Carson City Sheriff cover-up Susan Martinovich assault and battery, hit and run and false sheriff report
Nevada Appeal August 17, 2012 Ty makes bail
no arrest request by Martinovich
Martinovich said she did not want to press charges against Robben on her complaint, yet Robben was originally charged with harassment. Knowing ‘harassment’ would not stick, that charge was dropped and DA Neil Rombardo added assault and breach of peace. These will not sick as a matter of law. However, in Carson City, Nevada where Robben is public enemy #1 to the corrupt justice system – the rule of law will not matter because this is all about revenge and retaliation. The gang in black robes want Robben in jail to shut him down for exposing their corruption and protesting with CRIME SCENE tape! Judges do not like seeing their corruption broadcast on the Internet and protest banners. Once inside their Judicial ‘system’ they have unchecked power and authority to abuse their power and direct their hostility at an individual who clearly is standing up to the corrupt system.
How does Robben, who has publicly stated the entire Carson City court is corrupt, get justice when he is
directly in their ‘cross hairs’ with no jury trial? The judges will not comply with the law and disqualify themselves after being formally moved to do so. They won’t move the hearing or bring in another hopefully honest judge from somewhere else.
See the plan?
NOTE: Susan Martinovich was served the week prior with a subpoena for the same hearing by service to her secretary who accepted it. Then Susan Martinovich complained that she was not served ‘Personally’ per NRCP rule 4 and had the court quash that subpoena. The court reissued the subpoena on August 06, 2012 at about 1:30pm in Reno for the August 07, 2012 9:00am hearing. Jim Richardson had no time to hire a process server and Robben was available by the time he arrived in Carson City around 3:30pm. With little time to spare the papers were served to 2 of the 4 people. Since Martinovich demanded ‘personal service’ and Robben was just complying with her ‘personal service’ hand-hand demands. Robben never attempted to touch or physicality contact nor did he touch or make contact Ms. Martinovich. The plan was hand over the papers to her person so she would accept per her NRCP demand for personal service.
False Sheriff report:
Martinovich knew Robben was there to serve the papers she was avoiding and not there to harm, harass or assault her. When Martinovich filed the false Sheriff report knowing this to be the case, she made a false police report. Martinovich assaulted Robben with her car (a deadly weapon in Nevada) and hit Robben (battery) then left the scene to file a false charge against Robben. Really, what was Robben going to do with 1 subpoena which is 1 piece of paper? hit/slap her with a lawsuit? The subpena was for a state personnel hearing. By the way, the State should change this policy and have the hearing officers send personnel related subpenas to the people or the department AG for future service related to personnel matters. This whole thing should be a lesson the the State, and the State should fix this.
The legal definition of “false reporting of a crime” in Nevada, prohibits knowingly making a false report to law enforcement that a crime has occurred, which causes law enforcement to conduct a criminal or internal investigation.
Note that the report can be made by any means such as orally, through writing or electronic communication. Also note that NRS 207.280 applies when the defendant allegedly makes the report to any of the following members of law enforcement:
- district attorney or deputy district attorney
- sheriff or deputy sheriff
any member of the Nevada Department of Public Safety
NRS 207.280 False reporting of crimes unlawful. Every person who deliberately reports to any police officer, sheriff, district attorney, deputy sheriff, deputy district attorney or member of the Department of Public Safety that a felony or misdemeanor has been committed, which causes a law enforcement agency to conduct a criminal or internal investigation, knowing such report to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
A common scenario where this law comes into play in Nevada is when an angry spouse lies to the police about the other spouse committing the Nevada crime of battery domestic violence. If the police investigate and determine that the reporting spouse wasn’t being truthful, prosecutors may press charges for the false reporting of a crime.
Trumped up charges of ‘ASSAULT’
Here you go, no case against Robben. Robben was there to serve court papers – NOT to “commit a violent injury on the person of another of another”. “Mere menace is not enough. There must be an effort to carry the intention into execution.”
Under NRS 200.471, an “assault” is “an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.” As we said in Wilkerson v. State, 87 Nev. 123, 482 P.2d 314 (1971): “Mere menace is not enough. There must be an effort to carry the intention into execution.” Id. at 126, 482 P.2d at 316.
