(VIPI) Veterans In Politics International was notified back in July, stating that Nadin Cutter Clark County Family Court Judge had to take a year off for maternity leave because she was having her Deputy Marshal Nicholas Boutos child.
Let me just add to this, Judge Cutter is married this alleged affair took place on the courthouse grounds.
VIPI immediately contacted Judge Nadin Cutter and her Deputy Marshal, who is now transferred out of family court to the Regional Justice Center. But all we received were crickets.
VIPI also contacted the Presiding Judge and Chief Judge, we received information stating that this is a personal related matter.
VIPI sat on this story until today when we received additional information from the infamous Las Vegas Law Blog echoing that Judge Cutter is indeed the mother of her Deputy Marshal child and this information is in her divorce pleadings.
Also adding that other judges within the Eighth Judicial District Court currently, have sex with their Court Appointed Deputy Marshal.
We discovered that this type of behavior has been going on for decades with former judges.
The Judge, Deputy Marshal, and the courthouse are all paid by taxpayers. This is a conflict of interest.
How can these judges judge us when they make bad judgments for themselves?
This is one of the reasons the Eighth Judicial District Court arbitrarily seals cases.
They make it difficult for pro-se-litigants to see their cases on the computer. This is a violation of the 14th Amendment, which talks about a fair judiciary. Especially litigants who live out of a 25-mile radius from the courthouse.
An attorney could just log into their portal and a litigant who represents themselves has to go to the courthouse, park, take a number, and wait in line. As if their time doesn’t matter!
How fair is this?
The court is trying to force litigants from self-representation and to hide their bad behaviors, so you can’t use it against them for re-election.
This violates the US Constitution and the Nevada Supreme Court decision that states “a courthouse is of public concern”. View the Nevada Supreme Court cases Jennifer Abrams vs. Veterans In Politics International and Marshal Willick vs. Veterans In Politics International.
Is the Nevada “toothless” Judicial Disciplinary Commission going to do something about this?
https://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Judges-having-sex-with-their-Marshal-inside-the-courthouse.png117300adminhttps://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/fcc-logo-jpg.jpgadmin2023-09-03 01:03:322023-09-03 01:03:32Judge’s having sex with their Marshal inside the courthouse!
Veterans In Politics International has exposed the criminal, unethical, and violations of Federal and State Laws regarding Family Court since 2016 none-stop. Since our involvement, this topic has garnered much attention.
The behaviors in this article are horrendous, to say the least, and we felt it would be best told by the litigant herself.
Here is her nightmare:
Hello, my name is TARA KELLOGG. I am the ex-wife of ALEX GHIBAUDO ESQ. I filed for divorce, which was finalized on February 1, 2017, after 16 years of marriage. We have one child together, born May 17, 2001. I will now give you a relatively brief summation (infra) to establish the basis/foundation of what has transpired. From there, you can see why I reasonably believe a Federal Lawsuit is warranted against the State of Nevada for egregiously blatant, undeniably intentional, and unimaginable willful violations of my Civil and 14th Amendment due process rights. Further, I have all the evidentiary documents and documentation to prove my powerful FEDERAL CIVIL CASE against the STATE OF NEVADA well beyond a reasonable doubt.
My record keeping is impeccable and thorough, as you will soon find out if/when you need anything related to my following assertions and claims. Now comes my factual timeline and the prima facie elements to prove The State of Nevada’s intentional and willful misconduct towards me. The State’s misconduct has actually and proximately caused my disability damages (actual and punitive). Alternatively, at the very least, the facts below will prove the prima facie case for unthinkable negligence, in which the State owed me a duty, breached that duty, and as such, has actually and proximately caused damages to which I am entitled.
STATE-LICENSED ATTORNEY ALEX GHIBAUDO graduated from law school in 2006 and started his first (failed) law firm in 2008. By August 2009, Ghibaudo was suspended from the practice of law for the following reasons:
Several acts of (physical, emotional, financial, and psychological) Domestic Violence from 2003 through 2014 (Ghibaudo’s reinstatement).
Alcoholism.
Repeated violations of Protective Orders.
Repeatedly abandoning clients.
Failing to provide an accounting of client funds.
Criminal misuse of clients’ IOLTA accounts, past and present).
Failing to respond to the office of bar counsel after repeated requests regarding multiple grievance files.
Making several “unprofessional, threatening, and demeaning telephone calls” to other attorneys.
Alex Ghibaudo Misconduct: (A) Foundation and summary:
Judge Lisa Brown was my first Judge. Judge Brown recused herself to avoid the appearance of impropriety because Ghibaudo repeatedly contacted her by email and phone.
Judge T. Arthur Ritchie was appointed the new Judge. I had an opportunity to “spin the wheel” for $500.00 and get a judge better or worse than Ritchie. Attorney Creel and Willick said Judge Ritchie was the best option; “Judge Richie is by the book Ritchie.” I now know that Willick and Creel fed me a lie. They believed I was a big fish and would pay substantial fees, knowing damn well Ritchie would drag out enforcement of my Decree indefinitely.
Judge Ritchie had the simple task of enforcing my divorce decree signed by Judge Lisa Brown.
Throughout 2017-2023, Judge Ritchie has NEVER enforced any provision in my Divorce Decree.
Ritchie despised my divorce decree and had no intention of ever enforcing the decree resulting from the required settlement conference.
In 2019, my attorney of record was Sigal Chattah. During a hearing in 2019, Ritchie threw down my Divorce Decree on his bench while shouting,” This is crap.”
All that was needed from Ritchie was to enforce Judge Brown’s finding of facts and enforce my divorce decree “as is”, “not make up his version of “Ritchie Law instead.”; Hence, this is where all the” judges-attorney’s club” privileges, corruption, blatant bias towards non-attorneys, judicial misconduct, and Ghibaudo misconduct begin and end since no one in power is doing anything to end it, even now. Unfortunately, this same misconduct persists going back eight years.
Refused to require Ghibaudo to produce personal and business tax returns annually to determine child and spousal support per Divorce Decree.
I AGREED TO THE TERMS OUTLINED IN THE DIVORCE DECREE/CONTRACT IN CONSIDERATION (THE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BARGAINED-FOR EXCHANGE), RELIEVING GHIBAUDO OF HIS EXCESSIVE MARITAL WASTE.
I AM NOT GETTING THE BENEFIT OF THE AGREED-UPON TERMS IN THE DIVORCE DECREE BECAUSE JUDGE RITCHIE DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.
On 3/6/2017–I sought and received a TPO against GHIBAUDO. Ghibaudo and his girlfriend, Elske Shipp, sent illegal, unwelcome, unsolicited pornographic images on my cell phone of the two engaged in sexual intercourse. The text messages lasted 44 minutes.
On 7/18/2017–Trevor Creel Esq. filed a STATE Bar complaint against Ghibaudo. (Trevor Creel’s Bar complaint was systematically dismissed and disposed of)
Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct.
(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
Hearing on 8/22/2017
Alex – “Your honor, just like what I put on the record, what I mentioned to you off the record before Court.
Ritchie – What did you say?
Alex – just like what I put on the record, what I mentioned to you off the record before Court.
Ritchie – I don’t want you to make some notion that we had some dialogue before Court.
Ritchie and Alex had dialogue before Court, and I believe they have had several conversations outside of Court. This is highly improper and constitutes extreme judicial misconduct. No other Judge on the “up and up” would ever allow such a private conversation with one party (an attorney, no less) without the other party being present. Since Ritchie allowed as much, this reeks of corruption and strategizing as a co-conspirator with Ghibaudo on exhausting my attorney funds until I drop out.
I believe wholeheartedly that Ghibaudo and Ritchie communicate regularly about this case.
Ritchie knows Ghibaudo’s false allegations before he spews them from his mouth.
Ritchie knows Ghibaudo’s request for unrelated relief (not written in motion) before he requests such.
Hearing on 10/6/17
Judge Ritchie provides Ghibaudo with tax and business advice while I pay attorney fees to Willick, Creel, and Creel’s paralegal. Alex pays nothing.
Alex continues to lie about his financials disseminated online by me without a single shred of proof.
EVIDENTIARY HEARING-Ritchie avoids the unsettled divorce decree provisions because he refuses to hear them.
Ritchie – “I’m going to do my best to close this thing out.” (a lie, or even worse, could be construed as “closing this thing out” as the functional equivalent of “until Ms. Kellogg’s attorney’s fees are exhausted, and she can’t afford to come back into my courtroom.”
My case is still ongoing 8 years later. Does that seem like “closing this thing out” to you or any reasonable person or Judge?” Hell no.
On November 7, 2017, a JUDGMENT against Ghibaudo was signed by STATE ELECTED Judge T. Arthur Ritchie. Including:
Child Support Arrears.
Medical Insurance Arrears for the minor child.
Family Support Arrears (the Judgment is still unpaid).
2017 – Numerous status checks occur every six days to ensure Ghibaudo paid the MINIMUM amount per the divorce decree, which rarely happens. Continued status checks cost more attorney fees than the minimum support obligation. This was, and still is, Ritchie’s intentional design to financially force me out of further litigation against Alex by completely exhausting my attorney funds to continue.
