RECOMMENDATION, EXTENDED PROTECTION ORDER AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND REQUEST FOR DE NOVO HEARING

Source Domain: www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

ORDER AFTER HEARING REGARDING ROGER’s TPO APPLICATION

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

THE HILLYGUS FAMILY TRUST, Restated, Dated August 17th, 1993

Source Domain: www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

First Amendment to THE HILLYGUS FAMILY TRUST, Restated, Dated August 17th, 1993

Source Domain: www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

JOINDER TO PETITION REGARDING ADIMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

OBJECTION TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

OBJECTION TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST – EXHIBIT 1

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

OBJECTION TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST – EXHIBIT 2

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

OPPOSITION IN PART TO ORAL MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF GAURDIAN AD LITEM

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

OPPOSITION IN PART TO ORAL MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF GAURDIAN AD LITEM – EXHIBIT 1

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER TRUST; ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

Herbert Hillygus Obituary

Source Domain:www.legacy.com

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

DECLARATION OF HOMESTEAD

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS EXHIBITS 1-5 FOR JURY VERDICT PER ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3 OF THE NEVADA STATE CONSTITUTION

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

CASE NO: PR14-0025/GR14-0159 DEPT NO. 7 JURY VERDICT AND OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COURT

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

NOTICE OF JURY VERDICT CASE NUMBERS PR14-0025 GR14-0159 SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT – NEVADA – COUNTY OF WASHOE

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

NOTICE OF JUDGEMENT THE ENCUMBERENCE OF 2685 KNOB HILL DRIVE, RENO NV 85906 PRESIDING JUDGE EGAN WALKER

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

RENO PD BODY CAM FOOTAGE 8-8-2019

Source Domain:source domain here

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

STONE VALLEY CARE BODYCAM FOOTAGE 8-8-2019

Source Domain:source domain here

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

Risperdal Black Box Warning

Source Domain:www.drugdangers.com

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

STONE VALLEY CARE BODYCAM FOOTAGE 8-8-2019

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

Lorazepam IMPORTANT WARNING

Source Domain:medlineplus.gov

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

STONE VALLEY CARE BODYCAM FOOTAGE 8-8-2019

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

HOUSE SALE HEARING WASHOE COUNTY FAMILY COURT JUDGE EGAN WALKER 8-9-2019

Source Domain:www.news4us.world

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

Jurisdictional Disputes Regarding Children in Las Vegas – Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act aka UCCJEA

Source Domain:www.lvfamilylaw.com

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

The State of Nevada vs Roger Hillygus, August 23, 2023

Source Domain:www.youtube.com

  • DIRECT SOURCES

Source Link:

INVALID BOND OF BARRY BRESLOW DATED 01-04-2021

Source Domain:source domain here

Before anything else it is important that you the reader

understand how we conduct our reporting standards when doing a case analysis such as this one.

Our Fact Checking Policy Is As Follows:

We Will Always Provide A Clear Chain Of Custody, User Verifiable Fact Checking Trail of Our Sources To Cross Reference and Verify The Information We Provide!

In Most Cases We will Provide Direct Source Links Along With the source domain, as well as Clickable Seek Time Codes if there is a corresponding Video That Goes with the Article. Along with Supporting Sources in Some Cases to Establish or Verify information Beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the event we are unable to link to a direct source via hyperlink because of unforeseen restrictions such as Sealed Documents etc. we will attempt to find supporting sources to corroborate the facts we are trying to verify. We follow a standard in our fact checking process whereby we cross reference multiple independent sources. We Do Not Use Other Fact Checking Sites as Sources for our information as this is Completely Ineffective and Contradictory to the Proper Investigative Practices Employed when establishing The Burden of proof in accordance with US Common Court Law (Precedent). Which is the Standard by which we Judge Our Fact Checking Process.

We Also Will Attempt to Establish a Timeline and Clear Chain of Custody of our sources for any given Article or Story.

news4us.world terms of service page code of conduct section
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
Code of Conduct under News4Us.World’s Terms Of Service - Fact Checking Policy
Code of Conduct under News4Us.World’s Terms Of Service – Fact Checking Policy

you can read our Reporting Standards on our Terms of Service Page.

One of the most important points to note in this analysis is The Nevada Judges Oath.

According to Nevada Revised Statute 282.020, The Nevada Judges Oath is meant to ensure that Judges adhere to the Nevada State Constitution and the United States Constitution.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
NRS 282.020  Form of official oath. Nevada Judges Oath of Office from www.leg.state.nv.us
NRS 282.020  Form of official oath. Nevada Judges Oath of Office from www.leg.state.nv.us

When a Judge does not uphold their oath, It can be not only detrimental to the public trust in the legal system, but also breeds more corruption especially when there is no accountability. And as the saying goes “Absolute Power, Corrupts Absolutely!” and we can all now clearly see the reason for the origin of this phrase. Especially in light of all that has been uncovered in the last 3 years post CV-19 Lock downs.

For our next source in this Who framed Roger Rabbit Forensic Timeline Analysis.

We have the application for a T.P.O. Temporary Protective Order filed by Roger Hillygus against his sister Robin Renwick dated Dec 24th, 2013

Case #: FV13-04189

As you will see below in the highlighted screenshots. Roger Hillygus’ claims on his T.P.O. application

are perfectly valid and i can’t imagine not having exhausted every possible other option legally speaking. Roger did everything by the book as far as i can see from the discovery provided for this Timeline.

As the rest of this story comes into focus by the end of this article you will have the following points to take away from this analysis.

  • We will have established the “Means”
  • We will have established the “Motive”
  • We will have established the “Financial Incentive.”
  • All of the above beyond a reasonable doubt.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
Page 4 of Roger's Application for a Temporary Protective Order Filed Dec 24th, 2013
Page 4 of Roger’s Application for a Temporary Protective Order Filed Dec 24th, 2013

Just based on the claims made in the T.P.O. Application by Roger.

I imagine that most rational level headed individuals would have done the same in his position.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
Page 5 of Roger's Application for a Temporary Protective Order Filed Dec 24th, 2013
Page 5 of Roger’s Application for a Temporary Protective Order Filed Dec 24th, 2013

An important thing to note here is the TPO Application claim dated Dec. 23rd

This claim is what Robin Renwick tries to spin in the Stone Valley Care Facility Body Cam Footage by stating the following to the responding officer. “He’s aggressive. Did you know the sheriffs had to remove him with a um Swat team from his house. And the sheriffs wouldn’t do it without a court order because he threatened that he had guns. He does have guns.”

Stone Valley Care Facility Body Cam Footage He’s Aggressive He Has Guns.

Up next in our Timeline is the OBJECTION TO MASTER’S RECOMMENDATION, EXTENDED PROTECTION ORDER AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND REQUEST FOR DE NOVO HEARING

This document is where the narrative begins to do a complete 180 degree turn. As you will see in the Arguments made by Attorney Todd Torvinen against Rogers claims from the “Objection To Masters Recommendation Extended Protection Order Against Domestic Violence and Request for De Novo Hearing.” Filing.

Below is a bullet point list of some of the Arguments against Rogers Claims

  • 2. SPECIFIC FACTUAL OBJECTION. The Applicant, Roger Hillygus, is the named Successor Trustee under the Hillygus Family Trust. Without legal right, he moved himself into his parents’ residence at 2685 Nob Hill Dr., Reno, NV and assumed the role of Successor Trustee in violation of the terms of the Trust Agreement; and over the objection of his father, Gene Hillygus. Roger Hillygus then began self-serving conduct in order to enhance his own standard of living at the expense of his parents, particularly his father. In addition, he effectively removed his father, Gene Hillygus from his own residence. This is more fully outlined in the letter from Stephen C. Moss, Esq. dated January 8, 2014 which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
  • VI. December 2, 2013. When the 911 call is placed to the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Gene Hillygus was with the Applicant and authorized the same. Moreover, this is not harassment. Roger Hillygus was breaching fiduciary duty and converting the personal property of the Trustees, Gene Hillygus and Sue Hillygus, and transferring it to his own personal residence in Dayton, Nevada.

As you will soon discover. What is unthinkable is the fact that they are completely ignoring all of Roger’s Attempts to get his due process.

