Nevada high court orders new trial in $100M Vegas Sands case

A Las Vegas court will hold another trial on whether casino magnate Sheldon Adelson’s company has to pay more than $100 million to a Hong Kong businessman for helping to secure business in Macau.

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled there wasn’t enough evidence to support a jury award for Richard Suen in the 12-year-old case.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. said Monday it welcomes the decision.

Suen contends that meetings he arranged with Chinese officials helped Adelson’s company get approval to build lucrative casinos in Macau. Suen’s lawyer, John O’Malley, declined to comment.

The ruling came Friday after the billionaire’s company appealed. Juries in Clark County District Court found in favor of Suen in 2008 and 2013.

Penalties and interest have added at least $30 million to a $70 million judgment.

Leslie Parraguirre, Wife of Nevada Supreme Court justice Ron Parraguirre faces trial on misdemeanor DUI charge

By CARRI GEER THEVENOT
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Leslie Parraguirre, the wife of Nevada Supreme Court Justice Ron Parraguirre, is facing an April trial on a misdemeanor DUI charge.

Her attorney, Richard Wright, said she was arrested in late October after a minor traffic collision on West Charleston Boulevard in the Summerlin area.

“She’s embarrassed and deeply regrets the situation,” Wright said late Wednesday.

The attorney said she was driving alone the evening of her arrest. He said she was arrested on two misdemeanors, DUI and battery, but Las Vegas Justice Court’s online records show that the latter charge was dismissed on Feb. 4 after the state chose not to proceed.

Wright declined to comment on the battery charge.

Online records for the DUI case begin on Oct. 30 with a “temporary custody record” and show an “own recognizance release” on Oct. 31.

A criminal complaint was filed Dec. 15 but could not be obtained late Wednesday. The case lists a second misdemeanor charge of failing to “decrease speed or use due care.”

According to the online records, a plea of not guilty was entered Feb. 1, and a bench trial has been scheduled for April 7 before Justice of the Peace Karen Bennett-Haron.

Wright said he has not appeared in court on the matter with his client.

“The case is being handled by the district attorney’s office just like any other case, and we will continue to address it appropriately,” the lawyer said.

Leslie Parraguirre operates an interior design firm, Colours Inc., in Las Vegas. The business has been embroiled in litigation in recent months.

In a federal lawsuit, filed in November 2014, a California woman claims her former bookkeeper wrongfully transferred more than $180,000 from her bank accounts to Leslie Parraguirre, who is one of the defendants in the civil case.

Leslie Parraguirre has filed a counterclaim against the woman, Tonia Antonacci. According to the counterclaim, Colours hired the bookkeeper based on Antonacci’s “high recommendation.”

The bookkeeper, Roxanne Sparks, has admitted she made the wrongful transfers.

“I was trying to save the Parraguirre company and save everyone’s jobs,” she told the Las Vegas Review-Journal in January. She said she has not faced criminal charges.

When Sparks “abruptly left” Colours on April 30, 2014, according to the counterclaim, she had drained its corporate accounts and Leslie Parraguirre’s personal accounts.

“Some accounts were left with less than $100 and every corporate and personal credit card was drawn to its maximum limit as a result of Sparks’s unauthorized use and failure to pay the statements as directed by Colours and/or Parraguirre.”

According to the Colours website, the Las Vegas-based boutique design firm was established in 1988 under the leadership of Leslie Parraguirre, a lifelong Nevadan. Its address is listed as 500 S. Seventh St.

Ron Parraguirre has been on the Nevada Supreme Court since 2004.

Sparks takes fight to shelter marijuana dispensary owner names to NV Supreme Court

nevada potThe city of Sparks has asked a district court judge to stay his order to release the names of medical marijuana business license holders to give the city time to appeal the ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Last month, District Court Judge Scott Freeman ruled in favor of the Reno Gazette-Journal, which sued Sparks under the Nevada Public Records law to release the names of the business licenses for reporting purposes. The newspaper twice requested the public documents and were given copies of the licenses with the names of the licenses holders redacted.

In the city’s motion for a stay, Sparks lawyers renewed their argument that a law granting marijuana establishment owners confidentiality in state-level documents applies to city licenses as well. The city also argued the newspaper did not follow proper legal procedure for challenging a state regulation granting the confidentiality by not naming the state of Nevada in its lawsuit.

“Respectfully, the Sparks City Attorney’s office believes the judge’s decision was flawed,” spokesman Adam Mayberry said. “We believe the decision has further ramifications than just the reported circumstances, thus have appealed the decision.”

In his ruling, Freeman found that no state law compels the city to redact the name of the license holders from city documents. He ordered the unredacted documents be released.

Sparks argued it would render its appeal moot and would cause irreparable harm to the license holders, whose “identities once disclosed are forever public.”

 

SOURCE: http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2016/02/12/sparks-takes-fight-shelter-marijuana-dispensary-owner-names-nv-supreme-court/80293670/

Is the fact that the judges on the Nevada Court of Appeals used to be district court judges unfairly affect their decision making process?

An Appellate Court needs to rule by the law

CourtOfAppeals2015The idea of an Appellate Court is to lessen the case burden on the Supreme Court and at the same time make a decision on whether a judge in lower courts was able to conduct a fair trial lawfully.
We see one potential problem with that concept. The judges on the Appellate Court that was created just a year ago used to be co-workers with the same judge they now have to oversee. An Appellate Court needs to rule by the law.
The courts must rule by statutes that have been enacted by the legislators and thereby becoming public policies of Nevada. Judges must also follow all binding and mandatory precedents issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land.
A good example of what we are stating is the recent decision of the Nevada Appellate Court in existence for only twelve months in the case of Feeley v. Feeley has affirmed Judge Allan Earl’s order that violates the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby unconstitutional. One can only wonder if the Appellate Court ignored the law to protect a
colleague.
Former Nevada District Court Judge Allan Earl broke all rules and laws in the case of Feeley v. Feeley by exceeding his jurisdiction for the sole purpose of enriching attorneys in his court.
That ruling violated the Fourteen Amendment, therefore it must be considered unconstitutional and void, but now the 3-judge panel at the Appellate Court has failed to obey the Constitution of the United States and the State of Nevada by siding with Judge Allan Earl on his felonious ruling in the case of Feeley v. Feeley.
For the last six months the Las Vegas Tribune has been writing about the Feeley v. Feeley case and every week we have found more than one reason to keep exposing judicial misconduct and abuse of power by Judge Allan Earl.
The Appellate Court was created for the sole purpose to help the Supreme Court expedite results to correct errors that have taken place in the lower courts where just twelve months ago these appellate judges were fraternizing with the same judges they now have to judge, oversee, but may not be able to overrule.
Judges are supposed to rule by law and not be influenced by previous, present or future friendship — and in the case of Feeley v. Feeley, that seems to be the case where the 3-judge panel ignored all the evidence that shows their obvious intention to protect Judge Allan Earl’s inability to enforce or follow the law.
If inducing a bank to not honor a binding commitment, submitting a false document to a federal chartered bank, and dispersing illegally obtained funds are all considered felony crimes, which could place Judge Allan Earl in a federal penitentiary like anyone else who would have participated in those kinds of crimes, how is it that the newly created Appellate Court cannot see it and opted instead for siding with Judge Earl and ruled against the appellant?
Is it because at least two of the appointed Appellate Court judges, now up for election, have been co-workers of Judge Allan Earl a reason to wonder about the decision of the appellate court judges in the case of Feeley v. Feeley — or are we too narrow-minded to see it any other way?
If any future decision or ruling by this Appellate Court is going to be tainted by doubts and wondering about the motives on their ruling, and the way they are going to operate, why do we need an Appellate Court?
Many times we have stated that if the judges in the lower courts were doing their job correctly and by law the appellate would not be needed because there will be less needed to appeal but if the reason and motive of the ruling is going to be questioned that is even worse.
The Appellate Court was sold to the voters by saying that it would not be an extra expense to the voters but now the judiciary has decide that the housing of the appellate court sharing space with the Supreme Court is not big enough for the ego of both the justices and the appellate judges and they have to build a new building for them wondering who is paying for it and where the money comes from given the impression that they sold the constituents a bill of goods as it has been done in previous cases and other jurisdictions.
Another vivid example of why the voters, the constituents and the community as a whole, need to pay attention to whom they elect, why they vote for the particular candidate. This is a year when the candidates have to learn to answer to the voters.

SOURCE: http://lasvegastribune.net/appellate-court-rule-law/courtofappeals2015/

 

Court says ordinance on interfering with police is too broad

Carson City Sheriff Kenny FurlongBy Cy Ryan (contact)
CARSON CITY — The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that a Carson City ordinance that prevents people from interfering with an officer making an arrest is unconstitutional because it is too broad.

In a 5-2 decision today, the court overturned the conviction of William A. Scott on a misdemeanor charge of hindering or obstructing an officer in making an arrest, according to court records.

In February 2014, Scott was a passenger in a car that was stopped for allegedly running a stop sign. The officer said he smelled alcohol and asked the driver if he would consent to an alcohol test, according to court records.

Scott interrupted the officer several times and told the driver he didn’t have to do anything the deputy suggested, according to records.

Scott was then arrested for hindering the officer from doing his duty, according to the court records. He was convicted and received a 30-day suspended sentence with probation and a $305 fine, according to court records.

The ordinance says it is unlawful to hinder, obstruct, resist, delay, molest or threaten to hinder, resist, delay or molest any city officer or member of the sheriff’s office in the discharge of official duties.

The court’s decision, authored by Justice Mark Gibbons, said the court agreed with Scott that the ordinance is unconstitutionally too broad because its criminalizes speech protected by the First Amendment.

Gibbons said the ordinance failed to list specific standards and allows deputies to enforce the law “in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion.”

He said the ordinance gives deputies “unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that annoy or offend them.”

Chief Justice James Hardesty and Justice Kristina Pickering agreed the Scott’s petition should be granted but disagreed that the ordinance is unconstitutional. The dissent said a new trial should be granted for Scott.

Hardesty said many local governments have similar ordinances. He said the ordinance is ambiguous but it is not unconstitutional.

The ordinance would be valid if it was interpreted to mean the language referred to physical interference with an officer or spoken fighting words, Hardesty said.

============

The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled the Carson City ordinance used to arrest a man who advised a friend not to do a field sobriety test is unconstitutional.

William Allen Scott was arrested on a charge of obstructing or delaying a police officer who was investigating a possible DUI and when he asked the driver to submit to a sobriety test, told the driver he didn’t have to take the test. The second time Scott made that statement, the deputy threatened to arrest him if he did it again. When Scott interrupted a third time, he was arrested.

He was convicted in Justice Court and the conviction was upheld in District Court, which rejected his argument the ordinance was “unconstitutionally overbroad and vague because it restricts constitutional speech.”

But on appeal, five of the seven Nevada Supreme Court Justices agreed. They quoted a Clark County case from 2006 stating “the overbreadth doctrine applies to statutes that have a seemingly legitimate purpose but are worded so broadly that they also apply to protected speech.”

The Carson ordinance says it’s “unlawful for any person to hinder, obstruct, resist, delay, molest or threaten to hider, obstruct, resist, delay or molest any city officer or member of the sheriff’s office or fire department….”

The opinion by Justice Mark Gibbons says the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled similar ordinances or laws are invalid because it essentially “criminalized all speech that interrupts a police officer.”

That Supreme Court ruling in a Texas case stated, “The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

The Carson DA’s office argued Scott was arrested for his conduct, not speech because his speech interrupted the deputy. The high court rejected that distinction saying in Scott’s case, there’s no evidence he intended to incite a breach of the peace.

The opinion says the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it doesn’t tell people what conduct or speech is permitted and allows the sheriff to enforce it in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion. It says the ordinance is so vague it gives deputies “unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that annoy of offend them. The decision to arrest, it argues, is entirely within the deputy’s discretion and, therefore, too broad to stand constitutional muster.”

The ordinance is overbroad because, the opinion states, “it is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words.”

The majority opinion throws out the conviction and the ordinance itself.

Two members of the court, Chief Justice Jim Hardesty and Kris Pickering, agreed with the decision to grant Scott’s petition and overturn the conviction. But they argued the ordinance shouldn’t be ruled unconstitutional just because it’s ambiguous. They wrote the ordinance could, instead, be interpreted to applying only to physical conduct or “fighting words” interfering with the deputy’s duties or as applying only with actual intent to interfere with the officer. Instead of throwing the conviction out completely, they argued Scott should get a new trial.

This cunt sonds like a female version of Judge Tatro – Nevada High court to review whether Judge Catherine Ramsey can be recalled from office

bad judgeThe Nevada Supreme Court has put the unprecedented attempt to recall a North Las Vegas judge from office on hold until an October 5 hearing.

Clark County District Judge Eric Johnson ruled the recall election could go forward but attorneys for Judge Catherine Ramsey appealed to the high court arguing voters can’t recall a judge. The Nevada Constitution says a “public officer” can be recalled from office if 25 percent of those who voted in that election sign a recall petition and a majority of voters then vote for removal.

But Ramsey’s lawyer Craig Mueller said judges aren’t included in the definition of public officers and, therefore, can’t be recalled.

Judge Johnson rejected that argument saying voters in 1912 made every public officer in the state of Nevada subject to recall.

Ramsey is a municipal judge who has been in office since 2011. Supporters of the recall movement say she dismissed cases out of spite for the city attorney and used her city purchasing card for personal expenses. She has faced numerous allegations of hostile conduct on the bench.

