MEMO

1 Steven J. Bank
C/O ROWLAND
2 1155 E TWAIN AVE, STE 108-98
Las Vegas, NV 89169
3 702-901-5846 (txt)
superfiler@outlook.com (Email)
4 IN PRO SE
5
8TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
6
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
7

8
) Case No.: _____________________
Steven J. Bank, )
9
) Dept. No. _________________
Petitioner, )
10
)
vs. ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
11
) AUTHORITIES
City of Las Vegas, )
12
)
Respondent. )
13

14

15
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
16
The so-called neighbors actions are nothing more than , as one court has described it :
17
harassment, which clearly amounts to an interference with someones privacy. From: Australian
18
Government- Australian Law Reform Commission (/www.alrc.gov.au/publications/15-
19
harassment/statutory-tort-harassment). More:
20

21
15.8 In some instances, harassment will clearly amount to an interference with
22 someones privacy. For example, the following conductwhere it is repeated,
unwanted and intended to distress and demean an individualmay amount to
23 harassment and an invasion of privacy:
24
following or keeping someone under surveillance;
25
eavesdropping and wiretapping;
26
reading private letters and other private communication;[1]
27

28 using surveillance devices to monitor, intimidate or distress someone;[2]

HABEAS CORPUS - 1
 publishing private information; ALRC, Supra.
1

2 This person engages in false accusations:

3 When a person is suspected of a wrongdoing for which they are in fact responsible,
"false accusation may be used to divert attention from one's own guilt".[3] False
4 accusation may also arise in part from the conduct of the accused, particularly where
the accused engages in behaviors consistent with having committed the suspected
5
wrongdoing, either unconsciously or for purposes of appearing guilty.[3]
6
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation
7
IN fact, it is this person, and the associated neighbors, who are the ones
8
TRESPASSING.
9
Furthermore, Mr. Bank is prevented by the laws status quo from pursuing an existing
10 civil remedy; from ALRC, Supra,
11
15.13 In Grosse v Purvis,[8] a Queensland District Court judge recognised an
12 actionable right to privacy after a finding that the defendant had persistently and
intentionally stalked and harassed the plaintiff for six years. Because of his
13 conclusion on the actionable right to privacy, there was no need to decide whether a
tort of harassment should be recognised.
14
15.14 At present, Australian law does not provide civil redress to the victims of
15
harassment. There is some protection in defamation law, as well as the torts of
16 battery or trespass to the person where conduct becomes physically threatening or
harmful. If bullying or harassment, including cyber-bullying, occurs on school
17 property within school hours, a school may be liable under the law of negligence on
the basis of a non-delegable duty of care, (emphasis added).
18
15.15 However, many instances of harassment will involve a serious invasion of
19
privacy and yet not give rise to an existing tort. As discussed in Chapter 3, this is a
20 significant gap in the protection of privacy in the common law.[10] For example, the
tort of trespass to land can be used only where there has been an unlawful intrusion
21 onto property.[11] Surveillance or harassment from outside the property would not
come within the tort. Further, the harassment may occur on property where the
22 victim is not the occupier with the required title to sue for trespass. (italics added)
23

24
The above describes in textbook style what he and two other neighbors have been
25
doing for some time; committing the tort of civil harassment.
26

27 Whether by threat of violence, implying bodily harm, or, in this case, by citizens
arrest, and subsequent intervention by the Police, these neighbors, along with Pueblas
28

HABEAS CORPUS - 2
 (shadow entity), are instituting proceedings which on their face seem lawful, yet carry within
1
a very malicious intent. Wikipedia, supra.
2

3 Their pretext is that their actions are in the best interest of the owner, yet , as Mr.

4 Bank is aware, he and the neighbors at 5316 Westleigh Ave. are guilty of Trespass to land.
This is a very serious invasion of privacy.1
5

6
)Mr. Bank is a good friend of those who served in the military, and is now rendering
7 well-educated, competent, and life-saving attendant services to another veteran, one who
8 stands a very high likelihood of making a full recovery from a surgery.)