Not an attorney fee award is in sight from Ritchie (I stopped counting after Ritchie hit one dozen (12) deferred attorney fee requests, even though the relevant statute Ritchie is supposed to follow states that all litigants need to be on equal financial grounds. If not, the litigant with the higher income is statutorily mandated to pay the lesser-earning litigant’s attorney fees. The statutory relevance here is to keep everything equally balanced between the parties (especially when the higher-earning litigant is filing frivolous motions to exhaust the lower-earning litigant’s attorney fees deliberately).
Per the Decree of Divorce, Ghibaudo is to provide his tax returns for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 to determine child support and alimony amount according to Ghibaudo’s income. Ritchie Never enforced the production of tax returns, Schedule C Profit and Loss statements, DFDF, etc.
To avoid a Writ of Execution, Writ of Garnishment, Alex filed a fraudulent motion indicating that HIS registered agent did not serve him with the documents. Alex’s ridiculous claim is that his registered agent is mine and my family’s 20+ years of friends.
Alex then embellished his initial lie under penalty of perjury (again) with another completely fabricated falsehood (by saying his registered agent would spend Christmas with my family, celebrate birthdays, take trips, etc.). These are All Lies under oath, no less.
Ritchie then unreasonably determined that Alex’s absurd and blatant lies somehow warranted scheduling another expensive evidentiary for which I would have to foot the bill and based on no reasonable grounds. Each time Ritchie forces me to humor Alex’s lies and fabrications in Court, I am the only one forced to pay attorney fees.
Alex, a somehow licensed attorney still, represents himself pro bono.
Further, Ritchie never mandates that Alex pay my attorney fees even though it’s the law, which is also required in my divorce decree.
Here, Ritchie set aside two full days in August 2021. Alex repeatedly lied, perjured himself, and could not remember his numerous lies; thus, he constantly got tripped up by my attorney, Jonathan Nelson.
On Day 2 of Evidentiary Heating, Alex requested a continuance. The request was denied. At the end of day two, Ritchie ruled that “the beef” between Alex and his Registered Agent was between them. This was a fact Ritchie knew or should have known before even scheduling such a ridiculous evidentiary hearing premised on such a frivolous motion filed by his buddy Alex.
Thus, I prevailed (as Ritchie couldn’t appear that blatantly corrupt, especially if there were a chance his bias toward Alex might be publicized on YouTube, etc).
This is why courtroom transparency is needed, or judicial corruption would continue to be buried under cover of & “sealed case adjudication without cause”).
However, this little “evidentiary hearing stunt” pulled off by Ghibaudo and Ritchie, in cahoots with one another, still cost me thousands of dollars to defend the ridiculousness orchestrated by both Ritchie and Alex (to drain my attorney fee resources continually).
Further, on the same day, Ghibaudo changed his LLC (Limited Liability Company filed with the Secretary of State), making it impossible to collect the 2017 judgment.
Judge Ritchie knew about this, allowed it illegally, and did nothing to remedy Guibaudo’s wrong. Once again, Ritchie is exhausting more of my attorney fees ($250K to date and counting) on an unnecessary evidentiary hearing causing me even more financial hardship (without ever awarding attorney fees) that no other reasonable judge would have ever entertained over Ghibaudo choosing his Registered Agent. (a registered agent, my family nor I had any input or influence over Ghibaudo’s decision to do such). Unbelievable.
GHIBAUDO’S suspension lasted for five years, and he was reinstated in 2014, followed by a two-year (“stay out of trouble”) probationary period. However, that was a seemingly impossible State Bar requirement. GHIBAUDO could not escape trouble and was arrested on January 1, 2016.
Further, GHIBAUDO did not report his arrest to the Nevada State Bar as per the terms of his suspension.
Hearing 2/26/18 – Trevor Creel files a request for a lien against me for non-payment of $61,000, although I paid them well over $50,000.00. Ghibaudo is a working attorney with a substantial income. He refuses to pay support, judgments, etc. In contrast, I was a full-time housewife and mother to our ill daughter. My level of education at the time of separation was high school, and I received an AA degree in 2017. Ghibaudo was present at the hearing. He wants Judge Ritchie to confirm that he is in no way responsible for the attorney fees from the Willick Law Group, and Ritchie assures him that this is my debt.
On 3/19/2018—Alex Ghibaudo was held in Contempt of STATE Court for failure to pay court-ordered support in January, February, and March 2018.
On 9/13/2018— Sigal Chattah submitted a STATE Bar complaint against Alex Ghibaudo Esq., for threats and harassment. (The complaint was systematically dismissed and disposed of).
On 10/31/2018-Ghibaudo unilaterally and illegally stopped paying all court-ordered support per the established and controlling divorce decree on October 30, 2018.
On 3/20/2019— Tara Kellogg and Nicole Ghibaudo were granted a TPO against Alex Ghibaudo for threats to cause physical harm, harassment, and stalking.
On 6/27/2019—ELSKE SHIPP (under GHIBAUDO’S direction again) hacked into my USAA account to receive unauthorized information on my two children and me. I received a text message from USAA stating: “You were recently added to the personal profile of ELSKE SHIPP. If you have any questions, please call 800-292-8995.” I discovered that SHIPP accessed the account I opened in 2014, and SHIPP wrongfully added herself as a fiancé. I immediately worked with USAA to secure my and my children’s personal information to circumvent any identity theft by Shipp (who was arrested and/or convicted of various crimes herself independently of GHIBAUDO).
On 8/9/2019—I, Tara Kellogg, submitted a STATE Bar complaint against Alex Ghibaudo
Failure to pay court-ordered support obligations.
Failure to disclose a conflict of interest between Ghibaudo and Hearing Master, Jennifer Henry assigned to cases adjudicated Complainainant’s Request for Temporary Protective Orders, all in violation of Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.5 (a-b): 8.4 c-(f):
On 8/26/2019—I received a letter from Phillip J. Pattee (STATE Bar Counsel) at the Nevada State Bar. The letter concluded, “No further action will be taken in this matter.”
On 9/5/2019—I, Tara Kellogg, sent STATE Chief Justice Mark Gibbons a certified letter with supporting documentation about Nevada State Bar Counsel Phillip J. Pattee. “I believe the investigatory and disciplinary process is being abused or ignored. I also believe that Bar Counsel Phillip J. Pattee is biased, lacking objectivity when reviewing complaints about Alex Ghibaudo.”
On September 25, 2019—the STATE Supreme Court of Nevada Re: Your Correspondence Dated September 5, 2019
“Your letter dated September 5, 2019, along with exhibits, has been forwarded to me for a response. As there is pending litigation in this matter. Chief Justice Gibbons is unable to intervene or advise you in this matter. Your letter and exhibits will be forwarded to the Executive Director of the Nevada State Bar for consideration. Sincerely Elizabeth A. Brown Esq. Clerk of Court.” (I never heard from the Nevada State Bar).
On 9/26/2019–Criminal Conspiracy by Ghibaudo, Elske Shipp, and Heather Bekish.
The inception of the first Fake Facebook page, “Hekela Koa” developed and devoted to disparaging, harassing, and stalking me (Tara) incessantly.
In total Ghibaudo, Shipp, and Bekish developed 7 Fake Facebook pages.
On 10/2019–SHIPP (“high as a kite”) contacted my then family law attorney Sigal Chattah and demanded that my bank statements be directly sent to Shipp’s email address without authority or authorization whatsoever. SHIPP has no reason, right, or basis for requesting my bank statements.
On 10/28/2019–I contacted the STATE-appointed Henderson Police Department because of the relentless and continued online harassment from SHIPP/GHIBAUDO. Upon information and belief, the Henderson Police Department contacted SHIPP and advised SHIPP to stop engaging in this behavior and misconduct. However, SHIPP flouted authority and continued engaging in said behavior. SHIPP was empowered and emboldened by GHIBAUDO as a STATE licensed officer of the court.
Ghibaudo continued telling SHIPP “It was “okay” to carry on with the harassment. Thereafter, the Henderson Police Department inexplicably closed the case within minutes after learning GHIBAUDO was a STATE licensed attorney. Ghibaudo threatened to sue them (calling the officers “pigs” in the process).
On 10/30/2019–GHIBAUDO and SHIPP unlawfully and without permission attempted to access my Capital One account. I received a message from Capital One that my account had been locked out due to too many failed attempts. Henderson Police Department Incident Report No. LHP191025000778.
AGAIN, the Henderson Police Department did Nothing because they were intimidated by a STATE licensed attorney (Ghibaudo) threatening to sue them.
On 10/30/2019–GHIBAUDO and SHIPP attempted to unlawfully and without permission access my PayPal account from an unknown mobile device.
November 2019—Conference call with STATE elected District Attorney Steven Wolfson, Suzi Trubi, Assistant Director of Child Support Enforcement, my dad, Dr. Joseph Kellogg, and me.
The conference call addressed Alex Ghibaudo’s failure to pay Spousal Support since October 30, 2018, and child support arrearages and Child Support Enforcement’s ultimate failure to enforce.
In addition, we further discussed NRS 201.020. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this conference call resulted in nothing of consequence (like virtually everything else at the STATE level whenever my CIVIL OR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS are at issue.
NRS 201.020 Penalties; jurisdiction.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person who knowingly fails to provide for the support of his or her:
(a) Spouse or former spouse;
(b) Minor child; or
(c) a Child who upon arriving at the age of majority is unable to provide support for himself or herself because of infirmity, incompetency, or other legal disability that was contracted before the child reached the age of majority, Ê as ordered by a court, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
2. A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130 if:
(a) The person’s arrearages for nonpayment of the child support or spousal support ordered by a court total $10,000 or more and have accrued over any period since the date that a court first ordered the defendant to provide for such support; or
(b) It is a second or subsequent violation of subsection 1 or an offense committed in another jurisdiction that, if committed in this State, would be a violation of subsection 1, and the person’s arrearages for nonpayment of the child support or spousal support ordered by a court total $5,000 or more and have accrued over any period since the date that a court first ordered the defendant to provide for such support.