An important thing to point out that is missing from the Embedded pdf above titled OBJECTION TO MASTER’S RECOMMENDATION, EXTENDED PROTECTION ORDER AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND REQUEST FOR DE NOVO HEARING. Is Exhibit 1

The alleged letter from Stephen Moss. Shouldn’t it be included as part of the pdf filing? how come they did not include it in Roger’s copy of this filing in the court by Todd Torvinen? I find this highly questionable and suspicious. This is just one of the many ways and tactics i have seen these bad court actors deprive individuals of their due process and use in order to case fix. In every regard this case is by far one of the most obvious in the context of being able to see the difference in contrast as it pertains to how obvious it is.

Our next source is ORDER AFTER HEARING REGARDING ROGER’S TPO APPLICATION

It is important to point out the date in this Order After Hearing Regarding Roger’s TPO Application which is shown as filed on January 15th, 2014 at 8:50 Am. This date is relevant as it pertains to our next source in the timeline. Roger’s Filing of Exhibit 1 for the THE HILLYGUS FAMILY TRUST, Restated, Dated August 17th, 1993 Filed 01-14-2014:02:39:22 PM

This fact is relevant because it effectively demonstrates even if only circumstantially that roger knew he was being railroaded.

As such one would expect his next move to be a legal filing pertaining to his legitimate and lawful role as Successor Trustee. This is so that it is on the official Court Record. (Claims, Filings and Facts put on the record in the court is the best way to ensure that you have a legal chain of custody in regards to evidence which can be used in future court hearings. This is simply because the court record is what they will go by when looking at each sides claims. That is assuming of course that the Court and Court Actors are actually impartial, fair and not corrupt.)

As you will clearly see in the Highlighted Screenshot below of the Order After Hearing filing They Dismissed Roger’s T.P.O. Claim.

“It is hereby ORDERED that the Order for Protection Against Domestic Violence originally issued on December 24th, 2013, in the above entitled case is hereby DISMISSED.”

ORDER AFTER HEARING REGARDING ROGER’S TPO APPLICATION
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
ORDER AFTER HEARING REGARDING ROGER’S TPO APPLICATION
ORDER AFTER HEARING REGARDING ROGER’S TPO APPLICATION

which leads to our next source which is listed as Exhibit #1 for Case PR14-00025 which is for Probate Court (Admin Note: You can tell which court a filing is for based on the Case Number. I.E. The first two letters in the case # usually indicate the court in which the case is being heard. In this Case PR stands for Probate. The first two numbers after the Letter designation indicate the year in which the Case was filed. In this Case the “14” in “PR14-00025 ” stands for the year the case was filed which was 2014. The 5 digit numbers following the hyphen “-” Indicate the actual case number.)

Exhibit #1 – Case: PR14-00025 THE HILLYGUS FAMILY TRUST, Restated, Dated August 17th, 1993 is the next source referenced in our Forensic Timeline Analysis.

This filing and the related filings hereafter related to Case PR14-00025 and The Hillygus Family Trust. In addition to all of the evidence presented hereafter in the timeline will clearly demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt the following facts.

  1. That there is clear and convincing evidence of fraud upon the court as it pertains to Case Fixing.
  2. That there is clear and convincing evidence that the Court committed fraud in order to seize the Trust and Assets of The Hillygus Family Trust.
  3. That there is clear and convincing evidence of R.I.C.O. (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) by the court. Including but not limited to Judges, Lawyers, both private and court appointed, Stone Valley Care Facility personnel, as well as many others in positions of authority.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
THE HILLYGUS FAMILY TRUST, Restated, Dated August 17th, 1993
Section 9.1.2
THE HILLYGUS FAMILY TRUST, Restated, Dated August 17th, 1993 Section 9.1.2

The next piece of Exculpatory evidence in our Forensic Timeline Analysis is Exhibit 2 – First Amendment to THE HILLYGUS FAMILY TRUST, Restated, Dated August 17th, 1993

It should be noted that the date of the signing on this amendment to the trust is the 3rd day of January, 2014. This is important to establish as it shows clear intent relative to the timing of the filings in the T.P.O. (Temporary Protective Order) Application and dismissal therein from Case #: FV13-04189 in regards to what these bad court actors are actually doing.

This First Amendment of the Hillygus Family Trust is also the justification that Stephen Moss uses to unlawfully and unethically hijack the Hillygus Family Trust.

According to page 3 Paragraph 2 of this First Amendment of The Hillygus Family Trust which is Exhibit 2 for Case: PR14-00025.

All terms of HILLYGUS FAMILY TRUST, Restated, dated August 17, 1993, shall remain the same, except for the following:

1. The existing terms of Section 9.1.2 are deleted in their entirety and
replaced with the following:


9.1.2 If either H. EUGENE HILLYGUS or SUSAN L. HILLYGUS shall die,
or shall for any reason fail to qualify or cease to act as Trustee, the remaining named
individual shall act as Trustee. On the death of both Settlors, or upon the incapacity of
both Settlors or the Surviving Settlor, Adam Clark is appointed as Successor Trustee.

page 3 Paragraph 2 of this First Amendment of The Hillygus Family Trust which is Exhibit 2 for Case: PR14-00025.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
First Amendment to THE HILLYGUS FAMILY TRUST, Restated, Dated August 17th, 1993
Section 9.1.2
First Amendment to THE HILLYGUS FAMILY TRUST, Restated, Dated August 17th, 1993 Section 9.1.2

Next in our list of sources for our forensic timeline analysis & article “Who framed Roger Rabbit – The Roger Hillygus Case” is JOINDER TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST Case #: PR14-00025

One thing i think is important to point out is the inconsistency between the dates on the Cover Page and the Certificate of Service Page.

As you can clearly see pointed out on the screenshots of the Cover Page and Certificate of Service Page of the Joinder To Petition Regarding Administration of Revocable Trust. Below Respectively.

We can see the following.

  1. Page 1 – Cover Page of the Joinder To Petition Regarding Administration of Revocable Trust is Dated the 11th day of June 2014
  2. Page 2 – Certificate of Service of the Joinder To Petition Regarding Administration of Revocable Trust is Dated the 11th day of June 2013.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
JOINDER TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST Page 1
JOINDER TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST Page 1
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
JOINDER TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST Page 2
JOINDER TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST Page 2

Was this a mere clerical error by a staffer of the Law Office of Todd L. Torvinen?

Or was this a concerted effort to use legal loopholes and wordplay to commit fraud upon the court. While an interesting curiosity by itself. It is hard to discern intent based on this mere one observation alone. we need more. Which brings me to our next piece of evidence. This is where things begin to get interesting so pay close attention.

Next we have the OBJECTION TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST Case #: PR14-00025 filing. Filed by Woodburn and Wedge Attorney’s for Roger Hillygus

According to this objection starting on page 4 under Section 4. RIGHT AMEND OR REVOKE [sic]. paragraph 2


After Gene moved out of the marital residence Roger and his wife, Debbie, moved in so that they could care for Sue. Sue prefers to live in her home and it has been suggested that maintaining her routine and having stability is beneficial to her. Roger and Debbie selflessly left their home in Dayton to move to Reno to assist Sue. Roger had been commuting from Dayton, Nevada, on a regular basis for several months to provide care and assistance to his parents. Rather than be thankful for this family support of Sue, Robin and Gene began a campaign against Roger and Debbie which eventually resulted in Roger and Debbie being evicted from the marital residence. Sue was then left alone in the home by Gene and Robin and ultimately had a breakdown and ended up in the hospital after Roger found her lying on the floor of the residence.

Throughout this period Mr. Moss repeatedly advocated Gene’s position that Roger could not live in the home to care for Sue, that Sue should leave the marital residence and that the home should be sold. Therefore, notwithstanding Mr. Moss’ original representation of both Gene and Sue, since mid-December 2013 Mr. Moss has undertaken to represent Gene alone without regard to Sue’s interests or desires. Because of his prior representation of both Gene and Sue, Mr. Moss had an ethical duty to withdraw from representing either of them at the moment Sue’s and Gene’s interests diverged. Mr. Moss has never obtained or, to the best of Roger’s information and belief, even attempted to obtain a signed waiver from Sue or her counsel which would permit him to continue to represent Gene in matters that are adverse to Sue’s interests. Mr. Moss was reminded of his duty to withdraw by the undersigned in mid-January 2014 and again in February of 2014.

