SANSON ‘SLAPPS’ ABRAMS! Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Free Speech!

SANSON ‘SLAPPS’ ABRAMS! Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Free Speech!

 

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.”

CLICK HERE to READ the LANDMARK RULING – Abrams vs. Sanson (March 5, 2020)

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.

VIPI President, Steve Sanson with Dee Smart Butler candidate for Clark County District Court Judge Family Division Department “J.”

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.

Read More –>

VETERANS GROUP WINS SUPREME COURT APPEAL IN CASE AGAINST MARSHAL WILLICK AND WILLICK LAW GROUP RELATED TO DEFAMATION SUIT REGARDING REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER EMPLOYED AT WILLICK LAW GROUP

VETERANS GROUP WINS SUPREME COURT APPEAL IN CASE AGAINST MARSHAL WILLICK AND WILLICK LAW GROUP RELATED TO DEFAMATION SUIT REGARDING REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER EMPLOYED AT WILLICK LAW GROUP

VETERANS GROUP WINS SUPREME COURT APPEAL IN CASE AGAINST MARSHAL WILLICK AND WILLICK LAW GROUP RELATED TO DEFAMATION SUIT REGARDING REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER EMPLOYED AT WILLICK LAW GROUP

 

LAS VEGAS – On Friday, February 21st, 2020, Veterans In Politics International (VIPI) won an appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court against attorney Marshal Willick and his law firm, Willick Law Group.

 

The underlying case is related to various statements that VIPI, a Nevada non-profit veterans’ advocacy organization published about Nevada family law attorney Marshal Willick, registered sex offender Richard Crane, and the Willick Law Group. Willick and Willick Law Group filed suit against VIPI and its president Steve Sanson asserting claims for, inter alia, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light, and business disparagement related to the statements.

 

Statements VIPI published included the fact that family law attorney Marshal Willick was employing attorney Richard Crane, a known registered sex offender, at The Willick Law Group, a Nevada family law office. In a later post, VIPI posed a question on social media asking if divorcing parents would want an attorney handling their child custody case if they “knew a sex offender works in the same office.” VIPI knew from police documents that the sex crime for which the attorney was convicted was committed in-part from an IP address “which could be positively identified as the Law office of Willick Law Group in Las Vegas.” Given the nature of the conviction, there was understandable concern that the attorney might gain access to sensitive photos of children of litigants the firm was representing.

 

Willick’s claim against Sanson for defamation is ironic considering that another of the statements published by VIPI was the fact that Mr. Willick and the aforementioned registered sex offender were “found guilty of defaming a law student in the United States District Court Western District of Virginia.” The order, in that case, granted summary judgment against the attorneys for Defamation.

 

In another social media post, VIPI pointed out that Mr. Willick was hypocritical in claiming to support veterans while advocating for a policy that preys on disabled veterans. AB 150 in the 2015 Legislative session was a bill that allowed veterans disability benefits to be included in divorce proceedings. Mr. Willick, by his support of the bill, apparently condones snatching disability benefits from wounded veterans ostensibly to entice future clients with the promise of more money in a divorce.

 

In its decision, in-part, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that each statement made by VIPI concerned an issue of public interest.

 

This decision is a win for VIPI, veterans advocates, and family court litigants in Southern Nevada. Mr. Sanson and Veterans In Politics are proud to continue the fight for veterans, the fight against the injustices of the broken Family Court system, and the fight against individuals and groups that prey on disabled veterans and family court litigants.

 

CLICK HERE to READ the Supreme Court ruling in SANSON v. WILLICK (Feb. 21, 2020)

The post VETERANS GROUP WINS SUPREME COURT APPEAL IN CASE AGAINST MARSHAL WILLICK AND WILLICK LAW GROUP RELATED TO DEFAMATION SUIT REGARDING REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER EMPLOYED AT WILLICK LAW GROUP appeared first on Veterans In Politics International.

