Stan Hyt 30 years with the LVMPD entered the race for Clark County Sheriff!

Stan Hyt 30 years with the LVMPD entered the race for Clark County Sheriff!

Clark County Nevada

September 19, 2021


Veterans In Politics video internet talk show interviewed Stan Hyt candidate for Clark County Sheriff.

Hyt a graduate of San Diego State University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice Administration. Soon after in January of 1978 he was hired by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) and served 30 years with this department.

Hyt said he will protect the resident’s rights not to wear a mask and get Covid vaccines. Hyt said his wife and he already had Covid and he took NyQuil. Hyt said that he would stand up for our civil liberties.

Hyt said the new mandate to become a Las Vegas Police Officer, you have to take the Covid vaccine. Hyt doesn’t understand how the current sheriff who is a candidate for Republican Governor can mandate the Covid vaccines and endorses sanctuary cities be a candidate for Republican Governor. Hyt added that Joseph Lombardo current Clark County Sheriff has broken off relations with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Hyt said that he would like to meet with the leadership of all the law enforcement agencies, county, state, and federal.

Hyt said the mandates for the vaccines are unconstitutional.

Hyt said we need to stop the endorsement of Sheriff from the current Sheriff and let the people decide without any influence.

Hyt said weapons are legal to have, there is no reason why an officer should pull a resident out of their vehicle for a traffic stop when the resident informs the officer that there are weapons in the vehicle. Officers are not allowed to “fish” they need “probable cause”. Hyt said that this is an abuse of authority. Hyt supports constitutional carry.

Some of Hyts focus is to improve police morale, use nonlethal force, smaller taxes, and have less government.

The Host indicated that Metro’s Internal Affairs, The Citizen Review Board, and the Use Of Force Review Board are all a “joke” set up to pacify the public and to protect bad officers.

Hyt took pop shots at the two current challengers in the race for sheriff indicating that Assemblyman Tom Roberts’s votes like a democrat and many questions came about during the October 1st shooting at Mandalay Bay that caused his exit from LVMPD.  Hyt also commented on former Undersheriff Kevin McMahill as another Lombardo and stated that McMahill stands by the mandates to vaccinate all police officers including new hires. Both are former officers retired from the LVMPD.

The Host asked about Las Vegas City Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem Stavros Anthony as a possible candidate for Sheriff. Hyt said that he met with Anthony and he indicated that he would not run for Sheriff.

Hyt said that we need to bring the Gang Unit back to the LVMPD indicating that they are a valuable asset adding that LVMPD has a budget of $630 million dollars annually. With 5 thousand employees and many ranks and files leaving the force.

The Host asked about an annual physical fitness test requirement for LVMPD officers and Hyt stated that he didn’t want to take away an officer’s livelihood because they can’t pass a physical requirement. The Host indicated that physical fitness should be part of an officer’s requirement no different than the military especially when you are dealing with a potential adversary on the streets.

The Host asked what type of programs are in place for police officers that are going through the Clark County Family Court System when you have officers losing their children, losing their assets, and struggling to put food on the table for themselves. Hyt said that he would not oppose a program that would help officers that are going through these crises including alcohol addictions.

The shooting of Stanly Gibson, Erik Scott, and Trevon Cole was also mentioned in this interview.

The Host also brought up the safety of inmates within the Clark County Detention Center.

Please click on the link below to view this very informative interview in the mind of Stan Hyt.

Please click on Stan Hyt website:

Stan Hyt candidate for Clark County Sheriff on the Veterans in Politics Video Internet talk-show




DATELINE: LAS VEGAS, NEV., (Sept. 18, 2021).  Once upon a time, divorce laws required parties to prove “fault.”  Couples had to prove their spouses committed infidelities so horrific—that the court should dissolve the marriage.


In 1931, hoping to attract residents, Nevada enacted new divorce laws.  Nevada changed its residency requirements to six weeks and adopted a “no-fault” divorce.  Couples wishing to divorce could get un-hitched in just six weeks!—and they didn’t have to prove who cheated on whom!