Once both Gene and Sue had been deemed incompetent by two doctors, Roger assumed his duties as Trustee. See, Notice Confirming Appointment of Successor Trustee, attached hereto as Exhibit “2.” Gene and Roger’s relationship improved over the last few months and Gene has decided that Roger should be confirmed as the successor Trustee. However, Mr. Moss, without his clients’ authority still persists in his frivolous attempts to confirm the Amendment with the result that the Hillygus family’s limited resources continue to be needlessly squandered on legal fees.

Roger respectfully requests that this Court deny the petition. Roger and his wife Debbie have tirelessly cared for Sue. Roger is committed to responsibly serving as successor trustee of the trust.

Objection to petition regarding administration of revocable trust – Case #: PR14-00025 page 4 under Section 4. RIGHT AMEND OR REVOKE [sic]. paragraph 2
Page 4 of
OBJECTION TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST
Page 4 of OBJECTION TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST

Take note of the mention of Exhibit 2 – Notice Confirming Appointment of Successor Trustee. referenced in the Objection To Petition Regarding Administration of Revocable trust.

This Exhibit is what proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Stephen Moss colluded and conspired with other court actors i.e. Todd Torvinen, Robin Renwick, and others to unlawfully steal the Hillygus Family Trust from its rightful successor Roger Hillygus. We will get into that shortly after we briefly touch on Exhibit 1 below.

Following that we have Exhibit 1 from the OBJECTION TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST

This Exhibit shows The Original Hillygus Family Trust Restated Dated August 17th, 1993. Signed and dated August 24th, 2011

OBJECTION TO PETITION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST – EXHIBIT 2 is our next source referenced in the Timeline.

This is also the Exhibit where there is clear and convincing evidence of fraud upon the court by Attorney Stephen Moss. Whom referred Eugene Hillygus to a Competency Evaluation on 4-25-2014, in which Robin Renwick Accompanied him to. This Competency Evaluation was performed by Debra Fredericks on the following 3 Dates 4-28-2014 , 4-29-2014, and 4-30-2014. Was Requested and Referred to Debra Fredericks by Stephen Moss. Prior to that almost a full year earlier on 5-1-2013. Eugene Hillygus was seen by a doctor and diagnosed with Dementia. On his follow up evaluation dated 12-12-2013 it was further determined that the Dementia was Vascular in nature.

You may view the entire exhibit for yourself below as an embedded pdf. You may also view the screenshots of the relevant portions of this exhibit below the embedded pdf for your convenience.

I Have taken the liberty of putting a red circle around the most relevant statements from Exhibit 2 that refute Robin Renwick’s Claim and the Claims of Debra Frederick that Roger was exploiting his father.

As we can see in the screenshot above.

The reason for the visit to Kent Elliot M.D. was new p.t. (which is an acronym for Patient), and Possible dementia. The Encounter or Exam occurred on May 1st, 2013. We can also see in this screenshot a mention of Eugene Hillygus having at one point an obsession with some form of Internet cards(which involve check writing).

Below we have the screenshot from the report of the Diagnosis that was determined from this Initial Visit.

As we can see from above.

The Diagnosis is Dementia(294.20) -Primary. This establishes that Gene Had Dementia at the very least as early as 5-1-2013.

The next screenshot is from the follow up visit dated December, 12th, 2013.

It shows the reason for the visit and the Encounter Date.

As we can see above.

The reason for the follow up visit is listed as a Medication Problem. The Date of the Encounter or Exam occurred on December 12th, 2013. It also mentions in the Comments. That Roger brought in a letter from their attorney(Stephen Moss) indicating a need for a letter supporting the fact that with his dementia, Eugene Hillygus cannot take care of his own financial and legal affairs. (Admin Note: that letter was provided by Kent Elliot 1 month later on January 12th, 2014) This letter will be coming up following the next screenshot.

Next we have the diagnosis screenshot from the Follow up visit on 12-12-2013

As we can clearly see from above.

The Diagnosis was updated to Dementia(290.40), Vascular.

Next we have the actual Physician’s Certificate With Needs Assessment.

It should be noted that Kent Elliot M.D. in his Certificate With Needs Assessment Letter to Stephen Moss.

Clearly illustrates the following facts.

On page 1 of the Physician’s Certificate With Needs Assessment.

  1. That Kent Elliot M.D. Is a physician licensed to practice in the State of Nevada.
  2. That Eugene Hillygus has been medically diagnosed with Vascular Dementia.

The Physician’s Certificate With Needs Assessment On page 2 Establishes.

  1. That Eugene Hillygus was not at immediate risk or need.
  2. That Eugene Hillygus had NOT been subject to abuse, neglect, or exploitation. (This directly contradicts the narrative perpetrated by Robin Renwick, Stephen Moss. And other Bad Court Actors.)

On Page 3 of The Physician’s Certificate With Needs Assessment It is Established

  1. That Eugene Hillygus was unable to manage his own fiscal or legal affairs. and was in need of a guardian.

So now the question is why did Stephen Moss ignore the fact that Eugene Hillygus needed a guardian for so long?

As you are about to see in the next set of screenshots you will understand exactly why Stephen Moss Ignored the fact that Eugene was in need of a guardian for so long. And i would argue based on the evidence you are about to see hereafter, that the reason he waited for so long was because he could not proceed with that step until Mr. Moss and all co-conspirators had legal authority of the trust. Which meant they had to get a second medical opinion that worked in their favor. At which point the court would be able to assume legal authority over The Trust.

And finally on page 6 of The Physician’s Certificate With Needs Assessment

  1. We can clearly see the date is 12th of January 2014.
  2. We can clearly see Dr. Kent Elliot’s Signature.

Pay close attention to Debra Fredericks Competency Evaluation on page 2

Which is coming up shortly in our timeline. There are some inconsistencies i will point out when we get to that document in reference to Dr. Kent Elliot’s Physician’s Certificate With Needs Assessment.

The following screenshot is the letter from Stephen Moss requesting a competency evaluation by Debra Fredericks.

There are a few statements in Mr. Moss request letter that are relevant to establishing his intent in regards to needing a second medical opinion that worked in his and his co-conspirators favor.

Above we have 3 data points to demonstrate Stephen Moss’ intent

Dear Dr. Fredericks;
I represent H. Eugene(Gene)Hillygus. There is a matter pending in the Probate Department of the local District Court which requires a competency evaluation of Gene and his wife Sue Hillygus. Some of the issues that require the evaluation of a medical professional are:

competency evaluation request letter by Stephen Moss. to Debra Fredericks

This clearly demonstrates Mr. Moss intent to get a second opinion for the Medical Competency Evaluation that worked in his favor.

so he could proceed in the Probate Department of the local District Court to take legal authority of the Hillygus Family Trust.

The Second data point is based on the second bullet point in Mr. Moss Request for a Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks.

Is Gene or Sue Hillygus competent to make decisions about managing their personal financial affairs, including changing successor trustees and amending distribution of their estate?

competency evaluation request letter by Stephen Moss. to Debra Fredericks

This second bullet point in Mr. Moss Request for Competency Evaluation Clearly demonstrates his intent to change the successor trustees.

In addition to amending distribution of their estate.

Finally the third data point clearly shows Stephen Moss. signature on this document.

This clearly establishes that it is indeed Stephen C. Moss. Esq based on his signature here and it’s comparison to his previous signatures on other court documents.

Moving on to the Competency Evaluation Administered by Debra Fredericks.

This next piece of evidence is critical to understanding how the courts are conspiring and case fixing by ignoring evidence that doesn’t work in their favor and seeking out evidence that does in spite of the fact that their claims don’t hold water.

The document you are about to see screenshots from clearly demonstrates this

And even admits that Robin Renwick told Debra Fredericks that she thought Eugene Hillygus was being manipulated by Roger. That is hearsay and I would even argue we can clearly establish intent by Robin Renwick to Manipulate Eugene Hillygus Due to her recognition of his incompetency to manage his fiscal and legal affairs. And the timing of the second opinion before they proceeded. Furthermore it has been established through Rogers own testimony that there was resentment and spitefulness on Behalf of Robin Renwick because of the California trip which according to Roger, Robin felt Alienated because she was not included in this trip. This establishes a clear motive for Robin’s Actions in regard to manipulating her father in his now incompetent state.