NRS 193.330 defines “attempt” as “[a]n act done with the intent to commit a crime, and tending but failing to accomplish it.” See also Crawford v. State, 107 Nev. 345, 351, 811 P.2d 67, 71 (1991) (stating the elements of attempt are: “(1) the intent to commit the crime; (2) performance of some act toward the commission of the crime; and (3) the failure to consummate its commission”). Therefore, the State had the burden to prove that Powell had the specific intent to commit a violent injury on each of Richardson, Cole, and Shepard.
Trumped up charges of ‘Breach of peace’
Robben said to Martinovich “process server, court papers” and “stop you ran over my foot”. This is not disturbing the peace. Robben did not use profanity or yell anything else to Martinovich to provoke a breach of peace. Nor did Robben challenge Martinovich to a fight, threaten her or engage in the other mumbo-jumbo i.e. loud or unusual noises, or by tumultuous and offensive conduct threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight, or fighting.
Robben there to serve papers
The main focus of the charge is Robben “yelled” and ran after Martinovich’s car “banging on the window” by a stranger.
NRS 203.010 Breach of peace. Every person who shall maliciously and willfully disturb the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person or family by loud or unusual noises, or by tumultuous and offensive conduct, threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight, or fighting, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
In every criminal case, the D.A. has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. This is a very high standard, and it may be difficult for the D.A. to produce sufficient evidence that demonstrates the defendant knew the crime report was false. As long as the D.A. fails to meet this burden of proof, the defendant is not criminally liable.
In Nevada, this case will likely get a bench trial because Nevada is corrupt and ignores the U.S. Constitution and it’s own laws under NRS 175.011(2)!
NRS 175.011 Trial by jury.
1. In a district court, cases required to be tried by jury must be so tried unless the defendant waives a jury trial in writing with the approval of the court and the consent of the State. A defendant who pleads not guilty to the charge of a capital offense must be tried by jury.
2. In a Justice Court, a case must be tried by jury only if the defendant so demands in writing not less than 30 days before trial. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 4.390 and 4.400, if a case is tried by jury, a reporter must be present who is a certified court reporter and shall report the trial.
(Added to NRS by 1967, 1424; A 1983, 749; 1987, 614; 1993, 1412)
Although Article III of the U.S. Constitution guarantees everyone charged with a crime the right to a trial by jury, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that jury trial rights extend only to those facing more than six months in jail.
From Lawyer Mike Pariente;
When I began my career as a lawyer in Texas in 1998 before eventually moving to Nevada, I was amazed by how in Texas a defendant had the right to a six-person jury trial even for a minor traffic ticket. In Texas, if you are charged with any misdemeanor including traffic citations (i.e., running a red light, speeding), you have the right to a six-person jury of your peers. Now contrast that with Nevada. Here in Nevada, you have no right to a jury trial for any kind of misdemeanor – period. That’s right.
Here’s a brief history for you. Nevada made U.S. Supreme Court history when, in the case of Blanton v. City of N. Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989), it held that a defendant charged with misdemeanor Driving Under the Influence (DUI) was not entitled to a jury trial because the offense is “petty”. A “petty” misdemeanor is one in which the maximum term of imprisonment is 6 months. So, if you’re charged with a misdemeanor in Nevada and the most you can get under the law is 6 months in jail, that’s considered “petty” and you don’t get the right to have a jury decide your case. Only a judge can decide your case. Petty? Really? When people think of “petty”, they think of speeding tickets. How can having your freedom taken from you for 6 months – that’s 180 days, that’s half a year – how is that “petty”? The fact that a judge, not a jury, can hear a “petty” misdemeanor trial and decide to put you in jail and take you away from your family and job for six months is anything but “petty”. I’m sure if a judge were sitting in jail for being convicted of a “petty” misdemeanor, he or she would not think it’s so “petty”.
Nevada is one of the only states in the country to deny a defendant a jury trial for a “petty” misdemeanor.
