Here’s a puff piece on U.S. District Court Judge Phillip Pro and his efforts to teach the world about the “Rule of Law.” [RJ]
Attorney Brian Bloomfield pleaded guilty to several charges related to a courthouse counseling certificate scheme. He also agreed to cooperate against other defendants. He faces up to 11 years in jail or could just get probation. [RJ]
Yesterday, video footage of the October shooting at Bally’s was released. Warning: the video is graphic in nature and shows the fatal gunshots and aftermath. The shooter, Benjamin Frazier, is being represented by his cousin, Bob Beckett (former Nye County District Attorney who made headlines for repeated DUIs) and Vicki Greco, who appeared on MyNews3 last night (video: about 4 minutes in) and who made it clear they are not laying out their whole case because the “Supreme Court discourages us trying the case in the media.” DA Steve Wolfson hasn’t decided yet whether to pursue the death penalty. [RJ]
The Washington Times did an article on Harry Reid’s involvement in getting the SLS Casino project a little help. And who represents SLS? Harry’s son, Rory Reid, and the team at Lionel Sawyer & Collins. [Ralston Reports]
Gary A. Modafferi, who (along with Robert Flummerfelt) represents Lisa Willardson in her suit against the Clark County DA’s office, and represents (along with Robert Draskovich) Judge Steven Jones in his federal criminal matter, made a blog post commenting on the Glenn Cook editorial on Willardson that was in the RJ last weekend.
Willardson is using her Nevada Judicial Guardian Facebook page to take opening shots against one of her opponents for the bench, Mary Perry. That Facebook page also lists several unconfirmed family court judicial candidates including: Robert Kurth, Jason Stoffel, Linda Norvell Marquis, Lisa Brown, and Maria Maskall (who Willardson says will be running against Steven Jones).
I'm surprised Vicki Greco isn't on the bench already.
Guest
Anonymous
December 12, 2013 6:11 pm
If you don't have bar complaint filed against you, that just means you haven't been working long enough. Particularly in the family arena, where emotions are high, and if your client loses, clearly it was because your client had an unethical, thieving, conspiring scumbag for a lawyer.
Also, Willardson and her lawyer keep saying that she was "found innocent" or the charges against her were "found false." But I don't see the actual letter from the ethics commission on the website. Has it been published anywhere? Because now I'm curious as to whether the letter actually says what they claim, or if its' just a "we're not going to discipline you" letter. Because why not publish it or put links up to it if it really does absolve her of all wrongdoing?
The letter of caution was a complete dismissal of the charges against her. It just said that while her actions had no impact on any judicial decision, her actions could make the public wonder that in a different set of circumstances if her actions could have affected a judicial determination. From my understanding, letters of caution are standard for any bar complaint that survives the screening process.
Except it also pointed out that she misstated the facts in her affidavit. A characteristic that might of concern to the voting public.
Guest
Anonymous
December 12, 2013 9:57 pm
The following was taken from public records available in District Court Case Number A-13-685644-C. Specifically from a July 24, 2013, Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
February 4, 2013
Lisa Willardson, Esq.
LETTER OF CAUTION
Dear Ms. Willardson:
A Screening Panel of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board has reviewed the above-referenced grievance file stemming from your relationship with Judge Steven
Jones. After considering the evidence before it, and such mitigating factors as your termination from the District Attorney's office and several press accounts regarding the matter, the Panel determined that it would not take formal disciplinary action against you. Accordingly, the Panel directed that this grievance be dismissed and the file closed.
However, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 102(8) (Types of Discipline), the Panel instructed the State Bar of Nevada to caution you regarding your ethical obligations pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct ("RPC") 8.4(d) (Misconduct: Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and RPC 8.4(f)(Misconduct: Knowingly assist a judge in conduct that violates the rules of judicial conduct).
While the Panel found no clear and convincing evidence that your developing romantic relationship with Judge Jones changed the result of any case, and found it
hard to clearly define when your relationship with Judge Jones began, the public was left to speculate on what effect the relationship might have had in any matter, and public trust in the justice system was undermined.
Further, you stated in an affidavit prepared on December 20, 2011, in support of a Response of the Court that "… by Monday morning, October 31, 2011, the DA's Office
had removed me from Judge Jones' courtroom and I never made another appearance before him, although a relationship between us was non-existent at that time…", which gave an appearance of impropriety when considered with emails that you authored and sent between October 18 and October 27, 2011, wherein you indicated, inter alias you were dating Steve Jones, and absolutely in love with someone new. The Panel also
noted that you did appear before Judge Jones again, albeit in an uncontested hearing, on November 2, 2011.
Pursuant to SCR 121(14) (Confidentiality: Expungement), this Letter of Caution will remain on file for three (3) years and then expunged from your record. It cannot be used as an aggravating factor in any subsequent disciplinary proceeding.
We hope that the foregoing serves as a reminder of your ethical obligations and that no similar problems will arise in the future.
Sincerely,
David A. Clark
Bar Counsel
Guest
Anonymous
December 12, 2013 10:26 pm
Willardson is Halverson II, The Sequel. Different details, same cray cray
Hopefully this episode will not end with massive head trauma.
Mary Perry while an experienced family court practitioner, will likely see a raise in her salary if elected. She wont be anything special on the bench and will probably swing from Pomranze-type lunacy to normal run of the mill paper pushin'. I dont see her as a viable alternative to Elliott. But if Elliott loses in the primary and its Perry v. Willardson, I will be forced to vote Perry.
I've had a few cases against Perry and groan when she appears across my desk or shes on the phone. Ill only vote for her to avoid Willardson's self aggrandizing insanity.