According to the cover page screenshot from above we can see Debra Fredericks Response to Stephen Moss’ request for a competency evaluation.

Thank you for referring Mr. Hillygus for competency evaluation. As you know this is an 80 year old who is Trustee of the Hillygus Family Trust. Mr. Hillygus’ wife has advanced Alzheimer’s Disease. He is currently living at The Villas while his wife lives with their son and daughter-in-law in Dayton, NV. There is some concern over possible financial exploitation by the designated first successor, Mr. and Mrs. Hillygus’ son, Roger. The principle question put forth for this competency evaluation is whether Mr. Hillygus is able to function as sole Trustee.

Mr. Hillygus was accompanied by his daughter, Robin Renwick, on three occasions: 4/2/14, 4/29/14, and 4/30/14. Mr. Hillygus along with his daughter were interviewed during our first visit then he returned for cognitive testing and further interview on the 2nd and 3rd visits. The majority of testing was conducted on 4/29/14. When he returned on 4/30/14 to complete testing it was reported that he had visited urgent care that am due to an onset of shingles overnight. Due to this event and the fact that he did not sleep well the night before secondary to shingles pain, only a few tests were administered. However, during the first testing session he was not experiencing any complaints of pain or discomfort.

Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks, Dated 5-6-2014 Cover Page

Something important to note here in this second paragraph is the dates for the Competency Evaluation

In Debra Fredericks Statement there is a typo on what appears to be the initial visit which according to Debra Fredericks own statement was the day the interview was conducted. The typo is noticeable as 4/2/14 which is obviously inconsistent with the date of Mr. Moss Request for a competency evaluation which was dated 4/25/14. Because the date of 4/25/14 fell on a Friday we can reasonably assume that the correct date of the interview fell on the following Monday which would have been 4/28/14 based on the other two dates mentioned by Debra Fredericks.

See Figure 1. below.

I took the liberty of using color codes and corresponding letter indicators for each date in question. Starting with the date of Mr. Moss Request Letter-1(a) in Green. Followed by the listed dates as listed by Debra Fredericks in her statement 4/2/14-1(b), 4/29/14-1(d), 4/30/14-1(e) in blue. And ending with the actual date of the interview which we reasoned through logic and common sense had to be the most likely one. 4/28/14-1(c) in yellow.

Figure 1.

It is unclear whether the typo on the interview date was intentional or not

However isn’t it coincidental that the Interview date would be the date that the typo was made on in her statement.

At the start of page 2 we have Debra Fredericks Statement from her Competency Evaluation

Primary care physician is Dr. Elliott MD. Review of Dr. Elliott’s notes for 1/14/2011 indicates a history of prostate cancer, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, gout, hip replacement, and vascular dementia.

Current medications include Namenda and the 2011 note by Dr. Elliot reports albuterol, Cialis, ameprazole, levothyroxine, avalide, allopurinol, Aricept and verapamil.

Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks, Dated 5-6-2014 Page 2

The first thing i would like to point out regarding this first statement on page 2

By Debra Fredericks in her Competency Evaluation is the fact that she again incorrectly referenced the actual date of Dr. Elliot’s Physician’s Certificate With Needs Assessment. Which was dated as 12th of January, 2014. Debra Fredericks incorrectly referenced the date of this assessment in her statement as 1/14/2011. I Find it hard to believe that this could be a simple misreading of the date on Dr. Elliot’s Assessment due to the fact of the format in which he wrote the date on his Assessment. At this point i think it is safe to say that Debra Fredericks was aware that she was committing fraud when she wrote this Competency Evaluation. Based on the inconsistencies with the dates, as well as the fact that she perseverates from correctly spelling Mr. Hillygus name, to misspelling it, then correctly spelling it again several times in her Competency Evaluation.

To be completely honest in my opinion i think Debra Fredericks

Is the one who was in need of a Competency Evaluation. I Know the Irony is Irresistible.

On page 2 of Debra Fredericks Competency Evaluation we have our second statement of relevance which states the following

The financial situation is at question since both Mrs. Hilligus was declared incompetent to function as co-trustee and Roger is named as first successor trustee. Mr. Hilligus reported that he is currently sole Trustee and cannot recall whom was named as first successor Trustee.

Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks, Dated 5-6-2014 Page 2

One of the main things i want to point out in this statement is the misspelling of Hillygus last name.

In the statement above it clearly shows that Hillygus was spelled with a second “i” instead of a “y”. Spelled “Hilligus” as opposed to “Hillygus”. It is entirely possible that it was an honest typo, however in this case in combination with the inconsistencies with the dates and several other factors. I would argue that this is evidence that she knew that what she was doing was fraudulent. Which makes her a co-conspirator.

However what is important to note in this statement is the statement by Debra Fredericks which is the first sentence and states

“The financial situation is at question since both Mrs. Hilligus was declared incompetent to function as co-trustee and Roger is named as first successor trustee.”

This clearly shows that Debra Fredericks knew that Roger Hillygus was named as first Successor Trustee. It also demonstrates that the potential motive for the second medical opinion and competency evaluation was “The financial situation.”

The second statement by Debra Fredericks which is the last sentence highlighted in the screenshot states the following.

“Mr. Hilligus reported that he is currently sole Trustee and cannot recall whom was named as first successor Trustee.”

This second statement clearly demonstrates that Debra Fredericks knew that Eugene’s Hillygus mental faculties were not all there as according to her statement “Mr. Hilligus reported that he is currently sole Trustee and cannot recall whom was named as first successor Trustee.” This presented the perfect opportunity for Stephen Moss and Robin Renwick and their Co-conspirators to take advantage of this favorable Competency Evaluation. Based on the timing of the Second opinion by Debra Fredericks. And the subsequent filings hereafter for case PR14-00025

On page 3 of Debra Fredericks Competency Evaluation we have the following statements

He reports his investment portfolio has not been depleted and valued at over $300,000. He understands that he can no longer manage his financial affairs but is adamant that Roger not be named as Trustee. He believes Roger has some brain damage from the accident that caused his disability in addition to having exploited money that Mr. Hillygus believed was to be exclusively for the care of his wife. He reports that he trusts his daughter, Robin and grand-daughter in making financial and personal decisions on his behalf.

Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks, Dated 5-6-2014 Page 3

The main point i would like to make regarding this statement is that if Roger was truly brain damaged from the accident.

Then why was he deemed competent to represent himself pro se in this current prosecutorial criminal trial being perpetrated upon him? It actually contradicts Eugene’s alleged belief that Roger had Brain Damage. In light of this fact the likely hood that Robin Renwick Manipulated her father during and before this Competency Evaluation is far more likely the scenario that played out here. In addition it holds water with the known facts of the case and inconsistencies therein perpetrated by Robin Renwick, Stephen Moss and their co-conspirators.

The Next Statement from page 3 of Debra Fredericks Competency Evaluation states the following:

According to Mr. Hillygus(“Gene”), after his wife’s Alzheimer’s Disease began to progress, she became vulnerable to undue influence by their son, Roger. She became completely controlled by their son, Roger. At first, Roger was very helpful, according to Gene, coming over to help with meals, domestic chores and his mother’s care. Eventually Roger moved into their home and continued to provide much needed assistance. Gene is unclear how his son could move into their home while still being married.

Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks, Dated 5-6-2014 Page 3

What is an interesting observation to make from this statement is

That it does confirm that Roger was very helpful, coming over to help with meals, domestic chores and his mother’s care. Including moving into their home and continuing to provide much needed assistance. The last sentence in this statement however does show an Alleged lack of mental capacity as it states: “Gene is unclear how his son could move into their home while still being married”

This statement is a bit odd considering that one doesn’t need to be unmarried in order for a caretaker to move into the same residence as the person they are caring for.

Further more we know that Debbie, Roger’s wife moved in with Roger to the residence to take care of Susan Hillygus as it was more practical to do this than continuing to commute everyday which would save them time and money in regards to the commute. It also shows that Roger was responsible enough to take into account where he needed to cut costs from his own expenses in order to continue to be able to give his mother the proper care that was needed.

