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
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.