LAS VEGAS, NEV. (March 5, 2020) – Today, the Nevada Supreme Court handed down it’s ruling in the hotly contested matter of Abrams vs. Sanson, [Case No. 73838]. Sanson is victorious! At the time of this writing, Jenny Abrams could not be reached for comment.
“Naturally, I am quite pleased,” stated Steve Sanson, President of Veteran’s in Politics International — in fabulous Las Vegas, Nevada! Our Truth Hits! I-Team spoke with Sanson via telephone. “Today is a huge victory for free speech! Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute basically did what it was designed to do — which is to knockout frivolous lawsuits — in the first round — to protect the little guy from unnecessary and costly legal battles — where the guy suing you has no leg to stand on in court — and they’re just trying to burn you up financially.”
It happens all too often. An everyday citizen in good faith speaks-out on issues of public concern. But then some big-shot gets his or her nose out of joint. Rather than address the citizen in the marketplace of ideas, the big-shot decides to throw-down at the local county courthouse. After all, the big-shot has money, power, and lawyers on retainer!–while the everyday citizen generally has no means to fight-off the big-shots lawyers.
In such cases, the big-shots have no illusion that their lawsuits are meritorious. The big-shots are just being total slobs — seeking only to economically bludgeon the citizen — as punishment for speaking out. The slobs figure that, even if the citizen successfully defends the lawsuit, it won’t even matter because the citizen will be economically devastated by the cost of the litigation. Even if the citizen wins, there’s no Ed McMahon “prize” for winning. The citizen is simply left with a pile of legal bills, constricted blood vessels, and a worthless defense verdict to frame and hang on the wall.
This is what happened in the matter of Jennifer Abrams vs. Steven Sanson and Louis C. Schneider, (a tough-as-nails Las Vegas attorney who does family law and criminal law).
Jenny Abrams is the big shot who brought a totally bogus defamation lawsuit against Sanson and Schneider. As today’s High Court ruling shows, Jenny Abrams’ defamation lawsuit is frivolous. It appears to have been calculated only to inflict attorney’s fees and costs upon a good faith citizen — Steven Sanson — as punishment for Sanson having spoken-out on issues of public concern.
Among free speech aficionados, Steve Sanson is a something of hero!–a social justice warrior who weathered the storm of a frivolous defamation lawsuit!–who stands-up for the truth, justice, and the American way!–a proud United States Marine who shapes the course of Nevada free speech laws! “OO-rah!”
And the good news is this –> Nevada’s anti-SLAPP laws allow Sanson to recover attorney’s fees and costs as a result of Abrams’ frivolous lawsuit. Yes, Jenny Abrams could wind-up having to pay a tidy sum of money to Sanson and his lawyers. In addition, Jenny may get stuck having to pay penalties of up to $10,000 — to teach her a lesson for filing frivolous lawsuits.
And this is the beauty of the anti-SLAPP laws, i.e., it’s a way of “teaching a lesson” to the big-shots who try to step on the little guys’ throats — by hitting the big-shots where it counts — in the pocketbook! And this spells epic revenge for the little guys, and further serves, in no small measure, to deter other big-shots who may entertain the foolish idea of attempting to punish others for their “good faith communications in furtherance of the right to free speech regarding a matter of public concern,” as NRS 41.660 contemplates.
Many folks ask: “What is Anti-SLAPP?” First of all, “SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Jenny Abrams’ lawsuit is fairly characterized as a lawsuit that was strategically designed to target Sanson for his public participation — which apparently came in retaliation for Sanson’s opinions on Abrams — i.e., her perceived lack of “openness and transparency” and perceived “obstructions to the judicial process.”
In responding to Abrams’ “SLAPP” lawsuit, Sanson’s hired power-hitter attorney Maggie McLetchie, Esq., (McLetchie Shell LLC). Ms. McLetchie, who comes from a family of stalwart free-speech advocates, filed an “Anti-SLAPP” motion to dismiss Abrams’ “SLAPP” lawsuit — on the basis that the lawsuit was frivolous. Ms. McLetchie, who was brilliant in oral arguments before the High Court, carefully explained why Sanson’s statements implicate matters of “public concern” and should thus be afforded anti-SLAPP protections.
When it comes to free speech, Ms. McLetchie totally “gets it!” And the Nevada Supreme Court agrees. Once again, Ms. McLetchie’s legal arguments carry the day! Bravo!
In 2018, the Las Vegas Review-Journal dubbed Ms. McLetchie the “First Amendment Champion.” Truer words were never spoken! And today, with yet another landmark victory to her credit, nobody can deny that Ms. McLetchie is the undisputed Champion of the First Amendment and friend to freethinkers everywhere!