The last statement from page 3 of Debra Fredericks Competency Evaluation states the following:

He also perseverates over his dislike for his daughter-in-law, Debbie, who he reports is “uneducated, crude, and rude.”

It is a strong belief and possibly delusional that Roger “turned my wife against me.” According to Mr. Hillygus, Roger engaged in an insidious plan to influence his mother, take over the family estate, and kick Mr. Hillygus out of his own home while isolating his wife. He stated “we had to have the police remove them.” He reported that his son often had him sign blank checks and had placed him in a previous assisted living community against his will.

Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks, Dated 5-6-2014 Page 3

The first thing i think we need to point out is where Debra Fredericks says in her statement

He also perseverates over his dislike for his daughter-in-law, Debbie, who he reports is “uneducated, crude, and rude.”

What does perseverates mean? well we can find out with a simple internet search.

According to this article by understood.org Perseveration is

Many of us get fixated on an idea once in a while. But with some people, it happens more often. Perseveration is when someone “gets stuck” on a topic or an idea. You may have heard the term in regard to autism, but it can affect others, too.

People who perseverate often say the same thing or behave in the same way over and over again. But they can get stuck on their emotions, actions, and thoughts, too. And they do it past the point where it makes sense or will change anything. 

It can be frustrating for everyone involved, especially the person who’s stuck. It’s not that they won’t stop. It’s that they don’t know how to stop. They may not even know they’re perseverating in the first place. It’s like they’re stuck in a loop they can’t get out of. 

There’s a difference between perseverations and obsessions. Obsessions are more severe and are often part of a mental health condition called obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). In some cases, people may have both OCD and other learning and thinking differences, like ADHD.

People who perseverate aren’t being defiant or stubborn. They have challenges that cause them to get stuck. They might struggle with managing stress, processing information, shifting attention, or putting the brakes on certain behaviors or thoughts.

Perseveration can also be a coping mechanism for people when they feel overwhelmed, anxious, or not familiar with a situation.

What is perseveration? courtesy of www.understood.org

Based on what we know and can demonstrate through the evidence we have already gone over

I would argue that the reason for Gene’s Perseveration over Roger’s wife Debbie. Manifested as a coping mechanism in Gene’s case due to feeling overwhelmed, anxious and, not familiar with the situation he was currently in. Which was undue influence and manipulation by his Daughter Robin Renwick whom was spinning a narrative against Her brother Roger out of spite and resentment.

Further more based on the next sentence in this statement.

“It is a strong belief and possibly delusional that Roger ‘turned my wife against me.'”

This statement by Debra Fredericks, shows that she know there was a possibility that the belief by Eugene Hillygus that roger ‘turned his wife against him’ was very possibly delusional, in light of his Vascular Dementia. As well as the fact that he was perseverating over Roger’s wife Debbie. As well as other times he perseverates over the same statement. For example if you go through the full text of the Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks, you will see that the statement “Mr. Hillygus cannot name his first Successor Trustee” is mentioned several times.

This is indicative and consistent with Manipulation by Robin Renwick perpetrated by her upon her father.

Which caused undue stress in a situation with which he was not familiar, and did not understand. Resulting in Mr. Eugene Hillygus perseverating multiple times during this Interview and series of tests with Debra Fredericks.

Finally the last two things i want to point out in that last statement from page 3 of Debra Fredericks Competency evaluation.

is the the statement ‘According to Mr. Hillygus, Roger engaged in an insidious plan to influence his mother, take over the family estate, and kick Mr. Hillygus out of his own home while isolating his wife. He stated “we had to have the police remove them.”‘

This shows that there was indeed an eviction that was perpetrated by Robin Renwick to get Roger and His wife out of the home.

The motive for her to do so is because with him no longer living at the residence. She could then proceed with hijacking The Hillygus Family Trust and use the narrative she was spinning to do so. If you remember the video clip we touched on from the Stone Valley Care facility Body Cam footage. You can clearly see her using this narrative to put forth her agenda using manipulation to do so when speaking with the Responding Officer.

As we can clearly tell by the Responding Officer’s tone of voice when he says

“We will let them know.” You can tell he smells B.S. From robin based on that alone. This is consistent with what we have just established based on Debra Fredericks Competency Evaluation. Furthermore if Robin Renwick was telling the truth we would not have seen her make the statement “He’s aggressive, he has guns” in the body cam footage from Stone Valley Care Facility. Dated 8-8-2019 in the manner that she made it.

And finally the last sentence of page 3 says the following.

“He reported that his son often had him sign blank checks and had placed him in a previous assisted living community against his will.”

Well i can show where we came across something very similar in Dr. Kent Elliot’s Evaluation. From a year prior.

Below is a cropped screenshot of the Cover page of Dr Kent Elliot’s Evaluation and Diagnosis of Dementia.

Following that we have page 4 of the Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks M.D.

After carefully looking at the wording of this page. I found that we have a couple of solid data points we can show that back up our argument even more.

According to the first statement highlighted on this page.

According to his daughter, Robin, there was financial exploitation and emotional manipulation.
She relates that Roger did move his wife, Debbie, in with Gene and Sue then relocated Gene out of the home Mr. Hilligus reported that he cooperated with the move but did not understand exactly what was happening at the time then hated the place he had been moved into. “I probably went along with it but he[Roger] made it sound so good… my whole life is turned around.” He did not understand that he would be permanently removed from access to his wife and is very resentful of the fact that he is not able to regularly visit his wife.

Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks, Dated 5-6-2014 Page 4

The first thing worth noting here is again Debra Fredericks own statement says

“According to his daughter, Robin, there was financial exploitation and emotional manipulation. She relates that Roger did move his wife, Debbie, in with Gene and Sue then relocated Gene out of the home.”

The first observation i want to point out here is that she admits “According to his daughter Robin, there was financial exploitation and emotional manipulation”

Again this is hearsay, and is what Robin is claiming. The Word According from www.merriam-webster.com has three different contextual definitions

  1. : in conformity with
  2. : as stated or attested by
  3. : depending on

In this context the 2nd definition applies

Because Debra Fredericks is relating that Robin Renwick Stated or attested meaning it was a claim or opinion of Robin Renwick

All of these statements are in fact true and that is due to the fact that it was more practical for roger and his wife to move in with his mother and father so that they could better care for Sue Hillygus.

Furthermore it should be noted that according to Debra Fredericks own statement and based on the sentence structure. there are two separate sentences one for the mention that Robin said there was financial exploitation and emotional manipulation. but no where in that sentence does it say she said it was Roger the sentence structure indicates this is a separate statement from the one that follows about the fact that Roger did move his wife, Debbie and himself in with Gene and Sue. And due to this we can only conclude that Robin Renwick only suggested this to be the case indirectly.

Next we have the second highlighted statement from page 4 of Debra Fredericks Competency Evaluation.

When asked about plans for the future, Mr. Hillygus reported that he would like to stay where he is currently living and his wife should move into an Alzheimer’s facility. He states I’m getting older…. I am moving into a dangerous area…. cannot manage everything.” He agrees that someone else should take over management of the Trust and wants his daughter, Robin to manage his affairs. “I hope Robin will sell the house and get me out of the finance hole we are in” Although he is estranged from Roger, he still wants him included in the Will “because after all he is still my son.” He identified Darla, her husband, and his son Randy as trusted family members. He was able to name all his natural beneficiaries. He believes everyone is named in his current Will and cannot name his current first successor Trustee.

Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks, Dated 5-6-2014 Page 4

The 3 most relevant points i would like

to point out from this statement are listed below and as follows:

1. When Mr. Eugene Hillygus reported that his wife should move into an Alzheimer’s facility.

I Highly doubt he was in his right mind due to the undue influence by Robin Renwick. The statement’s Mr. Eugene Hillygus made according to Debra Fredericks statement are inconsistent with what Eugene wrote in his termination letter on June 12th, 2014 to Stephen C. Moss Esq. This letter is coming up shortly in the timeline.