3. A prosecution for a violation of subsection 1 may be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in any county in which:
(a) A court has issued a valid order for the defendant to pay child support or spousal support;
(b) The defendant resides;
(c) The custodial parent or custodian of the child for whom the defendant owes child support resides;
(d) The spouse or former spouse to whom the defendant owes spousal support resides; or
(e) The child for whom the defendant owes child support resides.
In direct reference to this statute supra, GHIBAUDO OWES ME OVER $300,000.00 IN SUPPORT ARREAGES, which are still unpaid, yet the STATE-elected D.A. Wolfson never found such egregious criminal violations by STATE-licensed GHIBAUDO “necessary enough” to pursue, past or present.
Instead, Woflson nonchalantly stated, “He did not want to get involved in pursuing this blatant CRIME.” This is coming from the D.A. which has a statutory and elected duty (that was breached) to pursue willful and egregious crimes against victims, including but not limited to families and especially children!
Then Nevada State Bar renews Alex Ghibaudo’s law license annually. The State Bar knows full well that he does not pay his court-ordered support obligation, judgments, and attorney fees.
In 2019 and 2020–GHIBAUDO, SHIPP, and a new player/agent in their sick and twisted game, one HEATHER BEKISH (Bekish is a disgruntled ex-girlfriend of my boyfriend), posted a Craigslist ad offering “my” sexual services to strangers. The ad provided my phone number. I received numerous terrifying, unwanted, unsolicited, and lewd phone calls and voice messages (I have one saved voicemail for evidentiary purposes).
In 2019-2020, BEKISH, SHIPP, and GHIBAUDO publicly shared my medical information, bank statements, bank account numbers, and Deposition of Tara Kellogg. My private information was posted online, in emails, and in text messages. The trio disseminated my information in my sealed Family Law case. I repeatedly requested STATE elected Judge Ritchie safeguard my protected information just as Ritchie would a juvenile. He ignored my request, just as he had done for years (multiple breaches of his duty as a STATE elected family law Judge).
As discussed supra, and on other occasions, SHIPP, GHIBAUDO, and BEKISH have engaged in an online and in-person campaign of harassment, defamation, abuse, stalking, and other atrocious conduct towards me, as explicitly discussed above and below.
SHIPP, BEKISH, and GHIBAUDO admitted to their goal and purpose of accomplishing the above-discussed objectives and admitted the same in writing and orally.
On 4/3/2020–I received a letter from my health insurance provider (Aetna). The letter said that Alex Ghibaudo from the Law Firm G Law contacted Aetna to inform them of his power of attorney status. This assertion by GHIBAUDO to Aetna was a blatant lie and completely misrepresentative and illegal since I gave GHIBAUDO no such authorization to say or do so.
On 8/2/2020—An email to STATE-elected Steven Wolfson outlining Ghibaudo’s failure to pay child support, court-ordered spousal support payments, and Larry Bertsch’s Forensic Accounting report. The report concludes Ghibaudo’s misuse of two (2) IOLTA accounts and refusal to provide documents, statements, and tax returns.
On 8/9/2020—Phil Pattee (Nevada STATE Bar, Bar Counsel) emailed my attorney, Chris Reade.
Please note that the email is dated one month before the court granted Ghibaudo’s Law License Suspension for failure to pay Court-Ordered Child Support.
The email explicitly states as follows verbatim (an unimaginable STATE-authored admission of an intentional and willful breach of duty):
“I got a call from Phil Pattee at the State Bar Office of Bar Counsel. He noted that they had received the information on child support from the CCDA and would be doing Nothing further with it. He said that the District Attorney has no authority to suspend a law license and knows it has no authority to suspend a law license. He said as he chuckles when he gets another complaint against Alex, he puts it in his 3” thick file on Alex. He said this one would likewise be put in Alex’s file but Nothing further would be done at this time.”
On 8/12/2020—STATE sponsored Child Support Enforcement-District Attorney’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Suspend Alex Ghibaudo’s Law License to Practice Law in the State Of Nevada is granted. (Yet, Ghibaudo did not pay, nor was his Law License suspended per order).
Here, another breach of duty is shown by this agency since such an ordered suspension is specifically what their job is (enforcing payment or imposing the appropriate penalties).
On 8/21/2020— An email from STATE elect Steven Wolfson to me confirming that Child Support Enforcement is pursuing the suspension of Alex Ghibaudo’s Law License for failure to pay child support.
ORDER September 17, 2020:
The Court finds that Tara is willfully underemployed to maximize her spousal support claim, that the income should be imputed to her for the period between October 2017- the present (8 months after the Divorce decree was signed) (The NRS code states that you cannot retroactively decrease support). The Court can appropriately calculate the NET (the divorce decree states that all calculations are determined GROSS, not NET) support that is due during this time and that amount based on the evidence presented is $2,000 a month.
The Court further finds that Alex is employed as an attorney who incorporated his law firm with the Nevada Secretary of State about six months after the settlement conference on December 19, 2016. (Per the settlement agreement, all assets will remain community property until divorce).
The Court further finds the duration of the marriage, which was 13 years. (WRONG 15 years, 6 months) YOU DUMB FUCK. SIX YEARS ON MY CASE, AND YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW THE YEARS OF MARRIAGE!
The Court further Finds that the Court considered the earning capacity, age, and health of each spouse. Alex has an earning capacity of $140,000 per year; Tara’s earning capacity is $24,000 per year.
The Court Further Finds that the Court considers the standard of living during the marriage and finds the marriage, both parties had financial and personal issues. So that is not a compelling consideration in this case. (Ghibaudo had personal and financial issues; hence, drugs, alcohol, hookers, strip joints, and supporting random girlfriends).
In 1999 Alex moved into my 3,000 sq ft house with a pool valued at $650,000.00 and drove my $60,000 car to begin his education at CSN. (Alex had nothing.) He pissed everything away). Please see my attached deed. I stupidly added Ghibaudo to the deed to my house.
The Court Further Finds that the Court considered the career before marriage of the spouse who received alimony. Here, Tara has been taking college courses for years and has received an Associate Degree. She is currently seeking a bachelor’s degree and made effort in that regard.
I started school at CSN in 2013 while being the sole caretaker of our minor child and housewife.
I was unable to continue school and graduate from UNLV. However, Alex strategically stopped paying support on October 30, 2018. He knew full well that I would soon receive my Bachelor’s Degree. Ghibaudo does not want me to obtain an education and has made this known throughout our marriage.
The Court Further Finds that the Court considers the award of property granted in the Decree.
There was not much property granted in the Decree of Divorce to either party. (DUH! Alex stole over $700,000.00 from me. He took out a second and third mortgage on my house to afford his deplorable, vile lifestyle while living in San Francisco and attending Law School. My money provided “UNKNOWINGLY” his animalistic lifestyle behind my back.
Additionally, Alex sold my $80,000.00 vehicle and $10,000 engagement ring. He sold all the furnishings in my house and borrowed over $100,000.00 from my parents without repayment. My home foreclosed in 2009.
The Court has continuing jurisdiction to modify unaccrued periodic alimony payments outlined in a Decree of Divorce upon showing changed circumstances. NRS 125.150(8) (Ritchie imputed income retroactively back to 2017).
The only change in circumstances is the substantial increase in Ghibaudo’s income. Alex’s income increasing x 3.
The Court may consider, among other factors, a party’s earning capacity, not just income, when determining a fair and equitable alimony award. NRS 125.150.
Ghibaudo and I participated in a settlement conference and agreed on all terms, At any time any party could petition the Court for a divorce.
September 17, 2020, JUDGE RITCHIE REDUCED MY ALIMONY RETROACTIVELY DUE TO MY DISABILITY.
My disability was never mentioned in the settlement conference and agreement.
My disability is NOT mentioned in Divorce Decree. Why? Because it’s nobody’s business.
Judge Ritchie used the required Financial Disclosure Form (FDF) questionnaire against me. The FDF asks two questions under penalty of perjury.
Do you have a disability? Yes
If yes, please provide supporting documentation. I provided the same documentation supplied to the College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) required by the Disability Resource Center (DRC).
On 8/21/2020— An email from STATE elect Steven Wolfson to me confirming that Child Support Enforcement is pursuing the suspension of Alex Ghibaudo’s Law License for failure to pay child support.
Judge Ritchie never enforced any provision in my Divorce Decree in six (6) years.
Refused to enforce child support
Refused to enforce health insurance for Ghibaudo’s daughter, EVER.
Refused to enforce Marital Debt.
On 9/26/2020—Shipp, Ghibaudo, and Bekish created a Facebook account (“Hekela Koa”). The newly aligned trio created seven (7) Facebook accounts for inflicting emotional and mental distress upon me through relentless cyberstalking, cyberbullying, harassment, and other unlawful, actionable acts on a criminal and civil level. AGAIN, the Henderson Police Department did Nothing to protect or secure my 14th Amendment due process or any of my civil rights. Multiple breaches of their express duty to the public to protect and serve ALL victims, not just selectively.