It all started when Sanson published a series of articles on VIPI’s website concerning Abrams’ courtroom conduct and practice. Sanson was critical of Abrams. Sanson called her a “lawyer behaving badly.” So, Abrams hired her boyfriend, controversial attorney, Marshall Willick, who sued Sanson for defamation, emotional distress, conspiracy, and so-on. Sanson’s attorneys filed the anti-SLAPP motion asking the court to declare the lawsuit “frivolous” and to dismiss it immediately.
The District Court found that Sanson’s statements did involve issues of public concern. Sanson’s statements related to an attorney’s courtroom performance and the public’s interests injustice. The District Court also found that Sanson’s statements were “opinions” and thus incapable of being false. Abrams had shown no probability of prevailing on her claims, so the District Court granted Sanson’s motion to dismiss.
Dissatisfied with the District Court ruling, Abrams and her attorney, Willick, appealed to Carson City.
In ruling for Sanson, the Nevada Supreme Court analyzed Sanson’s statements. Were his statements of “public concern?” If so, they would be afforded protection. Well, the High Court found that Sanson’s statements criticizing Abrams’s courtroom behavior were indeed matters of “public concern” because the public has an interest in an attorney’s courtroom conduct.
Writing for the majority, J. Stiglich explains: “The public has an interest in an attorney’s courtroom conduct that is not mere curiosity, as it serves as a warning to both potential and current clients looking to hire or retain the lawyer.”
Abrams tried to argue that her courtroom antics were not of “public concern,” but the Supreme Court disagreed. An attorney’s courtroom behavior is “matter of utmost public concern.” The Court held that Sanson’s statements about Abrams came “indirect connection” with issues of public interest for purposes of anti-SLAPP analysis.
Sanson also criticized Abrams’ practice of “sealing cases” from public view. Sanson expressed his perception that Abrams style of practicing law is antithetical to openness and transparency. Again, the Court found that Sanson’s statements came in “direct connection with an issue of public interest.”
Notably, however, the Court did reverse a portion of the District Court’s ruling on Sanson’s statements that came in a private telephone conversation. The Court ruled that telephonic statements are not protected because such statements were made in a private telephone conversation, which is not a “public forum.”
These unprotected telephonic statements potentially expose Sanson to a claim for defamation. But here’s why it’s interesting: Sanson’s telephonic statements were made to a guy named Dave Schoen — an Abrams employee — who also moonlights as one of the chief agitators at Nevada Court Watchers, a Facebook shill group devoted to heckling Sanson and anyone who supports him.
And while Sanson’s telephone statements are not protected by the anti-SLAPP statutes, Abrams still has an uphill battle in her defamation case. On remand to the lower court, to prove defamation, Abrams must show that Sanson’s statements to Schoen were made to a “third party” – which may prove a dicey prospect because Schoen is an employee of the Abrams law firm, i.e., not really a “third party.” The Court also noted that Schoen initiated the call to Sanson, which tends to show lack of intent, a requisite element on defamation claims.
The Nevada Supreme Court gave guidance in interpreting Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes. In determining what constitutes “good faith” communications under the statutes, the High Court states that the relevant inquiry must examine the “gist of the story,” not the literal truth of each word or detail used in a statement. Courts must look to the “gist or sting” of the communications as a whole, “rather than parsing individual words in the communications” explains J. Stiglich.
Taken as a whole, the Court soundly rejected Abrams and her bogus lawsuit. The Court held that her additional claims — of emotional distress and conspiracy — lacked even minimal merit, which is just a polite euphemism for “frivolousness.”
To gain a real-world perspective, the Truth Hits! I-Team contacted renowned civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq., who stated: “Las Vegas is world-famous — not just for gambling, shopping, fine dining, and nightlife, but for its burgeoning family court corruption.” Phillips decries Las Vegas Family Court. Phillips lamented: “It’s a den of iniquity — where civil rights go to die.”
The Truth Hits! I-Team has come to learn that Las Vegas Family Court is internationally known — with a reputation for having broken all records for wanton, reckless and systematic corruption. Las Vegas judges are known the world over for routinely disregarding evidence, rewarding perjury, and ignoring constitutional rights. Apparently, the Las Vegas family court is a full-time concern to folks all around the globe — not just in Vegas!
Committed to excellence in journalism, our Truth Hits! I-Team wanted to get both sides of the story. Our I-Team rode straight into the heart of the enemy camp. We visited Nevada Court Watchers, a shill group on Facebook. Our I-Team chit-chatted with many folks, all of whom portrayed Sanson as a “corrupt individual who interferes with the administration of justice!” Boy howdy! Them sounds like fightin’ words! But wait … there’s more!
Nevada Court Watchers is home of Nevada Court Watchers PAC — a political action committee — which vows to “pursue targeted, highly-funded campaigning against any judicial candidate who (i) seeks a VIPI endorsement; (ii) attends a VIPI event; (iii) gives money to VIPI; or, (iv) appears on a VIPI radio program. Hide your kids! Hide your wife! NCWPAC is on the warpath!