2. Where it says in Debra Fredericks Competency Evaluation

‘He agrees that someone else should take over management of the Trust and wants his daughter, Robin to manage his affairs. “I hope Robin will sell the house and get me out of the finance hole we are in” Although he is estranged from Roger, he still wants him included in the Will “because after all he is still my son.”‘ This is indicative of being under duress due to the fact that based on Roger’s Testimony this whole Competency Evaluation caused him immense stress to the point where he developed shingles. In addition the fact that he reiterated that he still wanted him included in the will because after all he is still his son. Indicates to me on some level he still had trust in Roger Despite the fact that they were estranged.

3. The last statement here that says

‘He believes everyone is named in his current Will and cannot name his current first successor Trustee.’ Again is indicative of either Debra Fredericks Perseveration on this point or Gene’s Perseveration if Gene did in fact make these statements. (Which based on Debra’s Facts of the Inconsistencies with the dates and the misspelling of the Hillygus Family name I would argue that the former is more likely in this case.)

Next up we have page 7 from Debra Fredericks Competency Evaluation It has the following statement:

CONCLUSION: Mr. Hillygus demonstrates very limited understanding of his current legal challenges. In my opinion he was very likely subject to undue influence and financial exploitation by his son, Roger. He does not demonstrate contractual capacity. He only demonstrates two of the three elements of testamentary capacity. With regard to decisional capacity, his plans for the future for both himself and his wife appear logical and insightful. I was able to observe medical decision making because he developed shingles after the first day of testing. Although he understood that shingles was a condition that needed treatment he did not understand or remember the treatment and was very confused over the medications that were prescribed.

Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks, Dated 5-6-2014 Page 7

The first thing i want to touch on here is that again

Debra Fredericks states “In my opinion he was very likely subject to undue influence and financial exploitation by his son, Roger. ” She makes clear to state it is her opinion. I would argue that opinions can be influenced based on a number of factors. One of them being that she has never even met Roger according to Roger’s own testimony and the fact that the only information she was getting was from Robin and Gene during this evaluation. I find it far more probably that this opinion was influenced unduly by Robin’s undue Influence on Gene. and Gene’s mental incapacity makes him even more vulnerable to influence that is undue. Furthermore this supports Rogers claim that he developed shingles as a result of the amount of stress this Evaluation put him under. Which does hold water when you take into account the Perseveration observed in this Competency Evaluation.

And finally we have pages 8 and 9 from Debra Fredericks Competency Evaluation.

In my opinion, Mr. Hillygus is unable to respond to a substantial and immediate risk of physical harm, to an immediate need for medical attention and to a substantial and immediate risk of financial loss. It is also my opinion that he has been subjected to undue influence, financial exploitation, and medical neglect by his son, Roger.

Competency Evaluation by Debra Fredericks, Dated 5-6-2014 Pages 8 and Pages 9

Again i would like to point out that Debra Fredericks is repeating her previous statement

Regarding the fact that it is her opinion that Gene was subjected to undue influence. financial exploitation, and medical neglect by his son Roger. This is a third repeat or Perseveration by her on this point. As we learned before about Perseveration. I would argue that this was a result of Debra coping with an unfamiliar situation in which she knew on some level was wrong.

We also have her Alleged signature

However it should be noted there is no date next to the signature. Which in my view is suspicious.

The Next source for our forensic timeline analysis is OPPOSITION IN PART TO ORAL MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

As we can see the arguments made by Woodburn and Wedge on behalf of Roger are consistent with my findings of the case and are as follows:

The family members and attorneys involved in this unfortunate family drama are all aware that Gene suffers from dementia and that Sue suffers from the effects of Alzheimer’s disease. Sue is represented by Gordon Muir. Steve Moss previously represented Gene, however pursuant to the June 12, 2014 letter attached hereto as Exhibit “1,” Mr. Moss was discharged. Gene is currently not represented by counsel in this matter.
Despite the fact that Roger has been the acting Successor Trustee, Mr. Moss set his previously filed Petition Regarding Administration of Revocable Trust for hearing, purportedly on behalf of Gene, seeking to appoint Adam Clark as Successor Trustee. Roger’s Objection to this Petition was filed on June 18, 2014. The Petition was set for hearing on June 19, 2014. Mr. Moss conceded at the hearing that Roger was the Successor Trustee but insisted, contrary to the terms of the Trust, that Roger be removed as Trustee. Todd Torvinen, counsel for Robin Renwick, made an oral Motion at the hearing for the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem on behalf of Gene and Sue.
Roger hereby Opposes that Motion as to Sue because a Guardian ad Litem for Sue is not needed. Sue is adequately represented in this proceeding by Gordon Muir.

OPPOSITION IN PART TO ORAL MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM Page 2

EXHIBIT 1 of OPPOSITION IN PART TO ORAL MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM is the next source in our Timeline Analysis.

It is important to note that this exhibit contains a hand written letter by Herbert Eugene Hillygus dated June 12th, 2014 expressly stating his wishes and intent to fire attorney Stephen Moss from representing him. In addition to his explicit and express intent in his wishes regarding who he wants as official Successor Trustee. As the letter states that person is his son Roger Hillygus.

According to Eugene Hillygus Termination Letter To Stephen C. Moss Esq. Dated June 12th, 2014

Date 6-12-2014

Dear Steve Moss,
It appears as though you are not taking my verbal request, to you, over the phone discharging you as my Attorney, Seriously! Let me refresh your memory about the events of that call. My Son, Roger Hillygus, The Successor Trustee of the Hillygus Family Trust and I Hand Delivered to your office Secretary, Cynthia, an Original hand signed letter by Roger, Discharging you as the attorney representing me and the Hillygus Family Trust. At that time we both told Cynthia to send us any and all personal property and the Complete file along with the final bill.

You called me the next day and we spoke about this. and I informed you during that phone call that I no longer need or wanted you to represent me or the Trust. you told me that pay final bill, would be $2000 dollars. I am confirming the discharge letter Written by Roger. I agree with the terms and conditions of the letter.
I am however disappointed that you are continuing to represent me after we mutually agreed to terminate our relationship. I realize that you believe me to be incapacitated, and that you think you are protecting me from my son, Roger Hillygus. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is the Successor trustee and the one I have always wanted to be placed in that position. So, please consider this your official notice discharging you as my attorney. You are to cease and desist from any further actions, hearings or petitions with the court on my behalf, or by representing any family member.

Respectfully yours,
    Herbert Eugene Hillygus
OPPOSITION IN PART TO ORAL MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM – EXHIBIT 1OPPOSITION IN PART TO ORAL MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM – EXHIBIT 1 Handwritten Letter By Herbert Eugene Hillygus Expressing His Clear Intent To Fire His Attorney Stephen Moss and His Clear Intent to have Roger Hillygus as successor trustee per his wishes.

Now one would think that after all of this conflicting information on behalf of Robin Renwick, Steve Moss and others.

That it would be more than enough to make the court back down and that they would do what they are supposed to do in regard to the law and the preservation of due process which is clearly spelled out in the State Constitution and U.S. Constitution. So your question may be does the court do whats lawful and ethical under the law?

Unfortunately my answer to you based on the evidence is NO THEY DO NOT.

What they instead did shows Absolute Proof that the Probate and Guardianship courts here in Nevada Colluded to steal the Trust, Property, and Assets of the Hillygus Family Trust.

Next on our list of sources for this timeline is the RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER TRUST; ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

Clearly In the RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER TRUST; ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE We can see it says the following:

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER TRUST; ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE


The Commissioner held a duly-noticed hearing on June 19, 2014 upon the
Petition Regarding Administration of Revocable Trust filed by H. EUGENE HILLYGUS,
through his counsel STEPHEN C. MOSS, ESQ.
Counsel MOSS appeared at the hearing. Also appearing at the hearing were the following additional interested parties:

  • TODD L. TORVINEN, ESQ., representing ROBIN (HILLYGUS) RENWICK, who joined in the Petition;
  • SHARON JANNUZZI, ESQ., representing ROGER E. HILLYGUS, who opposed the Petition.

Not appearing was SUSAN HILLYGUS, co-Settlor of the Trust, nor her counsel GORDON R. MUIR, ESQ., although the Court is informed that he is still counsel for SUSAN HILLYGUS.

