Carson City Jail lacks a required Law Library violating inmates 14th Amendment to Due Process

law booksThe Carson City Jail lacks a required Law Library and resembles a Russian Gulag.

All inmates are incarcerated with no access to a law library in the Carson City Jail (Detention Center) pursuant to NRS 211.140(b) or lawyer from the Carson City jail thus violating Due Process.

The American Correctional Association (ACA) Adult Local Detention Standards as well ACA’s Core Jail standards as a basis for your policies. Here are the two relevant standards: ACA standard 4-ALDF-6A-03 (Accreditation standards)[1]

“Inmates have access to a law library if there is not adequate free legal assistance to assist them with criminal, civil, and administrative legal matters. Inmates have access to legal materials to facilitate the preparation of documents” lady justice

ACA Standard 1-Core-6A-03  (Core Jail Standards)

“Inmates have access to legal materials”

You will want to consider what the courts have said. Take a look at the following:

Jails and the Constitution:  An Overview” NIC publication authored by William Collins available as a download from:

Text  from page 68:

“Over the years the Supreme Court decided several access to the courts cases involving inmates. The most important came in 1977, when the Court said that prison administrators have the affirmative duty to provide inmates with assistance or resources to allow them to meaningfully exercise their right of access to the courts, Bounds v. Smith.  Assistance could take the form of persons trained in the law (such as lawyers, paralegals, or law students), adequate law libraries, or some combination of these.

A 1996 Supreme Court decision dealing with access to the courts reaffirmed the core principle in Bounds, i.e., that the institution has an affirmative duty to provide some form of assistance (libraries or persons trained in the law) sufficient to give inmates the capability of filing non-frivolous lawsuits challenging their sentence or the conditions of their confinement, Lewis v. Casey.”

Kenny Furlong“The principle from Bounds (and now Lewis) has been extended to jails, although application of the principle may be slightly different in the jail context depending in part on how long inmates remain in the jail. The longer an inmate remains in a jail, the more the right of “access to the courts” places the same demands on the jail as it does on the prison”

The fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.  This quote is taken from Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817), the 1977 landmark Supreme Court decision, which led to the establishment of law libraries in most major U.S. prisons.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees state inmates the right to “adequate, effective, and meaningful” access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1495, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977); Green v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 1383, 1389 (10th Cir.1992). We impose “affirmative obligations” on the states to assure all inmates access to the courts and assistance in the preparation and filing of legal papers. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 583 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041, 101 S.Ct. 1759, 68 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981).

The Supreme Court instructs that states may satisfy this duty “by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828, 97 S.Ct. at 1498. Although this constitutional obligation does not require states to afford inmates unlimited access to a library, Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 358 (10th Cir.1978), and there exists no rigid or static formula to assess whether a prison library’s resources pass constitutional muster, Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir.1991), states must provide inmates with “a reasonably adequate opportunity” to present their legal claims.

Carson City and Douglas County Department of Alternitve Sentencing violated civil rights of pre-trial Defendants


Carson City DAS is Corrupt as hellEarlier we did a story on how the Carson City (as well as Douglas County) Department of Alternative Sentencing (“DAS”) is a fraud.

Here is an update to this DAS scandal:

Defendants under supervision by the Carson City, Nevada and/or Douglas County, Nevada DAS prior to July 01, 2013 were illegally deprived their Constitutional rights since DAS acted outside their jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 211A. Pre Trial Defendants were not defined as “Probationers” and DAS legally had no jurisdiction.

The 2013 Nevada Legislature passed SB101 which was signed into law by Governor Brian Sandoval and made effective July 01, 2013. SB101 was to protect their asses, however the law is not retroactive i.e. ex post facto.

We have discovered that many people, pre-trial Defendants,  who were awaiting a trial (pre trial release) were illegally supervised by DAS prior to July 01, 2013 may have civil recourse in the federal courts under Title 42, Section 1983 for civil rights violations against the DAS, the State, the Judge, the county and individuals for acting under the color of law outside their jurisdiction.

The leading case on this matter is United States v. Scott: Should a Pre-Trial Releasee Be Subject to Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures Based on Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion?
By Gina M. Muccio

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Nevada’s suppression of a shotgun and statements made by defendant, Raymond Lee Scott (Scott), as a violation of Scott’s Fourth Amendment rights.

The court held that the government may not conduct a search of an individual released while awaiting trial, based on less than probable cause even when his Fourth Amendment rights were waived as a condition of pre-trial release.

