QUESTION NO. 1: CREATING APPEALS COURT IN NEVADA GOES TO VOTERS; WEIGHING THE PROS AND CONS

shutterstock_97357133

Between now and the November election you likely will hear this phrase repeated frequently: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

This pithy little aphorism is usually attributed to 19th century British Prime Minister William Gladstone and argues that legal redress not delivered in a timely fashion is tantamount to no redress at all — such as some court cases here in Nevada that are still pending, though most of the original parties have long since died.

It is the favorite argument proffered by advocates for setting up an appeals court in Nevada, even though voters rejected similar proposals in 2010 and 1992.

Nevada Supreme Court protest

Nevada Supreme Court protest

Actually, that is not the strongest argument for ballot Question No. 1. You see, in order to keep up with its truly monumental caseload, the Nevada Supreme Court has over the past years resorted to disposing of most cases with non-precedential memorandum, or what are called unpublished opinion, since these can be prepared quicker and more easily than a full blown opinion. The case is settled but the ruling sets no precedent for similar cases, and thus offers no guidance for the courts, attorneys and parties. The same legal ground gets plowed over and over, wasting time and money for litigants and taxpayers.

“The published opinions that establish guidance on unsettled questions of Nevada law, as a percentage of the number of total dispositions, has declined over the years to where it now hovers between 3 and 4 percent,” the court reported in its fiscal year 2013 annual report.

The Nevada Supreme Court handles everything from appeals for driver’s license revocations to appeals in family law, foreclosure mediation, business, and death penalty cases.

At the urging of the justices, the 2013 Nevada Legislature passed SJR14, which would, if approved, create the Court of Appeals. But it would not be just another layer of judicial bureaucracy between the 171 district court judges and the seven-member Supreme Court. It would be a push-down court.

Nevada Supreme Court

Nevada Supreme Court

All appeals would go straight to the Supreme Court, but about a third of all cases, estimated to be about 700 a year, would be sent to the three-justice appeals court — such as timely cases involving child custody and criminal convictions.

The Nevada Constitution requires mandatory review of all cases, but the appellate court would allow discretionary review. The few cases anticipated to be appealed from the intermediate court would have been thoroughly reviewed and the high court could make short work of those cases.

The 2013 Annual Report of the Nevada Judiciary indeed shows the state’s high court carrying a huge caseload. Of the 10 states that do not have an appellate court, the report showed Nevada had the highest caseload by far — 2,333 cases compared to the second highest of 1,524 in West Virginia and 910 in third highest New Hampshire. That caseload means there are 333 cases for each of the seven Nevada justices. The American Bar Association recommends no more than 100 cases.

In a comment to the 2013 Legislature, Chief Justice Kris Pickering said, “In 2012, filings exceeded the dispositions and will likely continue to do so. Delayed dispositions and lack of precedent by which citizens can predict outcomes and regulate themselves are the result. This hurts not only citizens whose cases are delayed but Nevada’s nascent economic recovery as well.”

If approved by the voters, the appeals court would be housed in the Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas, closer to the vast majority of parties in legal disputes and thus saving time and money.FRAUD UPON THE COURT Reno, NV Judge Patrick Flanagan and 5 Nevada Supreme Court Justices completely fabricated an entire case

The cost of implementing the Court of Appeals is estimated to be $1.5 million a year to pay for the three judicial positions as well as staff — one executive legal assistant and two law clerks per judge. Since the Supreme Court is expected to spend less due to this intermediate court the total increased cost to taxpayers should be less than $1.5 million.

Nevadans are not getting the timely justice they deserve and are having to spin their wheels making the same legal arguments time and again. This time we believe the justices and lawyers supporting this measure have made a better case for an appellate court.

On the other hand, it might be cheaper to just change the state constitution so that the Supreme Court would hear only the most significant cases — discretionary review.

Nevada is one of the few states that allow high court review of darned near any case for any reason or no reason — other than one party not liking the outcome at the lower court level. Most states, like the U.S. Supreme Court, allow discretionary review. Only cases deemed worthy for some stated reason are taken up by the highest state court.

us supreme courtIf you look at the stats from 2012, you’ll find the Nevada Supreme Court handled 2,248 appeals. Out of all those cases, the high court reversed only 10 cases and reversed/remanded only 95 cases. The vast majority were affirmed, denied or dismissed.