Oddly enough, the Nevada Legislature passed NRS 175.011(2) which allows a defendant to demand a jury trial for a “petty” misdemeanor with 30 days notice before the date of the trial. Huh? So how can it be that there is a law on the books that gives you a right to a jury trial for “petty” misdemeanors but you don’t actually have that right? Come again? Here’s why. After NRS 175.011(2) was passed which clearly spelled out that a defendant had the right to a jury trial on “petty” misdemeanors, the Nevada Supreme Court decided that the Legislature didn’t mean what it said. In Smith v. State, 99 Nev. 806, 672 P.2d 631, (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court acknowledged that the Legislature passed NRS 175.011(2) but said that it really didn’t matter because the Legislature probably didn’t mean to create a “statutory right”. WTF???? Wait a minute. The Legislature passed this statute. The Governor of Nevada signed off on it. It became law. But then in 1983, the Nevada Supreme Court decided in effect, “Nah, that’s not what they meant.” I’m paraphrasing, of course, but talk about judicial activism! If I, as a criminal defense lawyer, were to argue that a statute passed by the Legislature didn’t mean what it said, I’d probably be accused of violating rules of professional conduct by making a frivolous argument to the court. Imagine if I were to argue that the mandatory minimum laws on the Nevada books for certain crimes such as drug trafficking which clearly don’t allow a judge to sentence a defendant to probation were laws that the Legislature really didn’t mean what they said when the laws were passed. I’d be laughed out of court for making the same kind of argument. But that’s what the Nevada Supreme Court decided.
Here’s where I’m coming from. Let’s go back to Blanton which said that DUI is a “petty” misdemeanor. The lawyers for Blanton argued that DUI is not a “petty” misdemeanor because a defendant faced, among other punishments, suspension of his or her driver’s license. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. But here’s where I argue that Blanton shouldn’t control when a defendant is facing charges for domestic violence. If a Permanent Resident Alien is facing a domestic violence misdemeanor charge, he or she will get deported if convicted of domestic violence. As we’ve seen in Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court said that immigration consequences are no longer collateral rights and are substantive rights. So my argument is deportation for a domestic violence conviction is anything but “petty”. Deportation means a person will be sent back to their foreign land even if he or she has their family in the U.S. Blanton defines “penalty” as follows: “In using the word ‘penalty,’ we do not refer solely to the maximum prison term authorized for a particular offense. See United States v. Jenkins, 780 F. 2d 472, 474, and n. 3 (CA4), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1161 (1986). Blanton v. N. Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 542 (U.S. 1989).” So, since deportation is a penalty, which is more severe than a 6 month sentence since it involves permanently being separated from your family in the U.S., a legal permanent resident alien should be allowed a jury trial for a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence. And if a legal permanent resident alien is allowed a jury trial for a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence, then so should a U.S. Citizen be given the same right under the Equal Protection Clause since it would be unfair to give a non-citizen a jury trial right while depriving a U.S. Citizen of the same right to a six-person jury to hear his or her case in a charge of misdemeanor domestic violence. I’ll keep you posted on my efforts to change the law. I’m preparing a writ of mandamus, which in Latin means a petition to order the lower court to do something for which it has no discretion. I’m going to be filing this with the Eighth Judicial District Court in January arguing that it should direct the justice court or municipal court to order a defendant to have a right to a jury trial.
UPDATE: I’ve filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus or alternatively writ of mandamus with the Nevada Supreme Court. They haven’t ruled on it yet. If they grant my motion, then all Nevadans accused of domestic violence will get a jury trial. If they do not, then I will petition the U.S. Supreme Court and ask them to give Nevadans accused of domestic violence a jury trial. More to come! As of today, January 8, 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court has not ruled on my writs. Given their backlog, it will be several months but I will keep you posted once I hear something.
Process Servers and Assault
Editor’s note: This article was researched and written by ServeNow staff and may not include the most up-to-date information on the status of specific legislation in individual states.
Work can be worrisome for many reasons, but process servers have to consider their physical well being on top of their jobs every time they set out to serve papers. Assault on process servers is a common occurrence and there are laws that protect them, however, sometimes these laws are not enough. In our recent poll on the biggest challenges in the process serving industry, some voters listed increased assault as the biggest industry threat. But even though it did not receive the most votes it’s still an important issue to pay attention to, and certain states are beginning to take things a step further and are make assault on a process server a felony.
