Archive for category Decisions
Michael Jackson Memorabilia Case Leads to Contempt Trial
Posted by Michael in Decisions, District Court, High Profile on June 12th, 2007
District Court Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez has scheduled a contempt trial July 16 for Universal Express, Inc. in regards to the Michael Jackson memorabilia case. In addition, Judge Gonzalez has ordered 60 items impounded at the Regional Justice Center to provide an opportunity to determine ownership of the items. In question are memorabilia identified as part of a confidential settlement between Universal Express, Inc. and Mr. Jackson. This morning Judge Gonzalez allowed Janet Jackson to intervene in the case and ordered items allegedly belonging to Ms. Jackson also impounded.
Judge Gonzalez scheduled the contempt-of-court trial after deciding today that Universal Express Inc. of Boca Raton, Fla., violated earlier court orders to withhold some of the more than 1,100 items offered at an auction May 30-31 at the Hard Rock Hotel.
Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle Makes Difficult And Unprecedented Decision
Posted by Michael in Chief Judge, Decisions, District Court on May 10th, 2007
Safety and security concerns prompted Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle to issue an order this afternoon (May 10) barring Judge Elizabeth Halverson from reentering the Regional Justice Center (RJC) until further notice. In addition, Stephen Fortune and Nickolas Starling were named in the order and have been similarly barred from the courthouse. A copy of the order is attached.
The action follows disruptive behavior and conduct by Judge Halverson, which compromised courthouse security. Starling and Fortune, acting on behalf of Halverson, prevented Clark County Courts Bailiffs from investigating a security threat alleged to have been made against Judge Halverson Wednesday (May 9) afternoon following a 911 call made by Judge Halverson. In addition, Judge Halverson provided her private and on-duty employees, Starling and Fortune, access to secured judicial areas and escorted them through courthouse security without obtaining the necessary background checks and fingerprinting required of all Clark County Courts employees.
Since taking the bench in January, Judge Halverson has indicated her distress, made multiple claims that court employees are acting against her wishes, and repeated claims that she cannot trust anyone in the courthouse.
Based upon concerns for the safety of all judges and employees of the Regional Justice Center, Chief Judge Hardcastle determined it was necessary to prohibit Halverson, Starling and Fortune from entering the Regional Justice Center until Judge Halverson agrees to meet with the Judicial Executive Committee to discuss security issues and provide assurances that disruptive behavior and threats to courthouse security will no longer continue.
Judge Halverson notified the District Court Wednesday (May 9) that she had employed Starling and Fortune as her private bodyguards. This decision came in response to the reassignment of her judicial bailiff to another assignment within the court. Subsequently, Judge Halverson notified the District Court this afternoon that she intended to hire Starling as a judicial executive assistant and Fortune as a judicial bailiff. Clark County standards will require both individuals to submit an application, complete a background check and be fingerprinted. In addition, prospective bailiffs have one year to show they have completed police officer standards training (POST) and they also must pass a weapons certification test before they are allowed to carry a firearm.
In April 2007, the individual hired by Judge Halverson to serve as her judicial bailiff filed a complaint with Clark County’s Office of Diversity. Federal law prevents the judge or the District Court from taking any punitive actions against the employee and preserves his status as an at-will employee during an internal investigation. Consequently, the bailiff was reassigned to protect his rights as an employee pending the investigation. In the interim, administrative bailiffs have been assigned to Judge Halverson to serve as her active judicial bailiff. Typically, judicial bailiffs escort judges to and from their cars, when entering the courthouse and they maintain decorum in the courtroom.
Judge Halverson refused the services of administrative bailiffs except for maintaining decorum in her courtroom and at no point did Judge Halverson consult with building security, the Chief Judge or the Executive Committee of her alleged security needs. In addition, court security was unaware of the judge hiring any private security to protect her while on the bench due to any perceived safety concerns.
Additional judicial security has not been authorized by the Chief Judge and private bodyguards are not required to ensure safety within the Regional Justice Center (RJC), which is considered a high security environment and must maintain protocols to ensure the safety of all judges and individuals working in the building. In addition, the RJC is served by more than 100 bailiffs, marshals and capitol police who are mandated to provide security inside and outside the building. Judge Halverson’s actions of hiring two body guards, escorting them through security and violating security protocols ultimately placed everyone in the building at risk.