So, does the state of Nevada need to amend its Constitution to add another court at a cost of $1.5 million or should it amend the Constitution to make appeals discretionary? The justices argue the appeals would essentially be a discretionary review process.

study conducted 30 years ago found that in only a couple of years after creating appeals courts the number of opinions written by the state court of last resort was nearly the same as before the creation of the appeals court.nevada supreme court

The voters have only the option of yes or no to an appeals court.

(Thomas Mitchell is a longtime newspaper columnist and editorial. His blog is 4TH ST8.)

Featured image from Shutterstock.com

Thomas Mitchell

Thomas Mitchell is a former newspaper editor who now writes conservative/libertarian columns for weekly papers in central Nevada and blogs at http://4thst8.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @thomasmnv

More PostsWebsiteTwitter

Categories: Budget and Finance, Courts & Law, Elections, Government Transparency,Must Read, News, Opinion, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse
Tags: , , , ,, ,

RELATED ARTICLES

  1. Nevada’s Question 3: ‘Margin Tax’ or ‘Education Initiative’
  2. Latest Study Should Further Dampen Las Vegas’ Appetite for Rural Groundwater
  3. Harry Reid’s populist, anti-insurer rants hid Obamacare’s gifts to ‘greedy’ insurance companies
  4. Nevada Ballot Question 2: Removing Constitutional Restrictions on Mining Taxes
  5. Anti-Margin Tax Arguments Keep Piling Up in Nevada

Judging the Judges: Nevada Supreme Court Justices say they take criticism, comments to heart

nevada supreme courtThis story came out in 2011. In 2013, the Nevada Supreme Court has done little to end the rampant judicial corruption in Nevada that earned the State a D- (Judicial corruption got a D+) grade for Corruption.
Nevada is a shit hole of corruption and the Nevada Supreme Court at the top of the crap heap.
In their briefs to the Nevada Supreme Court, the DA’s office never says Kirstin Lobato is “guilty” or refutes the new evidence that proves her innocence.
Nevada Supreme Court protest

Nevada Supreme Court protest

By Ed Vogel LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU

CARSON CITY — In professional sports, any team that wins 70 percent or more of its games usually is a champion, or a close runner-up. Even teams successful about 55 percent of the time frequently gain a spot in the first round of playoffs.

If this guideline applies to the judiciary, Nevada Supreme Court justices — particularly Nancy Saitta, Michael Douglas and Michael Cherry, who are up for re-election this November — should be happy with results of the 2011 Judicial Performance Evaluation, a survey of Clark County lawyers by the Review-Journal. report card

A majority of the attorneys who rated the seven current justices said each should be retained by voters. The judges serve staggered six-year terms and take turns as chief justice.

Nearly 900 attorneys, or 19 percent of active, licensed lawyers in the Las Vegas area, voluntarily responded to the survey of all Southern Nevada and statewide judges. They were asked, however, to rate only those judges with whom they had sufficient and fairly recent experience. From 281 to 397 attorneys evaluated the justices individually. The lawyers again gave their top rating to Mark Gibbons, with 83 percent saying he should be returned to office. Three others were not far behind: Ron Parraguirre had 81 percent approval, while Douglas and Cherry both scored 79 percent.

James Hardesty also had strong favorable support at 71 percent.

Further behind were the two female justices. Kristina Pickering had 63 percent support, while current Chief Justice Saitta fared poorest at 56 percent.

If past examples are any indicator, the survey’s retention scores clearly are important to the justices.

Thomas Steffen and Charles Springer didn’t run for re-election when their retention scores in the 1990s dropped into the 30s.

And while Deborah Agosti cited health reasons when she chose not to run for re-election in 2004, her announcement came two weeks after her retention score had dropped to 44 percent.

That drop came in the wake of a public furor over the court allowing the Legislature to pass tax increases without the constitutionally required two-thirds majority.

All seven current justices agreed to comment about their survey evaluations.

NANCY SAITTA

NANCY SAITTA

NANCY SAITTA

Although her retention approval was the lowest of the seven sitting justices, Saitta’s score marked an improvement over surveys in 2008 (45 percent) and 2010 (50 percent).

“I think constructive criticism is helpful,” Saitta said. “All of us take what is said about us seriously. I am very happy I have improved.”

Even when she was a district judge, however, Saitta received relatively low retention scores in surveys and still won elections.