Abrams lackey, Dave Schoen, alleges that Sanson extorts money from family court litigants and that Sanson intimidates judges by calling them on their cell phones regarding pending litigations. Schoen alleges that Sanson does this in order to exercise undue influence over vulnerable and susceptible judges. Dave Schoen, his wife Julie, their kids, and even their dogs, all agree that “Sanson is the living embodiment of corruption.”
Our I-Team spoke with many Nevada Court Watcher devotees, many of whom reside outside the Vegas valley, including, Charlene Villanueva, (Orangevale, Calif.); Linda Parker Harbison, (Roslyn Penn.); Rob Berkman, (Burke Virginia), Carol Christiansen, (Montgomery, Texas); Jayne Bennett, (Liberty, Indiana); Elske Shipp engaged to Alex Ghibaudo, (a regular guest at the shill group, Our Nevada Judges); Beth Cooper from Sydney, Australia; Kristen King, (Chugiak, Alaska); Mindi Brown-Coursey, (Haskell, Oklahoma), Grace Iha, (Bellevue, Kentucky); Issendai Icchantika, (Boston Mass.); Majella Schmalz, (Sheboygan, Wisc.); and yes, another Aussie, Rita Hawkins, from Down Under.
It turns out that Las Vegas Family Court’s unique brand of judicial corruption is so brazen and so notorious that it draws worldwide attention! Who knew? Apparently, Las Vegas Family Court is so burdensome and oppressive to civil rights — that it sends seismic shock waves throughout legal communities of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, Barrow, Alaska, and halfway around the world in Sydney Australia!
Curiously, the Nevada Court Watchers to whom our I-Team spoke were reluctant to speak “on the record.” Despite the fact that they talk about Las Vegas Family Court all day long, none wished to be quoted “on the record.” The general sentiment was that nobody in the group was willing to mention Samson, for any reason.
Sources close to the investigation revealed that, as a direct result of Sanson’s favorable ruling, nobody at Nevada Court Watchers would be discussing Sanson, as an obvious embarrassment to Willick and Abrams, who many believe is the driving force behind Nevada Court Watchers.
One member of Nevada Court Watchers, who wished to remain anonymous, told our I-Team: “Today, we’re just gonna make fun of McDonald, then we’re gonna humiliate Bahns, and then we’ll heckle Amy Luciano, with our daily routine of exposing them to hatred, shame, contempt, and ridicule. But no Samson today. We’re totally on lock-down with the Samson thing, so like, no comment, ya know?”
The I-Team was unable to reach Marshall Willick for comment.
TRUTH HITS! I-TEAM
The post SANSON ‘SLAPPS’ ABRAMS! Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Free Speech! appeared first on Veterans In Politics International.
Involuntary Private Parental Rights Termination by a Psychologist
My name is Lauren Walker and I am a parent whose life was devastated by an unethical custody evaluator.
I have a beautiful 6-year old daughter, and we haven’t seen each other since July 2018, when a jury terminated my parental rights. I went from my daughter’s primary caregiver to being removed from her life altogether in a mere 2 years. My family spent over $1,000,000 defending me in this custody battle – 17 hearings in all — that was fueled by the custody evaluator’s continual recommendations to the judge.
I was beaten badly by my ex-husband. I experienced a traumatic brain injury from him kicking me in the head with his boot. My daughter and I, at one point, received a protective order to keep us safe from my ex-husband. When I left him, he continued to use the court system to abuse me. The termination petition was instigated by my ex-husband – not the State. And, the idea to terminate my rights originated from the custody evaluator, who grossly exceeded her scope, and violated rules as well as the code of ethics.
Not once did any other professional recommend that it was in my daughter’s best interest for my rights to be terminated. Yet, that’s what happened … due to the custody evaluator’s actions and ongoing manipulations in the courtroom.
Dr. Johnathan Gould, who is a renowned forensic psychologist, reviewed Dr. Alissa Sherry’s evaluation reports. I have a 27-page report with details of his findings. He concluded that her report was completely flawed and did not qualify as a custody evaluation.
Dr. Gould cited:
Concerns about the information included and excluded from the report
For example, the inclusion of speculation and hearsay opinions, and the exclusion of direct observation of parenting
Failure to assess critical parenting attributes, which was the purpose of the evaluation
Misuse of psychological tests
Use of unreliable methods and lack of scientific-based findings
Notable differences in the treatment of the parents
Dr. Gould recommended that the jury should not use the evaluation as evidence to support its decision.
My daughter’s and my story is terrifying and heart-breaking.
In closing, I plead with this Board to conduct strenuous oversight and investigation of its forensic psychologists involved in family court cases to prevent this tragedy from happening again, and to correct cases that have already ended in tragedies.