With the advent of new divorce laws, divorce mills sprung up throughout Nevada.  Reno became the Divorce Capital of America.  Nevada ranchers cashed in on the divorce gold rush—they offered accommodations at “divorce ranches” where folks would stay for six weeks to establish residency.  In 1951, Rita Hayworth took up residency in Tahoe before filing for divorce.


“No-fault” divorce demonstrated the popular belief that unhappy spouses should be able to quickly end a soured marriage—and move on with their lives.  In 1969, California followed Nevada.  Then-Governor Reagan signed the Family Law Act, which created “no-fault” divorce for California couples with “irreconcilable differences.”


Sadly, Nevada has reverted back to a “fault” based system.  Nowadays, attorneys fight to show the ex is “at fault,” and if successful, their clients are eligible to be the “prevailing party,” which triggers an attorney’s fees award.


But there are no winners or losers in family court; after all, when parties go to family court, they seek no redress for wrongdoings.  Rather, they seek only to divide marital assets and/or possession time of children.  And, because nobody wins in family court, the notion of “prevailing party” makes no sense.


Where cunning attorneys can show the ex is “at-fault,” the attorneys’ clients are adjudged the “prevailing party”—which results in attorney’s fees.  This is the precise point where the corruption pathogen takes hold and begins to fester.  Next thing you know, attorneys from the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, (“LACSN”), pretend to be “pro bono”—with an underlying expectation they’re gonna get paid—but only if they show the other party is “at-fault!”


Enter the notorious “faux Bono” lawyers—pretending to be do-gooders, supposedly donating time to charity cases—when in fact—they are money-grubbing, contingency fee lawyers—willing to wager they can show the ex is “at-fault”—and totally confident that crooked-ass judges will ensure the ex is “at-fault.”  (Get it?)


Take, for example, Vince Ochoa.  Once a LACSN team member, Ochoa is now a LACSN lackey.  Nowadays, Ochoa’s job is to ensure that LACSN attorneys get paid!—by hook or by crook!  Ochoa knows the scam.  Ochoa understands that attorneys cannot donate campaign funds to the bench unless they have disposable income; and so, Ochoa ensures the LACSN attorneys get paid!


Do LACSN lawyers ever represent BOTH spouses in family court?  No, of course, not!  Why?—because one LACSN lawyer would have to lose!—and go home empty-handed!  And no gold-digging LACSN lawyer will take a “pro bono” gig if there’s a possibility they might have to work for free!


If your ex is represented by LACSN, your crooked-ass judge will find YOU “at fault,” and your ex will be the “prevailing party”—because the LACSN lawyer must get paid.  Let’s say your ex LIES in open court and falsely accuses YOU of behaving badly.  Bamm!  The crooked-ass judge will believe your ex—guaranteed!  Family courts reward perjury.  Judges embrace the lies—because lies provide the necessary pretext to declare YOU “at fault.”  This means your ex is the “prevailing party,” and their LACSN attorney gets a handsome attorney’s fees award.


“Pro bono” is a Latin term meaning “for good” or “for charity.”  In contrast, “pro pecunia” is the Latin term meaning “for money.”  The “faux Bono” lawyer is NOT in the game for charitable reasons.  Getting paid is the sole objective.  The “faux Bono” lawyer is basically a contingency fee lawyer—a bus bench lawyer—like Saul Goodman—but with lower ethical standards.


Greedy attorneys and crooked-ass judges have effectively re-transformed Nevada law—from “no-fault”—back to “fault-based” divorce.  Just think—only sixteen (16) civil judges for the entire civil docket, but twenty-six (26) for family court.  Why?—because they need TEN extra judges to manage the bustling child kidnapping industry—which generates gazillions of dollars—and causes widespread misery more dismal, more costly, and more destructive than any blight, pestilence, or plague imaginable.  Sit down, Covid—the family court is the real scourge!


Back in the day, enlightened Nevada lawmakers had a vision—to un-hitch couples after only six weeks’ residency.  But those days are gone forever.  Today, divorce is big business.  Nobody gets out in six weeks.  If your kid is five, and your spouse files for divorce, the custody battle will last 13 years—until the kid turns 18—guaranteed.