FEBRUARY 11, 2013
Referred to Committee on Judiciary
SUMMARY—Revises provisions relating to departments of
alternative sentencing. (BDR 16-464)
FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: No.
Effect on the State: No.
EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new; matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.
AN ACT relating to departments of alternative sentencing;
authorizing a department of alternative sentencing to
supervise certain persons who are released from custody
before trial or sentencing; and providing other matters
properly relating thereto.
Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
SENATOR JAMES SETTELMEYER1 Existing law authorizes the governing body of each county or city to create a department of alternative sentencing for the purposes of supervising certain persons convicted of misdemeanors and serving suspended sentences or terms of residential confinement. (Chapter 211A of NRS) This bill: (1) authorizes a department of alternative sentencing to supervise persons charged with or convicted of misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors or felonies who have been released from custody before trial or sentencing, subject to the conditions imposed by the court; and (2) provides that such persons are generally subject to the same statutory provisions as the other persons currently supervised by a department of alternative
1 Section 1. NRS 211A.050 is hereby amended to read as
2 follows:
3 211A.050 “Court” means a court having jurisdiction over a Continue reading

Carson City Judge John Tatro caught lying on the witness stand – DA Neil Rombardo caught giving Judge John Tatro a “hand job” during testimony!

Judge John Tatro lies on the witness stand

Judge John Tatro lies on the witness stand

Not telling the truth: “he’s a lying, cheating, snake in the grass”.
mendacious – false – untruthful – deceitful – untrue
Judge Nancy Oesterle

Judge Nancy Oesterle

Judge John Tatro was disqualified from the Todd “Ty” Robben case(s) due to bias and prejudice against Robben. A hearing was conducted on Monday June 17, 2013 with a “retired” Judge from Las Vegas named Judge Nancy Oesterle.

Judge Tatro psycho

Before Judge Tatro was kicked off the case, he made rulings without recording them! Judge Tatro has had a pattern of making orders and changing them in this cases. Now JP (Justice of Peace) Tatro completely fails to make a record and has to be called to testify under oath as a witness in the matter.

Judge Tatro can not recall the order he made and instead lies to the Judge that he can not remember.

Judge Tatro violated the following laws:

NRS 4.230  Docket: Entries; form.

      1.  Every justice must keep a docket, in which the justice must enter:

      (a) The title of every action or proceeding.

      (b) The object of the action or proceeding; and if a sum of money be claimed, the amount thereof.

      (c) The date of the summons, and the time of its return; and if an order to arrest the defendant be made, or a writ of attachment be issued, a statement of the fact.

      (d) The time when the parties, or either of them, appear, or their nonappearance, if default be made; a minute of the pleadings and motions; if in writing, referring to them; if not in writing, a concise neil rombardo liesstatement of the material parts of the pleading.

      (e) Every adjournment, stating on whose application and to what time.

      (f) The demand for a trial by jury, when the same is made, and by whom made, the order for the jury, and the time appointed for the return of the jury and for the trial.

      (g) The names of the jurors who appear and are sworn, and the names of all witnesses sworn, and at whose request.

      (h) The verdict of the jury, and when received; if the jury disagree and are discharged, the fact of such disagreement and discharge.

      (i) The judgment of the court, specifying the costs included, and the time when rendered.

      (j) The issuing of the execution, when issued and to whom; the renewals thereof, if any, and when made, and a statement of any money paid to the justice, when and by whom.

      (k) The receipt of a notice of appeal, if any be given, and of the appeal bond, if any be filed.

      2.  The Court Administrator shall prescribe the form of the docket and of any other appropriate records to be kept by the justice, which form may vary from court to court according to the number and kind of cases customarily heard.

      NRS 4.240  Entries in docket prima facie evidence of facts.  The several particulars of NRS 4.230 specified must be entered under the title of the action to which they relate, and (unless otherwise in this chapter provided) at the time when they occur. Such entries in a justice’s docket, or a transcript thereof, certified by the justice, or the justice’s successor in office, are prima facie evidence of the facts so stated.

Carson City Deputy DA Travis Lucia LIES

Carson City Deputy DA Travis Lucia LIES

      NRS 4.250  Docket must be kept by justice of the peace.  A justice must keep an alphabetical index to his or her docket, in which must be entered the names of the parties to each judgment, with a reference to the page of entry. The names of the plaintiffs must be entered in the index, in the alphabetical order of the first letter of the family name.

William Routsis

William Routsis

During the time Judge Tatro is trying to remember what he conveniently forgot, perhaps in on of his drunk stupors, the District Attorney Neil Rombardo is giving Tatro hand signals, also know in court slang as a “hand job” from the peanut gallery on how to answer the questions!

Both Mike Weston and I witness Neil Rombardo is giving Tatro hand signals from the seating area and talking to DA Travis Lucia across the bar.

This is clearly illegal manipulation of a witness under oath!

Judge John Tatro, DA Neil Rombardo and his corrupt prosecutor Travis Lucia LIE and CAN NOT BE TRUSTED.

Neil Rombardo is corrupt