This is part of the Expert Opinion Summary from Dr Jonathan Gould::
It is my professional opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that Dr. Sherry’s evaluation is seriously flawed. Dr. Sherry provides a robust understanding of the dynamics and chaotic organization of the families.
She does not, however, provide information relevant to answering questions about parenting attributes, abilities, or capabilities.
She does not provide information relevant to answering questions about the nature and quality of parent-child interactions.
She does not provide information relevant to answering questions about the psychological and emotional needs of the child.
She does not provide information relevant to answering questions about the fit between the parenting attributes, abilities, or capabilities of each parent and the psychological and emotional needs of the child.
Dr. Sherry’s interview procedures neglect gathering information about critically important areas of parenting, parent-child interactions, parent-to-parent communication, and child’s perception of each parent.
Dr. Sherry’s information gleaned from collateral interviews was essentially absent of information describing third party observers’ personal knowledge and behavioral descriptions of parenting behavior or parent-child interactions.
None of the parent interview data and none of the collateral interview data were organized around factors identified in the professional and scientific literature pertaining to positive parenting.
Dr. Sherry’s uses of psychological test results were of questionable value. Her use of computer-generated reports raises concerns about use of hearsay and concerns about the admissibility of opinions based upon the computer-generated interpretive reports. She did not integrate psychological test results with empirical knowledge of parenting factors associated with those results that would lead to hypotheses about each parent’s parenting strengths and weaknesses.
Read Dr. Gould’s Full Report Here:
_18.8.22 MEUTH L_Gould Forensic Psychological Report (2)
LAS VEGAS, NEV. (Feb. 21, 2020) – We are pleased to announce a huge victory for 300,000 Veterans statewide, a huge victory for free speech, and a huge victory for the Constitution! “OO-rah!”
The Nevada Supreme Court today ruled in the matter of Steve Sanson and Veterans in Politics International (“VIPI”), versus Marshall Willick and the Marshall Willick Law Group, [Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 72778].
Happily, the Nevada Supreme Court today REVERSED the lower court decision which had previously ruled against Sanson and VIPI — and this spells a huge free speech victory!
What’s going on? Well, Steve Sanson—a long-time champion of Veteran’s Rights—is on a mission to safeguard the fundamental rights of Las Vegas parents by exposing systemic family court corruption. Towards this end, Sanson had made certain critical statements of and concerning Willick and his law firm. And then the drama began…
But most importantly, Sanson’s statements about Willick were: (1) made in direct connection with issues of public interest; (2) made in a public forum; and (3) made in good faith.
As it turns out, however, Marshall Willick and the Willick Law Group did not take kindly to Steve Sanson’s criticisms. Willick thus sued Sanson and Veterans in Politics for defamation and emotional distress, etc. And Sanson was forced to hire a defamation rights lawyer, (of which there are too few in the phone book!).
But Steve Sanson and VIPI had the good fortune to retain the services of a very capable and experienced free speech advocate, Anat “Annette” Levy, Esq., of Levy and Assoc., right here in Vegas.
Ms. Levy, a brilliant civil rights lawyer, believed that Willick’s so-called defamation lawsuit was really just an underhanded attempt to bully Sanson. Willick sought to punish Sanson for helping moms ‘n dads oppressed by corrupt family court judges. Willick sought to silence Sanson — to stop him from speaking out against the ongoing corrupt activities that plague the Las Vegas family court.
But Willick sorely underestimated the strength and resilience of his opponent — a proud United States Marine.
Sanson’s legal team evaluated Willick’s defamation lawsuit. Ms. Levy correctly diagnosed Willick’s defamation claims as “frivolous.” And so, she fought back! Ms. Levy filed a meritorious anti-SLAPP motion — designed to dismiss Willick’s frivolous claims. (Anti-SLAPP motions are special legal devices used to weed-out frivolous lawsuits by dismissing them in the first round.)
But sadly for Sanson, the trial court misapplied the law and rejected Ms. Levy’s motion to dismiss Willick’s defamation lawsuit. The defamation lawsuit would now proceed to trial.
But Sanson and Levy were not ready to accept a poor ruling. No indeed! Committed to total victory, Ms. Levy filed an articulate and well-drafted appeal to Nevada Supreme Court. And today, (Feb. 21, 2020), we are happy to announce that the Nevada Supreme Court has REVERSED the lower court decision. And this is terrific news for free speech aficionados throughout the Great State of Nevada!
To gain an in-depth legal perspective, Veterans in Politics spoke with California civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. who stated that Nevada’s anti-SLAPP laws are actually based on California law.
Phillips, an experienced anti-SLAPP litigator, has been following the VIPI saga. Phillips explained: “Sanson’s a good guy. He always tells the truth. He totally made statements under subsection 4 – meaning that his statements, of and concerning the plaintiff, came in direct connection with an issue of public interest – and Carson City finally recognized this all-important factoid.”