The matter is contested. The Commissioner therefore scheduled the parties for a Pretrial Conference on July 1, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. before Dept. 4 of this Court, the Honorable Connie J. Steinheimer presiding.
The Commissioner made the following additional recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER TRUST; ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Case No. PR14-00025

Now this next part is so obvious what they did and so incriminating it would be almost unbelievable if didn’t see the document myself.

  1. The Court assumes jurisdiction over the HILLYGUS FAMILY TRUST, dated August 17, 1993
  2. The Court declines to confirm the appointment of any Successor Trustee, although the record indicates that the same may have become necessary based upon the incapacity of both Settlors: H. EUGENE HILLYGUS and SUSAN L. HILLYGUS. Instead, the Pretrial Conference date was expedited so as to allow these issues to be addressed soon, if necessary.
  3. The Court further declines to act upon the oral Motions to appoint a Guardian ad Litem for either Settlor, and instead allows the opposing party, ROGER E. HILLYGUS, to file his written Opposition to that Motion. Nothing in this portion of the Recommendation, however, constitutes a finding that would bar a party from seeking further relief in this area or in continuing to pursue the pending Petitions for Appointment of Adult Guardians, if the same becomes necessary or appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER TRUST; ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Case No. PR14-00025

The Commissioner’s Recommendations should be extremely scrutinized considering how brazen they were about this ruling.

Clearly we can demonstrate through this filing that the following is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

  1. That the court ignored exculpatory evidence in this case beyond any reasonable doubt of it being by accident or unintentional.
  2. That the court used the divide between the Hillygus Family through Robin Renwick to unlawfully and unethically take advantage of a situation that they themselves engineered with malice of forethought to steal the Hillygus Family Trust. This is evident by the fact that they declined both Settlors. (Robin Renwick and Adam Clark) the oral request for a Guardian ad Litem. and the fact that they acknowledge that this does not mean they won’t do so in the future should it benefit their agenda. (Admin Note: This will be explicitly demonstrated with full video evidence in the Extended version of this timeline)
  3. That the court and many bad court actors, including but not limited to Lawyers, Petitioners, Judges and many others in positions of authority. And that these fore mentioned individuals colluded and conspired to fraudulently case fix using their positions to abuse their positions of authority in order to steal The Hillygus Family Trust.

And Finally we can clearly see on the last page that it states the following:

Electronically filed with the Clerk of Court by using the ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:

JASON MORRIS, ESQ. for ROGER HILLYGUS
TODD TORVINEN, ESQ. for ROBIN RENAE RENWICK
MICHAEL SPRINGER, ESQ. for HUBERT E. HILLYGUS
STEPHEN MOSS, ESQ. for HUBERT E. HILLYGUS

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER TRUST; ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Case No. PR14-00025

One thing i want to point out which backs up my argument that they were well aware of what they were doing

Is the fact that again we have a misspelling of Eugene’s Given Name which is Spelled here as HUBERT which it is clearly not correct. Eugene’s Given First name Is Herbert not Hubert. Again i make the point why was there such an obvious typographical error and how did they not catch this before putting it on court record. And I say to you this was done by design. Let me put this into layman terms that most will understand.

“How does one avoid accountability when one is knowingly and willingly committing fraud upon the court? One intentionally makes certain typographical errors with dates and names so one can claim after the fact that their intent was something other than it actually was. This is what i was referring to when mentioned certain Legal Loopholes at the Introduction segment of The Timeline Video.”

Our next source is the Herbert Hillygus Obituary

The relevant data point i want to point out from this obituary was actually discovered by accident when doing the narration on this obituary for the initial abridged Timeline video.

In the second to last paragraph of Herbert Hillygus’ Obituary it clearly states

He is survived by his wife, Sue Hillygus; sons, Randy Hillygus, and son and daughter-in-law Roger and Debbie Hillygus; daughter; Robin Renwick. Grandchildren; Darla Clark and her husband Adam Clark, and Landon and Sophie Renwick. Great Grandchildren; Seth and Gavin Clark and friend, Sami Brookes.

Herbert Eugene Hillygus Obituary courtesy of www.legacy.com

As we mentioned in the video timeline at the top of this article.

Could this be the same Adam Clark, as mentioned in the First Amendment of the Hillygus Family Trust Document?

The answer to that question is yes, it is the same Adam Clark. And furthermore it should be noted that Adam Clark is also much like Robin Renwick in the Real Estate Business. This effectively establishes and confirms that the Court had not only the Motive to commit these crimes, but also had the Means and Financial Incentive to do so as well. In any criminal court of law this level of evidence and Establishing the Motive, Means, and Financial Incentive effectively makes the case once you can prove those points beyond a reasonable doubt. in the context of Who, What, Where, When, and Why. Which i can attest as i am sure you the reader can clearly see up to this point we have established.

You may think that this is the end of the story. But you would be wrong.

This Real Life American Greed Corruption Story Goes Much Much Deeper and Much Much Further up and down the ladder of different levels of government. Than any of us ever imagined. Furthermore we can prove it all. And have multiple backups of all of the evidence we have in multiple secure locations with multiple people. Effectively creating a Dead Man Switch. And YES WE WILL EXPOSE IT ALL In Our Next Extended Video Timeline and Corresponding Extended Version of this Article. JUSTICE IS COMING FOLKS! With that being said let us move on to our next source in this Timeline which is the Declaration of Homestead Document.

DECLARATION OF HOMESTEAD

DECLARATION OF HOMESTEAD Dated 11-05-2015
DECLARATION OF HOMESTEAD Dated 11-05-2015

As we can see from the above Homestead Document regarding Assessor 552-171-04 Roger had the foresight to Homestead his Trust Property.

This represents a real dilemma for those Bad Court Actors which is part of the reason they are Persecuting Roger So Aggressively and Unjust fully. But it is not the sole reason and in fact is just one aspect of a much deeper rabbit hole which connects the dots and establishes that the same tactics were used to Take Angela Freiner’s Daughter through the Family Court System out of St. Louis County In St. Louis Missouri in her case as were used in the Hillygus Family Trust case. Verbatim. They both we’re predicated on False, Unlawful, T.P.O.’s. Both used the Family / Guardianship Courts to commit their crimes and push them through these corrupt Judicial Court Systems.

In Both Cases there was no valid Justification for the court to do so.

And in both cases they tried to silence their Victim’s using Malicious Prosecution. Which Is a Criminal Felony. Angela Successfully Called their Bluff in her case regarding the Corrupt Court’s Malicious Prosecution of her by the Court. Currently Roger Hillygus is being unlawfully and unjust fully Maliciously Prosecuted And It Must STOP. THIS IS A THREAT TO ALL OF US! If they can do this To Angela Freiner, and Roger Hillygus as we have just established.

They Can Do It To Anyone they please until we call them out and put a stop to this Madness.

However i digress. Back to the point i was making about why the homestead document is relevant to how they are reacting currently with this Malicious Prosecution against Roger Hillygus. Here is why this is a Possible Huge Dilemma for them.

As we can clearly see according to Nevada State Law A Declaration of Homestead Provides:

When you record a Declaration of Homestead, Nevada law protects the equity in your home up to $605,000 from general creditor claims (unpaid medical bills, bankruptcy, charge card debts, business/personal loans, accidents) but would not preclude a seizure or forced sale of your residence from general creditors if your equity exceeds the $605,000. A creditor may file suit and can record a judgment lien against any real property you own. Recording a Declaration of Homestead protects your principal residence up to the statutory maximum. For example, if the value of your home is $645,000 and you have a first mortgage of $485,000 plus a second mortgage of $10,000, the equity is $150,000.

Nevada Law Regarding What Procedures a Declaration Homestead provides under Nevada State Law. courtesy of www.clarkcountynv.gov

Why is this important you ask?

This is important because essentially this Homestead Declaration gives us a possible legal avenue pursue against these bad court actors. More Importantly it further establishes their intent based on the fact that they continued to push their agenda through the court system despite all of this. By the time we finish with the extended in depth version of this Video Timeline and it’s Corresponding Article. We will have made the case beyond a reasonable doubt on two different fronts that this R.I.C.O. Racket is being perpetrated by two of the very institutions (namely the Family Courts, and Guardianship/Probate Courts) we have thought could be trusted to uphold and defend our inalienable right as set forth in our Respective State Constitutions, and The Constitution for The United States of America.