Regular civil courts have fast-track procedures—to quickly dispo cases, but not so family court.  It’s a criminal cabal—where lawless and psychopathic judges choke the life out of couples, stranding them in family court quicksand—opening their veins and bleeding them dry—draining the family’s assets and stealing the children’s futures.


If you can’t afford a lawyer, and if your ex has a really good job, LACSN will represent YOU in family court—for FREE!  On the other hand, if you can’t afford a lawyer—and your ex is on disability or welfare, then forget it—LACSN won’t touch your case with a 39-and-a-half-foot-pole.  LACSN discriminates against the poor, (i.e., “intra-class” discrimination).  LACSN treats poor people differently from one another—based only on whether the ex has a paycheck that LACSN can garnish.


Where lawyers have the expectation of a payday—and they call themselves “pro bono,”—it’s inherently deceitful—a deceptive trade practice, [see NRS 598].  The venerable term “pro bono” must be reserved for attorneys with no expectation of pecuniary gain.  The moniker ”pro bono” must be unavailable to money-grubbing shysters.


We call for mandatory 50-50 custody legislation in Nevada!—and not just a rebuttable presumption of joint custody—but full, equal, and undivided joint custody—as Equal Protection demands.


It’s been said that equal parenting is integral for a child’s well-being.  If this is true, then the current system detriments children.  The system generates the most revenue by making parenting “unequal.”  Nevada is at a crossroads; we must decide—what’s more important?—the future of our children?—or Jennifer Abrams’ ability to buy another Porsche?


VETERAN in POLITICS INT’L (“Where Change Happens”)



He Beat Her Repeatedly. Family Court Tried to Give Him Joint Custody of Their Children.

Jennifer Moston was about seven months pregnant when, she said, her husband grabbed her by the arms, picked her up and threw her against the staircase. Each time she tried to get up, he pushed her down again. Such abusive episodes continued for several years, she said, until 2016, when he allegedly tried to strangle her. She went to the police and filed for divorce.

It seemed obvious to Jennifer that her husband, Ryan, shouldn’t get custody of their 3-year-old son, as Ryan now faced felony charges of domestic violence. How could someone with a violent history be trusted with a child? How could she stay out of harm’s way if she was interacting with him for drop-offs?

Jennifer assumed that the family court in her Wisconsin county would make her safety and that of her son a priority, and that the system would help her cut off contact with Ryan.

But it didn’t.

Wisconsin is considered a “leader” in the movement to give fathers equal rights as parents, with its percentage of shared custody cases among the highest in the nation. But a ProPublica investigation has found that the state’s family court system has been unable to adjust to protect domestic abuse survivors. ProPublica reporter Megan O’Matz explores how the complexities of domestic violence are often overlooked in the Wisconsin court system. Advocates and experts say the lack of reforms puts mothers and children at risk, often leaving women facing legal barriers and forced to co-parent with their abusers.

Read more here.


Senator Min’s Child Safety Bill Clears the CA Legislature

Senate Bill (SB) 654, backed by Angelina Jolie and Dylan Farrow, would require a judge to consider a parent’s history of domestic violence and substance abuse before allowing unsupervised visits with children.

SACRAMENTO, CA — Senator Dave Min (D-Irvine) announced today his bill to create and
extend protections for children in family court advanced from the State Legislature and will head
to Governor Newsom’s desk for his signature. SB 654 passed the Senate Floor with unanimous

SB 654 would require judges to make findings on the record when entering an order for
unsupervised visitation with a parent who has a history of domestic violence or substance abuse.
This bill would also ensure children who wish to testify in contested custody battles do not have
to do so in the presence of the parties seeking custody, unless it is deemed necessary by a judge.

“I am grateful to my colleagues for their overwhelming support of SB 654, which will save lives,” Min said. “Child safety must be our number one priority in the courts, and we must ensure that we don’t put children in situations of ongoing danger of domestic violence or substance abuse. I am proud that this measure brings us one step closer to guaranteeing our laws better protect children and prioritize their health, safety, and welfare.”