Saitta pulled the biggest upset in the 2006 state Supreme Court elections when she defeated incumbent Nancy Becker by almost 9 percentage points.

“I work hard and I am a committed justice,” said Saitta, who intends to file for re-election Tuesday . “I am grateful for the support I received, even though the number is less than I would like it to be.”

In general, lawyers made flattering comments about Saitta. One called her compassionate, another a good activist for children, and still another said she was the “soul of the court.”

But about a third of the rating lawyers called her less than adequate on three traits closely related to knowing the law and using it well — being prepared for specific cases, applying law and rules properly, and explaining decisions. Hers were the court’s worst scores on those qualities.

MIKE CHERRY

MIKE CHERRY

MIKE CHERRY

Cherry said he believes the survey bodes well for his re-election hopes.

“I am happy with the results,” he said, noting his retention score has increased each year. “I work hard. I try to be fair. I try to do my best for the voters of Nevada.”

He quipped that lawyers who offered negative comments about him “must be people I ruled against sometime.”

In anonymous comments about the justices, most lawyers surveyed called Cherry an excellent judge, a nice guy and even a “lovely person.”

But about 20 percent said he is insufficiently free of bias toward parties or attorneys. Written comments elaborated:

“Easily swayed by high powered attorneys and clients. Way too plaintiff-oriented,” one lawyer wrote.

Another charged Cherry had a “taxpayer funded gastric bypass operation to reduce his girth.”

Cherry said that he’s never had such surgery and starts each morning with exercise.

Cherry did not face opposition when he first ran for the state Supreme Court in 2006 and does not know if he will in his re-election bid next November.

MICHAEL DOUGLAS

MICHAEL DOUGLAS

MICHAEL DOUGLAS

While Douglas would like to get a 100 percent retention score, he realizes his 79 percent is very respectable. He noted that it has improved during his years on the court.

The lawyers also give him good scores on specific judicial traits, especially courtesy and freedom from bias.

“I guess if you throw out 10 percent of the scores at the top and 10 percent at the bottom, you will find what people really think about you,” Douglas said.

Still, he said that the scores are more of a perception by lawyers on how justices are doing, because few lawyers actually appear in person before the court, yet 325 weighed in with opinions on him.

Douglas said he takes the criticism more to heart than the positive comments lawyers expressed in the survey: “You look at what they say and wonder, ‘How can I be better in what I am doing?’ ”

But most lawyers seem to consider Douglas a gentleman — polite, fair and balanced. One called him “the class of the court.”

He received a few negative comments, including one that Douglas “believes he is now above the human race.”

Douglas, the court’s first African-American justice, retained his seat in 2006 by a 12-point margin over Clark County Family Court Judge Dianne Steel. He said that he doesn’t know if he’ll have an opponent this year .

MARK GIBBONS

MARK GIBBONS

MARK GIBBONS

Gibbons has received the top retention score among justices in past surveys as well, and received high marks when he was a District Court judge, too.

“I thank the lawyers and the Review-Journal,” he said. “I try to work hard and be fair.”

Like other justices, Gibbons said he listens more to criticisms leveled by lawyers in the survey than to their compliments.

He is the only member of the court remaining from the 2003 panel that voted to suspend the state constitution and allow tax increases by a legislative majority vote of less than two-thirds.

Unlike Agosti and Becker, Gibbons was not hurt by his vote, and he won re-election in 2008 by more than a 2-to-1 margin over Frank Christensen.

Lawyers in the survey called Gibbons a solid judge, some even applying the adjectives of phenomenal or stellar. Only 4 percent said he lacks courtesy.

Few made negative comments, although one said Gibbons had to “suck up to the RJ” to win re-election after voting to suspend the two-thirds requirement.

KRISTINA PICKERINGKRISTINA PICKERING

Though pleased by positive survey comments, Pickering said that she’ll take the negative ones to heart and see if she can improve.

“All I can do is the best job I can,” said Pickering, the only justice without a background as a District Court judge. “I try to treat everyone with respect and base decisions on the legal issues as I see them.”

A longtime Clark County lawyer, Pickering was elected to the court in 2008 after a contested primary and a narrow 3 percentage point win over District Judge Deborah Schumacher of Washoe County.

