Judge David Hardy recommends Superintendent Pedro Martinez leave Washoe County Schools

pedrom

A Washoe District judge is recommending that the county school board buy out the remainder of Superintendent Pedro Martinez’s employment contract.

A Washoe District judge is recommending that the county school board buy out the remainder of Superintendent Pedro Martinez’s employment contract.

“…The present circumstances make it impossible for the board and Mr. Martinez to move forward in a spirit of mutual cooperation,” Judge David Hardy of Washoe District Court said in a written recommendation obtained by KRNV-TV on Monday and independently confirmed by the RGJ.

“Both parties therefore agree that it is the best interests of everyone, including students, parents, and school district employees, that the board exercise its right to purchase the balance of Mr. Martinez’s employment contract,” Hardy wrote in the recommendation.

Judge David Hardy

Judge David Hardy

The matter is on the agenda of Tuesday’s school board meeting set to start at 2 p.m. in the board room of the Central Administration Building, 425 E. Ninth St. in Reno.

Tensions between board members and Martinez surfaced July 22 when Clark announced Martinez has been relieved of his duties.

A day later, Martinez said he was fired over frivolous accusations that he portrayed himself in the community as a licensed certified public accountant.

Trustees announced Martinez had not been fired but was on paid administrative leave.

Martinez returned to work Aug. 1, starting his day at a back to school training for hundreds of district administrators.

Mediation, recommended terms

Earlier this month the RGJ reported the trustees and Martinez were headed into mediation in front of Hardy.

Under Hardy’s recommendation, if approved Tuesday by the school board, Martinez’s employment contract would end on Dec. 22. Martinez’s last day of actual work would be no less six weeks from Tuesday.

Under the recommendation, the board would pay a predetermined value for Martinez’s contract worth 15 months of salary that he would have otherwise been entitled to had he worked until Dec. 22, 2015. That amount was not immediately known on Monday night.

Also, under the recommendation, Martinez would agree to dismiss a lawsuit against the board if the board agrees to pay his attorney fees of $80,000.

Hardy would enforce terms of the settlement.

“The parties agree that they will not disparage or malign one another with respect to any matter relating to their employment or service, their professionalism, ethics, work ethics, character, or integrity,” Hardy’s recommendation states.

Martinez, his attorney, Hardy, School Board President Barbara Clark and the school board’s attorney could not be reached for comment Monday night.

Messages were left for them and school board members Barbara McLaury, Lisa Ruggerio, Estela Gutierrez and John Mayer.

School board member Dave Aiazzi declined to comment, saying the judge’s document prohibited him from doing so.

School board member Howard Rosenberg said he had not seen the judge’s recommendation and could not immediately comment.

Victoria Campbell, a school district spokeswoman, said she had no information on the judge’s recommendation and referred questions to attorneys involved in the matter.

Legal matters

On July 25, through his attorney, Martinez filed a temporary restraining order and injunction against the district from conducting a meeting to consider legal action against him.

Martinez also sought relief for an alleged violation of the Nevada Open Meeting Law by the Board of Trustees and injunctive relief and damages for breach of his employment contract.

On July 29, school board trustees took a lashing from the public during its school board meeting.

The board’s outside legal counsel on July 31 said in a letter to Martinez’s attorney that the events of July 22, when six out of seven trustees unexpectedly announced Martinez was relieved of his duties, were now void and that the superintendent should return to work.

Earlier this month, the Nevada Attorney General’s Office said that the school board had violated Nevada Open Meeting Law six times on July 22 when the board decided to oust Martinez behind closed doors and without public notice.

The RGJ on July 24 had asked the Nevada Attorney General’s Office to investigate six of the seven members of the Washoe County School Board — excluding only Gutierrez, who was not physically present for the meeting — for violations of Nevada’s Open Meeting Law following Martinez’s ouster.

Earlier this month, Martinez’s attorney said that an offer of $25,000 to settle the breach of contract suit filed by superintendent would not be accepted.

IF YOU GO

Washoe School Board meeting starts at 2 p.m. Tuesday

Central Administration Building, Board Room, 425 E. Ninth St. Reno,

RGJ.com

Go to RGJ.com for updates on this story

RENO, Nev. (MyNews4.com & KRNV) — Washoe County District Judge David Hardy has recommended that the Washoe County School Board and Pedro Martinez part ways.

We will have more on this developing story. http://www.mynews4.com/news/local/story/BREAKING-Judge-recommends-Superintendent-leave/31ZOGITU-UyoDSK8Km0zbQ.cspx

Sam Dehne chastises career politicians, the vote stealers who gave “them” Sam’s votes, and marijuana

Published on Aug 15, 2013

CAREER POLITICIANS..
Here’s more of what that Air Force Academy Graduate/retired Fighter-Bomber pilot told them.
In the measly 3 minutes of Freedom of Speech the career politicians allow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWn7A9…
And Sam’s been exposing govt mendacities for 20 years.. lots more (click):
http://www.youtube.com/user/samsrawra…
All of it extemporaneous and philanthropical.
Like(8,653)

http://www.renocitizen.com

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

Amazon names Reno one of the most patriotic cities, but San Dehne is the true Patriot

TreasonAmazon named of Reno, NV as most patriotic according to flag sales throughout the past two weeks.

The ranking is based on sales data of American-themed flags from Amazon’s Patio, Lawn & Garden Store from June 19, 2013 through July 2, 2013 on a per capita basis in cities with more than 100,000 residents.

The number two and three cities were Alexandria, VA and Pasadena, CA, respectively.

Sam rules the podium where ever he goes. He’s extemporaneous and syncopated.
No teleprompters, makeup, or re-takes. Just the in your living room up close and personal TRUTH.
All he needs is one of those career politicians.. who is usauabout a “patriotic” as a flag and fireworks.. to get his adrenalin flowing. And that is not hard to do.
Nope!

Washoe/Reno Board of County Commissioners Get an “earful” about Dirty DA Dick Gammick, vote rigging and other boondoggles – Jun 11, 2013

Dick Gammick

Dick Gammick

Washoe/Reno Board of County Commissioners  Get an “earful” about Dirty DA Dick Gammick, vote rigging and other boondoggles – Jun 11, 2013

Washoe/Reno Board of County Commissioners Get an “earful” about Dirty DA Dick Gammick when Tonja Brown and Guy Felton speak.

Mike Weston tells the Board of Commissioners  that

Washoe District Attorney Dick Gammick belongs in a Federal prison!

Sam Dehne is THE Encyclopedia of Reno govt.. AND Guardian of Reno citizens.

Why is Sam Dehne the only person with the gumption to expose the obvious Nevada vote rigging?

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