This bill has enjoyed prominent and widespread bipartisan support. It is sponsored by the
Legislative Coalition to Prevent Child Abuse. According to Melissa Knight-Fine, Director of this
organization, “SB 654 promotes risk assessment and consideration of information from law
enforcement and other child protection agencies, proven tools to help prevent abuse. The bill will protect children in high-risk cases where parents who have been on supervised visitation due to violence now are asking for unsupervised visits.”

SB 654 has also received notable support from actor and internationally renowned children’s rights advocate Angelina Jolie. In her letter of support, Jolie wrote, “Having courts make findings on the record will ensure that histories of domestic violence or substance abuse are addressed and treated, and such findings will protect children from unsupervised visitation when unsupervised parenting is unsafe. The modest measures in SB 654 are also expected to prevent the need for additional hearings due to unsafe visitation.”  Dylan Farrow, a prominent advocate for survivors of sexual abuse also encouraged public support for “this crucial legislation.”


Senator Dave Min – California Children Deserve to be Safe from Violence and Abuse. Here’s How We are Making it Happen.

This important Op Ed from California Senator Dave Min highlights his important bill SB 654 on child safety in family court. SB 654 passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and it will be taken up on the California Assembly floor next.

“An estimated one in every 19 children in California is abused, and the risk is even higher for children in families who separate and divorce. Every year, 58,500 children — including 6,000 here in California — are ordered into unsupervised visitation with abusive parents. More often than not, this leads to continued child abuse, with the long-lasting physical and mental harm that results. And far too often, we end up with tragically fatal outcomes, such as the case with the two Sacramento girls. According to the Center for Judicial Excellence, since 2008, 72 California kids were murdered during custody or visitation with an abusive parent. In 22 of these cases, the family court had been presented with evidence of some form of abuse.”

Read more here.


‘Women Are Routinely Discredited’: How Courts Fail Mothers and Children Who Have Survived Abuse

This report from The Fuller Project, in partnership with the Guardian, details the routine family court failure to believe and protect mothers and children who have survived abuse and how abusive partners using the courts to control and harass their current and former partners.

“I’m losing everything,” says Marissa, who learned last September, in the middle of an already contentious custody battle, that her son Zachary had told his counselor that Marissa’s former partner Carter had “touched his private parts” in bed. Zachary would disclose more incidents of abuse in the months that followed, including rape. Carter is suing for custody of his biological son with Marissa, Eli, as well as Zachary, whose own biological father is out of the picture. Marissa estimates that she’s spent $150,000 on her defense, while attending medical school and supporting two children.

Read more here.


Federal Lawsuit Claims NY Judge Anthony McGinty Favors Abusive Men in Custody Cases

An upstate New York domestic violence survivor, author, and family child advocate Francesca Amato said Ulster County Family Court Judge Anthony McGinty violated her rights by awarding custody of her teen son to her abusive ex — and she claims other female litigants are facing similar fates, an explosive federal lawsuit alleges.

Judge McGinty placed her 13-year-old son with a father, who has a 15-page criminal background and now lives in a “one bedroom cottage with 8 people,” according to a federal lawsuit recently filed in the Northern District of New York.

Read more here.


Family Court Debate turns heated with local veterans group and family attorney!

Family Court Debate turns heated with local veterans group and family attorney!

Clark County Nevada

August 22, 2021


Veterans In Politics video internet talk show interviewed Louis Schneider a former Prosecutor and owner of Law Offices of Louis Schneider.

Schneider hails from Massachusetts has made Nevada his home.

Schneider has been practicing law for 17 years added that he has chosen family law over criminal law because in family law you can make a real difference, and in criminal law, most of your clients have done something wrong and you get them a soft landing.

Schneider has his own personal demons about the family court in Massachusetts.

Schneider said in family law he will not take a relocation case because it’s heartbreaking to take one parent from the other.

Schneider said in Nevada the judges have to reunite the parents by law, but we all know that’s not what happens.