On 10/19/2020–Cease and Desist letter was mailed to Elske Shipp and Heather Bekish from Chris Reade Esq. The letter went ignored and the harassment continued.
On 1/11/2021— Chris Reade Esq. filed TPO against Alex Ghibaudo for threats against Tara Kellogg and family members.
Ghibaudo said he would physically, financially, and personally “fuck Ms. Kellogg up” and would make her wish that she were dead.
Ghibaudo doubled down on his threats and said he would take out his frustrations on Ms. Kellogg physically and her family, whom Mr. Ghibaudo alleges was behind Ms. Kellogg’s litigation.
Ghibaudo said he would retract the physical threats if Ms. Kellogg agreed to “specific settlement terms in good faith. This physical threat by Ghibaudo, in exchange for a compromised civil settlement, is unequivocally clear, blatant, and illegal extortion, in which the County D.A. and various STATE courts of competent jurisdiction deliberately turned yet another blind eye to STATE-LICENSED Ghibaudo’s criminal conduct.
On 1/11/2021—An Email from STATE appointed Assistant Director Suzi Truby (Child Support Enforcement) to my Attorney Chris Reade informing Mr. Reade that Assistant District Attorney Adam Hughes will not suspend Alex Ghibaudo’s Law License for failure to pay child support after all.
Note: STATE attorney Hughes had no discretion or authority to make such a unilateral move outside his scope of authority. This decision came after Hughes spoke with STATE Bar counsel Phil Pattee, and was told by Pattee that Hughes had no such authority to suspend GHIBAUDO’s law license even though the STATE statute clearly says otherwise.
On 1/19/2021—I drove to the Henderson Police Station at 225 E Sunset Rd. The previous police reports made at my home were fruitless. As such, the “trio’s” threats and harassment increased exponentially because the Henderson Police Department enabled their misconduct towards me and essentially encouraged it by their non-action.
Upon request, I provided a detailed police report, including violations of the protective order issued on 1/11/2021. Police Officer Hendrickson “conveniently,” said the TPO does not mention/cover social media. Therefore, the threats, harassment, and stalking continued and increased substantially, even though clear and unambiguous NEVADA STATE STATUTES are in place that say otherwise.
Hearing February 3, 2021:
Attorney Chris Reade filed a motion for an order to show cause, attorney fees, and costs.
Ghibaudo failed to pay 39 months of court-ordered support out of 40 months. Monies paid to enforce divorce decree $300,000.00, Ritchie – Denied.
Hearing June 2, 2021- Clark County Family Court Judge Arthur RITCHIE THREATENS ME!!
Ritchie – that should Plaintiff attempt to enforce this Court’s prior orders or her awards of support Plaintiff would be acting at Plaintiff’s own risk.
On 7/16/2021–Email correspondence between Chris Reade Esq., and Alex Ghibaudo Esq., and cc’d to my dad, Dr. Joseph Kellogg.
The emails said as follows:
“If your client refuses this reasonable request (continuance), I will seek sanctions and attorney fees. When Ritchie denies it because he’s covering your client, because he’s white like you all are, I will appeal it. (Alex calls Ritchie Racist).
“If you think this is a fucking game I’ll play and mine will be to drain those ghoulish parents of hers (Tara’s) of every fucking penny he may have…you listening Joe? (Tara Kellogg’s father, Dr. Joseph Kellogg). Do you want to reconsider or not? Respond.
“By the way, tomorrow every single unflattering picture of hers (Tara) is going up and I will tell the story publicly. It’s all coming out now. Fuck this, I will not be extorted by a POS.”
“Just keep getting that retainer refreshed because this won’t end anytime soon so long as your old POS daughter keeps playing her stupid fucking games old man.
Just wait till I tell the world what a piece of shit you and your family are.
Chris Reade Esq. emailed me the following:
“He is high as a kite, But Tara, if you don’t think this email accusing Ritchie of racism is not an exhibit, you are grossly mistaken. WTH was he thinking?
“He also indicated that he intends to vexatiously drain your parents. That’s an abuse of process that he just admitted to.”
Email dated August 12, 2021. In the email from Ghibaudo to Shipp (Ghibaudo’s girlfriend) and cc’d to Bekish (the disgruntled ex-girlfriend of my boyfriend Mike A/K/A Hoyt Torrey).
The email directs Shipp and Bekish to create another fake Facebook account or send disparaging, deplorable, disgusting flyers to my neighbors sent anonymously.
The intent is: “I aim to force this bitch to kill herself.”
To date, Ghibaudo, Shipp, and Bekish have created seven (7) fake Facebook accounts to stalk, harass and threaten me to “the point I kill myself” (as intended by the email I provided you from Alex and cc’d Elske Shipp (Ghibaudo’s girlfriend) and Heather Bekish (the disgruntled ex-girlfriend of my boyfriend Mike A/K/A Hoyt Torrey).
Ghibaudo’s threats throughout the years must be taken seriously. Ghibaudo has a long string of severe DV arrests and convictions against me and his current girlfriend.
In 2020, Ghibaudo disseminated my bank statements and deposition to his minions and many others.
Ghibaudo makes physical threats directly to my 80-year-old dad, Dr. Joseph Kellogg.
Ghibaudo threatens my dad with his intent to continue litigation indefinitely. (Emails in my possession).
TPO sought and received by attorney Chris Reade against Ghibaudo. (See TPO in my possession).
Phil Pattee enables Alex (Read the Chris email about the 3-inch binder BS).
The State Bar runs unchecked in Clark County (DA Wolfson does not want to “get involved”).
Ghibaudo and Shipp commit perjury (See perjury folder in my possession). Discuss the videotaped lying testimony by Alex and Shipp vs. the phone records exposing those lies.
Here, the courts, DA, or state Bar have done zero. about it.
On August 12, 2021, an email authored by GHIBAUDO (on his business letterhead, no less) to SHIPP and BEKISH read verbatim in its entirety as follows:
“Heather, are you opposed to starting another Facebook page about them both? I can feed you all sorts of information and shield and protect you from any kind of liability. My goal is to utterly destroy both of them. I’m not fucking around with these pieces of shit anymore. One idea I like is to print out pictures of the two of them together, attach them to his disbarment doc, and distribute them to her entire neighborhood; all, of them. I’m willing to mail it if we cannot get in.
“I AIM TO FORCE THIS BITCH TO KILL HERSELF.”
SHIPP, BEKISH, and GHIBAUDO admitted to their goal and purpose of accomplishing the above-discussed objectives and admitted the same in writing and orally.
On 8/16/2021— STATE-backed judge Ritchie required an unprecedented, improper, unfounded, abnormal, and unheard-of two-day Evidentiary Hearing on a Writ of Execution/Writ of Garnishment.
On August 17, 2021, Ghibaudo changed his LLC to defraud me in violation of NRS 89.022.
From 2018 through 10/2021, I, Tara Kellogg, filed twenty-eight (28) police reports for continued threats, harassment, and stalking with the STATE approved Henderson Police Department.
ALL police reports were closed without investigation (blatant breach of duty).
Seven police reports were left blank.
Eight Police reports had basic information incorrect, such as my name.
On 10/03/2022, Officer Eric Bohn from the Henderson Police Officer reopened my case(s) and forwarded it to the Cybercrimes Unit.
In March 2023, Detective Vargason from the Henderson Police Department (Cybercrimes Unit) contacted me three (3) months after I provided:
The flash drive included threats, harassment, relentless stalking, grotesque, deplorable, vile, repugnant photos of me, including my name: Tara R. Kellogg, Tara Rae, Tara Rae Kellogg
My sworn declaration/affidavit.
Detective Vargason dared to inquire how long it would take to view the flash drive (as if he did not want to be unduly burdened from doing the exact job he is paid very well for).
I was incredibly insulted by Detective Vargason and “matter of factly” assured him that the length of time it might take him to do his job would be substantially less time than it took me to put all of the “nightmarish documentation together for him (unpaid no less).
I contacted Detective Vargason approximately one (1) month later for an update. Not surprisingly and conveniently, Detective Vargason “did not see any crimes, harassment, stalking, threats, etc”. Although, the last email I received from Ghibaudo specifically stated, “I aim for this Bitch to kill herself.” There is Nothing to see here, I guess (unbelievable).
On November 23, 2021– Ghibaudo was exactly three years (36) months behind in his court-ordered-support obligation.
Jonathan (JK) Nelson said, Ms. Kellogg is continually prejudiced by your failure to act.
Ritchie set an Order to Show Cause for February 2022. Why?? Because Jonathan Nelson was spot on!
Michancy Cramer said in Open Court, “Tara can go sleeping around with half of California.
Ritchie said NOTHING!!
Ghibaudo held in contempt. However, Ritchie emphatically refused to implement a $500.00 fine for each month Ghibaudo failed to pay support or incarcerate Ghibaudo for failure to pay Court ordered support for a whopping 39 months.
Instead, Ritchie held me in contempt for sharing hearing videos (currently on appeal).
Ghibaudo disseminating my bank statements and other financial docs, deposition, etc., from the evidentiary hearing from May 2019-September 2020. This can be proven.
Ritchie decreased my alimony retroactively and substantially. Ritchie declared that I do not have a disability. However, my disability was never mentioned in the settlement conference or the Divorce Decree. Why? Because it’s nobody’s damn business.
When did this Family Court Judge become a medical doctor?