While emphasizing she was “not making excuses,” Pickering said some lawyers who backed her opponent might not support her remaining on the court because of lingering resentments over that election.

But, she added, “I don’t think it is fair to expect people to give up loyalty until I earn their trust.”

Other critics, Pickering said, could be lawyers she sparred with as an attorney.

Several lawyers surveyed called her the best justice, and others remarked about her intelligence.

The primary criticism from a few lawyers was that Pickering takes pro-business positions. One lawyer called her a “corporate shill and a defense bar favorite,” and another said she favors corporations.

RON PARRAGUIRRERON PARRAGUIRRE

Parraguirre was unopposed in his November 2010 election bid, and in an email response to a question about his scores, called the survey a “helpful evaluative tool for the public” in looking at judges.

He was pleased with his high scores and most of the comments made by lawyers.

“Certainly in our profession, we cannot nor should we expect to please everyone,” he wrote. “Fifty percent of those who appear before us are not success­ful in their litigation matters.”

Parraguirre said he and other justices should try to properly apply the law, listen carefully and clearly explain their rulings. Even if litigants are not successful, they should have a sense their case was “fairly considered and given the time and attention it deserved.”

Lawyers responding to the survey said Parraguirre was a fine man, a great judge, a true professional and extremely courteous.

Few offered any negatives. One called him a “lousy politician,” which might have been intended as a compliment, considering that judges are supposed to be apolitical on the bench.

A couple of lawyers said his decisions favor insurance companies, with one lawyer calling him a “foot soldier of the insurance defense industry.”

JAMES HARDESTY

JAMES HARDESTY

JAMES HARDESTY

Hardesty is the only justice from Reno, and was unopposed in 2010 for his second term.

He said he’d have liked a higher score than his 71 percent retention rating, which was slightly lower than the 2010 survey: “I learn a lot from the comments. Having an adequate score means a great deal for me.”

Perhaps more than any other judge, Hardesty is well-known for challenging arguments advanced by lawyers before the court.

He worked closely with legislators in 2009 to establish the Foreclosure Mediation Program, a step praised by some, but criticized by others as a violation of the state constitution’s separation of powers clause.

One surveyed lawyer praised Hardesty’s work in establishing the program, saying it has helped keep homeowners in their homes.

Other lawyers’ comments mostly praised him, especially for intellect and work ethic.

Because he is from Northern Nevada, Hardesty said many Clark County attorneys do not know him as well as they do the other justices. He plans to “reach out to them” and interact more with the Southern Nevada legal community.

Contact reporter Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/judging-judges-nevada-supreme-court-justices-say-they-take-criticism-comments

Nevada Supreme Court rebukes judge for too-harsh treatment of defendant

LVRJ logo

john tatro rebukeNevada Supreme Court rebukes judge for too-harsh treatment of defendant

The Supreme Court should rebuke Carson City Judge John Tatro by what he did to Ty Robben by retaliating against Robben with a $500,000.00 dollar bail and 22 days in jail for trumped up charges related to serving a subpoena to former NDOT Director Susan Martinovich who had actually committed a “hit and run” by running over Robben’s foot!

The Carson City Sheriff covered up the incident and the Sheriff, DA Neil Rombardo and Judge Tatro lashed out at Robben, poisoned his jail food and then sent Nevada “bounty hunters” after Robben in Lake Tahoe, CA. Now Robben has filed criminal charges against the Justin Brothers Bail Bond company, their bounty hunter named Doug Lewis. Robben has a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the Justin Bros and he’s filed a Judicial Ethics complaint against the Judge Tatro. Tatro and DA Rombardo continue the relentless retaliation against Robben and are trying to have him incarcerated once again!

Robben is fighting back with massive protests in Carson City Nevada in front of the courthouse and State capital including the Nevada Supreme Court with big signs demanding Judge Tatro and DA Rombardo resign.

The Nevada Supreme Court better clean up the lower courts in Nevada, including the Justice Courts. Most people do not know that a case from the Justice Court can only be appealed to the District Court in most cases, not the Supreme Court. People can suffer serious damage by a deranged Justice Court Judge (as happens in Carson City John Tatro’s court) – have no “trial” with a jury and only appeal to the District Court Judge who is as corrupt as the Justice Court Judge… No oversight and people are very, very outraged about the “manifest abuse of desecration” and flagerant  abuse of authority by acting under the color of law.

