Fraud on the Court
 The Fraud on the Court in Arizona is a serious issue which usually involves deceptive actions by either the plaintiff’s counsel or the plaintiff themselves during legal proceedings.
 Here are the key points:
Definition: Fraud on the Court refers to intentionally misleading the court or opposing party, thereby undermining the judicial process.
Examples:
• Concealing Evidence: Withholding crucial evidence that could impact the case.
• Fabricating Evidence: Creating false documents or testimony.
• Perjury: Lying under oath.
• Bribery: Attempting to influence court decisions through illicit means.
Consequences:
• Dismissal: If proven, the court may dismiss the case.
• Sanctions: The offending party may face fines or other penalties.
• Criminal Charges: In extreme cases, criminal charges may apply.
• Burden of Proof: The accusing party must provide substantial evidence of fraud.
• Heightened Standard: Arizona courts demand specific details when alleging fraud. General claims won’t suffice.
• Elements to Prove:
• Material Misrepresentation: False statements or omissions.
• Intent: Deliberate deception.
• Reliance: The opposing party relied on the deception.
• Injury: Harm resulted from the fraud.

BAD FAITH
 Plaintiffs Gary and Donna Johanson and their counsel Bryan Eastin filed this litigation in bad faith from the outset.
This was for the intended purpose to conceal the unlawful behavior and legal advice given by Bryan Eastin to the Johansons in regards to their deceased brother Verne Johanson and their vulnerable sister-in-law Joyce Johanson in respect to their irrevocable family asset trust.
 The unlawful legal advice resulted in a criminal investigation against Gary T. Johanson for financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult see Exhibit “1” attached with email to all parties & court and on disc filed with the court contemporaneously with this motion.

BAD LEGAL ADVICE
 In 2016 after Brian Eastin was retained by Nicholas Casavelli for Garpdon LLC, Gary T. Johanson retains Bryan Eastin to transfer the trustee status that Gary held for the Johanson family irrevocable asset trust to his sister-in-law’s son Brad Adams.
 Exhibit 1 (on disc and filed on the docket March 26, 2019) is a complete dossier of the events prior to this litigation and the nexus of CV 2017-055490.
 Prior to Brian Eastin of Platt and Westby being retained by Gary T. Johanson Brian Eastin stated he needed to determine if Gary T. Johanson was competent before representing Gary T. Johanson in the trust matter, see Exhibit “2,” Exhibit 2 is Brian Eastin stating to Nick Casavelli that Gary must be competent before he will represent Gary for the Johanson family irrevocable asset trust.
 Nicholas Casavelli explains to Brian Eastin that Gary has diabetes and any issue would be if he had any low blood sugar levels, Brian Eastin responds “Yeah, that doesn’t make him incompetent.”
 Brian Eastin determined prior to representing Gary for the trust matter, Gary T. Johanson was competent in May 2016. Brian Eastin made false statements to this court at trial all throughout the testimony and questions by Bryan Eastin and plaintiffs as to Gary T. Johanson being a vulnerable adult, he was not.
 Brian Eastin represented Gary T. Johanson in the matter of the Johanson irrevocable asset trust, where Brian Eastin directed Gary T. Johanson to take money from Joyce Johanson’s personal bank account and Gary’s deceased brother Verne’s personal bank account and place the money in the trust bank account (#8302) at Bank of America.
 On July 6, 2016, Gary Johanson went to chase bank and withdrew $31,383.01 from his vulnerable sister-in-law’s account (2710), contemporaneously withdrew $46,500 from his deceased brothers Chase account, both via cashier’s check from accounts number (2710 and 5390). Gary then on July 12th 2016, cashed the cashier’s checks at Bank of America by depositing the funds into the trust account and then immediately withdrew the funds via two cashier’s check from Bank of America, leaving the trust account with a zero balance.
 Before the trust account was funded from Verne and Joyce Johanson’s personal accounts the remaining balance after the Johanson’s embezzled the money the balance was $29,339.14. If the original amount was $127,222.15, this means the Johansons embezzled $97,883.01 from their in-law’s trust.
 Keep in mind, this was at the direction of Bryan Eastin, see Exhibit “3,” on November 29, 2018, Nick Casavelli asked Gary T. Johanson “someone told you to fund the trust back” Nick Casavelli had asked this question in Gary T. Johanson’s deposition and Brian Eastin objected to the question claiming privileged communication. Gary T. Johanson said what Bryan Eastin told him, see Exhibit 3.
 This exhibit was submitted on September 25, 2023 as trial exhibit #180 where all exhibits attached heretofore, plaintiff’s counsel is aware and in possession of said exhibits.
 Gary T. Johanson took the cashier’s check obtained from Bank of America from the account of #8302 on July 12, 2016, held the cashier’s checks for 6 days, then takes the cashier’s checks to BBVA Compass Bank and opens a clear choice money market account #8084 in Gary T. Johanson’s name only. On or about October 7, 2016, Gary T. Johanson added Nick Casavelli to the BBVA Compass Bank account #8084.
 Nicholas Casavelli only became aware of this account in 2017 and was not aware at the time when Gary T. Johanson added Nicholas Casavelli to this account.

