- Quickdraw McLaw
- 24 Comments
- 296 Views
- Judge Susan Johnson found attorney Jeff Brauer in contempt last week and had him handcuffed in court. [RJ-video]
- Family courts in Washoe and Clark counties are overcrowded. [TNI]
- Clark County Public Defenders are challenging the Clark County DA’s practice of murder charges in DUI cases. [RJ]
SHJ is simply out of control. The Robe Fever is just overwhelming.
She is the most viciously condenscending judge who either has no knowledge of the rules of evidence and civil procedure, or chooses to ignore them only so that she can give her full support to her major donors. Money speaks no louder than it does in this judge's courtroom.
She is one of these judges who thinks she knows better than everyone else, decides how she wants the case to come out, and then makes up her own rules or ignores the law as necessary in order to get to that result.
Judges should be aware that handcuffing attorneys in court can and will attract the aggressive attention of the Discipline Commission, as well as NSC opinions condemning such actions.
When this is done, the judges get condemned, by the Commission, for the following: Not understanding criminal vs. civil contempt, not understanding direct vs. indirect contempt, not immediately preparing the necessary order, etc.
This did not appear to be aa contempt chiefly based on any intolerable behavior exhibited in court, but was primarily based on alleged violation of a court order–nonpayment of funds. Therefore, all of the necessary Show Cause procedures, including service and notice, needed to be followed. I doubt that merely noting the attorney still has not paid is sufficient, unless there was already issuance and service of a Show Cause Order on him, which does not appear to be the case.
Both Potter and Hafen were whacked for cuffing attorneys in court, while others(Assad, Hughes, Leavitt, and others) drew the attention of the Commission for contempts against parties and others. How judges enforce contempts of court is the current main focus of the recent Commission decisions.
A NSC justice has made the observation that a judge will not be overturned, or attract the attention of the Commission, for declining to find someone in contempt. But finding them in contempt is often a different story.
Judges need to be aware that the current philosophy of the Commission, and the NSC, is that finding someone in contempt should be the last resort. And cuffing an attorney in open court should be the last resorts of last resorts. Not sure the judge has been studying these opinions.
And whether the contempt is civil or criminal, or direct or indirect, the Commission appears that they will find a way to rule that it was all done improperly
9:51–based on the article and video, it appears to be a "long standing order" that he pay. But that does not necessarily mean that he was validly served with any Show Cause order. He may or may not have been. But if he was, I believe he is entitled to an independent contempt hearing separate and apart form the other issues on calendar for the status check.
Also, isn't the practice that a Show Cause issued against an attorney would be heard by a different judge?
Perhaps some attorney who is adept at contempts of court can unwind it all for us, as it's clear that 9:51 and myself are engaging in some guess work.
But what 9:51 said about the trend of the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission, and the aggressive approach they have toward judges improperly handling contempt of court procedures, is true.
If I am reading the order correctly, this was not for "nonpayment of funds."
Hopefully this will attract the attention of the Judicial Discipline Commission and the NSC. She is a terrible judge, in my opinion.
I like Judge Johnson. I think she is whip smart and does a great job from the bench. I am sad that she did this. One of the harsh realities of being a judge is that doing good work day-to-day will rarely, if ever, generate headlines. Years of diligent service will be ignored and then the media will pounce on an error like this.
The National Center for Juvenile Justice proves what every person over at Family Court knows: we are getting hammered and work in a god-awful, outdated facility. All courts should be centrally located and with litigant/attorney friendly facilities.
The media hasn't done a very good job of describing the order that he is alleged to have violated, nor the specifics of the violation. It does appear that SJH was treating this as a civil contempt rather than criminal as the sentence was terminated with the promise to pay/payment. That at it's heart is the distinguishing difference between civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt is intended to compel compliance rather than to punish, thus it ends (and an incarcerated person is released) when they comply. Criminal contempt is to punish past behavior, thus present (or future actions) have no effect on the sentence issued (the individual remains incarcerated for the determinate time regardless of compliance). To compound the matter, 9:51 & 10:02 are correct on multiple points.