Do you think she'll wait for Jones while he is in prison?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Guest
Anonymous
December 13, 2013 7:10 pm
And now I wish I had looked at the blog last night so I would know what was so patently offensive, vile or otherwise improper about 8:10's comment that it needed removal, especially given the general direction of this thread.
Guest
Anonymous
December 14, 2013 5:08 pm
11:10 – it was my post that was removed and as far as I can tell there was nothing special about it. I think it was much tamer than others on this thread. Of all the posts to get removed…I'm not normally one of those idiots who starts ranting about censorship, but this is weirding me out a little. It's their blog and they can remove what they want, but I think I'm done posting here.
For what it is worth, we have no idea why it was removed either and we work here. Let's just chalk it up to a glitch in the matrix. Sorry about the inconvenience.
I'm surprised Vicki Greco isn't on the bench already.
If you don't have bar complaint filed against you, that just means you haven't been working long enough. Particularly in the family arena, where emotions are high, and if your client loses, clearly it was because your client had an unethical, thieving, conspiring scumbag for a lawyer.
Also, Willardson and her lawyer keep saying that she was "found innocent" or the charges against her were "found false." But I don't see the actual letter from the ethics commission on the website. Has it been published anywhere? Because now I'm curious as to whether the letter actually says what they claim, or if its' just a "we're not going to discipline you" letter. Because why not publish it or put links up to it if it really does absolve her of all wrongdoing?
I thought she got a warning from the Bar
That was my understanding as well is that she got a "letter of caution" from the Bar or something to that effect.
Admonition?
The letter of caution was a complete dismissal of the charges against her. It just said that while her actions had no impact on any judicial decision, her actions could make the public wonder that in a different set of circumstances if her actions could have affected a judicial determination. From my understanding, letters of caution are standard for any bar complaint that survives the screening process.
Except it also pointed out that she misstated the facts in her affidavit. A characteristic that might of concern to the voting public.
The following was taken from public records available in District Court Case Number A-13-685644-C. Specifically from a July 24, 2013, Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
February 4, 2013
Lisa Willardson, Esq.
LETTER OF CAUTION
Dear Ms. Willardson:
A Screening Panel of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board has reviewed the above-referenced grievance file stemming from your relationship with Judge Steven
Jones. After considering the evidence before it, and such mitigating factors as your termination from the District Attorney's office and several press accounts regarding the matter, the Panel determined that it would not take formal disciplinary action against you. Accordingly, the Panel directed that this grievance be dismissed and the file closed.
However, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 102(8) (Types of Discipline), the Panel instructed the State Bar of Nevada to caution you regarding your ethical obligations pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct ("RPC") 8.4(d) (Misconduct: Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and RPC 8.4(f)(Misconduct: Knowingly assist a judge in conduct that violates the rules of judicial conduct).
While the Panel found no clear and convincing evidence that your developing romantic relationship with Judge Jones changed the result of any case, and found it
hard to clearly define when your relationship with Judge Jones began, the public was left to speculate on what effect the relationship might have had in any matter, and public trust in the justice system was undermined.
Further, you stated in an affidavit prepared on December 20, 2011, in support of a Response of the Court that "… by Monday morning, October 31, 2011, the DA's Office
had removed me from Judge Jones' courtroom and I never made another appearance before him, although a relationship between us was non-existent at that time…", which gave an appearance of impropriety when considered with emails that you authored and sent between October 18 and October 27, 2011, wherein you indicated, inter alias you were dating Steve Jones, and absolutely in love with someone new. The Panel also
noted that you did appear before Judge Jones again, albeit in an uncontested hearing, on November 2, 2011.
Pursuant to SCR 121(14) (Confidentiality: Expungement), this Letter of Caution will remain on file for three (3) years and then expunged from your record. It cannot be used as an aggravating factor in any subsequent disciplinary proceeding.
We hope that the foregoing serves as a reminder of your ethical obligations and that no similar problems will arise in the future.
Sincerely,
David A. Clark
Bar Counsel
Willardson is Halverson II, The Sequel. Different details, same cray cray
Hopefully this episode will not end with massive head trauma.
Word!
Hopefully the RJ will change their tune re. the elected judges vs. appointments
Mary Perry while an experienced family court practitioner, will likely see a raise in her salary if elected. She wont be anything special on the bench and will probably swing from Pomranze-type lunacy to normal run of the mill paper pushin'. I dont see her as a viable alternative to Elliott. But if Elliott loses in the primary and its Perry v. Willardson, I will be forced to vote Perry.
I've had a few cases against Perry and groan when she appears across my desk or shes on the phone. Ill only vote for her to avoid Willardson's self aggrandizing insanity.
Do you think she'll wait for Jones while he is in prison?
Guaranteed. You know she will have a pro-Jones jail-fan-club facebook page.
#freejudgestevejones
http://www.freejudgestevejones.com
@freejudgestevejones
I cant wait!!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
And now I wish I had looked at the blog last night so I would know what was so patently offensive, vile or otherwise improper about 8:10's comment that it needed removal, especially given the general direction of this thread.
11:10 – it was my post that was removed and as far as I can tell there was nothing special about it. I think it was much tamer than others on this thread. Of all the posts to get removed…I'm not normally one of those idiots who starts ranting about censorship, but this is weirding me out a little. It's their blog and they can remove what they want, but I think I'm done posting here.
For what it is worth, we have no idea why it was removed either and we work here. Let's just chalk it up to a glitch in the matrix. Sorry about the inconvenience.