If a recall election is ordered, it would be a first in Nevada history for a judge and the first American judge to face a recall election in more than 30 years, according to Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at the Hugh Carey Institute for Government Reform in New York.

Until the October hearing before the Supreme Court, the stay preventing the election from being held will remain in effect.

Nevada ruling: Police have power to intercept cell calls

CARSON CITY — The Nevada Supreme Court said Thursday that the state’s wiretap law permits the interception of cellphone calls and text messages even though it has not been updated since 1973.

The ruling, written by Justice Mark Gibbons, was the result of an appeal by Phillip Sharpe of his trafficking in a controlled substance conviction out of Lyon County.

In 2010, police began investigating Sharpe after receiving information he sold methamphetamine. Officers obtained a warrant authorizing a wiretap to intercept communications on two different cellphone numbers attributed to Sharpe.

Due in part to the wiretap information, police arrested Sharpe and confiscated 3.25 pounds of meth from his vehicle.

Sharpe sought to suppress the wiretap evidence but a judge denied the motion. He then pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after 10 years.

On appeal Sharpe argued that the wiretap information should be suppressed because Nevada law does not allow the interception of cellular communications.

But a three-justice panel of the court said Nevada’s law regarding “wire communications” includes cellphones. The court said that “wireless” cellphone communications do involve the use of a wire when the communication reaches a cellular tower and is then transmitted by wire through a switching station to another transmitting tower.

“We agree with the conclusion of our sister courts: cellular telephone calls and text messages rely in part upon the aid of wire for the purposes of transmission,” Gibbons wrote.

As a result, the court upheld Sharpe’s conviction.

– See more at: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/nevada-ruling-police-have-power-intercept-cell-calls#sthash.U5l7HM0C.dpuf

Nevada Legislature: Budget bill repeals language mandating Supreme Court reduction

Without a public hearing or discussion of its cost, lawmakers added language to the Appropriations Act repealing the statute mandating Nevada’s Supreme Court shrink from seven to five members.

The language in NRS2.010 says the high court must be reduced if and when an Intermediate Appellate Court is approved by the voters.

Voters did just that last November, creating an appellate court consisting of three justices. That court is already in business, expedited by Chief Justice Jim Hardesty.

Going forward, as terms of the current justices expire, the statute would mandate that, “the supreme court shall consist of a chief justice and four associate justices.”

The language was passed in 1997 in trade for expanding the high court from five to seven justices and authorizing them to hear cases in three-judge panels instead of “en banc.”

Lawmakers and the court reasoned at the time that, with an appellate court in place, the Supreme Court could operate effectively with five members.

When the statute was made public earlier this year, Hardesty said whether or not the Legislature saw fit to change that statute was a policy decision up to that body.

While the court might make an effective case for maintaining seven members because of the growing caseload, there was no public discussion or hearings about removing the statute.

The repeal language simply showed up on Sunday, day 119 of the 120-day session, in the “back language” of the primary budget bill, the Appropriations Act.

Under the state’s budget act, the proper procedure for handling that situation would be for the Supreme Court to present its requested 2018-2019 budget with funding for a five-justice high court included, and then present the “expansion” of the court back to seven members in a separate decision unit.

That decision unit would spell out the cost of adding back the two justices and their staffs — which would be in excess of $500,000 a year — and let lawmakers clearly see the impact.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Roberson, R-Las Vegas — a lawyer — referred questions about the repeal language to Finance Chairman Ben Kieckhefer, R-Reno.

“We did nothing illegal,” said Kieckhefer when asked about it.

Nevada high court perverts overturns $500K award in priest abuse case

kill cho mosLAS VEGAS (AP) — The Nevada Supreme Court has overturned a $500,000 jury award to a man who alleged that he was groped in 1984 as a 13-year-old by a Catholic priest who had a history of sexual abuse in Wisconsin before being sent to Las Vegas.

An attorney for the man, now in his 40s, expressed shock Friday at the ruling that the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay didn’t have sufficient ties to Nevada to be held liable for the acts of John Patrick Feeney.

The lawyer, Jeffrey Anderson, calls the unanimous high court ruling a kick in the gut and a heartbreaker.

The man filed the civil suit in 2008 as John Doe 119.

Claims against Feeney, the Catholic Diocese of Reno-Las Vegas and the bishop in Nevada were dismissed before trial.

Nevada Supreme Court could eventually shrink

FRAUD UPON THE COURT Reno, NV Judge Patrick Flanagan and 5 Nevada Supreme Court Justices completely fabricated an entire caseBy Geoff Dornan:

May be down to five members in 2019

If the plain language of current statute is followed, the Nevada Supreme Court is going to shrink from seven members to five in the November 2018 election.

That’s because NRS2.010 says the high court must be reduced if and when an Intermediate Appellate Court is approved by the voters.

Nevada voters did just that last November. An appellate court consisting of three justices has been named and is now hearing cases.

Chief Justice Jim Hardesty is going to address lawmakers tonight on the state of the judicial branch — including a report on how the appellate court is doing.

At present, there are seven justices on the high court. But NRS2.010 says after voters establish an intermediate appellate court, “the supreme court shall consist of a chief justice and four associate justices.”

The language was inserted into state law in 1997 in trade for expanding the court from five to seven justices and authorizing them to hear cases in three-justice panels. Lawmakers reasoned at the time that, if an appellate court was in place, the high court could operate efficiently with just five members.

“Section 9 of the bill makes clear the seats would sunset January 2019,” said Hardesty.

But he said the court has not submitted legislation to change that law.

“Whether or if the Legislature sees fit, modifying that is a policy decision theirs to make,” Hardesty said.

AB343 was approved by the Senate Finance Committee on July 4, 1997, and included language stating the two added justices and the panels expire when the appellate court opens for business.

According to the bill history: “The additional justices whose positions are abolished by the creation of such an intermediate appellate court must be permitted to serve the remainder of their terms in office, but the positions of the additional justices and any positions of staff hired directly to support them must be abolished at the end of those terms.”

Nancy Saitta and Mark Douglas would serve out their six-year terms but their seats would be eliminated Jan. 1, 2019.

Approval of the appellate court also eliminates the system of three-judge panels the Supreme Court has been using to expedite hearings on the majority of cases.

The sunset provision was actually suggested by Justice Cliff Young in 1997. The language was inserted during the Assembly Ways and Means hearing on the bill.

Hardesty conceded reducing the size of the Supreme Court could slow the court’s ability to process the backlog of cases.

“One would think that would be part of the decision,” he said.

He noted since the language was approved 18 years ago the number of cases filed with the Supreme Court has increased.

Statistics for Fiscal 1997 were not readily available but the numbers on the high court’s website show in FY2000, the earliest year available, there were 1,940 cases filed and 1,932 disposed of.

FY2014, the annual report says, saw 2,481 cases filed and 1,988 disposed of. That’s a 541 case increase but just 46 more disposed of.

Court records indicate there was a backlog of 1,988 cases pending at the end of Fiscal 2014.

The number of authored opinions, however, remained pretty much the same — 106 in 2000 to 105 in 2014.

Hardesty said it’s up to the Legislature either this year or in 2017 to decide whether the growing workload warrants removal of the sunset.

“All I can say is we would have less appellate judges working on cases,” Hardesty said

Drop in traffic tickets has Nevada Supreme Court near broke, chief justice says

Featured

FRAUD UPON THE COURT Reno, NV Judge Patrick Flanagan and 5 Nevada Supreme Court Justices completely fabricated an entire caseCARSON CITY — A trend of fewer traffic tickets being written by police around the state may be a boon for motorists, but it is creating a financial crisis for the Nevada Supreme Court.

Chief Justice James Hardesty recently told a panel of state lawmakers the court will go broke by May 1 if the Legislature does not provide emergency funding to keep it functioning.

The court receives millions of dollars each year for its budget from assessments on traffic and parking tickets that range from $30 to $120 per citation.

Nevada Supreme Court protest

Nevada Supreme Court protest

But the number of tickets written by law enforcement agencies around the state has been declining steadily, partly because state troopers have focused on violations more likely to lead to crashes. In 2010, there were 615,267 citations issued statewide. In 2014, that number fell to 484,913, a decline of more than 21 percent in a five-year period.

As a result, revenue from the assessments is dropping fast, too.

“If this is not addressed by May 1, the court will not have sufficient cash to operate,” Hardesty said in his testimony to lawmakers. “I believe the Legislature has a constitutional obligation to fund the judicial branch of government. Do you want me to close the judicial branch of government at the state level on May 1?”

The court is short $700,000 in its budget this year and needs a bailout from the general fund, Hardesty told a joint Senate Finance and Ways and Means subcommittee March 11. A bill to fund the shortfall should be introduced in the next few days.

State Sen. Pete Goicoechea, R-Eureka, asked Hardesty what the court could do cut back spending to reduce the deficit.

“There is absolutely nothing the Supreme Court can do with that,” Hardesty replied.

The court has made efforts to reduce spending, including keeping positions vacant, to help as much as possible, he said. The upcoming two-year court budget is also short by $1.4 million because of the lower assessment revenue, Hardesty said.

Total revenue to the court from the assessments was expected to reach $26.3 million in the upcoming two-year budget, but is now projected at $24.9 million, creating the $1.4 million shortfall. That shortfall will be made up partly by using court budget reserves, but another $700,000 will be needed from the general fund in the upcoming budget, too, Hardesty said.

As to why the number of citations is declining, Hardesty said courts have been told police are writing fewer tickets for traffic violations in every county. The Las Vegas Justice Court, for example, fell below 10,000 traffic cases a month three times in 2014. Total traffic filings in the court dropped to 168,852 in fiscal 2014 from 202,940 in 2013, a 17 percent drop, court statistics show.

“I’m not faulting law enforcement; either they are understaffed or they have changed policies,” Hardesty said. “Now with all due respect to the citizens of Nevada, I don’t think anyone is driving better. I think the truth is is that we’re seeing less traffic violations because law enforcement’s priorities have changed and it has changed dramatically.”

The Nevada Highway Patrol said its troopers have caught more people committing some offenses, such as drunken driving and cellphone use, but NHP citations are down overall. Troopers issued 222,935 citations in 2014, nearly 30,000 fewer than in 2012. That’s an 11 percent drop.

Part of the reason, police said, is the NHP Strategic Plan’s emphasis on violations that could cause crashes, including distracted driving and driving under the influence. Police also believe enforcement and the Zero Fatalities education program have changed drivers’ behavior, while completion of some major highway projects has made traffic move better.

The declining number of citations has implications for the budgets of state agencies beyond the Supreme Court. Revenue to the state and the court from the assessments are expected to reach just over $22 million a year in the new budget.

By contrast, the assessments brought in $30 million in fiscal 2010 and nearly $29 million in fiscal 2011, information provided by the court shows.

The drop in assessment revenue was originally projected at 3 percent, but is now expected to reach 10 percent in the coming budget, Hardesty said.

The decline is also affecting the state’s specialty courts, which are designed to keep offenders out of prison by offering treatment for drug and mental health issues, as well as services targeted at groups including veterans. The assessment drop and lower local funding add up to a $1.4 million shortfall for those courts, Hardesty said.

But Gov. Brian Sandoval has proposed in his budget filling that gap with $1.4 million in general funds. Sandoval has also proposed putting $3 million more in state general funds into the specialty courts each year, enough to treat another 800 to 900 people. Hardesty said the specialty courts have succeeded in diverting people from prison.

“They are huge to the success of the criminal justice system,” he said. “The default position is to incarcerate them.”

Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900.

Nevada medical chief gives OK to state prisons food

CARSON CITY — Nevada’s correctional institutions are all up-to-date on inspections for cleanliness and safety as well as diet and food preparation, the state’s chief medical officer said Thursday.

“These inspections review prisoner diets to ensure specialized diets are available to patients, for example low-sodium diets/menus are available for prisoners with cardiac disease,” said Dr. Tracey Green, chief medical officer for the state Division of Public and Behavioral Health.

“The chief medical officer has not identified any concerns to include in her reports to the Board of Prison Commissioners.”

Green’s statement came a week after a panel of the Nevada Supreme Court reversed a district court and ordered it to compel the state’s chief medical officer to examine and report on the nutritional adequacy of the diet of prison inmates as required by state law.

The case was brought by Robert Leslie Stockmeier, an inmate at Lovelock Correctional Center in Northern Nevada, who said Green was not fulfilling her duties to review inmate diets and report her findings to the state prisons board.

A Carson City District Court dismissed Stockmeier’s case, but a three-member panel of the Supreme Court reversed that decision, finding that Green’s examination of inmate diets and her resulting report to the board “fell well short of what was required.”

Green said the inspections are up-to-date from fiscal years 2011 to 2014 from the Nevada Bureau of Health Care Quality and Compliance under her direction, including sanitation, healthfulness, cleanliness and safety.

“Going forward, HCQC plans to better document how the review takes place,” she said in response to the court ruling. “In the past, records would only reflect deficient practices rather than demonstrate areas of compliance.”

Green said she will continue to comply with law and any additional direction from the District Court.

Contact Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900. Find him on Twitter: @seanw801.

James Hardesty will become chief justice of Nevada Supreme Kangaroo Court

Nevada Supreme Court

Nevada Supreme Court

James Hardesty will assume the title of Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court with the new year.

Hardesty takes over from Justice Mark Gibbons in the post, which rotates among the justices each year. Justices become eligible to sit as chief during the final two years of their six-year terms.