Read More –>

“Open to the Public: Judicial Endorsement Interview”

“Open to the Public: Judicial Endorsement Interview”

Judicial Endorsement Interview for the following:

 

Clark County, Nevada

March 3, 2020

Veterans In Politics International (VIPI), will conduct Judicial candidate endorsement interviews for the following: Clark County District Court Judge Department 1, Clark County District Court Judge Department 2, Clark County District Court Judge Department 3, Clark County District Court Judge Department 4, Clark County District Court Judge Department 5, Clark County District Court Judge Department 6, Clark County District Court Judge Department 8, Clark County District Court Judge Department 15, Clark County District Court Judge Department 17, Clark County District Court Judge Department 18, Clark County District Court Judge Department 19, Clark County District Court Judge Department 20, Clark County District Court Judge Department 21, Clark County District Court Judge Department 22, Clark County District Court Judge Department 23, Clark County District Court Judge Department 24, Clark County District Court Judge Department 28, Clark County District Court Judge Department 29, Clark County District Court Judge Department 31, Clark County District Court Judge Department 32, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department A, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department E, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department G, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department I, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department J, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department M, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department P, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department S, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department T, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department U, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department V, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department W, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department X, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department Y, Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department Z, Justice of the Peace, Las Vegas TWNSHIP Department 12, Justice of the Peace, North Las Vegas TWNSH Department 3, Justice of the Supreme Court, Seat B, Justice of the Supreme Court, Seat D, Nevada Court of Appeals:

 

All candidates for the following judicial election have been invited to participate in the 2020 Clark County VIPI Judicial Endorsement Interviews. Below is a schedule of elected seats that will be in this public interview process. Members of the public and local media are welcome to attend complimentary admission to watch the live production of the VIPI Judicial Candidate Endorsement Interviews.

WHEN: March 7th, March 8th, March 14th, 2020

LOCATION: VIPI HQ 1016 Monticello Drive Las Vegas, NV 89107

PHONE: (702) 283-8088

 

VIPI takes pride in transparency and will publish all filmed content ‘as is’ to public social media pages including but not limited to our Webpage and YouTube Channels listed below:

Webpage: veteransinpolitics.org/

YouTube Channel 1: www.youtube.com/channel/UC1vBzrcEJOui3Cp5Bz-fT6Q

YouTube Channel 2: www.youtube.com/channel/UC1Lo0mCOgDpuwX24IPA-Y9w?view_as=subscriber

 

VIPI takes great pride in educating the public on each candidate running for elected office. We never “rubber stamp” a candidate—all endorsements are “earned.” Come out to support your favorite candidate and educate yourself on the candidates running to be your next elected representative.

 

The moderator for this event is T. Mathew Phillips, California Civil Rights Attorney. The moderator is not a voting member and will not participate in any endorsement of candidates.

Once recognized by Veterans In Politics International (VIPI), judicial candidates will receive the VIPI and the Nevada Veterans Association endorsement.  We will design a substantial campaign through outreach beyond “judicial insiders” within the entire Clark County and the State of Nevada to get the votes!

 

We want to endorse candidates that are not afraid to make tough decisions for the betterment of our County and State. Turning a blind eye as a candidate will prove to us you will maintain that same principal if elected to the bench.

 

Sponsors:

 

Veterans In Politics International (VIPI) is proudly sponsored by Real Water

 

Endorsement Interview Schedule

Saturday, March 7, 2020

Elected Seat Time
Clark County District Court Judge Department 1 0800
Clark County District Court Judge Department 2 0830
Clark County District Court Judge Department 3 0900
Clark County District Court Judge Department 4 0930
Clark County District Court Judge Department 5 1000
Clark County District Court Judge Department 6 1030
Clark County District Court Judge Department 8 1100
Clark County District Court Judge Department 15 1230
Clark County District Court Judge Department 17 1300
Clark County District Court Judge Department 18 1330
Clark County District Court Judge Department 19 1400
Clark County District Court Judge Department 20 1430
Clark County District Court Judge Department 21 1500