Schneider said family court judges are the hardest working judges in the county.

Schneider kept repeating the judges look for the “best interest of the children”. The host repeatedly asks what does that means, but couldn’t get a straight answer.

The host brought up the issue that judges abuse their discretion, fail to follow the rule of evidence, and fail to follow Nevada Law and Federal Law. Schneider said he doesn’t see that in the courtroom.



The host wanted to know why the family court judge order litigants to get a drug test on pure allegations without any evidence to support the allegations.

The host pounded on the issue and said according to Nevada Law only a criminal judge can order drug testing of litigants and civil judges has no jurisdiction to make such an order adding that family court judges are civil judges not criminal.

Schneider added that former family court judge Cynthia Dianne Steel wouldn’t order a litigant to take a drug test because it’s a violation of their constitutional rights without probable cause and it’s a criminal court case matter.

Schneider said if you are ordered to take a drug test and you refuse, it’s deemed dirty.

The host said wait a minute if you stand up for your constitutional rights and the law, how is your lack of drug testing deemed dirty? The host said that judges are legislating from the bench. If they want to change the law they need to lobby the legislature for the law to change until then they need to follow the law.

Schneider said it’s the policy of the court. But here is the problem a court policy is not law!

The host brought up the 14th Amendment that gives you equal protection under the law adding if judges want to skirt the law they are no different than anyone else.

Schneider refuses to listen to the law by echoing the safety of children, in other words, you can violate the law if it’s for the safety of the children.

The host once again saying that is not the law, amend the law and stop violating the law. A family court judge cannot order a litigant to take a drug test.



The host suggested having a jury trial or a tribunal in family court when dealing with the relocation of children and termination of parental rights.

Schneider said that family court cases are complex and you can’t trust a jury to do that. The host pushed back and said wait a minute, in criminal court a jury decides prison or freedom, life or death, but a jury can’t make a decision on relocation or termination of parental rights, that is totally Ludacris!

Taking someone’s child is a civil death.

The host said one person that has the power to take a child from a parent breeds bias and corruption.

Schneider said a jury doesn’t have the understanding about family court, but yet a jury can decide if you live or die. We still can’t make sense from what Schneider is trying to say he is basically telling us that juries are idiots.

The host brought up the fact that the Constitution said that a parent has a right to parent their children.

The host stated that mediation is mandatory under Nevada State Law. Schneider said he believes mediation is the policy of the court, but yet some judges don’t order litigants to go to mediation before trial.



Rena Hughes former disgraced judge who was sanctioned by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline and the only sitting judge to lose her election in the primary. Hughes alienated a child from her mother, conducted ex-parte communication, threatened the 11-year-old child with jail, denied court observers in the courtroom, and a tyrant in a black robe.

Bryce Duckworth storms off the bench like a toddler, has predetermined a case without hearing any evidence, doesn’t enforce his own court orders, demonstrates bias in the courtroom, and is a total hypocrite.

Charles Hoskin puts his friends in Hearing Masters job positions by ignoring the votes of the majority judges, destroyed hundreds of elderly Nevadans lives even a documentary entitled The Guardians on Amazon showed how this judge reamed havoc on Nevada residents, he has the most letters for Against in the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection history when he was attempting to secure the appointment to the Nevada Appellate Court.

Duckworth and Hoskin need to join Hughes at The Abrams Law Firm.



Schneider said lawyers are paying for judges’ campaigns that breed abuse.

The host stated he has conversation from attorneys that feel threatened if they run against a judge, this is the reason why corrupt judges get a free ride by running unopposed.

The host stated that we have to find a way to remove bad judges by placing into law Remove or Retain. If a judge runs unopposed and Remove receives the most votes the seat becomes vacated, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection interviews candidates and sends three names to the Nevada Governor, from the three names Governor picks a person to fill the vacancy, and the following election year the person picked by the Governor runs for retention.



Schneider said pro se litigants receive a lot of leeway from judges.