###
Question 5: Summary Judgment
Posted by Michael in Civil, Decisions, District Court, High Profile, Judges on January 23rd, 2007
District Court Judge Douglas Herndon determined this morning (Jan. 23) that a portion of the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act is constitutional, upholding the civil side of the statute, while at the same time declaring the criminal portion of the statue failed to meet a constitutional standard. Under the judge’s ruling, civil penalties will remain, with smokers facing a $100 fine for smoking in a tavern, restaurant, theater, school or airport. However, with the criminal penalties removed, no one will go to jail for smoking. In announcing his ruling, Judge Herndon said he chose to side with voters who chose to make indoor areas smoke free by “allowing the measure to go forward with its full operation and purpose, which is to ban smoking.”
Question 5: Decision Announced
Posted by Michael in Decisions, District Court on December 21st, 2006
District Court Judge Douglas Herndon issued a preliminary injunction this morning preventing law enforcement from enforcing criminal penalties against violators of the Nevada Indoor Clean Air Act. However, the judge ruled that the general ban against smoking passed by voters in November will remain and violators will be subject to civil penalties.
Question 5 : Anti-Smoking Initiative
Posted by Michael in Complaint, Decisions, District Court on December 7th, 2006
District Court Judge Douglas Herndon approved a temporary restraining order this morning in the case, Fame Operating Co. v. George J. Chanos, that will delay enactment of Nevada’s anti-smoking initiative for at least two weeks in Clark County. In making his ruling, Judge Herndon indicated this was not a judicial challenge to the outcome of the election, but an opportunity to allow the plaintiffs to question the constitutionality of the law and seek judicial help in implementing the law based on the process provided by Nevada’s Constitution.
The judge’s ruling affects only those plaintiffs and defendants named in the lawsuit, effectively preventing law enforcement agencies in Clark County from enforcing the law against the plaintiffs named in the complaint. The temporary restraining order has no effect on businesses or law enforcement agencies in other Nevada counties. The law statewide goes into effect Dec. 8.
A Dec. 19 hearing date has been set for arguments regarding the plaintiffs challenge to the anti-smoking law.
CCRM v. Reid: Writ Denied
Posted by Michael in Decisions, District Court on November 2nd, 2006
This morning Eighth Judicial District Court Judge David Wall denied a Writ of Mandamus requested by the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana (CRCM). In its filing, CRCM sought to compel the Clark County Board of Commissioners, Nevada Board of Regents, and others, to refrain from political speech in opposition to Question 7, an initiative seeking to legalize the possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana by regulating and taxing the sale of the drug in Nevada. In his decision, Judge Wall said government representatives had a right and a duty to discussion the proposal and its impacts on the community. He added that the defendants did not violate state ethics rules while discussing the proposal during public hearings.
Gibbons v. Young: Decision
Posted by Michael in Decisions, District Court on October 31st, 2006
Eighth Judicial District Court Judge Douglas Herndon this morning ordered the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to release a copy of a video surveillance tape from a local parking garage to attorneys for Congressman Jim Gibbons and Chrissy Mazzeo.
County Recorder Francis Deane Ordered Removed from Office
Posted by Michael in Decisions, District Court on September 5th, 2006
This morning Judge Douglas Herndon ordered Clark County Recorder Frances Deane removed from office. Judge Herndon found Deane had committed official misconduct in 16 or 18 counts. Deane has until Friday at 5 pm to vacate the County Recorder’s Office due to malfeasance in office.
State v. Darren Mack: Special Hearing
Posted by Michael in Decisions, District Court, High Profile, Senior Judges on August 29th, 2006
Senior District Court Judge J. Charles Thompson decided today that the preliminary hearing for Darren Mack will proceed as planned tomorrow in the Reno Justice Court.
This morning in Clark County’s Eighth Judicial District Court Senior Judge Courtroom, Judge Thompson presided over a request by Mack’s attorneys to stay the preliminary hearing based on an implied or actual bias on the part of judges in Washoe County. In addition, the defense requested that Judge Thompson disqualify the Justice Court and District Court Judges in Washoe County due to the nature of the case and the intense media scrutiny.
Judge Thompson denied the request ruling no evidence exists to show that the Justice of the Peace is unable to serve as an unbiased judge to determine if the case should be bound over to the District Court. He also refused to rule on disqualification of the District Court judges citing that the case had not been moved to the District Court, so therefore, no implied or actual bias could be shown at this time.
Judge Thompson did indicate he was willing to consider disqualifying Washoe County’s District Court Judges if the case is bound over to the District Court for trial. The preliminary hearing will proceed as planned tomorrow (Aug. 30) in Reno Justice Court.
State v. Titus: Writ of Habeas Corpus
Posted by Michael in Decisions, District Court, Motions, Status Check on July 18th, 2006
This morning Judge Jackie Glass heard arguments regarding the defendants request for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which she denied. The trial date has been scheduled for January 22, 2007 in District Court Dept. 5.