 PURCHASE OF LLC
 On January 6, 2017, Gary and Donna Johanson wished to purchase an LLC owned by Nicholas Casavelli.
 The Johansons authored a document of offer of purchase the LLC, offering a generous amount of money for the LLC.
 Nick questioned the Johansons where they are going to get that kind of money to pay for the LLC.
 Gary responded we don’t have to; you have already been paid.
 Nick responded, yeah right, I haven’t seen any money. Gary stated it’s in your bank account. Nick replied what bank account? Gary said the 8084 account.
 At this point in time, the realization of possibly, something being planned against the Casavellis by the Johansons, then, the Johanson’s had a conversation with Bryan Eastin on January 23, 2017, recorded the phone call and then gave a copy of the recorded phone conversation with Bryan Eastin where he did not represent the Johansons in any issue and the Johansons were not seeking or receiving legal advice, see Exhibit “4.”
 Arizona law allows joint bank accounts and any assets in that account becomes property of the account holders and Nick was an account holder, the assets by Arizona law belonged to Nick Casavelli and any withdrawal from the 8084 account was in compliance with Arizona law.
 Exhibit 4 is the conversation between Bryan Eastin and the Johansons in regards to whether or not Nicholas Casavelli and Nicolina Castelli were taking advantage of the Johansons and in regards to the alleged $127,000 allegedly taken by the Casavellis and other subjects.
 Brian Eastin knew the Casavellis were not taking advantage of the Johansons in any way.
 Brian Eastin attempted to have this Exhibit “4” removed via motion in limine #1, then again at trial before the current commissioner, Christine Mulleneaux.
 This recording, unequivocally proves Brian Eastin and the Johansons have committed fraud upon the court with their avowals and testimony.
 Brian Eastin wishes to keep this information from the court, only for the purposes of hiding his corruption and impugning the Casavellis for Bryan Eastin’s deceitful deeds.
 Brian Eastin and the Johansons have misrepresented the facts in this case from the outset and out of maliciousness has vexatiously litigated plaintiff’s claims against the Casavellis for more than six years to obtain an unlawful judgment[s] against the Casavellis through fraud, forgery and deceit.