Schneider was giving praise to the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada for their pro bono work. The host fired back and said before they take your case you have to be destitute out on the streets and if it’s pro bono work why does the judge order the other side to pay for the opposing parties’ pro bono attorney?

The host suggested the name pro bono needs to be changed to something else because pro bono means free.



Schneider said the Nevada State Bar beats up on one-man operations but refuses to go after established law firms.

The host brought up the fact that attorneys walk-off cases without notice abandoning the litigant in the courtroom and the judges allow this to happen. Schneider said that this behavior is against the law.

The host said if we keep turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the corruption in our courtroom, it becomes normalized.

Schneider said he doesn’t see any corruption in the courtroom and he loves all the judges on the bench.

Schneider said that he takes offense when the host says the family court is corrupt.



Schneider said a family court judge cannot order the federal government to garnish your service-connected disability benefits.

The host said that the federal law protects a veteran’s disability benefits but some family court judges believe that they are entitled to take it from them.



The host said corruption has many faces, many items make a judge corrupt not just cash payments.

The host wanted to know why litigants are considered to be vexatious when attorneys are just as bad or in some cases worse but yet they are not considered vexatious by the court. In addition, this is a violation of their constitutional right to be heard in a court of law.

Vexatious is used to shut the litigant up!


In Closing:

Schneider said all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing!

Click on the link below to watch the explosive and informative interview:

Family Court Debate turns heated with local veterans group and family attorney Louis Schneider


Letters to Lawyers Who Enable Criminal Behavior in Family Court

To: Gregg R Woodnick, Esq. Woodnick Law Offices Phoenix, AZ Mr. Woodnick,  I am Jill Jones Soderman, Executive Director of the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts. I am the forensic expert and child advocate for the children toward whose lives and welfare you have demonstrated a shocking level of depraved indifference.  You […]

The post Letters to Lawyers Who Enable Criminal Behavior in Family Court first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.


Nathan Atkins Army Veteran now a candidate for North Las Vegas Mayor!

Nathan Atkins Army Veteran now a candidate for North Las Vegas Mayor!

Clark County Nevada

August 15, 2021


Veterans In Politics video internet talk show interviewed Nathan Atkins an Army Veteran, Businessman, not a career politician, and candidate for North Las Vegas Mayor.

North Las Vegas is the 4th largest city in Nevada. According to the 2020 senses, North Las Vegas has a population of 265,224 people with only 8 percent of that population decides their city government leaders.

Atkins came from a long line of family tradition by serving our country in the United States military. Atkins served eight years in the United States Army and was discharged as a combat veteran by serving in Desert Storm.

If elected Atkins would be the only military veteran on the North Las Vegas City Council.

We discussed the North Las Vegas Police Department (NLVPD) at great length. Atkins said that as Mayor he would volunteer to do a “Ride Along” program with NLVPD officers.

Atkins said the best way to know what’s going on, you have to spend time in the field and talk to the people. Atkins said that’s the best way to serve the people.

Atkins said, “Garbage doesn’t care what your political party is, it just needs to be picked up”.

Atkins said he believes in Community Partnership that businesses should partner with the city and help educate the children in North Las Vegas. Atkins said that we should develop a direct partnership with business and the city of North Las Vegas, by building a bridge.

We discussed a hurray of issues such as the Chief of Police, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the school’s within North Las Vegas, the North Las Vegas Judicial System, the infrastructure, bringing business and residents to North Las Vegas, the homeless issue, transparency, and public health and public safety.

Atkins answered all of our questions head-on with forethought and intelligence, we didn’t receive any political answer. We received honest and thoughtful answers with new ideas and visions.

Atkins said that North Las Vegas should be a city to “Live, Work, and Play” and be assessable to its constituency.


Click here to visit Nathan Atkins for the North Las Vegas website:


Click below to view Nathan Atkins video interview:

Nathan Atkins Army Veteran now a candidate for North Las Vegas Mayor on Veterans In Politics Talk with special cohost Giano Amado


Click here to watch the video Jennifer Abrams don’t want you to see:

Nevada Attorney attacks a Clark County Family Court Judge in Open Court