 

Sunday, March 8, 2020

Elected Seat Time
Clark County District Court Judge Department 22 0800
Clark County District Court Judge Department 23 0830
Clark County District Court Judge Department 24 0900
Clark County District Court Judge Department 28 0930
Clark County District Court Judge Department 29 1000
Clark County District Court Judge Department 31 1030
Clark County District Court Judge Department 32 1100
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department A 1230
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department E 1300
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department G 1330
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department I 1400
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department J 1430
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department M 1500

 

Saturday, March 14, 2020

 

Elected Seat Time
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department P 0800
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department S 0830
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department T 0900
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department U 0930
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department V 1000
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department W 1030
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department X 1100
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department Y 1230
Clark County District Court Family Division Judge Department Z 1300
Justice of the Peace Las Vegas TWNSHIP Department 12 1330
North Las Vegas TWNSH Department 3 1400
Justice of the Supreme Court Seat B 1430
Justice of the Supreme Court Seat D 1500
Nevada Court of Appeals 1530

 

For information contact Steve Sanson at (702) 283-8088.

 

 

 

Veterans In Politics International, Inc. ®

Post Office Box 28211

Las Vegas, NV 89126

www.veteransinpolitics.org

702 283 8088

The post “Open to the Public: Judicial Endorsement Interview” appeared first on Veterans In Politics International.

Read More –>

“Veterans in Politics Scores Huge Free Speech Victory!”

“Veterans in Politics Scores Huge Free Speech Victory!”

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!

CLICK HERE to READ the Supreme Court ruling in SANSON v. WILLICK (Feb. 21, 2020)

VETERANS in POLITICS INTERNATIONAL!

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.

Read More –>

“Las Vegas Dad Sues Family Court Judge – for Blocking Him on Facebook!”

“Las Vegas Dad Sues Family Court Judge – for Blocking Him on Facebook!”

LAS VEGAS, NEV. (Feb. 7, 2020) – A Las Vegas dad today sued a family court judge for blocking him on Facebook.

Civil rights attorney T. Matthew Phillips today filed a federal court lawsuit against Las Vegas Family Court Judge Vincent Ochoa.

T. Matthew Phillips’ lawsuit relies on the recent ruling in the Knight case, where a federal appeals court ruled that elected officials, such as Donald Trump, cannot “block” or otherwise censor members of the general public on social media, [see Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia University v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-5205 (S.D.N.Y.), No. 18-1691 (2d Cir.)].

T. Matthew Phillips, a self-styled “whistleblower,” alleges that Judge Ochoa blocked Phillips at His Honor’s Facebook page, which Phillips claims is unconstitutional.  According to the complaint–

“Defendant Ochoa violates [Phillips’] substantive rights under the First Amendment: (i) the right to free speech, and (ii) the right to petition for redress.”


Phillips is also suing Clark County and State of Nevada for negligence—for failure to train elected officials to not exclude dissenting voices in a public forum.  According to the complaint–

‘But for’ their negligence in failing to train the judge on basic free speech principles, Plaintiff would not have suffered civil rights deprivations.”


The 17-page complaint is critical of Judge Ochoa’s judicial policies.  Phillips believes the judge purposely avoids jury trials — a constitutional right.  Phillips believes the judge does not lookout for the best interests of the children.  According to the complaint–

“His Honor promotes and fosters a ‘fatherless society,’ in which the gov’t removes a parent, and then substitutes itself—in loco parentis, i.e., ‘in place of the parent,’ so that the gov’t may wield greater power and control over the lives of children, ultimately, to make them beholden to the state.”