9
Finally, the ALRC goes on to say:
10

11 15.19 Given these gaps, the ALRC recommends the enactment of a new tort to

12
provide civil remedies, including damages, to persons subjected to harassment.
Several stakeholders supported a statutory tort of harassment.[18] The tort would be
13
actionable where there is a course of conduct, linked by a common purpose and
14
subject-matter, intentionally committed to cause distress and intimidation. Further
15 work is necessary on the detailed design of the tort, but these might be the key
16 elements.

17
15.20 It is important that the threshold is not set too low, so the new tort does not
18
capture behaviour which is merely irritating or slightly disturbing. A new tort for
19 harassment would provide for a targeted avenue of civil redress where the conduct
20 is not redressed by existing torts. Civil remedies, particularly compensatory

21
damages, can vindicate a plaintiffs interests.[19]

22
Clearly, and as Mr. Bank has shown through the record he has made in this Court and
23 in the Las Vegas Justice Court, TPO and Small Claims divisions, the real issues of preservation
24 of property are confined to the probate matter having been filed to preserve and protect the

25 estate.

26

27

28 1 Precisely the reason that Mr. Bank has been seeking a TPO in the Justice
Court.

HABEAS CORPUS - 3
 As this person is in no way related to the probate matter, having no claim upon it
1
whatsoever, and has no rational reason to institute criminal proceedings following a trespass
2
to land, his claims are patently frivolous , unwarranted, and amount to a form of harassment
3
as above-described.
4
Similarly, as Police officers have absolutely no knowledge or information about the
5
status of this property, this charge is also patently frivolous, with serious social costs involved
6
in the incidence of this particular form of harassment. Should V. Markoffs estate not be
7
protected through probate, it will stand absolutely no chance whatsoever against being taken
8 over by house flippers, who will find a way take legal control and the Markoffs will be soon
9 thereafter totally forgotten into posterity.

10
CONCLUSION
11
Mr. Banks own father was a veteran of the same corps Army Air Corps- in the same
12
conflict WWII stationed in the same geolocation London, England flying and fixing the
13
same types of airplanes that prevented Germanys invasion of England B52 bombers- and
14
commanding the same authority within: Sargeant (Sargeant Marvin Ben Bank ; Sargeant
15 Vasil M. Markoff) As such, Mr. Bank has nothing but the highest respect for all veterans of the
16 armed forces2, and certainly, without a doubt, V. Markoff would find no better qualified

17 individual than Mr. Bank to specially administer the plethora of riches both physical and
intellectual- that his friend left behind that fateful day when he walked out of his house and
18
into a hospital, never to return.
19

20 Therefore, this police action and the consequent charge, notwithstanding its lack of

21 probable cause, is one more attack upon that time-honored tradition of valour and courage,
honor, integrity, and patriotism.
22

23
This day and age, Police are self-interested, with little knowledge or caring for actual
24 underlying issues or facts, bringing about grave social consequences.
25

26

27 2 Mr. Bank is working for a Vietnam Veteran as his ad hoc attendant, and he
intends to be available when Mr. Rowland submits VA form 21-2680, EXAMINATION
28 FOR PERMANENT NEED FOR REGULAR AID AND ATTENDANCE , a new claim for a benefit
for a permanent attendant caregiver.

HABEAS CORPUS - 4
 For all the above and foregoing reasons, this writ should issue, and the charge should
1
be dismissed.
2

6
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTD
7
STEVEN J. BANK
8

9 By: -______________________________

10
Steven J. Bank in PRO SE
11
C/O ROWLAND
12 1155 E TWAIN AVE, STE 108-98
Las Vegas, NV 89169
13 702-901-5846 (txt)
superfiler@outlook.com (Email)
14 IN PRO SE
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HABEAS CORPUS - 5