Ritchie was seeking any reason to decrease my alimony by any means. I stupidly answered honestly on an FDF, “Do you have a disability? Under the Penalty of Perjury, I answered yes.
(Although, it’s nobody’s fucking business) The question further asked me to provide documentation. Thus, I logged into My UNLV account and provided the same documentation I had provided the Disability Resource Center (DRC) at UNLV.
The letter from my psychiatrist and the document from the Social Security Administration. I have the evidence to support this as well.
Ritchie discriminates against people with disabilities, and he is sexist and racist.
Judge Arthur Ritchie, needs immediate removal from the bench before continuing the mountains of destruction, and he MUST be stopped.
On 1/27/2022—Tara Kellogg was ordered to be present for a Deposition at Ghibaudo’s office by Ghibaudo.
Such an order was inherently dangerous since it put me at severe risk of having to be in the same room with an individual who had been arrested and/or convicted more than 30 times for assaulting me in the past.
Including two acts of strangulation. The STATE discovery commissioner ruled against me and my legitimate safety concerns in favor of being unreasonably placed in danger at Ghibaudo’s office. What is so outrageous here is that this was during the height of COVID when such depositions were routinely conducted by” bluejeans” for far less.
Thus, I employed a retired Metro Police Officer to accompany me during the “ridiculous” seven hours Ghibaudo kept the deposition going for his amusement (like a cat taunting a defenseless mouse).
Additionally, Ghibaudo refused to allow the former Metro officer in his office. Ghibudo said, “I hate fucking pigs.” I was terrified the entire time and was legitimately convinced he would kidnap or kill me based on his past actions and current physical threats.
In 2022, GHIBAUDO and SHIPP signed me up for many services and contact lists without my consent. For example, SHIPP signed me up for a job search service that resulted in several unwanted calls and voice messages. SHIPP has no right, privilege, or reason to be concerned about my unemployment status or personal life.
On 2/11/2022–GHIBAUDO and SHIPP created a Facebook account under the name of Lisa Jakobsen (“Jakobsen Account”). The Jakobsen account was created solely to harass, threaten, insult, intimidate, ridicule, defame, stalk, and other legally impermissible behavior toward me.
SHIPP has admitted to being the creator of the Jakobsen Account, and GHIBAUDO admitted to several threatening, harassing, stalking posts (I have the text messages confirming such for evidence provided by Heather Bekish in a lapse of Judgment on her part).
I made countless calls to the Henderson Police Department and numerous Police reports that fell on deaf ears yet again. Shocker. I am now a prisoner in my own home because no one at the STATE LEVEL is doing an iota of what they are required to do by law to protect and serve me as a daily, never-ending victim of this trio.
On 2/12/2022—Again I filed a police report for threats and harassment. Please note that I had a previous appointment with my physician on Friday, March 24, 2023. The appointment was to renew my Disabled Placard. My doctor determined that I will no longer require renewal of the disabled placard. My physician determined that I was “completely disabled.”
The Henderson Police Department is one of the NEVADA STATE agencies that have actually and proximately caused by Federally recognized SSA disability and damages (in which compensatory and punitive damages are highly warranted in Federal Court). The police failed to do a simple investigation. Had the Henderson Police Department (an agent of the STATE OF NEVADA) done a sliver of work between 2018-2023, my future would look drastically different for the better.
However, they chose to do NOTHING instead but ensure the aforementioned “trio” continued to haunt me daily with their antics and with unfettered discretion.
The Henderson Police Department would rather have me employ an expensive PI and do an investigation on my own than do their actual job.
However, “but for” the Henderson Police Department’s willful, intentional (or at the bare minimum, wanton and reckless negligence) over the years, I would not be disabled (ACTUAL DAMAGES) at this point in my life. I would not be diagnosed with PTSD. I would not be depressed every hour of every day, I would not have debilitating anxiety and a life not worth living, as my psychiatrist astutely diagnosed).
Further, I have now developed a reasonable fear toward STATE law enforcement and elected officials based solely on the prolonged mistreatment and injustice I have been forced to endure needlessly for over eight years. I have had to learn “the hard way” that these institutions seemingly are not in place to protect me in the least, especially if a STATE licensed attorney is the criminal hell-bent on seeing me ultimately “DEAD.”
Click on this Powerful interview:
Tara Kellogg victim of Family Court Torture by Nevada Attorney Alex Ghibaudo & Judge Arthur Ritchie
https://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Wife-of-Family-Court-Attorney-Exposes-State-Bar-DA-Child.jpg300200adminhttps://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/fcc-logo-jpg.jpgadmin2023-04-23 21:29:142023-04-23 21:29:14Wife of Family Court Attorney; Exposes State Bar, DA Child Support, Police, and Family Court Judge!
The seemingly perpetual political and legal battle over whether gig workers for Uber, Lyft, Doordash and services are contractors or employees took another turn last week and may go full circle – back to the state Supreme Court and possibly a second trip through the Legislature. A state appellate court upheld all but one section […]
Veterans In Politics International (VIPI) and its President Steve Sanson, have settled their third Anti-SLAPP lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). This time against megalomaniac family law attorney Marshal Willick.
Willick is known to bully, sue, defame, dox, harass, and intimidate people he doesn’t like until he gets his way, but this time he ultimately had to cough up $175,000 to Steve Sanson in a case that has been going on since 2017.
Attorney Marshal Willick along with his girlfriend, attorney Jennifer Abrams, are emblematic of the chronic problems that plague the family court. In early 2017, Sanson criticized abuses in the Clark County Family Courts and declared WAR on it. As part of that war, Sanson published a courtroom video of Abrams’ sketchy courtroom conduct. The video was highly embarrassing for Abrams (view video: Jennifer Abrams Nevada Attorney attacks a Clark County Family Court Judge in Open Court www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6YELDGuYHM&t=198s).
Sanson then exposed embarrassing details of a tier 2 registered sex offender openly working in Willick’s family law office.
Sanson was a threat to their family Court racket, so in an apparent effort to stifle his efforts, Willick and Abrams both filed frivolous lawsuits against Sanson and VIPI alleging everything from defamation to civil conspiracy.
As the cases made their way through the courts, Willick told a group, “We have to do something about Sanson’s war on the family court to protect the judges.” The net result was that Willick and Abrams recruited a couple of online trolls: former addict Mark DiCiero and paralegal David Schoen, to dox and harass Sanson – along with any other family court litigants they believed to be associated with him or VIPI. They did this through an online group called Nevada Court Watchers or “NCW” – and later a political action committee called “NCW PAC” which was a companion group that threatened judicial candidates who even dared to speak to Sanson.
The cases hit their peak when Willick, in coordination with either a vulnerable or in our opinion corrupt judge, arranged a kangaroo hearing where Sanson was falsely accused of attempting to influence a case. The video of this hearing was widely publicized in an attempt to discredit Sanson ( view video: BRYCE DUCKWORTH FAMILY COURT JUDGE STORMS OFF THE BENCH www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvhrt0sOFy4&t=161s).
Despite her extraordinarily poor taste in suitors, to her credit, Abrams was the smarter of the two settling with Sanson and his organization for $155,000 in June 2021.
As usual, Willick is not so smart. He only opened his checkbook following three failed settlement conferences, multiple failed trips to the Nevada Supreme Court for appeals, and a failed attempt to dismiss his so-called airtight case against Sanson and VIPI. When it finally became clear that Sanson would not bow to intimidation. At one point remarkably Willick had the entire Eighth Judicial District Court Bench disqualified. In addition, Willick changed attorneys several times.
With no way out, Willick finally gave in and settled with Steve Sanson and Veterans In Politics International.
Sanson and his organization were sued by these attorneys because he championed, exposed, and provided solutions for the corruption that plagued the Eighth Judicial District Court Clark County Family Division. The same corruption that some unscrupulous family law attorneys profit from.
Sanson and VIPI have sparked a whirlwind of citizens rising and banding together. Many litigants thought that they were alone. Many litigants were afraid to speak out because their judge essentially kept their children hostage.
Before VIPI began exposing the corruption in the Clark County Family Court, it was hardly spoken about. Sanson and VIPI gave this issue its undivided attention to expose the cancer of Family Court holding several public protests outside the family courthouse, educating litigants on their rights, getting corrupt family court judges removed from office, and exposing again and again how unethical attorneys and judges arbitrarily seal cases to shield their unethical and unlawful behavior from the public.
The cost to Willick and Abrams was not inconsequential. The total paid to Sanson by Willick and Abrams so far is $330,000. This doesn’t even include the money Willick and Abrams spent on their own attorneys in their failed attempts to silence VIPI.”
Veterans In Politics International will never stop exposing corruption, will not stop endorsing good candidates for elected seats, will not stop educating litigants on how to defend themselves in family court, and will not stop promoting legislation that is going to once and for all rid us of the corruption that has plagued our family court system for decades.
VETERANS IN POLITICS INTERNATIONAL (“Where Change Happens!”)
Previously, such as here, I have written about how Batson/Edmonson challenges could be used with respect to people with disabilities not being allowed to serve on juries. The interesting thing about Batson and its civil equivalents is that whenever I have asked litigators if they have encountered the situation of using Batson to prevent exclusion of persons with disabilities from serving on juries, they tell me they have not. On November 7, 2022. The Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District, in Unzueta v. Akopyan, a published decision, here, holds that under California law people who associate with persons with disabilities have a right to be free from discrimination in jury selection. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: facts; court’s reasoning that trial court erred in denying the Batson/Wheeler challenges; and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.