 SUCCESSIVE REPRESENTATION
 The Casavellis filed a “notice of Bryan Eastin’s and plaintiff’s admission of conflict of interest on 4-10-2023” and of course Brian Eastin made false representation to the court stating there is no conflict of interest or successive representation due to Nick Casavelli is not on the articles of organization of Garpdon LLC.
 Nick Casavelli countered with; Brian Eastin’s representation of the Johanson’s in their personal capacity through an assignment of interest is in violation of Arizona Revised Statute § 29-3502(A)(3)(a) which prohibits the Johanson’s from filing lawsuits through an assignment of interest. Brian Eastin refers to this law as a red herring 1. a smoked herring.
2. something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue. !
 After the barrage of more fraud on the court of Brian Eastin’s material misrepresentations, the Casavellis filed a reply to the notice of conflict of interest on May 16, 2023, exhibit #1 in the motion is a partial transcript of the hearing held on January 27, 2021 with judge Sally Duncan where Brian Eastin is making material false statements in regards to quiet title, where Brian Eastin and Donna Johanson failed to inform judge Sally Duncan when she directly asked Brian Eastin if quiet title had been resolved, see Exhibit “6,” this is a clip from the video hearing matching the transcript submitted May 16, 2023.
 Next in that motion is Exhibit 2, attached to this motion on disc as Exhibit “5,” this is the engagement letter that Bryan Eastin states does not create a conflict of interest, as Brian Eastin authored this document and wrote on this document, the engagement letter, depicting Nick is agent for Garpdon LLC. Brian Eastin knew Nick Casavelli was a member and managing agent for Garpdon LLC from the outset of retaining Bryan Eastin for matters involving Garpdon LLC. As it clearly states in the client section at the bottom of the pages “Nick Casavelli, agent for Gary T Johanson and Donna Johanson members of Garpdon LLC.”
 On the last page of the engagement letter where the client is to sign, it states; “Nick Casavelli agent for Garpdon LLC” Brian Eastin and Donna Johanson made materially false statements to the court during trial and in the absence of Nicholas Casavelli and Nicolina Castelli by stating Nicholas Casavelli is not a member of Garpdon LLC or a managing agent for Garpdon LLC.
 This is fraud upon the court by making materially false statements to the court for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment against the Casavellis under false pretenses.
 The court should order Brian Eastin to explain each and every action where Brian Eastin has committed fraud upon the court as his clients have and to do this in a written format and in open court.
 Additionally, supporting the conflict of interest in Exhibit 5 are invoices directed to Nick Casavelli. Bryan Eastin and the Johansons have made materially false statements to this court in regards to conflict of interest and successive representation.
 To further support the Casavelli’s statement of conflict of interest and successive representation, where this court will take no action and allow fraud upon the court, see Exhibit “7,” this exhibit was submitted by Brian Eastin for trial exhibit #52, where Brian Eastin stated to Judge Blanchard that if it was his exhibit he would stipulate to the submission of the exhibit.
 Additionally, this was also the Casavellis exhibit submitted for trial as exhibit #118. Exhibit 7 is the appointment of Nick Casavelli as managing agent for Garpdon LLC by the members and managers of Garpdon LLC and the trustees of the Johanson family revocable trust.
 All acts performed by Nick Casavelli were in compliance with Arizona law and no exploitation occurred against the Johansons other than Brian Eastin billing the Johansons in excess of $600,000 throughout this litigation.
 The court refusing to take any action against Brian Eastin, does not mean Brian Eastin and his clients did not commit fraud on the court, quite the contrary, by the court taking no action is proving fraud on the court.
 Arizona does not have a private right of action for fraud on the court, there is a federal private right of action for fraud on the court.
 In this case, Bryan Eastin has made no effort to withdraw the materially false statements made to this court where the Casavellis have proven the statements to be false by material evidence of official court video, audio recordings of court officials, and documentation signed by plaintiffs etc.
 Brian Eastin’s attitude of maintaining no wrong is a continuing affirmation of fraud on the court, when the court takes no action against that fraud, then the judiciary has committed fraud on the court and an egregious injustice to the Casavellis.
 Brian Eastin and Donna Johanson know they committed fraud upon the court when they did not tell judge Sally Duncan the truth on January 27, 2021, when Judge Duncan asked if quiet title had been resolved, see exhibit “6,” in Exhibit “8,” is the full video of the partial summary judgment where Brian Eastin epically lost summary judgment by bringing absolutely no evidence to the partial summary judgment to any factual material to dispute, not one iota, not a scintilla of evidence that he brought to support equitable mortgage claiming quiet title!
 This is then confirmed by Judge Cohen on June 14, 2019 at a status conference Brian Eastin demanded over discovery dispute.
 Judge Bruce Cohen clearly stated that he ruled in the Casavelli’s favor, there is no misunderstanding or any material issue at dispute in relation to quiet title, see Exhibit “9,” this is a clip of the hearing Brian Eastin demanded to have on June 14, 2019, whereas, judge Bruce Cohen made it very clear that the Casavellis won summary judgment and Brian Eastin claiming otherwise to the court is nothing less than fraud on the court.

 COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
 The hearing requested by the Casavellis for copyright infringement is due to Brian Eastin obtaining the Casavellis 3D VFX studios domain for the purpose of stating at trial the Casavellis had no losses due to this litigation, knowing it would be a materially false statement due to the Casavellis do not now own the domain and Brian Eastin is now the current owner of it and would only be feeding a jury and the court false information at trial.
 Brian Eastin is the only person other than the Johansons who knew of two businesses the Casavellis owned, 3D VFX studios and a nonrelated business in another state of NC3 media.
 Brian Eastin was/is aware of this information due to the knowledge he obtained while representing Garpdon LLC and is using privileged communication he obtained while representing Garpdon LLC in the plaintiff’s claims in this litigation.
 This is in violation of A.R.S.§ 12- 2234(B).
 Nick Casavelli is managing member/agent for Garpdon LLC. Parson v. Arizona, No. CV-20-00237-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz. Sep. 16, 2020).