Hardesty previously served as chief in 2009.

The chief justice presides when the full court hears cases and chairs the Commission on Judicial Selection and Judicial Council of the State of Nevada. He also presents the court’s proposed budget before the Nevada Legislature and gives lawmakers the biennial report on the State of the Judiciary.

Nevada Court of Appeals Accepts 36 Applications for 3 Judicial Positions

A total of 36 individuals have applied for three open judicial positions on the Nevada Court of Appeals.

The applicants will now be interviewed by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection, which will forward the names of 9 individuals, 3 for each department, to Governor Brian Sandoval for his consideration and selection.

Governor Sandoval has indicated a desire to select 3 judges for the Court of Appeals without delay to allow the court to begin considering cases as early as January 2015.

The following individuals applied for the designated judicial departments:

Court of Appeals – Department 1

  • Janet L. Chubb, 71, Kaempfer Crowell
  • Michael D. Davidson, 60, Attorney, Kolesar & Leatham
  • Chris W. Davis, 54, Attorney, Chris Davis, Esq.
  • Robert E. Gaston, 75, Attorney, Gaston Resolution
  • David A. Hardy, 50, District Court Judge, Second Judicial District
  • Robert A. Nersesian, 57, Attorney, Nersesian & Sankiewicz
  • Janet C. Pancoast, 55, Attorney, Cisneros & Marias
  • Kirby J. Smith, 57, Attorney, Lionel Sawyer & Collins
  • Julien G. Sourwine, 75, Attorney, Sourwine & Sloane, Ltd.
  • Jerome T. Tao, 46, District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial District

Court of Appeals – Department 2

  • Thomas D. Beatty, III, 72, Attorney, Law Offices of Thomas D. Beatty
  • Michael Patrick Gibbons, 58, District Court Judge, Ninth Judicial District
  • William B. Gonzalez, 53, District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial District
  • Susan Holland Johnson, 55, District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial District
  • Thomas G. Kurtz, 63, Court Hearing Master, Eighth Judicial District
  • Alan J. Lefebvre, 61, Attorney, Kolesar & Leatham
  • Anat R. Levy, 52, Attorney, Anat Levy & Associates
  • Kerry Z. Malone, 53, Attorney, Nevada Supreme Court
  • Michelle L. Morgando, 55, Attorney, State of Nevada, Department of Administration, Hearings and Appeals Division
  • Richard Wayne Sears, 68, Attorney, Sears Law Firm, Ltd.
Court of Appeals – Department 3
  • Jeffrey R. Albregts, 57, Attorney, Cotton, Driggs, Walch, Holley Woloson & Thompson
  • Karl W. Armstrong, 56, Attorney, Ray Lego & Associates
  • James Shields Beasley, 70, Attorney, Law Offices of James Shields Beasley
  • Barry Louis Breslow, 52, Attorney, Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low
  • Allan Ray Earl, 73, District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial District
  • C. Stanley Hunterton, 66, Attorney, Hunterton & Associates
  • Paul Dee Johnson, 57, Attorney, Clark County District Attorney’s Office
  • Annie J. Kung, 43, Attorney, Kung & Brown
  • Brian T. Kunzi, 56, District Attorney, Nye County
  • Aaron D. Lovaas, 44, Attorney, Global Business Lawyers USA – Lovaas & Lehtinen
  • Aurora Maria Maskall, 51, Attorney, Lee Hernandez Landrum & Garofalo
  • Michael R. Montero, 48 , District Court Judge,  Sixth Judicial District
  • Joseph R. Plater, 55, Attorney, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office
  • Douglas R. Rands, 55, Attorney, Rands South & Gardner
  • Abbi Silver, 49, District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial District
  • Joan Chisholm Wright, 62, Attorney, Allison Mackenzie Pavlakis Wright & Fagan

Applicants were permitted to apply for only one of the three seats on the Court of Appeals. Applicants also were permitted to withdraw from the application process prior to the application deadline. No applications were withdrawn. The public portion of each application will be posted to the Commission’s website within a few days.

Chief Justice Mark Gibbons will recuse himself from participating in interviews and selection of candidates in Department 2. Associate Chief Justice Kristina Pickering will lead the interview and selection process for the Department 2 candidates.

The Commission invites written public comments about the qualifications of the applicants.  Comments should be submitted in writing by November 26, 2014 to:

Robin Sweet
Secretary, Commission on Judicial Selection
Nevada Supreme Court
201 S. Carson St. Ste 250
Carson City, Nevada, 89701

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

Child welfare system reform: Real change or more of same?

By Parker Philpot

NancySaitta Child welfare system reform: Real change or more of same?All agencies may have problems of one type or another, but the Clark County agency responsible for protecting the youngest and most vulnerable—the children—has for too long gone relatively unchecked and uncorrected, according to countless family advocates, families who have been inexplicably victimized by agency malfunctions, and media critics — the Las Vegas Tribune at the forefront.
The pages of this newspaper and programs on RadioTribune.com have been filled for years with articles covering the Division of Child and Family Services and exposing major problems and questionable rulings in several cases that came before the family courts. Accounts of families and children the system not only did not protect, but who instead became targets of abuse and torment or neglect, are proof that deeper investigation into the county’s system is warranted.

Continue reading

NEVADA BALLOT QUESTION 1: DO WE NEED A COURT OF APPEALS? No and Yes – The Nevada Court System is a complete corrupt mess

NEVADA BALLOT QUESTION 1: DO WE NEED A COURT OF APPEALS?

CNN coverage of ANTI-CURRPTION protest against Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto

CNN coverage of ANTI-CURRPTION protest against Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto

Nevada has one of the worst court systems in the country. Now they want to add another layer of bureaucracy at taxpayer expense.

On one hand, yes the Nevada State courts are clogged and bogged down and appeals go directly to the Nevada Supreme Court where an appeal can take up to 4 years to be decided. On the surface, it appears an appellate court is needed to help streamline and reduce the backlog and amount of time to figure out an appeal from the States lower courts.

However, the Nevada court system is so polluted with bad judges and corruption which should be addressed first. There are other suggestions from various people in the know like County DA’s and candidates for DA and AG. There is a mixed school of thought out there that suggests both the need and the other problems that must be rectified first.

We urge you to read the issues with ballot question #1 and come to your own conclusion. We will vote NO for now until the Nevada Judiciary cleans up is mess, removes bad judges from the bench and eliminates the rampant corruption perpetuating from the courtrooms across Nevada!

shutterstock_92305813

The Nevada Court of Appeals is estimated to cost $800,000 to establish, an amount that was set aside in a contingency account for Fiscal Year 2015 in the budget approved by the 2013 Legislature. After that, the court is estimated to cost $1.5 million per year to operate.

money blackhole

The Nevada Court of Appeals is estimated to cost $800,000 to establish, an amount that was set aside in a contingency account for Fiscal Year 2015 in the budget approved by the 2013 Legislature. After that, the court is estimated to cost $1.5 million per year to operate.

This election Nevada voters will once again consider whether to amend the state constitution to create a Court of Appeals. Question No. 1 reads: “Shall the NevadaConstitution be amended to create a Court of Appeals that would decide appeals ofDistrict Court decisions in certain civil and criminal cases?”

Question 1 is an amendment to the Nevada State Constitution creating an appellate court. Currently Nevada’s court system is composed of Justices of the Peace, District Courtsand the Nevada Supreme Court, with all appeals from Nevada’s District Courts going directly to the Supreme Court. Nevada is one of ten states without an intermediate appellate court below the state’s Supreme Court.

If Question 1 passes, the Nevada Court of Appeals would initially consist of three judges. The Legislature could increase the number in the future.

The Supreme Court would determine the types of decisions the Court of Appeals would hear. The Supreme Court would also decide when it would review a decision of the Court of Appeals. If the number of judges were to be increased beyond three, the Supreme Court would assign each appeal to a panel of three judges.

The Court of Appeals’ first group of judges would be appointed by Nevada’s governor. A Commission on Judicial Selection would provide the governor with a list of three nominations for each seat from which the governor would make the selections. After the initial appointments, members of the Nevada Court of Appeals would be elected by the state’s voters.

The first group of judges on the Nevada Court of Appeals would serve two-year terms, but after that judges on the court would serve six-year terms. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would appoint one of the appeals court judges to be the chief judge. The first chief judge’s term would be two years, but subsequent chief judges would serve for four years.

The Nevada Court of Appeals is estimated to cost $800,000 to establish, an amount that was set aside in a contingency account for Fiscal Year 2015 in the budget approved by the 2013 Legislature. After that, the court is estimated to cost $1.5 million per year to operate. The Fiscal Note attached to Question 1 indicates the court, at least initially, would be able to operate out of existing facilities in northern and southern Nevada.

Question1 began as Senate Joint Resolution 14 (SJR 14) in the 2011 Legislature. The resolution was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In order for the constitutional amendment to be approved, SJR 14 is required to pass each house of the Legislature with at least 2/3 majority during two separate sessions, then be approved by the voters.

SJR 14 was approved by the State Senate 16-5 and the Assembly 32-8 (with 2 excused) in 2011. It passed both houses unanimously (21-0 in the Senate and 40-0, with 2 excused, in the Assembly) in 2013.

Voters have previously voted against creating a Nevada Court of Appeals in 1972, 1980, 1992 and 2010.

[Header image from Shutterstock.com]

Michael Chamberlain

Michael Chamberlain is the Editor of Watchdog Wire – Nevada. Please contact him at Nevada@watchdogwire.com for story ideas or to get involved in citizen journalism in Nevada. Follow Michael on Twitter: @michaelpchamber

More PostsTwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle Plus

Categories: Budget and Finance, Courts & Law, Elections, Must Read, News, Policy,Regulation
Tags: , , , , ,

RELATED ARTICLES

  1. Question No. 1: Creating Appeals Court in Nevada Goes to Voters; Weighing the Pros and Cons
  2. Nevada Ballot Question 1: Do We Need a Court of Appeals?
  3. Is It Time to Reconsider the 17th Amendment?
  4. Facing Opposition, Group Revises Las Vegas Soccer Stadium Proposal
  5. Mom-and-pop business worries about indirect impacts of Nevada margin tax

Voters Should Approve Appeals Court to Speed Delivery of Justice

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

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.

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.

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.

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 their case.
We urge voters to approve Question No. 1 when you go to the polls this November. —TM

Nevada Supreme Court Justice Nancy Saitta has called for a blue ribbon committee to examine shortcomings in the Clark County child welfare system and courts.

Inquiry launched into Clark County child welfare problems

Nevada Supreme Court Justice Nancy Saitta has called for a blue ribbon committee to examine shortcomings in the Clark County child welfare system and courts.problems

The committee will examine problems that include crowding at Child Haven, the county’s emergency shelter for abused or neglected children, the shortage of foster homes, and long court calenders for child welfare cases.

The group will also examine why children are not being released to relatives.

“Action needs to be taken immediately to address these shortcomings that are jeopardizing the well-being of children in Clark County,” Saitta said in a statement Monday. “These children deserve better, and I get no sense of urgency on the part of the system. This committee will identify the most serious issues in the child welfare system and work with County officials to make sure they are corrected quickly.”

Saitta appointed the group as part of the Court Improvement Program for the Protection and Permanency of Dependent Children, which she leads.

problems 2The plan is for the blue ribbon committee to meet during the next four months and come up with recommendations for county action, possible legislative bills for the 2015 session or a combination of both.

In addition to Saitta, the committee will include Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman; County Commissioner Susan Brager; former assembly speaker and Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada Executive Director Barbara Buckley; Nevada Human Health and Services Director Amber Howell; District Judge Deborah Schumacher, Second Judicial District Court; and Thom Reilly, a former Clark County manager and managing principal and founder of The Reilly Group.

“Children are being separated from their siblings and the wishes of relatives are being totally ignored as decisions about the children are being made,” Buckley said in a statement. “There seems to be a real inconsistency in the way children in different parts of town are treated. These are problems that need to be fixed now; they are having a devastating impact on our children.”

Brager said Monday that the panel has an important task ahead — looking at the system globally and all the interconnecting parts of the child welfare system.

“They’re all interlinked,” Brager said. “The focus on the child and being able to do what is right for the child will make it worthwhile. … I’m very excited that we’re looking at the big picture.”

Lisa Ruiz-Lee, director of Clark County Department of Family Services, and Assistant Clark County Manager Jeff Wells are “anxious to be part of the solution,” the state supreme court’s release said.

“I have worked with Justice Saitta on a number of committees and I know her deep commitment to the children and families of our community and I look forward to working with her and the other committee members to address the concerns of the child welfare system,” Wells said in a prepared statement.

Wells and Family Services officials were unavailable for interviews Monday afternoon.

Donna Coleman, a longtime child advocate in Clark County, said that for a blue ribbon panel to have value, it will need to make major, positive changes in a timely fashion with the information it gathers.

“I’ve seen so many panels in my 20-plus years of advocating that have accomplished zero,” Coleman said.

The committee is on a tight schedule. The group is expected to meet three times, with the first meeting set for Oct. 7. The committee’s goal is to finish its work by Jan. 30, 2015. That deadline allows time for any bill proposals to go to Legislature when lawmakers meet in February.

The state convened a blue ribbon panel in 2006 to review child fatalities in Nevada. That panel resulted in steps to improve the tracking and accuracy of information about fatalities, and report death notifications to the state’s Division of Child and Family Services.