I
Facts
Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that the defendant, the anesthesiologist during the birth of her child, negligently administered an epidural injection resulting in the paralysis of plaintiff’s right leg below the knee. Plaintiff lost at trial and appealed. On appeal, the appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying Batson/Wheeler (Wheeler is the California equivalent of Batson), challenges and said that the trial court had to revisit each of the challenged jurors to see if impermissible discrimination had occurred. If such impermissible discrimination occurred, the trial court was to reinstate the judgment. On remand, defendant’s attorney asserted that two of the prospective jurors were excluded because they had a family member who was disabled and the attorney feared the family member’s disability would cause the particular juror to be biased in favor of the plaintiff. One of the prospective jurors had a child with a disability. The other prospective juror had a husband who was disabled, unable to work, and had an outstanding Worker’s Compensation matter. The trial court found those justifications to be race neutral and plaintiff appealed saying that excluding the two prospective jurors based upon the disabilities of their family members was by itself discrimination based upon protected characteristics and therefore impermissible.
II
Court’s Reasoning That Trial Court Erred in Denying the Batson Challenges
While peremptory challenges are a long-standing feature of both the civil and criminal systems in America, the exercise of even a single peremptory challenge solely on the basis of race or ethnicity offends the guarantee of equal protection of the laws under the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It also violates a defendant’s right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under the California Constitution.
The prohibition against the exercise of peremptory challenges to include prospective jurors on the basis of group bias applies to both civil and criminal cases.
Excluding evening a single prospective juror for reasons impermissible under Batson/Wheeler requires reversal.
The three-step process for evaluating a Batson/Wheeler motion works like this: 1) the party objecting to the strike must establish a prima facie case by showing facts sufficient to support an inference of discriminatory purpose; 2) if the objector succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the proponent of the strike to offer a permissible nonbiased justification for the strike; and 3) if the proponent does offer a nonbiased justification, the trial court must decide whether that justification was genuine or instead whether impermissible discrimination impact motivated the strike.
At the second step of the Batson/Wheeler analysis, the party exercising the peremptory challenge cannot justify an allegedly impermissible challenge with a different impermissible justification (i.e. that two of the six jurors had family members with disabilities). In other words, getting past the second step is not going to happen if what is happening is the substitution of an impermissible justification for another.
When the trial court makes a sincere and reasoned effort to evaluate the proffered reasons for the strike, the reviewing court defers to its conclusions on appeal and examines only whether substantial evidence supports them.
Batson/Wheeler challenges are subject to independent review on appeal.
The United States Supreme Court has extended Batson/Wheeler motions to prevent the exercise of peremptory challenges to those based upon gender.
The California Constitution prohibits the use of peremptory challenges on account of bias against an identifiable group distinguished on racial, religious, ethnic, or similar grounds.
In 2000, California legislature expanded the list of groups subject to a Batson/Wheeler motion to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.
In 2015, the California legislature expanded the list further by referencing §11135 of the Government Code, which specifically references mental disability, physical disability, genetic information, and medical condition among other things. §11135(d) also applies to people who associate with a person who is perceived or has any of the characteristics listed in the Government Code.
Taking the 2000 and 2015 amendments together, means using peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors on the basis a person with whom the juror is associated with has a disability is impermissible.
In a footnote, the court noted that it was clear from the legislative history that the intent of the 2000 and 2015 amendments was to align the limitations on peremptory challenges with California law prohibiting other forms of discrimination by the state, a state agency, or entities funded by the state.
No dispute exists that the justification for excluding two of the jurors was their association with family members with disabilities. In fact, the attorney on remand focused specifically on the disability of the family members. The trial court in ruling on the motion likewise relied on the disability of the family members.
III
Thoughts/Takeaways
While I received my J.D. degree from the University of San Diego (I also have an LL.M. in health law from Depaul), I never took the California bar. So, I am not licensed in California. Much of this decision turns on California law. When it comes to the rights of people with disabilities in California, it is important to get a California licensed attorney involved, particularly with California’s Unruh Act often being in play.
As the court points out in a footnote, the United States Supreme Court and federal courts have yet to expand Batson/Wheeler to peremptory challenges based on a prospective juror’s disability. In fact, the two cases cited in the footnote by the court are cases that I have mentioned in blog entries previously here and here. The court also notes that the California Supreme Court has not addressed the application of Batson/Wheeler to jurors based upon their disability or the disability of a family member.
The Second Court of Appeals talks about sole cause and it also talks about permissible reasons motivating a strike. The use of both terms in its opinion raises the question of whether Batson/Wheeler challenges in California turn on sole cause or motivating factor (I am not a licensed attorney in California). At the federal level, it would seem after Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, that sole cause would not be the standard.
While the United States Supreme Court has not specifically weighed in on whether Batson and its civil progeny, Edmondson, applies to persons with disabilities, a plain reading of Tennessee v. Lane, which we have discussed many times, such as here, would suggest that the only logical conclusion is that Batson does apply.
A plain reading of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which we discussed here, also suggests that Batson challenges would be in play for the LGBTQ community as well.
The case serves as an important reminder that state laws can go further than federal laws.
The disadvantage of Batson is that it relies on attorneys to make the challenge. The prospective juror has no ability to do it themselves.
https://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/fcc-logo-jpg.jpg00adminhttps://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/fcc-logo-jpg.jpgadmin2022-11-24 12:27:072022-11-24 12:27:07California Appellate Court Holds Persons Who Associate With Persons With Disabilities Can Have Batson Challenges Exercised on Their Behalf
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices sounded sharply split Wednesday on whether to strike down a federal child custody law that seeks to keep Native American children with tribal families. Three of the court’s liberals, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, strongly defended the law. They said the Constitution gave Congress broad authority to protect Native […]
https://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/dailyrepublic_11_1024.png10241024adminhttps://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/fcc-logo-jpg.jpgadmin2022-11-09 22:55:002022-11-09 22:55:00Supreme Court divided on adoption law that keeps Native American kids in tribal homes [Los Angeles Times :: BC-SCOTUS-NATIVE-CHILDREN:LA]
Today’s blog entry deals with the question of whether the interactive process continues through any litigation and whether evidence of that interactive process taking place or not taking place when the case is being litigated can be brought into evidence. The case is Kovachich v. Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, here, decided by the Supreme Court of Connecticut on September 27, 2022. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: facts; majority reasoning that exhibits were properly admitted; Chief Justice Robinson’s dissenting opinion; and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.
I
Facts
The facts can be distilled quite a bit. What you have here is a plaintiff requesting from her employer a scent free work environment. While the employer granted accommodations, some employees failed to comply with the scent free working environment designation. As a result, plaintiff was exposed to scents at the jobsite that exacerbated her rhinitis and asthma and on multiple occasions triggered the need for emergency medical treatment. She then sought out legal counsel to ensure that she was protected in the workplace. The plaintiff, her counsel, and the human resources director did meet with the result being a notice was placed on the overtime sign-up sheet informing employees that the Brief Care Unit was scent free. However, with limited exceptions, no additional measures were taken to educate the workforce or to enforce the scent free designation by means of workforce discipline. This led to a filing with the Connecticut version of the equal employment opportunity commission.
At trial, plaintiff’s counsel sought to introduce into evidence an April 29, 2013, email from plaintiff’s counsel to a Connecticut Assistant Attorney General with a subject line, “request for demand.” the content of that email asked for a discussion to find a solution to ensure that plaintiff could be given a scent free environment. No such meeting took place in response to the email. Plaintiff’s counsel also offered into evidence in the email of May 30, 2013, stating that one of the plaintiff’s coworkers was also affected by scents in mandatory training situations and suggesting that online training as a possible accommodation. It also said her employer’s approach was the wrong one and that plaintiff intended to move forward with her case. It specifically inquired about what solutions the employer might propose. Plaintiff’s counsel also sought to introduce into evidence a July 22, 2013 letter containing a set of demands and ending with, “we would be happy to meet with representatives of the defendant who has authority to discuss and recommend these requests.” All of these exhibits were offered for purposes of illustrating plaintiff’s attempts at the interactive process. The trial court admitted the exhibits and wound up finding in favor of the plaintiff awarding $3800 of additional pension income. It also awarded the plaintiff $125,000 for the emotional distress caused by the actions of the employer and $415,389.50 in attorney fees.
The defendant appealed to the appellate court and the appellate court wound up agreeing with the defendant on that the various exhibits should not have been admitted and for other reasons as well. Plaintiff appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
II
Court’s Reasoning That the Exhibits Were Properly Admitted
It is true that the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides that evidence of an offer to compromise or settle a disputed claim is inadmissible on the issue of liability and the amount of the claim. Good policy reasons exist for that rule.
It is also true that the Connecticut Code of Evidence allows an offer to compromise or settle a disputed claim into evidence if it is offered for another purpose. The list of purposes that appear in that statute are illustrated rather than exhaustive.
Whether the exhibits should have been admitted is an evidentiary area issue reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
The Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act borrows from the ADA and requires an interactive process to figure out what accommodation can be put in place in order to overcome a person with a disability’s limitations.
The need for the interactive process arises because both parties hold information that the other does not have or cannot easily obtain.
The employee has the burden of initiating the interactive process must come forward with some suggestion of accommodation, and the employer then must make a good-faith effort to participate in that discussion.
A plaintiff who fails to initiate or participate in the interactive process in good faith loses.