This will effectively Establish Probable Cause and Set the Precedent, In addition to paving the way forward for us to take back not only our Nation or Nations.

But to also take back our planet from these corrupt Tyrants. This is a historic moment folks. Remember this, let it sink in. Remember where you are in this moment as you hear or read this. And Above All Ensure You Pass This Knowledge Down To All Generations to Come to Ensure Humanity Never Ever has to go through this Ever Again!

Now for our conclusion to the Abridged/Short version of this Video Timeline and Article of the Roger Hillygus Case.

From this point on i will tread a little more lightly on the density of my writing here as i want to ask you the reader, listener, or viewer to consider and take some time out of your day to look at these documents and these points that i am about to point out regarding Why The Federal Habeas Corpus Exhibits and the corresponding Document Filings hereafter are relevant to our respective State and U.S. Constitutions and what the term “Inviolate Forever” means in relation to them and how it applies to our current predicament.

FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS EXHIBITS 1-5 FOR JURY VERDICT PER ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3 OF THE NEVADA STATE CONSTITUTION

Here are some corresponding screenshots below for your viewing ease and convenience of user independent verification.

FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS EXHIBITS 1-5 FOR JURY VERDICT PER ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3 OF THE NEVADA STATE CONSTITUTION Page 2
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
CASE NO: PR14-0025/GR14-0159 DEPT NO. 7 JURY VERDICT AND OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COURT
CASE NO: PR14-0025/GR14-0159 DEPT NO. 7 JURY VERDICT AND OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COURT

Consider a moment what the term Inviolate forever means to you.

Then apply it to the context of the FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS EXHIBITS 1-5 FOR JURY VERDICT PER ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3 OF THE NEVADA STATE CONSTITUTION shown above and the relevant aspects and points it makes therein.

Next i want you to look at the next two FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS DOCUMENTS presented below and do the same.

Following that we will look at the definition of what Inviolate means.

and i will have you go back and apply what it means as it applies to these documents again having the known definition of Inviolate Forever. Consider this a little homework for you to do when you have the time or make the time to do so. I’ve made it easy to prove all of this evidence in such a way that it is irrefutable and cannot be denied. But whats important to note about how i have come to this point in my journey is that i had to put in the work. Which means the only way we can truly fight this information war effectively is by empowering ourselves with knowledge and using the tools we have to do so in a productive way that will actually empower us and allow us to put and end to this corruption Globally and Once and For All! Where We Go One We Go All

Next we have the NOTICE OF JURY VERDICT CASE NUMBERS PR14-0025 GR14-0159 SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT – NEVADA – COUNTY OF WASHOE

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
NOTICE OF JURY VERDICT CASE NUMBERS PR14-0025 GR14-0159 SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT – NEVADA – COUNTY OF WASHOE
NOTICE OF JURY VERDICT CASE NUMBERS PR14-0025 GR14-0159 SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT – NEVADA – COUNTY OF WASHOE

NOTICE OF JUDGEMENT THE ENCUMBERENCE OF 2685 KNOB HILL DRIVE, RENO NV 85906 PRESIDING JUDGE EGAN WALKER

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The Roger Hillygus Case A Forensic Timeline Analysis
NOTICE OF JUDGEMENT THE ENCUMBERENCE OF 2685 KNOB HILL DRIVE, RENO NV 85906 PRESIDING JUDGE EGAN WALKER Page 33
NOTICE OF JUDGEMENT THE ENCUMBERENCE OF 2685 KNOB HILL DRIVE, RENO NV 85906 PRESIDING JUDGE EGAN WALKER Page 33

Let us take a look at what the definition of the word Inviolate means.

According to this the Definition of Inviolate Courtesy of www.vocabulary.com means the following:

inviolate

If something’s inviolate, it’s sacred and must be protected. If you make an inviolate promise to your sister to never reveal her secret superhero identity, it’s one you must honor and take very seriously.

Inviolate comes from the Latin word inviolatus, made up of in-, meaning “not” and violare, meaning “violate.” So inviolate describes something so sacred or pure that it must not be violated. It can be used to describe fundamental principles or rights, such as the inviolate right of free speech, but it can also describe things that must be kept safe and pure. You might believe that the natural coastline outside your city should remain inviolate and not be developed.

Now before i wrap this Abridged / Short version of the Timeline Analysis and It’s Corresponding article (Which you are reading or listening to now) Remember that brief homework i wanted everyone to take some time to do for themselves?

Well folks have at it. The world is at our fingertips. We just needed to realize it and take back our power. This short bit of homework will help you understand (at least those of you who don’t already know), how powerful we are and what we can accomplish when we work together as one unit as one unified people! And also give you a glimpse into the power of Our Organic Constitution as it was originally intended.

Below we have the full raw unedited versions of the body cam footage from both the Reno PD From 8-8-2019

In addition to the Stone Valley Care Facility raw unedited body cam footage from 8-8-2019. Followed by the full unedited House Sale Hearing they held the day after with Judge Egan Walker from 8-9-2019

And lastly we will wrap this up with the proof of our final source for this Abridged/Short version of the timeline.

Which is the proof that Judge Breslow has been acting as a Judge for the last 2 years at least with an invalid bond.

Due to the length of the original body cam footage and house sale hearings i will let you look at these on your own time. you may even feel free to download them and make hard copies for viewing offline if that is more your preference. This information belongs to all of us because, it has been perpetrated on all of us, and affects every single one of us. Alas i give you the people back to you what was wrongfully taken. And the means to do so for yourselves. As they say.

“Knowledge is Power, and with Great Power Comes Great Responsibility, and the Ability to Affect Great Change!”

With that being said. let us get straight to that invalid bond so we can bring it home shall we.

You May Click Here to have the web page automatically skip the body cam and house sale hearing footage and take you straight to the Hearing from August 23rd, 2023 sourced from Our Nevada Judges YouTube Channel. Followed by the embedded pdf version of the two pages featured in the video accompanying this article that show the invalid bond so you the viewer, reader or listener can see the evidence with your own eyes.

RENO PD BODY-CAM FOOTAGE 8-8-2019

Reno PD Body-Cam Footage 8-8-2019 Officer Hanifan

STONE VALLEY CARE BODY-CAM FOOTAGE 8-8-2019

STONE VALLEY CARE BODY-CAM FOOTAGE 8-8-2019

Risperdal Black Box Warning

Risperdal Black Box Warning Courtesy of www.drugdangers.com
Risperdal Black Box Warning Courtesy of www.drugdangers.com

Lorazepam IMPORTANT WARNING

Lorazepam IMPORTANT WARNING courtesy of medlineplus.gov
Lorazepam IMPORTANT WARNING courtesy of medlineplus.gov

House Sale Hearing Footage Judge Egan Walker Presiding

Jurisdictional Disputes Regarding Children in Las Vegas – Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act aka UCCJEA

Jurisdictional Disputes Regarding Children in Las Vegas – Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act aka UCCJEA courtesy of www.lvfamilylaw.com
Jurisdictional Disputes Regarding Children in Las Vegas – Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act aka UCCJEA courtesy of www.lvfamilylaw.com

The State of Nevada vs Roger Hillygus, August 23, 2023

INVALID BOND OF BARRY BRESLOW DATED 01-04-2021

And as we can all see from the embeded pdf of Barry Breslows Invalid Bond above.

This is an invalid bond because when it comes to legal documents of this type. such as a bond or a even a title transfer of a vehicle which im sure everyone here has had to do at least once. If there is any type of crossing out of any portion of such a document and pened in by hand. this makes it null and void because you cannot verify the chain of custody. That is why if you screw up on an automobile title transfer. You have to start all over with a brand new form. Because it becomes legally invalid by definition.

A Little Bonus for all of you reading and seeing this.

Here is a recorded call with Roger from 9-17-23 between Matthew and Roger.

Call Between Roger Hillygus & Matt Dated 9-18-2023

And with that I bid all of my fellow citizens of earth a Good Night and Good Hunting Until Next Time. Stay Tuned!

Stephen Phillips
Latest posts by Stephen Phillips (see all)
    Spread the love