The purpose of anti-SLAPP laws is to prevent situations where an individual, typically the “little guy” — who is often lacking in financial resources — is suddenly subjected to frivolous and costly litigation by a more wealthy opponent — who’s out for revenge because of something the “little guy” said. And that’s exactly what happened in Steve Sanson’s story.
Big-shot family court attorney, Marshall Willick, does not wish to see Steve Sanson spreading the truth (and for obvious reasons), and so, Willick slapped Sanson with a frivolous lawsuit – disguised as a defamation lawsuit. But today, thankfully, the learned justices in Carson City finally recognize Willick’s little stunt for what it truly was—a meritless legal maneuver calculated only to inflict economic burden and hardship — and punish Sanson – for telling the truth!
Steve Sanson, a proud Veteran, and brave social justice warrior is a friend to many beleaguered family court parents in the Vegas Valley. A very elated Steve Sanson today told VIPI: “Yes! That’s right. We won! And now is the time for everybody to stand up against family court attorneys and judges who railroad others!”
Sanson emphasized, “We will keep fighting the good fight! And we will keep winning – for the sake of our fellow Veterans and for everybody else as well. Yes, definitely, we will keep exposing family court corruption here in Las Vegas.”
Sanson explained, “The only reason they did this to me is that I stood up to all their corruption. We stand up for Veterans who have been lost, ignored, chewed-up and spit-out by a system of indifference that refuses to recognize parents’ constitutional rights.”
Sanson added, “Hey, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and so did all the other devoted men and women who honorably served in our armed forces. No sir! We refuse to allow them to ignore the Constitution for which we fought.”
It is now apparent that Willick’s lawsuit targeted Sanson for his speech-related activities, and further, the lawsuit was intentionally calculated to make Sanson incur legal fees he couldn’t afford. Willick must’ve thought it a foolproof plan. Willick himself stood to incur no legal fees because, after all, he represents himself. But it was not to be. The universe today righted itself and Willick’s plan to economically bludgeon Sanson has officially backfired! Today, hope burns bright!
Sanson now awaits the court’s final details on remand. Sanson hopes the court will soon calculate an attorney’s fees award—which could be a tidy sum of money. Willick could get stung with having to pay a very substantial sum to Sanson’s attorneys. But then again, that’s how poetic justice works!
TRUTH HITS! I-TEAM
The post “Veterans in Politics Scores Huge Free Speech Victory!” appeared first on Veterans In Politics International.
TSBEP Complaint Kelly / Alex Jones – Alissa Sherry Legal Consensus Psychologist – TBHEC Texas Family Courts – Gloria Canseco, Darrel Spinks, Alissa Sherry, Legal Consensus
TSBEP, Custody Evaluation, Forensic Psychology, Texas Family Courts, TBHEC, Gloria Canseco, Darrel Spinks, Alissa Sherry, Legal Consensus
#TSBEP, #CustodyEvaluation, #ForensicPsychology, #TexasFamilyCourts, #TBHEC
Paralegal David Schoen and Family Lawyer Jennifer Abrams
Feb 11, 2020
Rob Lauer Political Reporter
Failed Assembly Candidate and Family Law paralegal, David Schoen, launched a new Political Action Committee (a PAC) called, Nevada Court Watchers, taking direct aim at the Veterans in Politics, led by U.S. Marine Veteran Steve Sanson who has been relentlessly pursuing corruption in the Family Court System for the past several years and is set to reshape the court in this year’s election. Many of the judges Sanson exposed as incompetent and/or corrupt are quietly retiring this year while others have drawn a real opponent. Schoen isn’t just some innocent third party do-gooder trying to educate voters about Family Court.
Schoen’s boss Jennifer Abrams, a family court lawyer, and Steve Sanson have to be engaged in a lawsuit for the last couple of years. According to Sanson, it all started when he posted a video on YouTube from a Family Court hearing in which Abrams was front and center as the lawyer. Abrams sued Sanson for defamation, but Sanson won an Anti Slapp motion and according to court records (see below). Sanson won a monitory judgment against Abrams in 2017. The case is pending on appeal.
Sanson said, his focus on Family Court corruption started back in 2014 when Family Court Judge Bill Gonzalez refused to honor federal law, the sailors and soldiers relief act, which required all court actions to be “stayed” while a member of the armed forces was deployed on official orders overseas. The judge ignored the law, and actually order soldiers who were deployed overseas in combat to appear in his courtroom. When they failed to appear, he ruled against them according to Sanson.
In addition, Sanson said he observed Family Court Judges violating federal law by using Veteran’s Disability Benefits to pay spousal support and other legal costs. And in fact, that sparked a new Nevada state law protecting Veteran’s Disability Benefits, authored by State Assemblyman Jim Wheeler.