The Supreme Court wants a Nevada appellate court and they want voters to shell out millions of tax dollars to fund the scheme. With the recent D- corruption grade Nevada received by the center for Pubic Integrity in 2012, the Supreme MUST CLEAN UP and remove corrupt judges!

The Supreme Court order can be found here: PEREZ (JUAN) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)

While the District Court, arguably, could have justified jailing Perez under its
contempt power, it violated these plain rules, It never formally held Perez in contempt.
It did not enter an order detailing the contemptuous behavior or specifying the
punishment. It did not cite Perez for criminal contempt or prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt. Instead, the Court summarily remanded him for displaying attitude and held him
without bail. Then in response to Perez’s motion for release or reinstatement of his
previously-posted bail, the Court increased his bail from $3,000,00 to $1,000,000,00
(which is tantamount to no bail given Perez’s financial ability), Other than Perez’s
alleged attitude, the record reveals no reason to warrant good cause for the increase.
The issue presented here does not simply concern the so-called fine print of
constitutional and statutory provisions on bail.

The deeper issue is guarding our founding principle that this is a government of laws, not of men, Rule of law means the “supremacy of regular power as opposed to arbitrary power.” Garner, Bryan A. (Editor in Chief), Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged 9th Edition, p, 1137, (West Publishing Company, 2010). Permitting a court to increase bail based on a defendant’s demeanor is the mark of arbitrary power, Allowing it to justify its decision after the fact and under the guise of a defendant’s criminal history also exemplifies arbitrary power. Approving this under the court’s contempt power but relieving the court of its due process obligations prevents the ability to even review for capricious incarcerations, Our State in particular-with an elected judiciary-prizes accountability and safeguards against
misuses of judicial power, See Goldman v, Nevada Comm’n on Judicial Discipline, 108
Nev. 251, 256 (1992) (“Nevadans have historically manifested a pronounced sensitivity to potential abuses of judicial power.”); see also Houston v, Eighth Judicial Dist, Court I ex rel. County of Clark, 122 Nev. 544, 553 (2006) (noting contempt power should be  used with care and circumspection).

No matter a defendant’s insolence, the rule of law still protects him. Despite the daily challenge of presiding over rude defendants with poor attitudes, the rule of law does not accept misbehavior becoming the basis for setting bail.

…Petitioner later appeared in district court for the appointment of counsel after his retained attorney withdrew from representation. After petitioner thanked the district court for appointing new counsel, the district court informed the petitioner, “You’re remanded.
Thank you. An attitude like that, you can sit in jail.” Petitioner remained in jail for fifteen days without bail. Upon petitioner’s motion for setting of reasonable bail, the district court reiterated that petitioner had a “terrible attitude in court.” Petitioner apologized. The district court then denied petitioner’s request for bail citing his prior narcotics-related convictions, failure to appear in court twelve years earlier in a different case, and prior use of multiple social security numbers and aliases. After petitioner’s court appointed public defender made a second request for bail to be set, the district court set bail at $1,000,000. At a subsequent hearing to stay the proceedings so that the petitioner could file this petition, the district court instructed petitioner’s counsel to make sure to inform this court about petitioner’s “attitude” in district court. The Nevada Constitution guarantees the people of Nevada the right to bail in non-capital offenses and prohibits the district court from imposing excessive bail. See Nev. Const. art. 1, §§ 6 and 7; see also NRS 178.484(1) (“[A] person arrested for an offense other than murder of the first degree must be admitted to bail.” (emphasis added)); St. Pierre v. Sheriff, 90 Nev. 282, 286, 524 P.2d 1278, 1280 (1974) (“[O]ur Constitution does not encompass inclusion of a non-capital offense as non-bailable.”). “This traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense, and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction.” Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4 (1951). In deciding a reasonable amount for bail the district court may consider “the nature of the offense charged, the penalty which may be inflicted, the probability of the appearance of the accused, his pecuniary condition, his character and reputation, and the circumstances surrounding the case relative to the likelihood of conviction.” Ex parte Jagles and Varnes, 44 Nev. 370, 195 P. 808 (1921); see also NRS 178.498; NRS 178.4853. However, “Bail must not be. . . more than the accused can reasonably be expected under the circumstances to give, for if so it is substantially a denial of bail.” Ex parte Malley, 50 Nev. 248, 253, 256 P. 512, 514 (1927).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court violated the Nevada Constitution in two ways. It denied the petitioner bail for fifteen days and then imposed a bail amount which greatly exceeded the amount the petitioner could reasonably be expected to pay. As the real party in interest notes in its answering brief, the district court imposed a bail amount that was fifty times greater than the Clark County standard bail schedule for category B felonies. In light of the district court’s failure to consider all of the relevant factors, see NRS 178.498, its stated reason for remanding petitioner to custody, petitioner’s indigent status, and the amount of bail, we can only conclude that the district court was attempting to punish petitioner for his attitude without utilizing the procedures provided for in Nevada law. See NRS 22.030(1) (explaining when a person may be punished summarily for contempt); NRS 22.010 (defining contempt). For these reasons, we conclude that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by remanding petitioner to custodywithout bail for fifteen days and imposing excessive bail. See State v.Dist. Ct. (Armstrong), 127 Nev. , 267 P.3d 777, 779-80 (2011)
(discussing when a writ of mandamus will issue). We therefore