 RES JUDICATA – CLAIM PRECLUSION
 Bryan Eastin made materially false statements knowing he lost partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, this is evident by filing a supplemental to partial summary judgment on April 8, 2019 and a motion to reconsider filed on April 10, 2019, where Brian Eastin with his asinine insolence telling the court to “correct their mistake and rule in favor of the plaintiffs.”
 Judge Cohen did not rule in plaintiff’s favor!
 The Johansons did not appeal the loss of summary judgment regarding the quiet title and equitable mortgage claims, judge Cohen’s decision at the summary judgment stage stands.
 In legal terms, this means the court’s ruling against the Johansons would remain in effect, and they would not have the opportunity to present their case further through an appeal or a full trial.
 Without an appeal, the Johansons are bound by the summary judgment outcome, and their claims related to quiet title and equitable mortgage do not proceed to trial... Yet, they Did!
 Bryan Eastin committed Fraud on the court by making Materially False Statements to the court to put the claims to a bench trial without a waiver or consent of all parties!
  On the first day of trial commissioner Christine Mulleneaux moved Quiet Title to be heard by the jury without consent or waiver of all the parties!
 Brian Eastin continued this brazen behavior by failing to state to judge Lisa Daniel Flores that he had lost partial summary judgment when he asked Judge Flores to extend dispositive motion deadlines to file a motion to dismiss the Casavellis claims after losing partial summary judgment.
 To further exacerbate his deceits, he bald-faced lies to judge Sally Duncan as video Exhibit 6, depicts in regards to quiet title.
 This action would also support the statements Bryan Eastin made in Exhibit 11, “it does, it does plenty.”
 It is absurd for plaintiff’s counsel Brian Eastin to rely upon an interpretation by Judge John Blanchard of the partial summary judgment hearing instead of the court relying on the submission of the court hearing video itself and judge Cohen who presided over the partial summary judgment, stating he ruled in the Casavelli’s favor.
 Any other interpretations can only be considered invalid.
 Brian Eastin spews out falsities like a broken sprinkler spews out water.

 JURORS
 The Casavellis have been in the court system due to the plaintiffs’ frivolous claims filed against the Casavellis for more than six years, the Casavellis have seen an enormous number of people working for the court system over the last 6+ years.
 Juror #5 looked familiar from the time they entered the courtroom on the first day of trial.
 On the third day of trial, before trial started, in the hallway by the elevators, apparently, juror #5 realized she recognized the Casavellis and the Casavellis recognized who she was and where she was employed, juror #5 then proceeded to tell the court that she was having a panic attack and the court excused juror #5 from jury duty.
 Apparently, on or about January 30, 2024 Commissioner Mulleneaux and juror #2 had a disagreement to the point where juror #2 was excused from jury duty and escorted out of the courtroom.
 One can only presume with all of the procedural errors to outright violations of the law in accord with conducting a jury or bench trial, the juror had issues with the way the court was conducting the litigation and trial and expressed their views to the court to the point where the court decided to remove the juror just as the Court did the same to Nick Casavelli on January 19, 2024, by telling Nick Casavelli to step out, meaning leave the courtroom during a status conference.

 WAIVER
 Brian Eastin continually misrepresents statements to the court and committing fraud on the court to have the court rule on inaccurate and material misrepresentations.
 This is the definition of fraud on the court.
 Bryan Eastin does not care about judges’ careers or court staff careers as Brian Eastin has tanked his own career by the illegal and improper conduct that has taken place in this litigation, to the point where no judge in Maricopa County wanted to preside over this litigation and the commissioner was assigned to this litigation without the parties’ waiver or consent.

 POA’S
 Brian Eastin has based this entire litigation on forged documents and did not even address the issues of the forged documents in the Casavellis “response and objection to judgment,” which contained a copy of the original power of attorney of Donna Johanson “unsigned” by Nick Casavelli.
 Bryan Eastin made material misrepresentations to the court and the jury at trial by not informing the court the altered power of attorney Brian Eastin exhibited at trial as plaintiffs exhibit #26, was unsigned by Nick Casavelli, whereas, the copy of the original submitted in the response to objection to judgment depicts the original power of attorney being unsigned by Nick Casavelli, the witness signature notarized and the information for the indemnification of third-party portion supplied and signed with the issuer’s Social Security number.
 Brian Eastin was and is aware that he utilized altered documentation that was never utilized for any purposes as Brian Eastin stated at trial the Casavellis acted under a power of attorney when Bryan Eastin knowingly and willingly and maliciously made the false statement to the court knowing no alleged acts the Casavellis committed was under the status of a power of attorney.