Ever since then, Sanson’s group, Veterans in Politics has been “Waging War” on family court corruption. Sanson’s efforts have drawn over 350 folks to join his court observer program and sparked over a dozen investigations by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline resulting in Judge Rena Hughes found guilty “JUNE 19: The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline found that family court Judge Rena Hughes violated judicial code when she denied a mother’s due process rights by not giving her an opportunity to be heard during a hearing. She also gave the child’s father custody as a punitive measure against the mother.“
Sanson’s efforts have led to numerous Family Court Judges drawing real challengers in this election cycle including Judge Rena Hughes, Judge Vincent Ochoa, and Judge Charles Hoskins.
While Sanson was engaged in court observing, he started noticing several judges actually working part-time. Using the Freedom of Information Request to obtain Judges’ actual attendance records, Sanson found many judges working way less than 40 hours a week. His efforts were cited as a key reason why the State Legislature turned down a request from the judges for a 16% pay raise in 2017 and in the 2019 legislative sessions.
Sanson served in the first Iraq War in the U.S. Marines and now lives on his disability benefits. According to Sanson, he makes zero money from his court observer program or from Veterans in Politics.
Veterans in Politics have been endorsing Judges and other candidates for years. They, interview judges and candidates in public and record the interviews. With over 300,000 Veterans who call Nevada home, having such an endorsement can make or break a candidate. And that’s where Schoen’s one weak old group, Nevada Court Observers comes in. Schoen’s group seeks to undermine Veterans in Politics’ credibility and confuse voters, according to Sanson. Schoen’s group hasn’t filed their contributions report, so their funding sources are still a mystery.
Sanson has advocated for real reforms in family court including a jury trial system in Family Court. It’s the only court where you can lose your house, your kids, your money and be jailed, all without the right to a jury trial. Sanson is also seeking to make sure if a family court litigant is sent to jail they are entitled to a lawyer. He seeks total transparency in the system and accountability.
“David Schoen’s “new” group is an obvious effort to attack the messenger and protect a corrupt system,” said Sanson.
The post FAMILY COURT WATCHDOG GROUP UNDER ATTACK BY COURT INSIDERS appeared first on Veterans In Politics International.
Clark County Nevada
January 17, 2020
The (VIPI) Veterans In Politics International Inc. investigated Stefany Miley Clark County District Court Judge time on the bench. After submitting a Freedom of Information Request we obtained Judge Miley’s entire 2018 calendar going through 5,119 pages. There are 261 workdays in the calendar year 2018 excluding all holidays, Judge Miley was only on the bench for 149 of those days, leaving 112 days unaccounted.
Judge Miley only worked 14 afternoons, she is hardly on the bench Thursdays and Fridays. According to our sources, she has been spotted at Lifestyle Athletic Club working out, or getting her nails and hair done at the local beauty shops during work hours.
Judge Miley only had 8 Chamber Calendars in 2018. Before you say she must be working at home, it’s illegal for a judge to remove cases from the courthouse. However, they can sign onto a case on their computer or I-Pad. But in Judge Miley’s case signing onto a case from home is not a common practice.
Where is her Deputy Marshal when the judge is not in the courthouse? Normally he is sent home with pay because the Deputy Marshal works directly for the judge.
According to Transparent Nevada Miley’s pay and benefits is $258,655.11 annually. Judges have the freedom to govern their own calendar, this freedom should have a price when they abuse the system and steal from taxpayers.
Judges need accountability, recently we reported that Family Court Judge Mathew Harter was on the bench for 140 days in 2018 click onto the link: veteransinpolitics.org/2019/06/evidence-supports-that-family-court-judge-worked-140-days-for-2018/.
During the last legislative session lobbyist for the District Court wanted a 16 percent pay raise that would have increased each judge’s annual salaries by $30,000 per year, that bill never made it out of committee. They also wanted 12 additional judges but only 6 was approved for the family court bench. We don’t need more judges, what we need is judges shown up for work.
Many cases are assigned it’s not a monopoly as suggested. 21-23 days on the bench is an average work month.
Many judges will be on the campaign trail, ask a judge to prove to you that they work a full 40-hour workweek, talk is cheap!
The following Judges substituted for Judge Miley in her absents from the bench in 2018:
Linda Bell Judge
Charles Thompson Senior Judge
Joseph Bonaventure Senior Judge
Douglas Smith Judge
Valarie Adair Judge
Tierra Jones Judge
Elizabeth Gonzalez Judge
Michael Villani Judge
The following are the days Judge Miley was on the bench during each month in 2018:
January 2018 worked 13 days
February 2018 worked 13 days
March 2018 worked 13 days
April 2018 worked 8 days
May 2018 worked 15 days
June 2018 worked 16 days
July 2018 worked 9 days
August 2018 worked 16 days
September 2018 worked 10 days
October 2018 worked 15 days
November 2018 worked 12 days
December 2018 worked 9 days
Today is the deadline for a judge to file for reelection see link www.clarkcountynv.gov/election/Pages/CandidateFiling.aspx.