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to vacate its order setting bail at $1,000,000, set bail at the original amount imposed by the justice court, and recuse itself from presiding over this matter.
Hardesty,  cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Hon. Doug

By FRANCIS MCCABE – LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

rjDistrict Court Judge Doug Smith didn’t like the way Juan Perez said “Thank you.” – So the judge locked Perez up in jail for 15 days and then raised his bail from $3,000 to $1 million.

On Tuesday, the Nevada Supreme Court rebuked Smith, ordering Perez’s bail returned to $3,000 and the case moved to another judge’s courtroom.

The district court manifestly abused its discretion by remanding (Perez) to custody without bail for fifteen days and imposing excessive bail,” stated the Supreme Court order signed by justices Michael Cherry, James Hardesty and Ron Parraguirre.

Continue reading

Judicial Ethics Complaint filed against Carson City Judge John Tatro by Ty Robben

nv judicial ethics

Judicial Ethics Complaint filed against Carson City Judge John Tatro by Ty Robben

Commission Case No. _______________________
(For Commission use only)
Carson City Judge John Tatro

Carson City Judge John Tatro

NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

VERIFIED STATEMENT OF COMPLAINT

Part I: General Information

Date of This Form: April 06, 2013

Name of Person Completing This Form:  Ty Robben

Mailing Address of Person Completing This Form: CONFIDENTIAL

Daytime Telephone Number To Contact You: CONFIDENTIAL

Part II: Specific Information Regarding Complaint

Name of Nevada Judicial Officer (Only One Name Per Complaint Form): John Tatro.

Name of Court or Judicial District Involved:  Carson City Justice Court.

Case Number (Please Include All Letters and Numbers): 12-5139

This Case Is (Select One): _Pending In Trial Court On Appeal Not Pending or Closed

Nature of Complaint (Select One):   I Have Used The Standard Complaint Supplementary Form

Code of Judicial Conduct Section(s) Violated, If Known [(Example: Canon 3B(4)]:

Canon 1 Rule 1.1ComplianceWith the Law. A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Canon 1 Rule 1.2  PromotingConfidence in the Judiciary. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Canon 1 Rule1.3 Avoiding Rule Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office. A judge shall not   abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.

Canon 2 Rule 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness. A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall   perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.

Canon 2 Rule 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment.

Canon 2 Rule 2.6 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard.

Canon 2 Rule 2.9 Ex Parte Rule Communications.

Canon 2 Rule 2.11 Disqualification.

Canon 2 Rule 2.14 Disability and Impairment. A judge having a reasonable belief that the   performance of a lawyer or another judge is impaired by drugs or alcohol, or by a mental, emotional, or physical condition, shall take appropriate action, which may include a confidential referral to a lawyer or judicial assistance program.

Canon 2 Rule 2.16 Cooperation With Rule Disciplinary Authorities.

carson city courthouse

carson city courthouse

STANDARD COMPLAINT SUPPLEMENTARY FORM (STATEMENT OF FACTS)

The following is my explanation as to why the judicial officer named in this complaint has violated the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct or suffers from a disability.