Ed Cotton, a consultant who worked with that group, said it will be important for the new committee to have a strategic plan to guide its work. He said it will be important to get input from caseworkers and foster parents.

“I think it’s really important they don’t just review files or talk to managers,” Cotton said.

Flexibility and openness to hearing varied public input can play a key role too for the panel, he said.

One of the things that came out of the last panel’s input was that they couldn’t get through when calling the county’s child abuse hotline. In the public meeting, the panel — after hearing a rosy statement that calls to the hotline get through within three minutes — placed a call to the hotline. They waited 26 minutes before someone on the hotline answered the call, Cotton said.

“You can’t ignore those things when they come up,” he said.

Contact Ben Botkin at bbotkin@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2904. Find him on Twitter: @BenBotkin1.

source: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/inquiry-launched-clark-county-child-welfare-problems

UNLV audience hears push for state appeals court

UNLV audience hears push for state appeals court

Supreme Court justices during a panel discussion at Boyd Law School on Monday continued their campaignasking the public to vote yes on the initiative to establish a Nevada Court of Appeals.

Justice Nancy Saitta advocated for the creation of an appeals court, which would add three justices to handle about one-third of the roughly 2,300 cases appealed to the Supreme Court each year.

The justices each handled 333 cases in 2013, which was three times the 100 recommended by the American Bar Association.

Voters will decide in the Nov. 4 general election whether to approve the Court of Appeals, which will appear as Question No. 1 on the ballot. The Nevada Legislature unanimously approved it in 2011 and 2013.

Saitta was joined by Boyd Law School Associate Dean for Experiential Legal Education Anne Traum and lawyer Cliff Marcek at a panel discussion Monday night at the law school, located on the University of Nevada, Las Vegas campus.

While both Traum and Marcek said they supported the initiative, they expressed concern about how the court would decide which case would go to which court.

The model being pushed by Saitta and the other justices would send cases with constitutional issues, death penalty cases or cases in which a defendant was sentenced to life in prison to the Supreme Court to be heard.

Cases such as prisoners’ writs of habeas corpus regarding the food they are served or driver’s license revocation petitions would be heard by the appeals court.

Traum questioned whether the higher court would become a “lawyers court” for those who have the acumen to get their cases heard by the justices. And, in turn, would the Supreme Court deny access to people who represent themselves because of the high cost of legal representation and would those “pro se” cases be sent to the appeals court outright, the dean asked.

Saitta said the justices are studying national models to find the best practices and added that pro se cases would “absolutely not” automatically be shifted to the appeals court.

The Silver State is one of 10 states without an appeals court, and the high court’s seven judges are overloaded, Saitta said.

Some appeals linger in the high court for two, sometimes three years, the justice said.

Marcek said he has one case that has been waiting two years to be heard.

Nevada is joined by West Virginia, Montana, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Wyoming as states without an appeals court.

What separates Nevada’s high court from those in other states is its caseload, Marcek said.

The Nevada Supreme Court sees more cases filed than all of the other states on the list and nearly 1,000 more cases than West Virginia, which was second on the list.

“I’m not saying we want to model ourselves after West Virginia,” Marcek quipped.

About 50 people, mostly Boyd law students, attended the discussion.

No one in the audience of future lawyers openly objected to expanding the legal system in Nevada. And several times during the discussion, the students said in unison “Vote yes on Question 1.”

An appeals court is expected to cost about $1.5 million a year to operate, but it would not require building courthouses. Saitta said the justices have plans to work it into the high courts budget.

Nevada voters rejected the proposal in 2010, with 53 percent voting not to change the state’s constitution, which requires the Supreme Court to handle all appeals.

The proposed appeals court that voters will consider in November is a “push down” model, which means the Supreme Court would take all appeals, delegating the basic cases to the lower court.

The appeals court would have precedent-setting authority, Saitta said.

That would free up the Supreme Court justices to publish more opinions — and set more precedents — in a state with very few written opinions.

If voters approve the appellate court, the Supreme Court is expected to have the power to tweak the court without going back to the Legislature.

Contact Francis McCabe at fmccabe@reviewjournal.com or 702-224-5512. Follow @fjmccabe on Twitter.

Nevada Supreme Kangaroo Court Website Named Top 10 for 2014

NSC website

Fiat justitia is on the Nevada Supreme Court seal and is a Latin phrase, meaning “Let justice be done”. Historically in England, a warrant for a writ of error in Parliament or later a petition of right in the courts could be brought only after the king, or on his behalf the Home Secretary, had endorsed fiat justitia on a petition for such a warrant. It was a means of granting leave to appeal by exercise of the royal prerogative.

7/23/2014 8:45:00 AM

The Forum on the Advancement of Court Technology (FACT) has named the Supreme Court of Nevada website as a 2014 Top 10 Court Websites Award winner.

See the website here: http://supreme.nvcourts.gov/

The award recognizes the Supreme Court for improving access to justice through the use of technology and for improving the online access of Court resources. Judges recognized the Supreme Court’s website for providing “superior functionality and real time video of court proceedings.”

“This award recognizes the expertise of our incredible web team who worked tirelessly to develop a website that not only looks good but also works to provide access to court information, records, and documents,” said Justice Nancy Saitta, chair of the Supreme Court Web Editorial Board Committee.

Fiat justitia is on the Nevada Supreme Court seal and is a Latin phrase, meaning “Let justice be done”. Historically in England, a warrant for a writ of error in Parliament or later a petition of right in the courts could be brought only after the king, or on his behalf the Home Secretary, had endorsed fiat justitia on a petition for such a warrant. It was a means of granting leave to appeal by exercise of the royal prerogative.

In 2013, the Supreme Court redesigned its website and developed a mobile application to improve access to case information, decisions, and calendars. Both the website and the mobile application allow visitors to listen to oral argument recordings on their desktop or iPhones and Android devices. The website can be found at supreme.nvcourts.gov and the app is available for no charge on both the Apple App Store and on Google Play.

Founded in 1989, the Forum on the Advancement of Court Technology (FACT) is a consortium of private-sector companies and court representatives dedicated to strengthening the dialogue between courts who use technology and companies who provide technology. FACT is a special committee of the National Association for Court Management (NACM).

Qualifications For Nevada Supreme Court Justices

FUCK the Nevada “Supreme” Kangaroo Court – Strippers have 1st Amendment Rights

stippersRENO, Nev. (MyNews4.com & KRNV) — The Nevada Supreme Court has decided a 10 percent tax on strip club admission doesn’t violate exotic dancers’ first amendment rights of free expression. vince neil

Justices ruled it was constitutional to tax the clubs and other live entertainment because the tax is content-neutral, doesn’t target a small group of people, and doesn’t threaten to suppress ideas or viewpoints.

The broad-based tax applies to many events but exempts some live entertainment, including boxing, Nascar races and minor league baseball.

nevada supreme court

judge tatroStrippers Argue Free Speech In Court, Don’t Stay In Vegas
Comment Now Follow Comments

The Nevada Supreme Court will decide whether Vegas strip clubs must pay a 10% entertainment tax imposed by state law. The tax covers fees, food and drinks. Although the clubs have been forced to pay it since 2003, they claim it’s unconstitutional and want a refund.

Why? Exotic dancers have First Amendment rights, the clubs say. This tax violates the Constitution. Sound crazy? It depends.

Lawyers for eight strip clubs say the tax violates the right to free speech. But the Nevada Department of Taxation sees the tax as just another excise tax on business transactions. An excise tax is like a sales tax only more targeted. Some people call these sin taxes, and that’s a name that seems apt here. vegas strip bus

Several courts have heard the case since 2006. But in case after case, Nevada’s tax has been upheld so far. Now Nevada’s highest court will take a look. Most observers think the tax will be upheld.

In fact, in other states taxes on similar activity have generally passed constitutional muster. In New York, court battles brewed for years over a sales tax exemption that was applied to artistic performances like ballet but not to so-called exotic dance. The question was whether lap dances could be classified as “art” and therefore be tax-exempt.

A key suit was filed by a New York club called Nite Moves. An adult juice bar, the club serves no alcohol but does serve lap dances. The club claimed lap dances were art so were tax-exempt, but the club consistently lost. See 677 New Loudon Corp., dba Nite Moves v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal.
strip clubsThe club’s revenue comes from admission charges, sales of non-alcoholic beverages, and exotic dances. New York is collecting sales tax on the dances. The club relied on an exemption for musical performances.

Some argued only choreographed dances count, while lap dances are more extemporaneous. After losing in New York’s highest court, Nite Moves fired off a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal. That petition was rejected by SCOTUS.

Texas also has a Sexually Oriented Business Fee, generally referred to as a pole tax. It collects $5 from each patron of clubs featuring nudity and serving alcohol. There have been court battles over this tax too, but the Texas Supreme Court eventually upheld it. Dancing may be a way of expressing yourself, but the pole tax doesn’t violate the First Amendment, the court ruled.men strip

Even Illinois now has a pole tax. Getting any tax ruled as unconstitutional is tough. And while the specific language and effect of any tax must be examined, the likelihood of the free speech argument carrying the day seems small.

You can reach me at Wood@WoodLLP.com. This discussion is not intended as legal advice, and cannot be relied upon for any purpose without the services of a qualified professional.

source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/07/strippers-argue-free-speech-in-court-dont-stay-in-vegas/

stip club

1st amendment9th Circuit to strip-club dancers: Keep your distance

Friday, January 28, 2005

LA HABRA, Calif. — A federal appeals court has upheld La Habra’s ordinance requiring strip-club dancers to stay at least 24 inches from customers.

 

The ordinance was designed to target lap dancing, which the city claims is responsible for prostitution, crime, drug use and disease.

 

In a 3-0 ruling on Jan.26, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments by Bill Badi Gammoh, owner of the city’s only adult-entertainment club, and by several lap dancers that the ordinance is unconstitutional.

 

The 2-foot limit does not deny the dancers their ability to perform, the judges said in Gammoh v. City of La Habra.

 

Attorney Deborah Fox, who represented the city in its fight with the owner of Taboo Gentleman’s Club, said it was an important ruling because “lap dancing is the financial linchpin of the adult industry and this is the end of the argument about its prohibition.”

 

Gammoh’s fight with the city began shortly after he opened the strip club in 1998 and filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s anti-lap dance ordinance as vague and unconstitutional.

 

The ordinance “unfairly impedes on (a dancer’s) right to expression and speech,” attorney Scott Wellman said.

 

The 9th Circuit disagreed. “The 2-foot rule,” Judge Richard Tallman wrote, “merely requires that dancers give their performances from a slight distance; it does not prohibit them from giving their performances altogether.”

 

Meanwhile, a Nevada judge ruled on Jan. 21 that a Las Vegas law prohibiting strippers from fondling customers during lap dances is unconstitutionally vague.

 

District Court Judge Sally Loehrer affirmed a lower court ruling that as many as five misdemeanor criminal cases filed against Las Vegas strippers should be dismissed.

 

The Jan. 21 ruling affects only dancers within city limits. The Clark County Commission in 2002 limited touching between strippers and patrons during private lap dances, specifically barring strippers from touching or sitting on the customer’s genital area. But the municipal code was not as specific, saying only that strippers and their patrons should not “fondle” or “caress” each other.

Under Loehrer’s ruling, no dancer in the city can be arrested for violating the municipal code. The city is considering an appeal.

Hagar: Nevada Supreme justices suffer ‘personal toll’

Nevada Supreme Court

Nevada Supreme Court

nevada supreme court

Nevada Supreme Court protest

Nevada Supreme Court protest

FRAUD UPON THE COURT Reno, NV Judge Patrick Flanagan and 5 Nevada Supreme Court Justices completely fabricated an entire caseNevada Supreme Court Justice James Hardesty is the main spokesman for Question One on the November general-election ballot.

If passed by voters, it would establish an appeals court in Nevada. It would ease the overwhelming pressure on the state Supreme Court, which now is the only appeals court in the state.

Nevada is just one of 10 states that doesn’t have an intermediate appeals court. Because of that, the Nevada Supreme Court’s backlog on undecided cases has mushroomed from 1,515 five years ago to more than 2,200 today.

It can take up to four years, in some cases, to get an appeal decided in Nevada. No wonder the theme of the campaign for Question One is: Justice delayed is justice denied.

Not only does the current system take its toll on justice, it also takes its toll on the justices who decide the cases.

“There is a considerable personal toll,” Hardesty said. “You’re exhausted.

“As you may know, I read until midnight, 1 or 2 o’clock in the morning four nights a week,” Hardesty said. “When you do that, day in and day out, it takes quite a toll. And yet, quite frankly, you see these cases languishing in the system and you’re doing everything you possibly can to get them decided as soon as you can.

“Personally, it is very frustrating not to be able to resolve more cases more quickly because you know people’s lives are put on hold and it directly impacts them and their emotional state,” Hardesty said

 

Sounds like Nevada’s justices are overworked. And that is a terrible situation for anyone who is seeking a fair ruling from the state’s Supreme Court.

Child custody cases can take up to four years to resolve, Hardesty said. Lengthy time frames also apply to death-row appeals and criminal cases. Kids could be almost grown – and their childhoods ruined — by the time the Supreme Court renders its decision.

Perhaps the justices have made decisions on very important matters while they are mentally fatigued, which is good for no one.

Despite the potential for mental fatigue, the current overwhelming case load can also cause sleepless nights for the justices.

Journalist Jon Ralston, on his Ralston Reports TV show, asked Hardesty if he ever woke up worrying if the court didn’t spend enough time on any particular case.