Veterans In Politics President moving forward in 2020!
The post Clark County District Court Judge ONLY worked 14 afternoons in 2018! appeared first on Veterans In Politics International.
Originally published by Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
By Minh N. Vu
We are still tallying up the end-of-year numbers, but the number of ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal courts by the end of November 2019 (10,206) exceeded the number of such lawsuits filed in all of 2018 (10,163). California courts continue to be the busiest with roughly 43% of the lawsuits, with New York and Florida courts taking second and third place with 24% and 18% of the market share, respectively. With plaintiffs and their lawyers constantly conjuring up new claims, businesses are not likely to see any relief from these types of suits in 2020.
What types of lawsuits are trending now?
Braille Gift Card Lawsuits. Starting in October of 2019, more than a dozen blind plaintiffs represented by five attorneys have filed at least 243 lawsuits in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York alleging that retailers and other businesses have violated the ADA and New York state and city laws by failing to offer for sale gift cards that have all the information printed on the cards shown in Braille. These cases are assigned to at least twenty-nine different judges. A firm in southern California has also jumped on the bandwagon, filing Braille gift card lawsuits in California state court and sending out a number of pre-suit demand letters. Most defendants are digging in for a fight so we expect to see many motions to dismiss filed in the first quarter of 2020.
Website and Mobile App Accessibility Lawsuits. Although we are still tallying the numbers, lawsuits alleging inaccessible websites and mobile apps accounted for at least a fifth of the total number of ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal courts in 2019. Most plaintiffs in these cases are blind and claim that the websites in question do not work with their screen reader software which reads website content aloud. A much smaller number of plaintiffs are deaf and are suing about the lack of closed captioning for online videos.
Plaintiffs continue to file these website and mobile app accessibility lawsuits, though the rate at which they were being filed seemed to slow down in the fourth quarter of 2020. The change may be attributable to the fact that some of the lawyers who were filing many of these website accessibility suits in New York have turned their attention to Braille gift card lawsuits.
The big news from 2019 on the website accessibility front was the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Domino’s appeal from a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing a blind plaintiff to pursue his lawsuit against the pizza chain for having an allegedly inaccessible website and mobile app. Businesses had hoped that the Supreme Court would hear the case and perhaps take some action to curtail the tsunami of website and mobile app lawsuits.
In 2019, Plaintiffs also made significant headway in persuading California state courts that inaccessible websites violate the state’s non-discrimination statute, including one appellate affirmation of a judgment in favor of blind plaintiff. In fact, one California Superior Court judge decided that the ADA applies to websites of businesses with no physical location where customers go. In reaching this conclusion, this California judge rejected federal Ninth Circuit precedent that the ADA only applies to websites of public accommodations with a nexus to a physical location.
Hotel Accessibility Information on Reservations Websites. A number of plaintiffs filed lawsuits against hotels for allegedly failing to provide sufficient information about the accessibility of their accessible guest rooms and common areas on their websites, as required by the ADA Title III regulations, to allow travelers with disabilities to make informed decisions about whether a hotel meets their needs. In response to this flurry of lawsuits, many hotels have updated their websites to provide the required information. Now some plaintiffs are filing lawsuits alleging that hotels are not making accessible rooms available for sale on websites operated by third party online travel agencies.
Accessible Hotel Room Dispersion. Title III of the ADA requires hotels to provide accessible rooms in a range of different room types (e.g. rooms with two beds, premium views, suites) so that people with disabilities have room choices that are comparable to those offered to people without disabilities. One plaintiff in particular has filed more than a hundred lawsuits under this theory, and we have no reason to think she will stop in 2020.
Inaccessible Facilities. Historically the most prolific category for accessibility lawsuits, we have continued to see in the lawsuit filing numbers and in our practice many lawsuits about allegedly inaccessible physical public accommodations facilities such as hotels, retail stores, restaurants, and shopping centers in 2019. We do not expect this to change in 2020.
Be sure to subscribe to our ADA blog to receive notices of developments throughout the year!
Edited by Kristina Launey
Clark County Nevada
January 15, 2020
Attention Nevada Attorneys!
Have you had enough of Family Court Judges who…
- Fail to follow the rule of evidence?
- Show favoritism and preference to certain counsel?
- Openly violate our US Constitution?
- Frequently don’t show up to work?
- Refuse to follow state laws?
- Fail to follow Judicial Cannons?
If your answer to any of the above questions is “yes”, then your time is now! Many judges fitting the above description are running unopposed. We are asking why?
We understand that campaigns are costly, but we are here to help you. This is your moment to make a difference! Do not leave corrupt judges to run unopposed continuing to destroy families and enriching certain entrenched and corrupt family law attorneys.