I am [select one]: [X] one of the litigants

The judge did the following things that I believe constitute misconduct (please be as specific as possible about the event or action and attach additional pages, if required).

nevada crime scene

I am writing this judicial ethics compliant against the very, very corrupt and impaired Justice of the Peace (“JP”) John Tatro of the Carson City Justice Court. “JP Tatro is not a well man.” Says my lawyer William Routsis recalling an episode of JP Tatro yelling, frothing at the mouth and lunging over the bench at Mr. Routsis. The incident was caught on the court audio/video. JP Taro has a long history of judicial complaints and violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct (“NCJC”) including a similar complaint in 2006 against JP Tatro by activist Tonja Brown. Ms. Brown and I are both ANTI Corruption activists in Carson City, NV and have protested against the Carson City courthouse. Both of us have had negative experiences with courthouse Department of Alternative Sentencing (“DAS”) $$ A FOR PROFIT ENTERPRISE $$  The DAS is also known as the (“KGB”). Ms. Brown was abused and arrested by the DAS for alleged “trespassing” into the courthouse to refresh herself! The courthouse is a public building.

Judge Tatro Carson City Corruption

Judge Tatro Carson City Corruption

Both Ms. Brown and I have protested and filed complaints against JP Tatro for his flagrant disregard for the law, the constitution and the NCJC as well as using DAS and the Justin Brothers Bail Bondsmen and their “Bounty Hunters” to illegally cross the State line into So. Lake Tahoe, CA and acting in concert with DAS and JP Tatro to act under the color of law and “serve a warrant” for the Carson City, Nevada, Justice Court JP John Tatro and his DAS – illegally and with callous and total disregard for the law and my rights and the rights of others in the State of California.

Judicial ethics complaint filed against Justice of Peace Tatro

Geoff Dornan –  Appeal Capitol Bureau Continue reading

Letters to the Editor of RGJ and NV Appeal – Why Nevada needs to clean up the corruption, not a new appellate court

The Las Vegas Sun ran a story about the Nevada Supreme Court and the need for an appeals court. Our position is the Nevada should clean up the lower courts first since Nevada ranks near the bottom of the list for corruptibility. See Mike Weston’s Letter to the Editor of the Reno and Carson City newspapers.

RGJ Opnion

nv-appeal-logo

opinion shopLetters to the Editor:

Clean up the lower courts and the corruption. Nevada received a D- grade on the Center for Public Integrity study in 2012 indicating rampant corruption. Nevada was one of the worst State in the Union. Time after time we hear the horror stories of judges running amuck and acting above the law by acting under the color of law to carry out vendettas and help the good ol boy network.

The road kill includes the likes of Las Vegas Judge Kathy Kathy Halverson, Reno Judge Jerry Carr Whitehead, Douglas Co Judge Jim EnEarl. New controversy is happening in Reno and Carson City with Judges Scott Pearson and John Tatro where the law is completely ignored and justice is obstructed in the cases of Reno resident Mike Weston and ANTI-Corruption activist Ty Robben from So. Tahoe, and formally Carson City, NV.

We’re getting attention, and we have the “Worlds Largest CRIME SCENE tape” and 4 foot tall by 150 long bright yellow banner and other massive signs like “John Tatro End the RAMPANT Corruption” and “Masto Backdates” and “Treason is a Capital crime”.

Both of us have been “demanding justice” using the legal system, however the system is broken. Judge Pearson is ignoring the DA Dick Gammick’s willingness to vacate and expunge a trumped up charge from over 8 years ago and now admits NHP edited the audio video dash cam footage!

Ty Robben has filed criminal, civil and judicial ethics complaints in his cases involving Judge Tatro.

Las Vegas Sun Brian Sandoval Security beefed up

Why Nevada needs a new appellate court

Sens. Tick Segerblom and Mark Hutchison

Friday, March 22, 2013 | 2:02 a.m.

Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution currently provides for one appellate court — the Supreme Court. Every single appeal from decisions rendered by Nevada’s 82 District Courts must be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This two-tier court structure has resulted in a staggering caseload for the Nevada Supreme Court, and the delay of justice — sometimes by years — for Nevada citizens. Continue reading

Nevada Intermediate Court of Appeals Amendment – Why not get the lower courts right first?

Nevada is one of only 10 states + DC without an intermediate appellate court. Like many other states, the state’s constitutional article related to the judiciary locks the state into a supreme court, district courts, justice of the peace courts, and (if the legislature approves, which it has), municipal courts. In 1980 and 1992 voters rejected efforts to amend the constitution to allow, but not require, the legislature to create an intermediate appellate. A third attempt in 2010 (Question 2) was rejected 47/53%.