 BENCH TRIAL v. JURY TRIAL
 The hearing held on January 27, 2021 one day earlier than the official noticed date to the Casavellis, Judge Sally Duncan clearly stated “unless the parties waive a jury trial and want to do a bench trial.”
 In this litigation, the Casavellis did not give consent or waiver to move any claims to a bench trial as judge Duncan stated in the hearing on January 27, 2021 where both parties would have to waive the right to a jury trial, see Exhibit “10.”
 The court let plaintiff put claims before the bench without a waiver or consent of all parties and especially without the Casavellis consent or waiver.
 This is fraud upon the court, due to Bryan Eastin given materially false statements to Judge John Blanchard and having the court move claims to the bench without all parties’ consent or waiver.
 The laws are clear in regards to materially false statements; whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch, knowingly and willfully -
 (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
 (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
 (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined, imprisoned not more than 5 years.
 Perjury; false statement must be material to the proceedings. A false statement is material if it has “a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed.” Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988). The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled or impeded the proceeding. E.g., Potential interference with the grand jury's line of inquiry suffices to establish materiality, because of the grand jury's broad investigative function. United States v. Williams, 993 F.2d 451, 455 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Gribben, 984 F.2d 47, 52 (2d Cir. 1993).
 The rulings on motions throughout this litigation and the conduct committed at the trial, especially when the Casavellis were unable to attend due to a medical emergency.
 This conduct includes but not limited to and is only from a cursory glance at the videos of the trial of the days the Casavellis was unable to attend due to the medical emergency;
 1. the court establishing foundational evidence for plaintiffs exhibits,
 2. the court allowing forged documents to be submitted as evidence,
 3. the court allowing Brian Eastin to direct the jury to decide on claims not placed before the jury due to Brian Eastin having the court move some claims to the bench,
 4. the court not allowing the Casavellis to object to forged documents, then sanctioning the Casavellis 15 minutes for verbally objecting to the forged documents in the presence of the jury,
 5. the court allowing court staff in the jury deliberation room,
 6. the court directing the jury prior to deliberation to find the Casavellis guilty,
 7. the court reading plaintiffs jury verdict form to the jury prior to deliberation,
 8. the court allowing Brian Eastin to present exhibits during closing argument,
 9. the court allowing Brian Eastin to tell the jury to disregard all testimony from the Casavellis,
 10. the court allowing Brian Eastin to be the trial attorney knowing the existence of a conflict of interest,
 11. allowing Brian Eastin to present known forged documents to the jury,
 12. a commissioner being appointed to the civil litigation without consent or waiver of all parties
 13. The court allowing the trial to continue knowing the Casavellis had a medical emergency,
 14. losing the original jury verdict form, then filing a blank jury verdict form that any court staff could have made,
 15. not giving the jury verdict form to the jury,
 16. allowing plaintiffs’ counsel to manufacture a[n] exhibit[s] over the weekend and then submit it into evidence at trial in the absense of the Casavellis due to an emergency medical illness which is cause of a manifest necessity.

 FRAUD ON THE COURT
 Brian Eastin has committed numerous counts of fraud on the court throughout this litigation i.e.,
 1) Brian Eastin failed to state to judge Lisa Flores that he lost summary judgment when Bryan Eastin was requesting judge Flores to extend dispositive motion deadlines to file a motion to dismiss the Casavellis claims after losing summary judgment.
 2) by making bald-faced lies to judge Sally Duncan when Judge Duncan inquired if quiet title had ever been resolved.
 3) by making materially false statements to judge John Blanchard in regards to quiet title by stating Judge Cohen said there was material issues at dispute. This is unequivocally not true (see video Exhibit 8 &Exhibit 9).
 4) by Bryan Eastin stating to this court on numerous occasions throughout that the hearing held on January 27, 2021 was actually held on January 28, 2021, (see Exhibit “11a.”) Tony Lassiter who works at ERS confirmed the date to be January 27, 2021.
 5) by stating to the court and the jury at the trial, that Nick Casavelli is not a member and managing agent for Garpdon LLC.
 6) where Brian Eastin admitted to Nick Casavelli to bribing a Superior Court judge and stating “it does, it does plenty,” see Exhibit “11.” And the list continues inexhaustive.