An employer’s refusal to give an employee his or her specific requested accommodation does not necessarily amount to bad faith, so long at the employer makes an earnest attempt to discuss other potential reasonable accommodations.
An employer’s failure to participate in the interactive process in good faith does not give rise to per se liability. However, it may be sufficient grounds for denying a defendant’s motion for summary judgment because it is at least some evidence of discrimination. In other words, in Connecticut a failure to engage in a good faith interactive process, is not a separate cause of action but can be introduced as evidence tending to show disability discrimination.
The interactive process required by law is ongoing and is not exhausted by one effort. The ongoing interactive process continues during the course of plaintiff’s employment even after the plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging disability discrimination.
The Connecticut Supreme Court found persuasive the reasoning of numerous federal courts that have been admitted evidence of compromise offers and negotiations for purposes of showing that the parties engaged in the interactive process.
Nothing in the record establishes that the communications contained in the exhibits occurred within the context of the commission’s mandatory mediation program. In fact, plaintiff’s complaint had been pending with the commission for approximately one year and had been referred to in commission investigator at the time the document was generated, which means that the mandatory mediation had at least concluded.
Although the communication contained in the exhibits occurred while the plaintiff’s complaint was pending before the commission, no evidence exists to indicate that the exhibits were part of the commission’s conciliation efforts, as opposed to their investigative efforts, or independent of the commission’s efforts altogether.
The purpose of the evidentiary admissions was not to show liability but to show that a party was engaging in the interactive process.
The trial court did not rely on the exhibits to find that the defendant engaged in discrimination. Instead, the trial court found that the defendant had failed to effectuate the plaintiff’s accommodations by an abject failure to make any reasonable effort to educate the staff about what a scent free environment meant and a supervisor’s refusal to do anything whatsoever about the scent free workplace environment provided by the ADA committee.
While the trial court did rely on the defendant’s failure to respond to one of the exhibits to find that the good faith interactive process had broken down, that finding was based on defendant’s failure to present any evidence that it responded to the plaintiff’s communication, rather than the content of the communication itself.
There was no error in the trial court’s determination that the exhibits were highly relevant to the defendant’s ability to react intelligently and legally to the plaintiff’s request for accommodations.
The content of the communications demonstrate that the plaintiff wanted to continue with the interactive process but was getting nowhere.
III
Chief Justice Robinson Dissenting Opinion
Failure to engage in interactive process is not entirely distinct from the liability inquiry as a matter of law.
Most circuits find a failure to engage in the interactive process results in liability when a reasonable accommodation would otherwise have been possible.
Connecticut Code of Evidence prohibits admissibility of a variety of things when it goes to liability in general.
Majority view is too narrow as to what is part of the mediation process.
IV
Thoughts/Takeaways
My thanks to Daniel Schwartz, who has a blog called the Connecticut Employer Law Blog (the link will take you to his discussion of the case), for first bringing my attention to this case.
Six justices were in the majority with the Chief Justice being the lone dissenter.
The interactive process is a continuing duty that continues through any litigation.
I am not a Connecticut licensed attorney. Mileage may also vary depending upon jurisdiction.
Federal case law exists holding that request to engage in the interactive process made during ongoing litigation can be admitted for the purpose of demonstrating the continuing obligation of engaging in the interactive process.
As a preventive law matter, an employer would do well to respond to any accommodation offers while litigation is ongoing. Of course, as we have discussed numerous times in our blog, such as here, once an employer is put on notice that a need for accommodation exists (magic words are not required), the employer should engage in the interactive process.
In most circuits, failure to engage in the interactive process is a separate cause of action. In those circuits, the dissenting opinion here may hold quite a bit of sway because of the failure to engage in interactive process being a liability issue.
https://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/fcc-logo-jpg.jpg00adminhttps://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/fcc-logo-jpg.jpgadmin2022-10-21 23:52:202022-10-21 23:52:20Interactive Process Obligation Continues Through Litigation
For many attorneys, the prospect of a U.S. Supreme Court argument serves as the capstone of a legal career. But for a select few, like Kannon Shanmugam, chair of Paul Weiss’s Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group, arguing before the Supreme Court is a regular occurrence. Kannon joins Jody Sanders and Todd Smith to discuss his path to Supreme Court advocacy and some of the unique challenges it offers. Kannon also discusses
https://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/fcc-logo-jpg.jpg00adminhttps://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/fcc-logo-jpg.jpgadmin2022-10-13 21:11:582022-10-13 21:11:58Practicing Before the U.S. Supreme Court | Kannon Shanmugam
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court in a filing Tuesday not to weigh in on an ongoing fight with former President Donald Trump over classified documents, arguing that Trump “has not even attempted to explain” how he is harmed by an appellate court decision not to allow a special master to […]
https://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/US-NEWS-TRUMP-MARALAGO-SEARCH-MI.jpg10661600adminhttps://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/fcc-logo-jpg.jpgadmin2022-10-12 02:27:102022-10-12 02:27:10Department of Justice asks Supreme Court not to intervene in Trump classified records fight
Hiya, folks! Nice for y’all to come visit again at the Texas Tax Round Up! We got another installment chock-full of Texas tax action, so let’s get started!
Court Cases
Sales and Use Tax
Manufacturing Exemption
Hegar v. Tex. Westmoreland Coal Co., Case 21-1007 (Tex. Sept. 30, 2022)—In this case, the Texas Supreme Court denied the Comptroller’s petition for review, leaving the decision of the Third Court of Appeals in favor of the taxpayer in place. The Court of Appeals had held that equipment used to break apart lignite coal from a coal formation qualified for the manufacturing exemption from sales and use tax.[1] The Court of Appeals disregarded the Comptroller’s argument that the manufacturing exemption didn’t apply because the equipment was used on real property to create tangible personal property, holding that there was no basis in the statute for any requirement that an input to the manufacturing process had to be tangible personal property.
Franchise Tax
Apportionment
Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Hegar, 21-0997 (Tex. Sept. 30, 2022)—The Texas Supreme Court denied the taxpayer’s petition for review in this case, so the decision of the Third Court of Appeals in favor of the Comptroller remains the law of the land. The Court of Appeals had held that only the net proceeds of sales of commodity futures contracts and options on commodity futures contracts could be included in the calculation of the taxpayer’s apportionment factor for purpose of calculating Texas franchise tax.
34 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.334 (Local Sales and Use Taxes) (published at 47 Tex. Reg. 6158 (Sept. 23, 2022))—Here we have the latest development in the ongoing saga regarding the sourcing of Texas local sales and use taxes, particularly with regard to orders placed over the internet.
In its 2018 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states could impose tax collection requirements on out-of-state sellers lacking physical presence in the state as long as the requirements didn’t impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. In light of this decision, The Comptroller determined that the then-existing Rule 3.334 was inadequate to explain Texas’ local sales and use tax consummation statutes.[2]
However, the Comptroller’s proposed amendments to the rule in January 2020 met with backlash from cities and businesses. A public hearing was held on February 4, 2020, and the Ways and Means Committee of the Texas House of Representatives held an interim hearing to discuss the proposed amendments on February 5, 2020.[3]
Nevertheless, the Comptroller pressed ahead and finalized the amendments in May 2020. Shortly thereafter, the Comptroller amended the rule in 2020, the Cities of Round Rock, Coppell, DeSoto, Humble, and Carrolton sued, challenging the amendments’ validity.[4] Ultimately, a district court in Travis Count at least partially agreed with the cities, finding that the Comptroller failed to substantially comply with procedural requirements for notice of proposed rule.[5] The court remanded the rule to give the comptroller the opportunity to either revise or readopt it through established procedure.[6]
Thus, the Comptroller is now reissuing proposed Rule 3.334 with fuller explanation of the proposed rulemaking.[7]
At the heart of the debate over proposed Rule 3.334 is the sourcing of internet sales. The proposed rule would define the term “place of business of the seller” as “an established outlet, office, or location operated by a seller for the purpose of receiving orders for taxable items from persons other than employees, independent contractors, and natural persons affiliated with the seller.”[8] The location would have to be staffed by one or more sales personnel and these sales personnel would have to accept at least three orders of taxable items at the facility during the calendar year.[9] The term “place of business of the seller” wouldn’t include “a computer server, Internet protocol address, domain name, website, or software application.”[10]
This change in the definition of “place of business of the seller” places out in proposed Rule 3.334(b)(5), which would provide that “[a]n order that is not received by a salesperson is received at a location that is not a place of business of the seller. Examples are orders received by a computer server through a shopping cart software program and orders received by an automated telephone ordering system.”[11] This would cause orders that were placed on the internet that were not fulfilled at a place of business of the seller in Texas to be sourced to the location of the purchaser.[12] Currently, some taxpayers have taken the position such orders are received at a place of business of seller, which would mean that these sales would be sourced to that place of business.
Notable Additions to the State Tax Automated Research (“STAR”) System
Sales and Use Tax
Enterprise Zones
Comptroller Decision No. 117,512 (2022)—The ALJ found that a taxpayer that operated a petrochemical production facility that was designated as a Project as part of the Texas Enterprise Zone Program (the “Program”) was not entitled to a refund of sales and use taxes because not enough employees of the Project were residents of an Enterprise Zone.