From the little that was contained in the media report, I'll guess that at some point in time previously, SHJ entered an order awarding attorney fees and costs against Brauer, individually. Not sure the legal basis for the award against the attorney individually rather than the client, but that is a collateral issue. Perhaps it was as a Rule 11 sanction (which most judges don't understand and get wrong) or pursuant to NRS 7.085.
It also appears that the award remains unpaid (in whole or in part). Consequently, SJH summarily held Brauer in contempt for that non-payment without conducting an evidentiary hearing on an order to show cause (not sure if an actual OSC ever issued but the story implies that Brauer at least knew the non-payment issue may be at issue based upon his comment to the marshal).
One of the aspects of this entire episode that defies logic is how SJH even got to this point in the first place. If she was dealing with either the collection of sanctions payable to the other party rather than the Court, or an award of fees and costs she completely fumbled the issue. She had already determined the rights and obligations of the parties. She should not have been further involved as a collection agency. Rather, if it wasn't paid within the time she provided, the correct action would have been to reduce the order to judgment – collectable by any lawful means.
That would have provided the judgment creditor the ability to begin involuntary collection means via writs, garnishments, etc. That course of action maintains the court's proper role of neutral arbiter of facts and law rather than an active agent of either party, and would have completely avoided the hot water she now finds herself in.
SJH should know better than what she did.. she is not new to the bench. I just don't know if she is suffering black robe fever, her ego is involved, doesn't care about rules/law, was considering political reasons or what.
I don't think you have it quite right. The order says he and his clients just flat ignored repeated court orders to sit for debtor exams and to provide documents, after not putting up a supersedeas bond on appeal of the judgment. In other words, it appears they were trying both to avoid putting up a supersedeas bond and to interfere with execution of a judgment. So what should a judge do in those circumstances?
I cannot watch this judicial gem. Damn it.
10:59–I do believe that 10:50 has most of it right. And a major concern, as discussed, is that it appears the Show Cause Order aspect may not have been fully or properly satisfied. And if not, that's a biggie. And, as 9:51 emphasizes, based on recent trends, a judge is in a dicey situation whenever they choose to handcuff one of the attorneys in open court.
Unlike some of the perjorative postings here concerning Judge Johnson,10:50 is focusing on the actions taken and they do appear to be problematic ona couple basic levels–
No, you're not correct either. It's obviously not a "non-payment" issue, so all that 10:50 wrote that stems from that premise is also incorrect.
"If she was dealing with either the collection of sanctions payable to the other party rather than the Court, or an award of fees and costs she completely fumbled the issue. She had already determined the rights and obligations of the parties. She should not have been further involved as a collection agency."
None of that appears to be accurate. It looks like there is an appeal in this matter, fully briefed, and the district court stuff was not collections but the run of the mill stuff a judgment creditor gets to do if you don't post a supersedeas bond, i.e., initiate execution and have an exam, get financial docs, etc.
I would hazard to say that if you had a judgment against you or your clients, and posted no bond, and then just willfully ignored multiple court orders to meet your obligations as a judgment debtor, you'd expect to be hauled onto the carpet over it and have some pretty bad consequences landing on you.
The thing is, there's an actual order, it can be read, it's a public document. I'm not sure why any of us are fumbling about pontificating about best guesses and what "defies logic."
Sometimes due process needs to take a back seat to brute force.
The constitution was to be enjoyed by a moral and virtuous people, not a nation of grifters, saboteurs and socialists
I am curious about your contention that the Constitution is a capitalist manifesto, especially given its drafting in the 1780s and its roots in state constitutions going even further back. Please tell us more, you seem pretty sharp.
fwiw the constitution was for free white men only.
Augusto: if blog is dead it's only appropriate to have ghosts like you join us. Welcome!
The judges in Vegas suck. Only a few should be reelected, Sudan Johnson is not one of them. She told Defendants to vote for Trump. The lovely judicial discipline commission did shit. It was a "joke."
I find that none of the posters today are "attractive"
I find that you should not turkey with bacon, gross. As for judges, I like Denton. Bonaventure, Leavitt, and Williams. Rest suck.
I find that Denton is hesitant to make decisions.
This is true, but when he does eventually make them he typically makes pretty good ones.
I'm thankful that I don't practice in Vegas that often.