Hardesty softly replied “yes,” then elaborated:

“It leaves you with sleepless nights,” Hardesty said. “And everyone of us probably has some real misgivings about whether we have given adequate time to some of the serious questions that are in front of us.”

justice denied

THIS ISSUE WITH THE NEVADA Supreme Court is nothing new. Voters have rejected the establishment of an intermediate or appeals court four times since the late 1970s. The latest rejection came in 2010.

Then, the issue was tied to an initiative where judges would first be appointed by the governor instead of being elected. They would retain their jobs if they could then garner 55 percent of the vote in an election.

The initiative passed in Clark County but ultimately was defeated, since it lost in Nevada’s 16 other counties. Hardesty noted that the 2014 campaign for an appeals court doesn’t have to carry that “appointment” baggage into the election.

But really, it kinda does.

First, the court of appeals would consist of three judges. The governor would appoint them after nominations from the Commission on Judicial Selection. The three initial judges would be appointed to two-year terms. Then they would face election for a six-year term.

Could the governor stack the appeals court with his cronies?

Then, once appointed, they would have the power of incumbency heading into their elections. And a six-year term? That’s a long as a U.S. senator.

STATE SEN. GREG BROWER, R-Reno, is heading a political action committee (along with Sen. Tick Segerblom, D-Las Vegas) to raise money for an “educational campaign” to inform the voters about the need for an appeals court.

Some expected Brower to run for attorney general this year. But he didn’t. Instead, the GOP candidate for that office is Adam Laxalt, the grandson of former U.S. Sen. and Nevada Gov. Paul Laxalt.

Brower has yet to endorse Laxalt, even though they belong to the same party.

“I just really have not been focused on that or involved in that,” Brower said of the AG’s race. “I’m working very hard on getting our (state) senate candidates elected. As you know, we are one seat shy of a majority (in the state senate). We have three very tough races in Southern Nevada that will determine the balance of power in the senate, so we are working very hard on that. And that is where my focus is.”

Brower noted that his name was tied to the AG’s race as the presumed Republican candidate long before Laxalt came into the picture.

“I just really was not interested in running,” he said. “I know there was scuttlebutt, but there’s scuttlebutt about a lot of things. But I am committed to the work I am doing in the (state) senate and I have a very busy law practice and I was just not interested in doing that (running for AG).”

1LINKEDINCOMMENT

Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Gibbons serving as a juror in Carson City

Nevada justice reflects on serving as juror

CARSON CITY — For Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Gibbons, the waiting was the hardest part of serving as a juror in a capital city criminal case.

His many years of serving as a Clark County district judge and then as a member of the Supreme Court gave him a pretty good idea of what was going on in the courtroom while jurors cooled their heels in a waiting room, but that didn’t make it any easier.

But Gibbons, who along with his other jurors reached verdicts quickly in the case involving a man who brandished a gun at an Olive Garden restaurant on July 21, 2013, said he will never forget his opportunity to see the process from a completely different perspective.

“It’s a great experience,” he said. “It’s very different.”

Gibbons might be the first ever Supreme Court justice to serve on a jury. A court search found no evidence of a member of the court ever serving on a jury, although some justices have received notices to appear.

Gibbons had to wait like all the other jurors when they were told to report at 9 a.m. Thursday. Jurors did not actually enter the courtroom for another two hours.

“Everybody was wondering what’s taking so long,” he said.

Judge James E. Wilson Jr. Carson City corruption

Judge James E. Wilson Jr. Carson City corruption

Gibbons said he figured the delay was due to either the defendant, Douglas County resident David Paul Lane, entering a guilty plea or the defense opting against presenting a defense, which then required the attorneys and corrupt  District Judge James Wilson (known for back dating court filings) to settle on the jury instructions. The second option turned out to be the right one.

Lane’s public defenders did not present a defense. Lane did not testify.

“But I couldn’t share my thoughts with the jurors at all,” Gibbons said. “I kept that to myself when they were concerned about the delay.”

In his court questionnaire, Gibbons said his only comment was to work on managing court time to minimize delays for jurors.

“I did tell Judge Wilson that I agreed with every single one of his rulings on objections during the trial,” he said.

Gibbons said he would have pre-empted anyone with formal legal training from serving on the jury if he was defending Lane.

“They are totally qualified, but I think it is better to have 12 people who don’t have any previous bias in those areas,” he said.

It was tough at times remembering that he was a juror, Gibbons said.

“At one point in the trial, the judge sustained an objection and the witness kept speaking and I started to (reach out) and say ‘stop’ and I said ‘Wait, I’m on the jury, I can’t do that’ and I pulled my hand back. It was just a natural reaction.”

Not surprisingly, Gibbons was made foreman of the jury, but he told his fellow jurors that he would not comment until everyone else had a chance to offer their thoughts on the case.

Ultimately the jury found Lane guilty of one charge of assault with a deadly weapon along with the single count of carrying a concealed weapon. He was found not guilty on two other assault charges, and the jury deadlocked on the fourth assault count.

Gibbons showed up for the jury selection on Monday, doing his civic duty like everyone else. But he was shocked when, later that day, he was seated as a juror.

Gibbons said he will donate his meager jury duty pay back to the state.

Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900. Find him on Twitter: @seanw801.

Nevada Supreme Court chief justice Mark Gibbons serving jury duty

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — Not even the chief justice of the Nevada Supreme Court is getting out of jury duty this time.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports Chief Justice Mark Gibbons was summoned and then selected from about 100 other potential jurors to serve at a Carson City trial this week.

The case involves a Douglas County man accused of waving a gun at a Carson City Olive Garden restaurant last summer.

Gibbons says it’s the first time he’s served as a juror, although he estimated he’s presided over about 150 jury trials as a judge.

He told the newspaper he will tackle his Supreme Court duties in the evening while he attends the trial, which is likely to last through Friday.

In Nevada, Legal Cases Can Take Years, and Then Years Again. CATCH 22: We believe the lower courts need to be “fixed” and bad Judges removed first before spending millions of dollars to reward a corrupt Nevada judicial system with an appeals court.

Here’s an article about the Nevada Court system that we hope you will read, and share, because it’s important. CATCH 22: We believe the lower courts need to be “fixed” and bad Judges removed first before spending millions of dollars to reward a corrupt Nevada judicial system with an appeals court. 

Nevada Supreme Court Bogged Down.

NPR reports today that the Nevada Supreme Court is the busiest in the nation, and that’s a very bad thing. Why? Because Nevada is one of just 10 states with no intermediate appeals court, our judges are simply overwhelmed by cases. It means that any time a case is appealed, whether divorce, probate,  personal injury, civil rights, or whatever, it has to go to the state supreme court rather than first passing through a mid-appellate court.

What does this mean for the citizens of Nevada? It means that results can take years to go through court, then even more years to go through appeals. The Nevada Supreme Court is just flooded by cases. Nevada has more than 330 cases filed per Supreme Court justice per year. To get a sense of how bad that is, Arizona, with a population three times that of Nevada, has around only 200, and Utah, with a very similar population to that of Nevada, has only about 100. Both of those states have appellate courts that help resolve many of the appellate cases.

Nevada Chief Justice James Hardesty asks “Do you want us working on precedential-setting cases, the most important cases… or do you want us to resolve drivers’ license revocations or inmate disputes?” (source)

Why don’t we have an appeals court?

Many states created appeals courts in the 60s and 70s, as state populations grew and court systems were re-worked. However, Nevada experienced most of its growth in the past 30 years, so we missed that wave of reform. Additionally, establishing an appeals court here requires a constitutional amendment to be approved by voters. Nevada voters have been suspicious of changes to the court system, and wary of the expense.

What do we need to do?

Nevada needs an appellate court. Our court system deserves to be free to face tough issues, and our population deserves quick justice for their legal issues. Right now we’ve got neither.

This election cycle, both political parties and the entire legal community are behind this change to the Nevada legal system. But there’s no money to make people aware of how important this is.  That’s why it’s important you share this information.

The cost of an appeals court is only about 1.5 million dollars. That’s less than one hundredth of one percent of our state budget, and it would mean years of relief for countless Nevada citizens, and it would take financial pressure off of programs such as the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada.

It’s time Nevada moved forward on this important issue.

Nevada U.S. Attorney sees rise in number of corrupt Nevada lawyers prosecuted

Featured

Las Vegas Review Journal - Tonja Brown "The Nolan Klein Story"

Nevada ranks number one in the Country for the most corrupt attorneys… We need to clean up the corruption within our judicial system and it starts with arresting and prosecuting the corrupt attorneys and judges!

Massive CRIME SCENE at Nevada attorney General Office in Carson City because of the rampant corruption in the CORRUPT Nevada Courts 
LVRJ News source: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/nevada-us-attorney-sees-rise-number-lawyers-prosecuted

bad lawyers judges

Prosecutors have noticed an “alarming” number of lawyers convicted of serious crimes in federal court in the past several years.tatro corrupt

A total of 23 lawyers, mostly from Las Vegas, have been convicted since 2008, according to the Nevada U.S. attorney’s office.

Since 2011, the number of convictions have increased nearly five times over the previous three years, records show.

There were four convictions between 2008 and 2010, but 19 between 2011 and this year. Eight attorneys either pleaded guilty or were convicted by a jury in 2013 alone.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Dan Bogdenusdoj“In the last several years, the number of lawyers charged with federal crimes has increased dramatically,” U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden says.

“Although we cannot speculate as to the reason for the rise in numbers, we can say that it is embarrassing and sad when lawyers violate the very laws they have taken an oath to uphold.”

Bogden calls the growing rate of attorney prosecutions “alarming” in his 2013 annual report on the accomplishments of his office.

bad nevada lawyers

bad attorneys

He isn’t alone in noticing the increase.crime

“There’s been a significant uptick,” says David Clark, the chief counsel for the State Bar of Nevada, which regulates lawyers. “It’s a combination of economic realities and the increased vigilance on the part of federal prosecutors to go after lawyers.”

Clark says attorneys have struggled in the failing economy just like everyone else and have been forced to look for other ways to make money, sometimes landing in legal and professional trouble.

Of the 23 convictions since 2008, a total of 19 involved financial crimes such as tax evasion, bank fraud and mortgage fraud, records show.

Bankruptcy attorney Randolph Goldberg pleaded guilty to tax evasion last year and is now serving a 1½-year sentence in federal prison. Defense lawyer and former prosecutor Paul Wommer, who was convicted by a jury of tax evasion last year, is serving a nearly 3½-year prison sentence. Both are temporarily suspended and can expect more disciplinary action from the State Bar when they get out of prison.

psychopathUGjpg (1)

disbarredBusiness Woman Series 24Four Las Vegas attorneys — the late David Amesbury, Jeanne Winkler, Barry Levinson and Brian Jones — pleaded guilty to fraud charges in the federal investigation into the massive takeover of Las Vegas-area homeowners associations.

Amesbury killed himself weeks after he pleaded guilty, and the other three lawyers are cooperating with prosecutors and waiting to be sentenced.

Another attorney, Keith Gregory, is to stand trial in October in the HOA case, and one key target, attorney Nancy Quon, committed suicide before federal authorities could charge her.

Winkler was disbarred in 2011 for stealing money from her clients, and Levinson agreed to disbarment as part of the plea deal he struck with federal prosecutors earlier this year. He is currently suspended from practicing law.

kolo news coverage part 1

Other well-known lawyers have run afoul of the law:

■ Harvey Whittemore, a onetime political power broker, was convicted last year of unlawfully funneling more than $133,000 to the campaign of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. He was sentenced to two years in prison and must surrender in August. Whittemore is temporarily suspended from practicing law while the State Bar considers further action.

■ Noel Gage, who specialized in personal injury cases, pleaded guilty in 2010 to obstruction of justice in a federal investigation into an alleged fraud scheme involving a network of lawyers and physicians. He was sentenced to three years probation. Gage is off probation and his law license is temporarily suspended until the end of July. He must apply for reinstatement.

■ Lawrence Davidson, caught up in a political corruption probe a dozen years ago, pleaded guilty to mail fraud, money laundering and several other charges, including those related to his unlawful flight to Israel in 2006 to avoid standing trial. Davidson agreed to disbarment in 2005 after he was originally charged. He eventually returned to Las Vegas and was sentenced in 2012 to eight years in prison.

■ Gerry Zobrist, once a part-time Las Vegas justice of the peace, pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud in a multimillion-dollar scheme to use straw buyers to unlawfully purchase homes in the valley. He was sentenced to seven years in federal prison. His law license has been suspended pending further disciplinary action.

nv judicial ethics

REASON FOR THE RISE

drunk lawyerThomas Pitaro, a respected criminal defense lawyer who has been practicing in Las Vegas for 40 years, says the stress of the legal profession likely has contributed to the rise in criminal prosecutions of attorneys.coke

“I think there are very few attorneys who steal for the hell of it,” Pitaro says. “It’s systematic of other problems — drugs, alcohol, gambling and living above their means.”

Pitaro also believes federal authorities are spending more time investigating white collar and financial crimes that have a higher probability of involving lawyers and other professionals.

Clark says his organization has stepped up its own vigilance of lawyers in recent years and has been working closely with law enforcement authorities.

“We’ve been sharing more information and developing more contacts with law enforcement,” he explains.

Clark points to the Levinson case as a prime example of the State Bar’s strong working relationship with police and federal authorities.

