Whether the Nevada Supreme Court erred in disregarding past Supreme Court decisions and declaring a state procedural rule ambiguous

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In December of 2014, the Center of Ethics at Harvard University issued a report entitled Measuring Oo , Illegal and Legal Corruption in American States: Some Results from the Corruption in America Survey, wherein it found that the State of Nevada led the nation in legal judiciary corruption, where it was “very common”. James R. and Ellen A. LaFrieda sued Building Concepts, Inc. and Black Eagle Consulting for defects in a related construction defect case. During those proceedings, they learned that their attorney, Nancy A. ; Gilbert, provided her Clients and the Court with false and misleading information, effectively sabotaging the case. They sued Ms. Gilbert for professional negligence in District Court. The jury returned a verdict that Ms. Gilbert fell below the standard of care and awarded a : judgment of $265,000. The defendant moved for dismissal as a matter of law at the close of the Plaintiffs case, but failed to renew at the close of evidence at the defendant’s case-in-chief, waiting 42 days after : the verdict to file a motion for redirected verdict. Nonetheless, post verdict, the trial judge reversed the judgment as a matter of law that Ms. Gilbert was not proven to be the “proximate cause” of loss. However, this question: had been explicitly put to the jury, wherein the jury instructions clearly listed the elements of the offense which included a “proximate cause” requirement. On top of reversing judgment, the trial judge awarded costs of $100,000 to the defendant as the prevailing party under NRCP 68. : QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Nevada Supreme Court have the right in its Order of Affirmance to blatantly disregard past ii decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court as to statutory interpretation; and to declare that Rule 50(b) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure was ambiguous, and to not follow the law? 2. Did the Nevada Supreme Court and the Trial Court have the right to become the trier of fact and overturn the decision of a Jury, who served for 13 days, while totally ignoring the substantial circumstantial evidence and jury instructions that supported the jury’s verdict? ; 3. Did the Nevada Supreme Court and the Trial Court have the right to remain silent and refuse to acknowledge the numerous nefarious acts of the defendant which entitled the petitioners to have a . jury determine punitive damages? iii a