The lawsuit seeks both money damages and injunctive relief.  According to the lawsuit, Phillips requests the following legal remedies–

“[Phillips] seeks an injunction requiring Defendant Ochoa to: (i) halt the censorship on Facebook, (i.e., removal of comments); (ii) halt the “blocking” of critics on Facebook; and (iii) lift the Facebook “block” on all persons, including Phillips, so that Dept. ‘S’ litigants may visit His Honor’s pages—to ‘freely publish their sentiments on all subjects,’ as Nevada Constitution affirmatively permits, [Nev. Const., Art. 1., § 9].” 


Asked whether he expects to prevail, Phillips stated:  “I’m a free speech enthusiast!  Win or lose, it’s fun to argue.”

Phillips added:  “All I want is to see my son.  But this judge will never, ever let that happen.  Ya know?  This judge even told me I look suicidal — but still, he refuses to let me see my son.”

What does Phillips hope to accomplish?  “I’m gonna prove that this judge violated my civil rights — and then I’ll have legit grounds for disqualification — and then I’ll just cross my fingers and hope that the next judge has a small semblance of humanity.”

We had no way of reaching Judge Ochoa for comment.


READ the FEDERAL COURT LAWSUIT —>>

CLICK HERE! – PHILLIPS v. OCHOA (Feb. 7, 2020)

The post “Las Vegas Dad Sues Family Court Judge – for Blocking Him on Facebook!” appeared first on Veterans In Politics International.

Read More –>

VETERANS IN POLITICS WINS SUPREME COURT APPEAL

VETERANS IN POLITICS WINS SUPREME COURT APPEAL

Contact: Steve Sanson
Phone: 702-283-8088
Email: vipipresident@cs.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 21, 2020

LAS VEGAS – Today, Friday, February 21st, 2020, Veteran In Politics International won an appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court against attorney Marshal Willick and his law firm, Willick Law Group.

The case has its roots stemming from an interview Mr. Willick voluntarily participated in on the Veterans In Politics Radio Show in November of 2015. Steve Sanson, host of the radio show and president of Veterans In Politics International, and Mr. Willick discussed the passage of AB 150 in the 2015 Legislative Session.

The passage of this appalling bill allowed veterans disability benefits to be included in divorce proceedings. Mr. Sanson courageously spoke out against this highly detrimental bill that hurt veterans in testimony to the Nevada Assembly Committee on the Judiciary. In those same committee meetings, Mr. Willick voiced his fervent support for the bill. It seems that Mr. Willick, by his support of the bill, condones taking disability benefits from wounded veterans as a way of enticing future clients to claim more money during their divorce proceedings.

After the radio show, Veterans In Politics International posted several statements on social media over the course of several years calling Mr. Willick out for his blatant hypocrisy. He claimed to support veterans, but he advocated for a policy that preys on disabled veterans and hits them unfairly hard during divorce proceedings. Veterans In Politics was pointing out Mr. Willick’s despicable behavior towards disabled veterans at a low point in their lives and addressing other issues stemming from his status as a practicing attorney, which will not be discussed in this release.

To deflect criticism from his targeting of disabled veterans involved in the trying situation of a divorce, Mr. Willick and his law firm filed a suit against Mr. Sanson and Veterans In Politics claiming, among other things “defamation…false light, and business disparagement.” Mr. Sanson fired back with an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) motion to dismiss Mr. Willick’s claims.

While the Eighth Judicial District Court dismissed Mr. Sanson’s motion, he appealed the motion and was granted a major victory in a ruling filed today by the Nevada Supreme Court. The case has been remanded back to the Eighth Judicial District Court for “further proceedings.”

Today is a win for veterans advocates in Southern Nevada, especially Veterans In Politics International. Mr. Sanson and Veterans In Politics are proud to continue the fight for veterans, the fight against the injustices of the broken Family Court system, and the fight against individuals and groups that prey on veterans (especially disabled veterans) and their livelihoods.
###

The post VETERANS IN POLITICS WINS SUPREME COURT APPEAL appeared first on Veterans In Politics International.

Read More –>