At one point, Las Vegas police, federal authorities and the State Bar all were working cases against Levinson at the same time, Clark says.

culture-of-corruption

In his federal deal, Levinson not only pleaded guilty in the HOA fraud case, but he also pleaded guilty to tax evasion and embezzling more than $243,000 from his clients. His deal calls for him to receive no less than two years in prison. Any time behind bars he gets in state court on theft charges will run concurrently with his federal sentence.

Levinson’s willingness to agree to disbarment in his federal plea was a first for prosecutors and the State Bar. Goldberg last year agreed to a two-year suspension in his federal plea agreement.

“It shows the evolution of our cooperation with law enforcement authorities,” Clark says.

nevada bar

NEVADA STATE BAR DISCIPLINE

Something else that is evolving is the State Bar’s approach to disciplining lawyers.

bad lawyers nevadaA Nevada Supreme Court rule says the State Bar can move to temporarily suspend a lawyer upon a “final judgment of conviction,” and the bar has waited over the years until a lawyer is sentenced. That’s when the federal courts, which see most of the criminal cases, recognize a final judgment of conviction.

But two criminal cases against lawyers, one in Clark County District Court and another in federal court, has Clark looking for temporary suspensions before sentencing.

The District Court case is against defense attorney Brian Bloomfield, who pleaded guilty in December to felony charges stemming from a fraud investigation into a sweeping courthouse counseling scheme. Bloomfield has continued to represent clients in court the past six months while waiting to be sentenced.

The federal case involves Brian Jones, who pleaded guilty in the HOA case more than two years ago and is also waiting to be sentenced. Jones has since moved to Utah and is not practicing law in Las Vegas, but his license remains active.how-our-courts-are-used-by-criminals

Last month Clark filed a petition with the state Supreme Court seeking a temporary suspension for Bloomfield while the State Bar prepares to file a complaint against him that could lead to his disbarment.

The State Bar counsel filed a similar petition last week to get Jones temporarily suspended.

Clark is hoping the Supreme Court will more clearly define the broad rule, which also allows the State Bar to seek a suspension after a guilty plea or jury conviction.

“In the past this hasn’t been so much of a problem because there hasn’t been a long disconnect between a guilty plea and a sentencing,” Clark recently said. “But lately, we’ve been seeing a greater delay.”

 

judge Nancy Oesterle is corrupt as hell

judge nancy oesterle

The idiot Nancy Oesterle came in on her broom from some shit hole in southern Nevada to clean up the fucked up mess created by the asshole judge in Carson City Nevada named John Tatro who is such a fuck up he keeps no court records so this bitch needs to cover up for him. Nancy Oesterle is as fucked up as Tatro. This cunt makes up the law and ignores facts and  just ignores the shit she can’t figure out. When a judge is this fucked up in the head, she should just take her fucking award and stick it up her ass and go away instead of being a judicial whore sucking more judicial judicial dick for the bribe money. Fuck you Nancy Oesterle, go to hell and fuck off you cunt.

judge Nancy Oesterle is corrupt as hell

Special Judicial Cannons for fucked up corrupt Nevada judges

A.B.A.
1. short for American Bar Association or  2. Arrogant Bullshit Artists.
Abuse Of Discretion:
1. original meaning, now rarely used, was to describe a faulty process of reasoning when performing a discretionary act  2. now term means whatever suits our fancy  3. synonymous with term “Black Hole”, i.e. we know its out there but damn if we know what it is.
Ad Hoc Decision:
1. Whatever 2. A screwing so fine tuned it can target a specific hemorrhoid
Nancy Oesterle NEVADA JUDGE fuck you bitch
Aerobic Activity:
1. the healthy practice of going to and returning from back room meetings.
Appeal:
1. that which makes injustice impossible  2. the process where time and financial cost to litigants must never be taken into consideration  3. the process which allows us to do as we damn well please  4. that which covers our ass.
Arrogance or Arrogant:
1. Judicial self esteem  2. term used by the unenlightened to describe Judges and Lawyers who are confident and comfortable in their position  3. term applied to those with power to decide right from wrong without regarding right from wrong.
Attorney:
1. business partners  2. club members.
Back Room Meetings:
1. term synonymous with “open court.”
Bullshit:
term commonly used by the unintelligent, uneducated or unenlightened when describing misunderstood Legal Analysis and Judicial Determinations.
Civil Rights:
1. formerly things like right to life, liberty and property  2. more recently things like the right not to be pinched in the ass and the right to marry insects.
Constitution:
1. common cause of rectal pain in the Judiciary  2. great document for the resourceful and effective  3. should be condensed for the unresourceful and ineffective.
Common Sense:
1. form of logic reserved for common people  2. objectively unverifiable form of logic  3. form of logic that minimizes or eliminates the highly specialized hair splitting , perpetuitous analysis that helps us appear more intelligent than the masses  4. form of logic non expert in nature.
Contempt:
1. due process for the assertive or uncooperative  2. the means by which the Judiciary molds attorneys.
Discretion:
1. judicial free will  2. a great “catch all” to justify whatever it is we do.  3. former meaning dealt with judicial exercise in areas where there was no clear law or hard and fast rules. Today discretion is omnipresent.
Discretionary Act:
1. the exercise of judicial free will unencumbered by law, reason, logic or common sense.
Due Process:
1. perpetuity  2. perpetual motions  3. legal and procedural minutiae  4. selective adherence to the Secret Canons Of Judicial Conduct  5. process which is not paid for.  6. First, decide how we want the case to go.  Second, formulate a legal logic to support our decision.  Third, manipulate, dissect or eliminate the facts and evidence to support our decision.  Then the rubber stamp doctrine of “judicial discretion” will prevent most decisions from being overturned!
End Result:
1. one of the things not to be considered [others being race, color, sex etc.] when rendering legal decisions except when professional embarrassment, media attention or upsetting the status quo will result  2. that which can negatively affect objectivity.
Judge Nancy Oesterle Continue reading

Legendary Trial Lawyer Gerry Spence Offers Advice to Young Lawyers – Statistics have shown that 20 percent of those incarcerated are innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted

Spence states that he “has never lost a criminal case either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney. He has not lost a civil case since 1969.

Legendary Trial Lawyer Gerry Spence Offers Advice to Young Lawyers

 

Statistics have shown that 20 percent of those incarcerated are innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted

Researchers: More than 2,000 false convictions in past 23 years

Gerald Leonard “Gerry” Spence (born January 8, 1929) is an American trial lawyer and is widely recognized as one of the greatest trial lawyers of all time. He is a member of the American Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame. [1] Spence states that he “has never lost a criminal case either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney. He has not lost a civil case since 1969.”[2][3] Spence did lose a criminal case in a bench trial but prevailed on appeal. Continue reading

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 Department of Alternative Sentencing did not have legal jurisdiction over Pre-Trial Defendants prior to July 2013 If you were under DAS supervision, you may have legal recourse to sue

department of alternative sentencing

WTF NevadaAttention – Were you ever incarcerated in the Carson City jail? Was your food poisoned? Mine was and I posed a story that has gone viral with other people also claiming their food and water was tainted.  This happened to people in the ‘Hole’ and solitary confinement. This story is one of the biggest Facebook stories we’ve written with 420 Facebook like and referrals.

https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/carson-city-jail-putting-methadone-in-the-waterfood/

ATTENTION Carson City, Douglas, Reno, Henderson, Nevada Department of Alternative Sentencing (“DAS”) did not have legal jurisdiction over Pre-Trial Defendants prior to July 2013 If you were under DAS supervision, you may have legal recourse to sue in federal court under Title 42, Section 1983 and have any related criminal charges, pleas and convictions vacated.

Nevada Department of Alternative Sentencing SB101 hearing. Carson City DAS did not have legal jurisdiction of pre trial defendants.

People have constitutional right we can’t stomp on either the US Constitution or the Nevada Constitution and I oppose the end result what this bill is going to allow them to do which they’re already doing without authority.

Bail has to be reasonable it can’t be coercive.

They can search their home they can search there be a call they have not been convicted they are charged with the crime whether it be a misdemeanor a gross misdemeanor or felony they still have their constitutional rights so my concern is that we’re taking these rights away from people. Continue reading

Lawsuits target abuse in Carson City Court Department of Alternative Sentencing program

carson city alternitve sentencingLawsuits target abuse in Carson City Court Department of Alternative Sentencing program.

see updated story here; https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/nevada-department-of-alternative-sentencing-did-not-have-legal-jurisdiction-over-pre-trial-defendants-prior-to-july-2013-if-you-were-under-das-supervision-you-may-have-legal-recourse-to-sue/

In Carson City, Douglas County and Henderson Nevada, the courts have created an internal police force called the Department of Alternative Sentencing (“DAS”).  The courts in these jurisdictions bypassed the State parole and probation department and took on jurisdiction of people who have been charged, but not convicted of a crime. These people are known as pre-trial Defendants.

carson city courthouse

carson city courthouse

Prior to July 2013 when the laws governing DAS were modified by the Nevada Legislature in Senate Bill 101 and signed into law by Governor Brian Sandoval, DAS had no legal jurisdiction over pre-trial Defendants.

We know the Carson City DAS exploited its power and acted outside jurisdiction when assuming control over hundreds and easily thousands of pre-trial Defendants prior to July 2013. DAS essentially and prematurely put pre-trial Defendants on “probation”  which subjected these people, presumed to be innocent, on GPS monitoring, house arrest, subject to search and seizure, drug and/or alcohol testing and even body cavity searches.

DAS is also widely know for illegally changing court orders and conditions of pre-trial Defendants that were never subject to their jurisdiction.

In the minutes of the Nevada Senate Committee on Judiciary from February 27, 2013 show Carson City DAS Chief Rory Plantea stating on the record how he and his DAS have been breaking the law and violating pre-trial Defendants civil rights.

Click here for SB101: SB101 Nevada DAS new law 2013

Minutes from the Nevada Senate Committee on Judiciary February 27, 2013

Click here for PDF file: DAS minutes from 2013 Nevada SB101

James Settlemyer

Sen. James Settlemeyer

SENATE BILL 101: Revises provisions relating to departments of alternative sentencing. (BDR 16-464)
Senator James A. Settelmeyer (Senatorial District No. 17):

I apologize for not getting the language correct to begin with and having to work off the mock-up (Exhibit G). The changes in the mock-up are necessary to incorporate some important and necessary clarifications.

This bill allows for pretrial sentencing to be done by the county or city department of alternative sentencing. When this was discussed in the past, some said the State should be doing it. However, we know the State does not have the funds to implement pretrial sentencing, so the counties do it. This bill enables legislation, adding the word “may,” so there is no fiscal impact to the counties since it is at their own discretion whether to participate.

There are often conditions of bail that the court stipulates, including restraining orders, temporary protection orders (TPO), firearm purchase bans, controlled substance use bans, etc. These departments can do this and provide a valuable service to the courts to review the bail stipulations and make sure the conditions are met. In some counties, these issues are being handled differently. This bill is an attempt to help those counties without a separate program to implement alternative sentencing. We are attempting to codify activities already being implemented in many counties. tick

Chair Segerblom:
This is not the first bill we have seen from Douglas County about this issue.

Senator Settelmeyer:
Yes, we had this bill in the Assembly. At that time, we felt the State should deal with the issue, but since that time, the State has not stepped forward.

Michael Beam (Chief, Department of Alternative Sentencing, Douglas County):
We perform these functions for the courts in Douglas County and Carson City. We serve both the district and justice courts. We ask that this issue be addressed in the statutory provisions of chapter 211A of Nevada Revised Statutes to make it right. We perform pretrial services for persons accused of crimes and awaiting sentencing or trial. The court imposes conditions, and we supervise those individuals to make sure he or she complies with those conditions. We support this bill.

Chair Segerblom:
If there are orders from the judge, like drug testing or curfews, you make sure it happens, is that correct?

Mr. Beam:
Yes. A range of conditions can be imposed—drug or alcohol clauses, testing, firearm provisions, TPOs, stay-away orders, etc. It varies case by case.

Chair Segerblom:
In sounds like it saves money because the offender is not in jail and can work, depending on the case.

Mr. Beam:
Absolutely, on pretrial with bail conditions.

Rory Planeta Chief Department of Alternative Sentencing

Rory Planeta Chief Department of Alternative Sentencing

Rory Planeta (Chief, Department of Alternative Sentencing, Carson City):
We supervise persons who are released on bail or released on their own recognizance without bail. The judge puts conditions on the offender, and we supervise. We work from NRS 178.484, which allows judges to place conditions on persons to protect the citizens and protect themselves. The judge makes the decision on which conditions to impose, and once the individual is placed under our supervision, we make sure he or she maintains those conditions or we bring him or her back to the judge. Those conditions can include drug testing, no weapons, no gang associations, etc. These conditions are necessary to protect the public. We support this bill.

Chair Segerblom:
Does this just apply to Douglas County and Carson City?

Senator Settelmeyer:
The provisions could apply to anyone wanting to implement them. Only these two counties are in this situation to my knowledge. Mr. Planeta, do you know of other counties similarly situated?

Mr. Planeta:
Yes. Henderson has alternative sentencing; it is called supervised release, which we think is a good term. Part of this bill refers to probationers, but that is not what we call them. They are persons released under the supervision of the Department. We also perform misdemeanor probation, suspended sentences, house arrest, etc. We feel this legislation is a natural progression for us to watch those individuals and keep our citizens safe.

Chair Segerblom:
This sounds like a great program. Do we have more supporters?

