- Quickdraw McLaw
- 24 Comments
- 312 Views
Do you remember how back on the last day for judicial candidates to file for election there were all sorts of filings and withdrawals, including Chris Rasmussen filing and withdrawing in three different departments? Well, Jane Ann Morrison at the RJ (who recently stepped down from her column to return to reporting) took an interest in those shenanigans and wrote up what she uncovered in an article published yesterday. While none of the revelations are truly shocking for those of us who have spent any time in Las Vegas, they are, nonetheless, still troubling…
The article reveals that candidate Randy Tindall alleges, in a sworn affidavit, that political consultant David Thomas offered him a bribe to run against Judge Valerie Adair instead of Judge Rob Bare. Moreover, Tindall alleges that Thomas offered to fund his campaign against Adair using the resources one Robert Eglet. Thomas, who is represented by attorney, Dominic Gentile, sent a cease and desist letter to Tindall regarding allegations of defamation. Another interesting revelation from this article is that candidate Michael Davidson was offered financial support from a representative of Sheldon Adelson if he would run against Judge Betsy Gonzalez (he ended up running against Judge Doug Herndon).
Morrison also did another article focused on David Thomas and some advice he gave his candidates in 2010 which was criticized by the Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices. For those of you who don’t recall, Thomas is the husband of Judge Nancy Allf and got some attention earlier this year for an incident with a rival consultant.
So, what should we take away from these articles? We know that because our judges are elected, campaigning and all of its accoutrements are going to come into play, but is this too much for a judicial election? Is there anything the articles missed? Anyone have a copy of Tindall’s affidavit? Would appointing judges really solve any of these issues?
Don't forget about Rasmussen who also "learned something" about Kishner and pulled out of that race on the last day to file.
I disagree with Maupin on one item. In a merit-selection system would we have ever seen someone like Walsh even be placed on the bench? Miley? Vega? Israel? These were all unsuccessful attorneys who ascended to the bench because other attorneys, with money, wanted them there. In a merit selection system, none would even have received consideration. Just an opinion.
The judges you are talking about were unsuccessful but rich attorneys didn't put them there. They hadn't done anything to warrant that kind of attention until after they were on the bench. They got there because they kept running and got name recognition, or they had been a DA and got endorsements from cops and other "hard on crime" types, or they got lucky and didn't get opposition, or they looked good on a poster or they showed up at more public gatherings. Doesn't make them qualified. At least with merit selection, somebody is looking at qualifications.
There is no version of this story that isn't gross. Even if he didn't bribe anybody, the stuff that Thomas admits to is bad enough. Our judiciary should be better than this.
You do realize this is Las Vegas, right?
I know, I know. I just have this small, nagging, belief that courts should be…you know…just and fair. And despite its best efforts, legal practice in Las Vegas has not quite stamped out that feeling.
"Embarrassing" is is a slightly better word than "gross" for what Thomas does; but "gross" is still descriptive. Troubling also is the fact that Thomas is the husband of a sitting judge. Anyone else think that Thomas' wife might need to recuse herself from any case involving attorneys with offices in the new palace?
When I first graduated from Boyd, I had a rosy colored view of the judiciary here in Nevada. Many clients would come to me and complain about how this judge or that judge was biased, or "on the take". I refused to believe them. Over the past couple years, my opinion has changed after seeing some of the most mind-boggling decisions made by judges and reading this type of news. I also disagree with Maupin that a merit-selection system would put us in the same position we are in now. Hopefully it would reduce embarrassing situations like the Halverson debacle and at least give a facade of avoiding bias because attorneys will no longer be able to contribute to a judge's campaign and then appear in front of that same judge.
Does it seem weird that Maupin is okay with "65 percent of the Nevada judges at all levels [ ] 'functioning adequately?'”
Is that really the goal, "functioning adequately." It sounds like a "C" grade is where the bar is set. Not to mention that only 65% of the judges are at the "C" grade level.
Seriously, we can't do better than that?
Why is everyone so afraid of merit selection? If it doesn't work, we can always go back to the bad-old-days.
65 is a D where I come from.
Plus, Maupin knows he's incorrect. Sure there are some good elected judges, and sure not all federal judges are amazing, but the average level of quality is much higher in federal court. There is no real doubt about it.
What are your predictions that will happen as a result of this article? Election results? If anything?
Nothing. It's par for the course.
Nothing will happen as a result of this article. The article is written above the reading ability of the average Las Vegas citizen. Which, ironically, is a huge contributing factor to the sad state of our judiciary.
The good citizens of Las Vegas elected Elizabeth Halverson (RIP), Jesse Walsh, and Stefany Miley to the District Court. Enough said.
I will opt for Miley any day over her opponent. He sucks!
Does anyone know anything about this comment in the RJ – posted under the article–
RJWATCH • a day ago
According to criminal investigators looking into the Eglet – Ron Israel connection, statements attributed to Eglet in connection with Bare and Israel where Eglet receives near 100% cooperation, is that they are "the best judges money can buy" and that Eglet will "spend everything to keep them around." While Bare appears cleaner than Israel in the exchanges, only "Bare-ly", no one in recent memory can cite a time from recollection or record when Israel last denied Eglet or an Eglet associate anything, no matter how much merit was present in the opposing argument. One instance cited by witnesses to the Israel behavior was so obvious, the opposing attorney angrily left the courtroom as Israel yelled out" "If you don't like it, I can always throw you in jail!"
see more
Dave Thomas is one of the most despicable persons in LawyerLand who should be disbarred here and in AZ. His clients here are unaware of the indulgence he make on their behalf to the people he lobbies and lobbies for in Carson City.
David Thomas and Policy Communications will face state and federal indictment.
We need (1) a bar that actually vets candidates and (2) non-partisan (ok a joke) appointed judges. Otherwise, nothing will ever change. Plus, Tony Liker will eventually get elected. Then what?
It is a screwed up system; but the RJ Insists on elections. In their naive libertarian view, you shouldn't take the power from the people and therefore opposed Sandra Day O'Connor's efforts to put in place a thoughtful appointment system. Shortly after that, we had the Halverson fiasco. Hopefully it will make its way onto the ballot again.
Ummmm, that would be the Nevada Constitution not the RJ. To be sure, the voters rejected the proposed amendment to institute committee-picked as opposed to voter-picked judges and the RJ endorsed that position but it is a real reach to say this is all due to the RJ's unreasonable rejection of a "thoughtful appointment system."
The newspapers oppose any attempt to change the election system. 7:30 thinks it's libertarianism, I think it's because they don't want to give up their power. Right now the RJ's and Sun's views on candidates play a role in the voters' selection process.
I agree with 7:30 and 9:29 — whatever the motive of the RJ is, voters look to it to guide their decisions at the voting booth. Our election system is ridiculous. While the appointment system would no doubt be filled with cronyism, at least there would SOME accountability — at the end of the day, if a judge gets hit with a frying pan, the Governor will have to step up and say, "My bad"
You know what plays a bigger role? The number / size of the candidates' signs. Name recognition is the only thing your average voter has to go on, or wants to go on.
Maybe someone should check to see if Eglet files peremptory challenges against Adair. This may reveal whether Eglet possibly preferred that a candidate run against her and not another judge. This may lend some credibility to Tindall's allegations; maybe not.