Nevada judges are some of the highest paid in the Nation.

Nevada’s jurists are well compensated in comparison to their counterparts in other states, according to a 2011 report by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). Judges for the state Supreme Court are paid $170,000 annually, which puts Nevada well above the average and 10th on the list of best-paying states. The median salary for state Supreme Court justices across the United States is $146,917.

According to transparentnevada.com Carson City judges are paid (2011) as follows:

John Tatro: $125,707.40 *

Tom Armstrong: $66,393.76 (partial pay from 2011) *

James Todd Russell: $172,080.96 *

James Wilson: $159,561.74 *

Carson City DA Neil Rombardo made $162,641.05 in 2011 *

Carson City Department of “Alternative Sentencing” Chief Rory Planetamade $147,909.99 in 2011. 

Other “Alternative Sentencing” public servants are paid very, very well and others not:

Catherine “Maddog” Summers was paid $113,597.47 in 2011.

Martin Hale was only paid $33,073.80 in 2011.

* This does not include bribes, kickbacks and other RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – “payments” that remain unreported.

A Carson City Justice/Municipal Court “Judge” (Justice of the Peace “JP”) only requires an education level of a High School Diploma – No higher education is required like say a degree in law!

From Carsonnow.org: The qualifications to be a candidate are established by Nevada State Law, (NRS 4.010) which states that a Justice of the Peace for Carson City must:

— Be a qualified elector

— Not have been removed from judicial office by the Legislature or removed or retired from judicial office by the Commission on Judicial Discipline

— Have a high school diploma or its equivalent as determined by the State Board of Education

— Reside in Carson City

The base pay range for the Justice of the Peace/Municipal Judge is $75,000 to $105,257.36 per year. The actual starting salary will be determined by the Carson City Board of Supervisors and will be based on the successful applicant’s education and experience.

California pays its high court judges the most of any state, with annual salaries of $218,237. But the pay scale varies widely for jurists in Nevada’s other neighboring states. Arizona pays its Supreme Court judges $155,000, while Utah pays them $145,350. The annual salary for high court judges in Oregon is $125,688, while Idaho pays just $119, 506.In general jurisdiction trial courts, Nevada judges are paid $160,000. The state is ranked 8th on the generosity list in this category. he median salary for general trial courts across the United States is $132,500.

The Survey of Judicial Salaries is published by the NCSC with information provided by state court administrative offices across the United States. The NCSC is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the modernization of court operations and the improvement of justice at the state and local levels throughout the country. It functions as an extension of the state court systems.

The Nevada Intermediate Court of Appeals Amendment may appear on the 2014 ballot in the state of Nevada as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would establish an intermediate court of appeals in the state. State Senator Michael Roberson claimed that the state’s courts are overloaded with cases, which is why the measure is being proposed. If approved, the court would use existing facilities to operate. According to reports, the measure’s $1.3 million cost would be used for salaries and other staff requirements.

A similar measure was found on the November 2, 2010 statewide general election ballot, where it was rejected by voters.

Nevada must get its judicial act together before Taxpayers allow millions more tax dollars to fuel the troubled Nevada judicial industrial complex.

Citizens and Taxpayers must demand competent judges that follow the laws and the constitutions of the United States and Nevada.

In January 2012 the Las Vegas Review Journal did a series of stories called “Judging the Judges”: Nevada high court justices again ask for appeals court

See the excellent LVRJ Story here: http://www.lvrj.com/news/judging-the-judges-nevada-high-court-justices-again-ask-for-appeals-court-136498223.html

Here are some of the reader comments:

Nevada judicial reform

Nevada judicial reform

We propose these standards as presented for the worst State, Georgia: http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=716:candidate-for-judge-introduces-state-legislation-designed-to-reform-the-legal-and-judicial-process-changes-desperately-needed-part-1&catid=104:initiatives&Itemid=105

The business-as-usual methodology in Nevada’s courts must change.  Nevada received a D- grade for CORRUPTION from the Center for public integrity in 2012. The “Judicial Accountability” section got a D+ grade and this is unacceptable and must not be rewarded by expanding an already corrupt system.

Nevada corruption report card 2012

Nevada corruption report card 2012