James J. Jackson (Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction):
I represent the Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction, representing municipal courts, justice courts and the State. We support this bill. Originally, the bill had mandatory language, but it is now permissive, so we are fine with it.

Laurel Stadler (Northern Nevada DUI Task Force):
We support alternative sentencing with DUI offenders. We support this bill.

Richard Glasson (Tahoe Township Justice Court, Douglas County):
This bill brings to light something I and other small court judges use on a daily basis. Alternative sentencing allows a judge to shape behaviors and responsibilities and provide protections before adjudication. While we presume everyone is innocent, there is a period of time between arrests and the disposition of the case that can be a sort of never-never land. This alternative sentencing tool allows us to put some people on a right path and potentially eliminates the need for posttrial supervision or probation because the person has proven in advance that he or she has taken these classes or sobriety conditions seriously.

Chair Segerblom:
You can take information from the individual’s cooperation with conditions imposed during pretrial and apply it to sentencing?

Judge Glasson:
Absolutely. There have been times when, because of the abysmal behaviors between arrests and trial, arrestees prove they are not going to be responsive to probation later on. More often than not, we see that these arrestees are just good, responsible people who might have stubbed their toes. They follow the straight and narrow during pretrial, and we do not have a recidivism problem with them when we use this tool.

Chair Segerblom:
Do district attorneys have access to the pretrial information when they are making decisions?

gpsJudge Glasson:
Yes, it is public information. The ankle bracelets and other tools we use are wonderful technology. gps orwell

Mr. O’Callaghan:
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is neutral on this bill. I also represent the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, and that organization supports this bill.

Mark Jacobs (Chief Marshal, Henderson Alternative Sentencing Division, City of Henderson):
We fully support this bill. It would be a great tool for us to use on a local level. We supervise around 2,000 probationers and 200 individuals released with conditions of release from our courts every day. This bill would allow us to get over some challenging hurdles in supervising those offenders.

Chair Segerblom:
Do the individuals who have been charged with the crime have to pay for equipment issued to them, like ankle bracelets?

Mr. Jacobs:
Yes. It is not a burden on the taxpayers, and that is also true of our probationers. When we have individuals released with conditions, we have concerns about situations like no contact orders, no further arrest clauses, drug and alcohol testing, GPS monitoring, alcohol monitoring, etc. It is a challenge to try and enforce and keep track of these people and those conditions without a specific statute.

Ian Massy (City of Henderson):
We support this bill.

Diane R. Crow (State Public Defender, Office of the State Public Defender):
I represent people in Carson City, Storey County, White Pine County and Eureka County. I do not oppose the spirit of this bill, but I oppose the end result as we have seen it here in Carson City. Conditions of bail that are supervised by alternative sentencing include call-in and color-coded drug testing. This means a person who has been arrested and not convicted of a crime and not lost his or her constitutional rights is required to call in on a daily basis. If their color is called, they must go in during certain hours and take a drug test. If they are not on color-coded testing, they can just be called in any day or an officer can go to their houses and require them to provide a drug test. The officer can search accused people’s homes and vehicles even though they have not been convicted. They are charged with a crime—misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor or felony—but they still have their constitutional rights. My concern is that we are taking the rights away from people who have not been convicted.

This bill, to me, is somewhat akin to a bill introduced last session regarding DNA testing of anyone arrested for a felony. People have constitutional rights. We cannot stomp on either the U.S. Constitution or the Nevada Constitution.

Chair Segerblom:
If a person does not agree to the conditions of release terms, can he or she stay in jail or post bail?

Ms. Crow:
That is another issue of constitutionality. Bail has to be reasonable, not coercive. You cannot force someone to agree to drug testing to get out of jail.

Chair Segerblom:
If a person refuses to cooperate with the drug testing, does the bail go so high it is impossible for them to pay?

Ms. Crow:
Most of my clients cannot make bail. If the person does not agree to the drug testing conditions, that contributes to the denial of one’s own recognizance release. That is coercion. Who does not want to get out of jail—to go back home, go back to work and support the family? It is coercive to force someone to give up his or her constitutional rights to get out of jail. I am very concerned about the ultimate outcome of this bill.

browerSenator Brower:
The government has enormous power, particularly over those who are arrested. From the law enforcement perspective, these issues have been litigated long ago. It is part of the system and has been upheld by state and federal courts around the Country—that the types of things here do not violate the U.S. Constitution. No less than the U.S. Supreme Court has said that upon arrest, your defense rights are not the same as someone who has not been arrested. Therefore, people can be held in custody in some cases and in other cases, they can be released but on certain conditions. We have litigated these issues, have we not?

DAS is unconstitutional

we the peopleMs. Crow:
There has been litigation. There is a case out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: United States v. Scott, 450 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2005).

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted a motion to suppress for evidence that was obtained on supervision. The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the motion to suppress. The United States appealed it to the Ninth Circuit and the State lost.

The head notes of that case refer to constitutional rights of people not convicted and unconstitutional coercive conditions that cannot be imposed.

Senator Brower:
What conditions did the Ninth Circuit decide were unconstitutional?

Ms. Crow:
One head note says pretrial release individuals are not probationers. Probationers have a lesser expectation of privacy than the public at large. People released pending trial, by contrast, have suffered no judicial abridgement of their constitutional rights. Alternitive Sentencing

Senator Brower:
My point is that the issue of whether certain pretrial release conditions are unconstitutional has been litigated. It is a fact of our system that pretrial defendants are sometimes held in custody, their passports are removed, they are subjected to drug testing, etc. That is a bigger issue and not really what this bill is about.

Ms. Crow:
I agree that is not specifically what the bill is about, but it is the ultimate conclusion to this bill. The Ninth Circuit is stating that people not convicted still have constitutional rights, and it is invasive to go into their homes and require them to have search and seizure clause.

Senator Brower:
You are right. Even those who have been convicted have certain constitutional rights. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to even those who are incarcerated. What the courts have done over centuries is to decide conditions may be imposed that do not violate the Constitution. I respect the rights of you and your clients to challenge certain types of conditions, and it is up to the system to continually hear those challenges and decide whether they meet constitutional muster. The conditions we impose in this State and in the federal system have been determined constitutional by judges.

Chair Segerblom:
In pretrial supervision, if officers find drugs at homes of defendants, can they be prosecuted?

Ms. Crow:
Yes, but they generally are not. My other concern about this bill is that in most of the sections, while it includes new language about pretrial or presentence release, it still labels the person a probationer, which is not accurate.

Chair Segerblom:
We can change that in the bill.

Senator Hutchison:
Is there anything in this bill that is constitutionally infirm?

Ms. Crow:
No.

Mr. Spratley:
We are neutral on this bill because it does not apply to our jurisdiction of Washoe County, but we are in overall support of S.B. 101. Our jail supports the judicial, conditional release of inmates to not only help reduce our inmate population, but also allow those persons who made mistakes and can follow court conditions to be out of custody to live their lives. Without appropriate monitoring, as this bill provides, those conditions most likely would not be met.

Chair Segerblom:
As I understand it, this bill could apply to Washoe County if you opted for it. images

Mr. Spratley:
We do have a Department of Alternative Sentencing in Washoe County, but I am not sure of its role.

Senator Brower:
Is it a fact that without pretrial release, we could not keep every arrestee in custody?

Mr. Spratley:
That is true. Our jail is already 50 inmates shy of maximum capacity. We are always being creative in how we can let the people out whom we believe will follow the program and not continue to reoffend and create victims. This is a huge step in helping us manage our population statewide.

guiltySenator Brower:
Allowing arrestees out on their own recognizance or on bail without conditions does not work either.

Mr. Spratley:
Yes. It would be ludicrous to let arrestees go without some conditions, without them knowing someone may check up on them at any moment. A portion of arrestees will reoffend or drink without those imposed conditions.

Senator Settelmeyer:
Some of the wordsmithing addressed by the testifier in opposition may be found in the amendment. We had a bill a long time ago addressing the issue of the larger counties in the State having a division between the pretrial and the posttrial alternative sentencing departments, and the smaller counties wanted them together since they were already doing it that way. With this bill we are looking for codification for a practice that is already occurring.

Chair Segerblom:
I will close the hearing on S.B. 101 and adjourn the meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary at 10:13 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Linda Hiller,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Tick Segerblom, Chair

Continue reading

Lady molested in Las Vegas Courthouse – then arrested as Judge looks the other way

Outrage in Nevada Courts!

Nevada proves once again that it is the cesspool of the legal system in the United States. A Lady was molested in a Las Vegas Courthouse – then arrested as Judge looks the other way.

Las Vegas Cop Sexually Assaults Woman Then Arrests Her For Protesting
Las Vegas Tribune - Lawless America

Las Vegas Tribune – Lawless America

Clark County Court to Patricia Doninger: YOU’RE FIRED

The family court hearing master that allowed two court marshals to abuse, degrade and sexually assault a woman that was in court for a divorce matter was quietly fired last week.

Patricia Doninger is no longer employed by Clark County Courts after an alleged investigation into the August 11 incident in her court, during which she turned her back on a disgusting situation to play with the victim’s underage daughter. Doninger heartlessly ignored the young mother’s plea for help while two Clark County Court Marshalls tortured, groped and viciously attacked the Hispanic woman that was in court for a routine divorce case.

A court video of the incident was obtained by Las Vegas Tribune, and after reviewing it for several days, the newspaper was ready to begin a campaign to demand Hearing Master Patricia Doninger’s termination – but that is no longer necessary. Continue reading

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:     http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022570.pdf

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.

Public has right to know Nevada public pension expenses

…the taxpaying public is on the hook for a long-term bailout of between $10 billion and $40 billion

Last week, pension reform died in the Nevada Legislature.

This week, the cause gets new life in Carson City — not before lawmakers, but in front of the Nevada Supreme Court in the state’s most important public records case in years. Continue reading

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

Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline does little to STOP Corruption

Judge James E. Wilson Jr. Carson City corruption

Judge James E. Wilson Jr. Carson City corruption

The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline does little to STOP Corruption. I filed a complaint about Carson City District Court Judge James E. Wilson Jr. (a Mormon) and his involvement with the backdating scandal from 2012.The scandal included fabricated and withheld evidence, edited transcripts, perjury and more.

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and her crony named Ann McDermott from Las Vegas along with the court clerk are implicated in the scandal.

Reno KRNV News 4 covered that story here on a “Fact Finder”. See it here.

As usual, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline failed to mail my response to the correct mailed address and coverup the scandal for their cronies.

We feel the “public concern” is paramount and we’ll take the issue to the streets exposing this corrupt Judge and the  corrupt Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline cover up. Look for new signs exposing these scumbags…

We feel the Nevada Supreme Court is the premier location for these protests with the current Legislative session going on and TV news crews all over the place.

Catherine Cortez Masto

Click to Play Video

The above video is the KRNV TV news 4 Fact Finder on

James E. Wilson Jr. Backdating Scandal

This video on youtube shows the rampant corruption in the court systems.  This is a brief preview of an incomplete documentary about the abuses of America’s Justice system, particularly in the family courts

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

We’re in the mix for $115,000.00 dollars in the Alex Jones InfoWAR “Operation Paul Revere”

alex jones paul rev

Online Virtual Film Festival

Three (3) Cash Prizes will be awarded:
Grand Prize – $100,000 cash
Second Place – $10,000 cash
Third Place – $5,000 cash

We can mix a video and tell our stories of how we’re using the Internet to expand out on-the-street protests against local and State corruption here in Nevada and California. The protests serve as a beacon and are “eye candy” to passers by.  The massive signs and CRIME SCENE banner  bring light to the issues and can’t be ignored when driving by the State Capital or the Reno and Carson City courthouses.

A protest comes and goes, but a “movement” stays and grows.”

We have a catalog of videos and documentaries and we’ll enter a mash-up including some new stuff and a very special surprise, a custom InfoWAR banner for Alex Jones and his crew for the Bilderberg meeting demonstrations. Here is some of out work and we’ll post out contest entries here very soon. Continue reading

Director of Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline David Sarnowski retiring

nv judicial ethics

David Sarnowski, general counsel and executive director of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, is retiring after 32 years in state service. Sarnowski has been in his present post for 11 years and said he doesn’t know what he will do after leaving state government June 30, 2013. His retirement was disclosed at a meeting of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee on Friday.

The commission will select a replacement for the job, which pays $137,145 a year.

tatro judgeWe’re reviewing Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline and previous complaint against Carson City judges like 2006 Nevada Appeal Judicial ethics complaint filed against Justice of Peace Tatro. Look for new complaints against Judge Tatro to be filed and shown here ASAP. We see “Judge” Tatro abusing his “authority” by acting under the color of law and  committing “crimes against humanity and public decency”.

Why in the world does the Nevada Supreme Court allow these so called “judges” (Tatro has no law degree) to act in this manner when they are trying to convince taxpayers to support a new Intermediate Appeals Court in Nevada?

A Carson City woman who previously accused bailiffs at the capital’s district court of violating her rights, manhandling, and injuring her during an arrest has filed a complaint with the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline accusing Justice of the Peace John Tatro of bias.Tonya Brown last month lost her lawsuit in federal court against the city and the bailiff who arrested her for trespassing.Brown said she believes Tatro was biased against her in her justice court trial on the trespass charges in which she was convicted. She said Tatro’s comments were so biased that, during her federal court civil-rights trial, …

Carson City Judge Tatro

Carson City Judge Tatro

Continue reading

NV ANTI Corruption in books, movies, press and more!