What is assault?
Assault occurs when someone is intentionally placed under the threat of bodily injury by another person. If the offender actually injures the person they are threatening, they have committed assault and battery.
How does assault affect process servers?
When a process server sets out to do their job, they are placing themselves in an emotionally charged situation. The person being served may be in an unstable mental and emotional state. When someone is presented with papers it could be a breaking point, and they may become violent. Process servers are representatives of the court and many feel that because of this there should be stricter consequences for individuals who attempt to stop them from completing their work or hurt them while they are doing their jobs.
Instances of process server assault
Stories about process servers being assaulted while on the job have become more prevalent in the news. Reports of process servers being punched, hit with baseball bats and even shot are not as uncommon as they used to be.
Recently, an Auburn process server was assaulted when trying to serve eviction papers. The offender shot Kathy Stevenson with an airsoft gun, threw rocks at her, broke her car window and smeared mud in her face. The perpetrator was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and vandalism and is currently out on a $25,000 bond.
Earlier this year the Mayor of Mendenhall was charged with assault on a process server. Mayor Womack claims that he was unaware that the person knocking on his door was a Mississippi process server and feared for the safety of his family. The process server claims the Mayor swore at him and assaulted him, even after he made his purpose clear. Mayor Mendenhall was found guilty of simple assault, a misdemeanor, and forced to pay a $485 fine.
Also this year, an Illinois state lawyer, Allen W. James plead guilty to a misdemeanor aggravated assault for pulling a gun on a process server in the parking lot of a courthouse in 2008. James claims he was defending himself, however, the court found that he had been evading service for a personal lawsuit the day before and most likely pulled out his gun in an attempt to further avoid service. James was initially charged with two felonies but was only found guilty of a misdemeanor. He was forced to pay a $1,500 fine and was suspended from work for 60 days. James was not reelected to his position and no longer works for the state of Illinois.
With assault on the rise and stories like this continually hitting the news, it is apparent that process servers need protection now more then ever.
What laws are currently in place protecting process servers?
Many states have laws protecting process servers from assault, but there has been a recent push to make assault on a process server a felony, not just a misdemeanor. In late 2011, Illinois became the first state to pass legislation making assault on an Illinois process server a felony charge. Senator Mike Jacobs of Illinois stated that “We have increased the assault penalties over the years for those people who work on behalf of the State Government and law enforcement, and this legislation will extend these protections for those who work on behalf of the courts.”
“We brought that legislation to the Illinois State Congress because we know that process servers are getting attacked out there and it’s not being reported,” Illinois Association of Professional Process Servers (IAPS) Treasurer Keith McMaster explained, “hopefully this is an event that we can take to all the associations and NAPPS can, in the future, take this legislation to the states that don’t have an association.” Since the passing of the Illinois law, California has enacted a similar law and Washington has proposed one as well. New York process servers have presented bills to the legislature making assault on a process server a class D felony. Larry Yellon, president of the New York State Professional Process Servers Association, is hopeful that the bills will be signed into law and assist other states in enacting similar laws. Process servers are applauding these states and hoping to see similar legislation passed across the country. Other associations have added pushing for assault legislation to their goals.
Why is it important for process servers to be protected from assault?
Process servers perform a task that is integral to the court’s functionality. Senator Jacobs hopes that the new Illinois law “might be the deterrent necessary to keep process servers safe while they perform their duties.” As representatives of the court, many process servers feel that they are entitled to the same protection as other workers involved in the legal process. In any case, with the heightened emotions that come with serving process and the situations that can arise, it’s important for process servers to be protected from assault.
How can you help process servers become protected?
By joining your local association or a national association such as the National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS), you can combine forces with other process servers and raise awareness regarding the issues that affect your industry. With backing and support from associations, legislation protecting process servers will more easily become law. Get in touch with your local association to find out more on what you can do to help.
Have you or a process server you know been assaulted? Share your story below!
When they own all the information, they can bend it all they want
We shall overcome.