Three years ago the Veterans In Politics International took on the issue of rampant corruption in the Clark County Family Courts and we caused so much sunlight to be focused on this issue, that a couple of the corrupt judges and attorneys we targeted went so far as to collude to frame us at a sham hearing for the very things they do every day. Still, we press on un-phased. Why? Because we have met the victims and we believe in a better judiciary.
Below we have provided information that you can use and other information we are willing to share privately.
Nevada can’t afford to wait another six years of families being destroyed at the hands of corrupt incumbent judges and corrupt attorneys who are now running for judge.
You can make a difference!
The Nevada Bar has made it clear that it will do nothing about corrupt and unethical attorneys, however, we have until Friday, January 17th at 5 pm to let corrupt judges know that the bench is a humble honor, not an assumption.
RE: Mathew Harter Clark County Family Court Judge Department N
Clark County Family Court Judge Mathew “Half Day” Harter would like a promotion to the Nevada Supreme Court
Too many cooks in the kitchen? “Judge Harter should run his own Courtroom without outside help”
Evidence supports that Family Court Judge worked 140 days in 2018
Courtroom Cover-ups and betrayal; business as usual!
Clark County Judges Defy and Deny the Authority of the Nevada State Supreme Court. (Court Facilitated “Kidnapping”)!
Steve Sanson President of Veterans In Politics Blast Clark County Family Court Judges part 2-2
Vincent Ochoa Family Court Judge Admitted to Violating Nevada Custody Laws
Judge Ochoa’s son arrested for Heroin use and cover-up by an Assistant Sheriff at Metro
Do you want Judge Ochoa to “like” your children? FaceBook Issues Round #2
Judge Ochoa and a FaceBook friends “with benefits?”
Two Clark County Family Court Judges lose Police Endorsement – “Ochoa and Harter”!
Judge becomes debt collector and signs bench warrant to help his attorney friend get paid!
Two Clark County Family Court Judges should be REMOVED from the bench NOT promoted!!
Take a look at the following Clark County Family Court Judges
“Letter sent to investigate the problematic Clark County Family Court System”
THE POWER OF SPEAKING UP!
ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT SEE WHO HAS FILED
Election Department: Candidate Filing in Clark County
- Alissa Sherry – Legal Consensus
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Blended Families
- Burnet County Court at Law Judge Bayless
- Child Custody
- Child Custody and Support
- Child Custody Evaluators
- Child support
- Children and Divorce
- Children's and Parenting Issues after Divorce
- Co-Parenting after Divorce
- Collaborative Divorce
- Considering Divorce
- Coping with Divorce
- Corrupt Family Court
- Court of Appeals
- Custody and Visitation
- custody evaluation
- Custody Evaluator Immunity
- Divorce Advice
- Divorce Financial
- Divorce Litigation
- Divorce process
- divorce recovery
- Domestic Abuse
- Domestic Violence
- Dr. Alissa Sherry
- emotional abuse
- family court
- Family Court Corruption
- Family Court Reform
- Family Law
- Financial Issues
- Guardian Ad Litem
- Handling the Holidays
- Healing From Narcissistic Abuse
- Home – Featured
- Joint Custody
- Judge Linda Bayless
- Judicial Immunity
- Legal Consensus
- Legal Documents
- Legal Forms
- Legal Issues
- Marital Problems
- Money Matters
- Narcissism and Personality Disorders
- Narcissistic Personality Disorder
- Parental Alienation
- Parenting Plan
- Personality disorders
- Perversion of Justice
- Press Release
- psychological evaluation
- Relationships and Dating
- Sex & Relationships
- Single parenting
- Supreme Court
- Surviving Divorce
- TBHEC Gloria Canseco
- Texas Cases
- Texas Counseling
- Texas Counselors
- Texas Court of Appeals
- Texas Courts
- Texas CPS
- Texas Divorce
- Texas House Rep Vikki Goodwin District 47
- Texas House Representative Terry M. Wilson District 20
- Texas Parental Alienation Counseling
- Texas Psychologists
- Texas Senate Charles Schwertner
- Texas Senate Donna Campbell
- Texas Senate Judith Zaffirini
- Texas Senate Kirk Watson
- Texas Senate Pete Flores
- Texas Senator Dawn Buckingham District 24
- The Ex
- The New You
- Travis County Texas
- TSBEP Darrel Spinks
- Understanding Narcissism
- Child Custody
- Family Court Corruption
- Need to Communicate Privately?
- Parental Alienation
- Stop Parental Rights Termination
- TBHEC Darrel Spinks
- TBHEC Gloria Canseco
- Texas House Rep Vikki Goodwin District 47
- Texas House Representative Terry M. Wilson District 20
- Texas Senator Dawn Buckingham District 24
- TSBEP Darrel Spinks