Ty Robben filming of lawless America movie

Ty Robben filming of lawless America movie in Carson City, Nevada

As most followers of NSPW know, we’ve received good press coverage in Northern and Southern Nevada as well as Lake Tahoe, CA.

We’re also in the Lawless America movie documenting Nevada based Government and Judicial corruption.

We’re also venturing into book-writing and screen plays too for our own stories to be showcased.

A new book coming out this Summer will showcase Nevada based Government and Judicial corruption. We’re keeping the author and name secret for now, but Nevada will soon be captivated by the “thousands”  of lies, conspiracies and stories of corruption this book of a ‘who’s who’ list of names will reveal.

Here is an excerpt from the “Nevada Judicial Corruption” chapter of the book:

In 2012, Ty Robben, a Nevada citizen, led peaceful and lawful protests against corruption in the Attorney General’s Office and the Nevada judiciary. After several high profile demonstrations – with theWorlds Largest Crime Scene Banner at 4 ft tall x 150 ft long – in front of the AG’s Office and the courthouse spurred significant media coverage, he was arrested on a trumped up misdemeanor assault charge. He spent a total of 22 days in jail– 8 in solitary confinement – and nearly a month under house arrest with an ankle monitor.

"Judge" Tatro

“Judge” Tatro

The judge who signed the arrest warrant was Judge John Tatro, the same judge who Ty had attempted to disqualify from his civil case due to judicial bias.

The assault charge against Robben was eventually dropped.

judge tatro shooting

judge Tatro shooting

In December 2012, Judge Tatro woke up to the sound of gunfire at his home around 4:30 am. Two shots entered the front door, passed through the living room, and left through a sliding glass door. Ty Robben was questioned and immediately cleared. There has been no reported arrest to date but the police reviewed the judge’s court calendar in search of suspects. This incident followed the highly publicized June 2006 shooting of Judge Chuck Weller. Judge Weller was shot in the chest through the window of his third-floor courthouse office in Reno, Nevada, by a sniper in the parking garage across the street. The sniper, Darren Mack, had appeared before Judge Weller in Mack’s divorce case. Both Judge Tatro and Judge Weller had less than stellar reputations for rendering honest decisions in cases that came before them.

judge tatro crime scene

judge Tatro home a “crime scene” after gun shots fired into his front door!

Petitioning Nevada State Senate: Hold Prosecutors Accountable for Misconduct in Wrongful Convictions

Petitioning Your State Senate Justice NOT Politics: Hold Prosecutors Accountable for Misconduct in Wrongful Convictions.

Please sign the petition – Petitioning Your State Senate Justice NOT Politics

Judges, Prosecutors, and Defense Attorneys are rarely held accountable for misconduct even when it is proven that their actions have been responsible for wrongful convictions. As a result, the families and individuals irreparably harmed by their collective judicial malfeasance have no legal recourse or punitive remedies available.

Continue reading

Protesters gather in front of Reno Nevada home of Federal Prosecutor Ron Rachow

On November 23, 2012 Protesters gather in front of Reno Nevada home of Federal Prosecutor Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Rachow

Reno police (“RPD”) were apparently called by Mr. Rachow and RPD let the protesters continue their free speech and exercise their 1st amendment rights in front of Mr. Rachow’s Reno home. Thank you RPD, Guy Felton also thanks  Steven Pitts and salutes the RPD,  and we appreciate the professionalism of the RPD.

There is the Nolan Klein case where the prosecuting attorneyRon Rachow, intentionally withheld all of the exculpatory evidence that showed that someone else was responsible for the May 9, 1988 Payless Shoe Store crime. This was discovered in 2009 when Judge Adams ordered DA Richard Gammick to turn over the entire file in the Nolan Klein case. In the file were the handwritten notes that he was not going to turn over any of the exculpatory evidence that some else was responsible for that crime as well as the 3 other crimes, ALL HIDDEN FROM THE DEFENSE AND JURY.  Not only did Mr. Rachow withhold the evidence that would have cleared an innocent man, several employees within the Washoe District Attorney’s Office knew about this AND SAID NOTHING SINCE 1988. Mr. Rachow defied a 1988 Court Order by Judge Peter Breen to turn over all of the evidence.
Ron Rachow killed an innocent man

Ron Rachow killed an innocent man

In fact, in a September 22, 2008  interview given by Washoe County District Attorney, Dick Gammick regarding Mr. Klein being considered for a Pardon, Gammick publicly admitted that they opened up the DNA and tested it.  Shortly thereafter, ADA John Helzer appeared before the Nevada Pardons Board on October 29, 2008 stating prior to Mr. Klein ever  being considered for a Pardon he heard things so looked in Mr. Klein’s file. He looked, he saw and HE SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE OTHER SUSPECT.
     The Nevada Pardons Board denied Mr. Klein a Pardon, thereby, by their denying Mr. Klein a Pardon one can only conclude that they have to had to condone the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office of Brady Violations.
     After the Pardons Board Hearing, Mr. Klein’s attorney’s filed a Motion for Dick Gammick to turn over the DNA test results.  Washoe County District Court Judge Brent Adams issued and Order for Gammick to turn over the DNA test results and included the entire file in the Nolan Klein case.  On June 10, 2009 the file was turned over.  No tests results have ever been turned over.
     Just prior to Mr. Klein’s death in 2009 he learned the truth what the Washoe County District Attorney’s office did and how far several of members of the office went to coverup what Ron Rachow did.
     The Sparks Police Department’s theory was that Mr. Zarsky was responsible for this crime as well as other crimes in which those other victims cleared my innocent brother, Nolan Klein.
Sparks Tribune – Nevada in Brief In a 2010 video I  have Richard “Dick” Gammick on tape why he continued to employ Mr. Steven Barker who had been cited several times in several different cases for withholding evidence, even DNA that exonerated the person.
      In September the film crew will be coming to the Reno/Carson area to film the documentary movie “Lawless America”. Nolan Klein’s case will be featured as a part of the documentary movie on judicial corruption that will be presented to the United States Congress and the Sundance Film Festival.  Several requests thus far have been sent to Mr. Gammick and still no response.

Please See http://www.justicefornolanklein.net

Please See Nevada Prison Watch

Please See The Nolan Klein story on Lawless America

Ron Rachow must be charged with the murder of Nolan Klein. – Tonja Brown

Protesters gather in front of Reno, Nevada U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Rachow home 11/23/2012

Protesters gather in front of Reno, Nevada U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Rachow home 11/23/2012

Ron Rachow protest

Protesters gather in front of Reno, Nevada U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Rachow home 11/23/2012

Continue reading

Nevada State Personnel Watch gets over 10,000 hits worldwide

Our little Nevada ANTI-Corruption website has taken off and we’re celebrating our success with more updates and future demonstrations to promote the movement. We simply started the ANTI-Corruption movement as a grassroots effort with one cardboard sign and a cause to stand up to the corruption and relation in Nevada that has affected us personally.  We networked with other people who were also victims of Nevada’s web-of-corruption. See our stories – Mike Weston (Mike’s LawlessAmerica story) – Tonja BrownTy Robben (Lawless America video being produced and coming soon to expose the demonic rampant wholesale corruption in Nevada). Then there was the a new issue and cover-up by State of Nevada officials explained by Reno, NV KRNV mynews4.com NEWS. For now, please see our 2012 ANTI-Corruption Summer 2012 video.

https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com

We made professional signs and a one-of-a-kind 150 long X 4 foot tall CRIME SCENE BANNER and protested in front of the Nevada State Capitol buildings in the spring and summer of 2012.  Stay tuned as NV ANTI-Corruption adapts to our new version 2.0 round of protesting and exposing corruption in Nevada. We’re also covering other Nevada, U.S. and world issues on this website to attract a wider audience to broader issues covered by Infowars, Lawless America  and others. To all united against tyranny and treason, we salute you.

Nevada ANTI-Corruption you-tube videos

NV ANTI corruption videos

Our youtube videos have also gone viral with over 50,000 hits and we’re in Lawless America the movie. Thank you for your support and please keep coming back to the NevadaStatePersonnelWATCH.wordpress.com website.

 

 

 

 

Sundance Film festival 2013 Lawless America

Sundance Film festival 2013 Lawless America

Are you aware some how Bill Windsor in all his splendor has the Lawless America the Movie Promos tied into the 2013 Sundance Film Festival? 

View here Sundance Film FestivalSUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL VIDEOS.

 

 

 

Guy Felton's youtube channel

Guy Felton’s youtube channel

Please see our friend Guy Felton’s youtube “Nevadagate” series on Nevada Corruption with links posted below in this posting. Guy has put together about 10 videos explaining his perspective on the rampant, wholesale corruption in Nevada.  Topics include Judicial Corruption, Government Corruption to include AG Masto, Gov. Sandoval and much more.  Guy goes wide and deep into the issues and calls out these corrupt and criminal politicians.

Guy Felton’s youtube “Nevadagate” series on Nevada Corruption
Nevada government is permeated with a culture of corruption. Members of the state legislature meet for only 4 months every other year. This does not permit anything close to proper administration of the public affairs of Nevada’s 2.7-million residents.  Members of the upcoming 2013 legislative session are asked to answer tough-but-fair questions which might force changes for the better.
Part 2 of at least 3 intended parts

LA Times – In Nevada/Las Vegas, They’re Playing With a Stacked Judicial Deck

In 2006 the LA Times ran a series of stories about Nevada judicial corruption.  We are appealing to them and other major California newspapers to run an update to the legendary exposé about the stacked deck in Carson City’s courthouse. We need to warn people about the rampant wholesale corruption in the Nevada judicial system.  We need to let everyone know to avoid Nevada – do not move here – do not buy a home here – do not do business here – do not spend money here – the government, the cops and the courts are very, very corrupt and they’re playing with a stacked deck.

These state judges often dispense a style of wide-open, frontier justice that veers out of control across ethical, if not legal, boundaries. The consequences reach beyond Nevada, affecting people in other states, especially California.

LA times - Nevada courts are a stacked deck

LA times – Nevada courts are a stacked deck

Courts – Las Vegas judiciary subject of in-depth LA Times examination

The LA Times ran a lengthy three-part series on the Las Vegas court system. The first story, Justice crippled by conflicts,” includes these quotes:

This is a juice town, some Las Vegas attorneys openly concede. Financial contributions “get you juice with a judge — an ‘in,’ ” Ian Christopherson, a lawyer in Las Vegas for 18 years, said in an interview. “If you have juice, you get different treatment. This is not a quid pro quo town like, say, Chicago. This town is a juice town.”

The second story, is about “a judge and his friends.” It begins:

LAS VEGAS — Without help from a friend, James Mahan might never have become a Las Vegas state judge. Certainly he wouldn’t have gotten one of the top judicial jobs in town: a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.Then again, without Mahan, his friend George Swarts would never have gotten to run an Internet porn business, a hotel-casino hair salon or a Southern California software company. Indeed, the careers of Judge James C. Mahan, 62, and his friend George C. Swarts, also 62, whom he appointed again and again as a receiver to manage troubled businesses, might be the ultimate example of how juice replaces justice in Las Vegas courtrooms.

In this town, people speak reverently of having juice, or an “in,” and Mahan — bearded, likable but sometimes caustic — has made it a striking feature in his courtroom. First as a state judge and now as a federal judge, he has approved more than $4.8 million in judgments and fees during more than a dozen cases in which a recent search of court records found no statement that he disclosed his relationships with those who benefited from his decisions.

The final story, from June 10th, is focused on senior judges. Some quotes:

Unlike regular judges, senior judges are not answerable to the voters, but serve at the pleasure of the high court, and that can mean for life. Unlike regular judges, they can reject assignments until they are given a case they want to try. Unlike regular judges, they cannot be removed from a case by peremptory challenge. And until last year, they did not have to disclose their financial interests.With this exceptional flexibility, they could try lawsuits in which they had a personal stake without revealing it. And because they cannot be removed by peremptory challenge, which normally permits a one-time replacement of a judge at the beginning of any case simply for the asking, it is possible for litigants to be stuck with senior judges, their conflicts of interest and their decisions.

In Las Vegas, They’re Playing With a Stacked Judicial Deck

JUICE VS. JUSTICE | A Times Investigation

Some judges routinely rule in cases involving friends, former clients and business associates — and in favor of lawyers who fill their campaign coffers.

|Michael J. Goodman and William C. Rempel | Times Staff Writers

LAS VEGAS — When Judge Gene T. Porter last ran for reelection, a group of Las Vegas lawyers sponsored a fundraiser for him at Big Bear in California. Even by Las Vegas standards, it was brazen. Some of the sponsors had cases before him. One case was set for a crucial hearing in four days. 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

Lawless America Movie Interview: Tonya Frances Brown for Nolan Klein. Nevada killed an innocent man

Please watch this powerful and enraging video featuring Tonja Brown, Nolan Klein’s sister, who fought and still fights hard to battle injustice done to her brother and also to fight for basic human rights of others still inside.
On Sept. 20th, please remember Nolan Klein, an innocent man who died in 2009 on that day, while still in prison, all because evidence that could have exonerated him, lay hidden and was never presented by the prosecution.

www.justicefornolanklein.net

Continue reading

KRNV investigates Nevada Attorney General & Carson City District Court BACKDATING SCANDAL

KRNV investigates Nevada Attorney General BACKDATING SCANDAL in Carson City Nevada. NAG Catherine Cortez Masto’s office backdated court filings twice in the Carson City District Court. The court clerks and Judge James E. Wilson refuse to go on camera and are all implicated in the illegal backfilings.