The Program requires at least 35% of the new permanent jobs of the Project be held by residents of an Enterprise Zone or by economically disadvantaged individuals.[13] An area automatically qualifies for designation as an Enterprise Zone if the area is “designated by the federal government as a Federal Renewal Community, a Federal Empowerment Zone, or a Federal Enterprise Community, including any developable area approved by the federal agency responsible for making that designation.”[14]
The taxpayer identified several of the Project’s employees as residents of the Gulf Opportunity Zone (“GO Zone”). The GO Zone was created pursuant to the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act (Act), signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005 in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Act designated certain areas as “disaster areas” affected by the hurricanes, created the boundaries of the GO Zone, and established tax benefits for businesses and individuals in the GO Zone. The GO Zone was not designated by the federal government as a Renewal Community, Empowerment Zone, or Enterprise Community. Congress did not designate the GO Zone as a Renewal Community, Empowerment Zone, or Enterprise Community, and no federal agency designated or approved the GO Zone as such.
Thus, the ALJ found that the GO Zone wasn’t an Enterprise Zone and that the Project failed to meet the employee residency requirement.
Medical Devices
STAR Accession No. 202208009L (Aug. 15, 2022)—In this private letter ruling, the Comptroller determined that a device used by medical providers in the diagnostic evaluation and monitoring of patients experiencing unexplained symptoms such as dizziness, palpitations, chest pain, and shortness of breath was a therapeutic device and not a prosthetic device or orthopedic appliance.[15] Therefore, the device was exempt from sales and use tax when sold to a patient with a prescription, but was taxable when sold to a medical provider for use in a nontaxable medical service unless and exemption applied.[16] According to the Comptroller, the device:
was not a prosthetic device, because it didn’t replace a missing part of the body or perform the function of a vital organ, could be removed as soon as the medical provider obtained a diagnosis from the device, and only had a battery life of 3 years;[17]
was not an orthopedic appliance, because it wasn’t used to treat a deformity or disease of the skeleton, joint, or spine;[18] and
was a therapeutic device, because it is used as a diagnostic medical tool designed for use in patients with heart conditions.[19]
STAR Accession No. 202208011L (Aug. 22, 2022)—In this memo to Audit, Tax Policy states that it’s Comptroller policy that credit ratings of legal entities are subject to sales and use tax as a credit reporting service, while credit ratings of debt obligations aren’t taxable.[21]
The analysis hinges on the definition of a “credit reporting service” as “the assembly and furnishing of credit history or information relating to any person.”[22] According to the Code Construction Act, which specifically applies to Title 2 of the Texas Tax Code (which is where the state sales and use tax is found), a “person” includes a “corporation, organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, and any other legal entity.”[23]
Thus, the Comptroller takes the position that while the credit rating of legal entity involves the assembly of credit information of a person within the meaning of the definition of a credit reporting service, the credit rating of a debt obligation doesn’t because a debt obligation is not a “person.”
Motor Vehicle Sales, Rental and Use Tax
Apportioned Registration
Comptroller’s Decision No. 117,430, 117,431 (2022)—The ALJ found that a taxpayer who purchased two trucks, registered them with non-apportioned plates, but then later obtained apportioned registration for the vehicles wasn’t entitled to a refund of the motor vehicle sales tax that he had paid on those vehicles.[24]
The ALJ noted Comptroller policy that the registration of a vehicle with non-apportioned plates creates a presumption of intrastate use that must be rebutted to prove the exemption. For instance, this presumption could be rebutted with evidence demonstrating that a vehicle was not operated prior to obtaining apportioned registration. The taxpayer did not produce any such evidence.
The ALJ also rejected the taxpayer’s claims of detrimental reliance on advice from Comptroller personnel, finding that the taxpayer didn’t show that any such advice was provided in writing in a private letter ruling or that any specific advice was incorrect.[25]
Gross Receipts Rental Tax
STAR Accession No. 202207023L (July 15, 2022)—In this private letter ruling, the Comptroller determined that a car-sharing app that enabled vehicle owners to list their personal vehicles as available for sharing to others was not responsible for collecting and remitting gross receipts rental taxes.[26]
For purposes of the motor vehicle sales, rental and use tax, a “rental” means in relevant part “an agreement by the owner of a motor vehicle to give for not longer than 180 days the exclusive use of that vehicle to another for consideration . . . .”[27] The “owner of a motor vehicle” means “a person named in the certificate of title as the owner of the vehicle . . . or . . . a person who has the exclusive use of a motor vehicle by reason of a rental and holds the vehicle for re-rental.”[28]
Under the facts presented in this ruling, car-sharing app was not the owner of the vehicles being rented, because it was not on the certificate of title of the vehicles. Nevertheless, the people who used the app to rent their motor vehicles to others would have to collect and remit gross receipts rental tax as required under Tex. Tax Code § 152.045 (Collection of Tax on Gross Rental Receipts).
Franchise Tax
Forfeiture of Corporate Privileges / Officer Liability
Comptroller’s Decision No. 117,522 (2022)—The ALJ found that an officer of a corporation was liable for an International Fuel Tax Agreement assessment that the Comptroller had made against the corporation for the periods when the corporation’s corporate privileges were been forfeited due failure to file a franchise tax report.[29]
The officer didn’t argue, and therefore didn’t establish, that the debt was created or incurred over his objection or without his knowledge and that the exercise of reasonable diligence to become acquainted with the affairs of the corporation wouldn’t have revealed the intention to create the debt—which would constitute an exception to officer and director liability.[30]
The ALJ dismissed the officer’s argument that the corporation’s liability for the assessment was in error by noting that a person who is assessed personally as the officer or director of a corporation may not challenge the underlying corporate liability that is administratively final.
Mixed Beverage Taxes
Depletion Analysis
Comptroller’s Decision Nos. 117,651, 117,652 (2022)—The ALJ determined that there was no error in auditors presuming that all alcohol purchased by a bar during an audit period was sold during that period when the bar didn’t provide any documentation establishing opening and closing inventory.[31] The ALJ further found that allegations “that the auditors consumed alcohol during the pour observation, that the pour test observation sheet was forged, and that the lead auditor attempted to bully and intimidate [one of the bar’s owners] do not present justiciable issues for the ALJ to consider in the contested case hearing.”
********
Freeman Law International Tax Symposium
Readers may be interested in the Freeman Law International Tax Symposium scheduled to take place virtually on October 20 and 21, 2022. Attendees will qualify for CLE, CPE, and CE and the slate of presenters includes well-recognized speakers and panelists, such as the IRS Commissioner, a prior Chief Counsel of the IRS, a former Acting Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, and many others in government and private practice.
[1] Tangible personal property directly used or consumed in or during the actual manufacturing, processing, or fabrication of tangible personal property for ultimate sale qualifies for the manufacturing exemption if the use or consumption of the property is necessary or essential to the manufacturing, processing, or fabrication operation and directly makes or causes a physical change to the product being manufactured, processed, or fabricated for ultimate sale. Tex. Tax Code § 151.318(a)(2).
[17]See id. § 3.284(a)(13) (defining a “prosthetic device” as “an item that is artificial and replaces a missing part of the body, performs the function of a vital organ or appendage of the human body, or is permanently implanted in the body.”).
[18]See id. § 3.284(a)(12) (defining an “orthopedic appliance” as an “appliance or device designed specifically for use in the correction or prevention of human deformities, defects, or chronic diseases of the skeleton, joints, or spine.”).
[20]See Tex. Tax Code § 151.006(c) (“Sale for Resale”) (“A sale for resale does not include the sale of tangible personal property or a taxable service to a purchaser who acquires the property or service for the purpose of performing a service not listed as a taxable service . . . .”).
[24] A tax is 6.25% is imposed on the retail sale of a motor vehicle in the state. Tex. Tax Code § 152.021(a) (Retail Sales Tax). However, certain interstate motor vehicles are exempt from this tax. Id. § 152.089 (Exempt Vehicles). An “interstate motor vehicle” is “a motor vehicle that is operated in this state and another state or country and for which registration fees could be apportioned if the motor vehicle were registered in a state or province of a country that is a member of the International Registration Plan.” Id.
Detrimental Reliance Policy. The comptroller will give relief to a taxpayer who follows erroneous advice given to the taxpayer by an agency employee. The taxpayer, however, must have provided complete and accurate information to the agency employee. . . .
(1) Unless otherwise provided by this section, a taxpayer must affirmatively prove and provide records as requested by the comptroller to show that it meets all four parts of the following test:
(A) the substance of the information or advice and its direct communication to the taxpayer must be in writing in accordance with §3.1 of this title;
(B) the taxpayer followed the information or advice;
(C) the taxpayer gave sufficient information to have resulted in correct advice and did not misrepresent information or withhold or conceal information that would affect the advice; and
(D) the taxpayer has suffered, or will suffer, harm based on the erroneous advice unless the comptroller provides relief to the taxpayer.
[29] A corporation’s failure to file a franchise tax report can result in the forfeiture of corporation’s corporate privileges. Tex. Tax Code § 171.251 (Forfeiture of Corporate Privileges). One consequence of the forfeiture of a corporation’s corporate privileges is that each of the corporation’s directors and officers becomes liable for each debt of the corporation created after the date on which the report is due and before corporate privileges are revived. Id. § 171.255 (Liability of Director and Officers).
![Supreme Court divided on adoption law that keeps Native American kids in tribal homes [Los Angeles Times :: BC-SCOTUS-NATIVE-CHILDREN:LA]](https://family-court-corruption.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/dailyrepublic_11_1024-180x180.png)
