Jury awards $2M to sons in case of looted estate in Lyon County

Featured

Joker-billionaire-burning-moneyLAS VEGAS — A federal jury in Las Vegas is ordering Lyon County and its former elected public administrator to pay more than $2 million to three sons who maintained that their father’s home was looted of valuables before they arrived after he died in 2006.

Lyon County is on the hook to pay $1.6 million to sons of Joe Robinson Mathis, and former county Public Administrator Richard Glover was held accountable for $280,000, said Brian Irvine, an attorney for the sons.

The county and Glover were both also held responsible to repay $217,000 for missing property, Irvine said.

The verdict was handed down Tuesday, after a five-day civil trial before U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon.

Irvine said he expects an appeal, but he felt relieved for the Mathis brothers: Richard Mathis of Las Vegas; Anthony Mathis of Montpelier, Vermont; and James Mathis of Ellensburg, Washington.

Brian Brown attorney

Attorney Brian Brown of the corrupt law firm Thorndal, Armstrong, Delk, Balkenbush & Eisinger, representing Lyon County, said officials were disappointed in the decision after getting his ass kicked.

“It’s been a long haul,” said Irvine, who argued the case with attorney Justin Bustos. “They’re pleased with the result. They hope that it will be a good final result for them.”

Attorney Brian Brown  of the corrupt law firm Thorndal, Armstrong, Delk, Balkenbush & Eisinger, representing Lyon County, said officials were disappointed in the decision after getting his ass kicked.

Brown and county Manager Jeff Page said a decision whether to appeal wasn’t immediately made.

The county of about 53,000 people has an annual operating budget of about $30 million. It has insurance for acts performed by officials in their public capacity, Page said.

“We’re weighing our options at this stage,” the county manager said.

Attorneys for Glover didn’t immediately respond to messages.

The allegations revolved around the role of the elected officer entrusted to oversee administration of the estates of people who die with no qualified relative or designee to administer their affairs.

The jury found that Lyon County violated the constitutional right to due process of the Mathis family by failing to provide an opportunity for a hearing before allowing Glover into the property.

Joe Mathis died in May 29, 2006, at his home in Smith Valleyn.

Family members and Glover were notified by the county sheriff, and Glover went to the home before Anthony Mathis arrived June 1. Mathis reported the house had been ransacked and that items including firearms, jewelry, silver coins, military decorations and tools had been removed, according to the complaint filed in May 2007.

Glover didn’t face criminal charges related to Mathis property. He didn’t run for re-election in 2010.

“One of the key determinations was that Mr. Glover was acting as a final policymaker on behalf of the county … without any real oversight from the county,” Irvine said.

7th Amendment protest goes off at the Reno Federal Court – Ty Robben proclaims summary judgment unconstitutional

Judge Miranda Du Reno Nevada Federal Court

Judge Miranda Du and Reno Attorney Brian Brown Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional! Justice delayed is justice denied

Today Friday August 14th 2015 Ty Robben and Mike Weston along with some friends made that statement that the use of Summary Judgment is unconstitutional and a violation of the 7th Amendment of the US Constitution that guarantees the right to a civil jury trial.

I would like to thank the Courthouse security “Homeland Security” for being professional and “keeping us safe”! says Robben who also thanks the Reno Police Department who were on hand for what turned out to be a very, very casual protest.

We didn’t chalk the sidewalks even though we could have said Robben who said he will continue the “peaceful protest” and hopes other join him in solidarity. After all, an injustice to one is an injustice to all. 

Summary Judgment is unconstitutional.

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” – – The 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Summary judgment is cited as a significant reason for the dramatic decline in the number of jury trials in civil cases in federal court. Judges extensively use the device to clear the federal docket of cases deemed meritless. Recent scholarship even has called for the mandatory use of summary judgment prior to settlement. While other scholars question the use of summary judgment in certain types of cases (for example, civil rights cases), all scholars and judges assume away a critical question: whether summary judgment is constitutional. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court settled the issue a century ago in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States. But a review of that case reveals that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the constitutionality of summary judgment has never been resolved by the Supreme Court. This Essay is the first to examine the question and takes the seemingly heretical position that summary judgment is unconstitutional. The question is governed by the Seventh Amendment which provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

Judge Du Reno

Judge Miranda Du and dirty Harry Reid

The Supreme Court has held that “common law” in the Seventh Amendment refers to the English common law in 1791. This Essay demonstrates that no procedure similar to summary judgment existed under the English common law and also reveals that summary judgment violates the core principles or “substance” of the English common law. The Essay concludes that, despite the uniform acceptance of the device, summary judgment is unconstitutional.

The Essay then responds to likely objections, including that the federal courts cannot function properly without summary judgment. By describing the burden that the procedure of summary judgment imposes upon the courts, the Essay argues that summary judgment may not be necessary to the judicial system but rather, by contrast, imposes significant costs upon the system.

read more: Why summary judgment is unconstitutional

Miranda Du

Judge Miranda Du and Reno Attorney Brian Brown Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional! Justice delayed is justice denied

Judge Miranda Du

Judge Miranda Du and Reno Attorney Brian Brown Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional! Justice delayed is justice denied

justice delayed is justice denied

Judge Miranda Du and Reno Attorney Brian Brown Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional! Justice delayed is justice denied

Constitutional Conversation: 7th Amendment

Judge Miranda Du

7th Amendment protest coming to Reno next week to demand the use of summary judgment as unconstitutional?

 Ty Robben on Infowars

Ty Robben at the Reno Monsanto protest showcasing the “World’s largest CRIME SCENE tape” 

5/07/30/7th-amendment-protest-coming-to-reno-next-week-to-demand-the-use-of-summary-judgment-as-unconstitutional/