 PLAINTIFFS JURY VERDICT FORM
 In Maricopa County Superior Court, as in other courts, the jury verdict form is not read before the jury deliberations begin. The standard procedure involves the judge, in this case a commissioner, providing instructions to the jury on the applicable law and the standards for reaching a verdict after the evidence has been presented and before the jury retires to deliberate. The verdict form is then used by the jury during deliberations to record their decision. Reading the verdict form before deliberations is not in line with normal court procedures and a violation of due process, see Exhibit “12,” here, when the court read the plaintiff’s jury verdict form, this action literally directed the jury to find the Casavellis guilty by the instructions being read. Additionally, the court clearly states that she intends not to give the jury verdict form to the jury, see Exhibit 12.
 Any reasonable person would have to ask the question; how does the jury get a verdict form to hand back to the court when the court specifically stated the court would not give the jury the verdict form?
 So how does a member of the court staff hand the court what appears to be a big red envelope alleging to contain a jury verdict form?
 Additionally, when the court read plaintiffs specifically defined jury verdict form where there is no option on the jury verdict form for a not guilty verdict for the Casavellis and when the Casavellis never received a copy of this jury verdict form prior to filing on the ECR docket posttrial.
 The envelope appears to be containing something other than a jury verdict form where the court specifically stated they was not going to give the jury a verdict form, so how did the jury get this big red envelope?
 After the commissioner received this envelope and opened it, the commissioner smiled. Could the jury verdict form be a Valentine’s Day card considering this was approximately January 30, 2024? The next question one must ask is; why would the court commissioner smile when seeing an alleged verdict form?
 The next question is how a verdict form being so large and possibly contained in a big red envelope, get lost? Then the court has to put a blank jury verdict form on the docket claiming to be original duplicate.
 A commissioner presided over this civil case without consent or waiver regarding their involvement, does not have the authority to refuse to provide a verdict form to the jury and do not have the authority to make final decisions or rulings on the case.
 The refusal to provide a verdict form to the jury is a procedural error and/or a violation of the rights of the parties involved in the case, these actions that occurred in the trial in the Casavelli’s absence is and was an extreme prejudice to the Casavellis, where the Casavellis did not obtain a fair and impartial trial.
 These actions being committed are absolutely unfathomable in the judicial system where any reasonable person would arrive at the conclusion; justice is not a part of the Arizona judicial system when the judicial system allows and commits such egregious acts.

 UNDISCLOSED WITNESSES
 Plaintiffs and their counsel Bryan Eastin had at least four undisclosed witnesses appear at trial. This is in defiance of Judge Blanchard’s directive to the parties to disclose to the opposing party who will be testifying the following day and to be disclosed to the opposing party the day prior.
 Brian Eastin did not disclose these witnesses due to the fact the witnesses could not establish foundational evidence for his forged documents he submitted before the court and the jury.
 It appears that Mr. Eastin pulled random people not associated with the actual documents they were present and testifying for. The witnesses had no personal knowledge of the exhibits, only stating “it looks like something the bank would produce” this is not sufficient to establish foundational evidence. Additionally, it appears Brian Eastin had a member of the court staff, Luke Emerson testifying and or reading deposition excerpts using a different name as Plaintiff’s witness Noel Verrado appeared to be Luke Emerson Department Administrator for the Civil Department.
 Furthermore, during closing statement Brian Eastin directly instructed the jury to specifically disregard all of the Casavellis testimony and evidence. During the closing statement, Brian Eastin, opposing counsel cannot directly instruct the jury to disregard specific testimony or statements of the Casavellis, as he did in this litigation at trial. Also, Brian Eastin submitted evidence and exhibits during closing argument, which is not allowed by the Arizona rules and laws. Also observed on the court video, it appears court staff was in the jury deliberating room while the jury was deliberating.
 And at some point, in time after the jury retired to deliberate, it appears to be that the jury became an all-female jury, where there were several men on the jury when first selected.

 RULE 96
 In the context of Arizona's Rules of Superior Court Rule 96, which governs commissioners, if a commissioner presided over a civil trial without the consent or waiver of both parties as required by the rules, it is indeed considered as acting without jurisdiction.
 Rule 96 explicitly requires the consent or waiver of both parties for a commissioner to preside over a civil trial, and proceeding without such consent or waiver is considered to be acting without jurisdiction.
 Any decisions or rulings made by the commissioner in such circumstances are the basis to be challenged on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
 The Casavellis believe the commissioner presided over the civil trial without proper consent or waiver as required by Rule 96 and this court should set aside any judgments it may be considering and dismiss the case in its entirety or give leave to the parties to file motions to dismiss the case and state the basis for the motion to dismiss and/or grant oral argument.