12 1 8 doc 33 1006 halverson's brief in support of a preliminary injunction against nash holmes njdc

7/29/2019 12 1 8 Doc 33 1006 Halverson's Brief in Support of a Preliminary Injunction Against Nash Holmes NJDC

1/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

G. LUKE CICILIANO, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 9530

[email protected]. PETER JAMES, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 10091

[email protected] & ASSOCIATES, LLC

621 South 10th

Street

Las Vegas, Nevada 89101702-382-2209

702-382-6485 (fax)Counsel for Petitioner/Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ELIZABETH HALVERSON,a citizen of the State of Nevada,

PLAINTIFF,

-v-

NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL

DISCIPLINE,an agency of the State of Nevada, and

DOROTHY N. HOLMES, individually, and inher official capacity as Special Prosecutor for theNevada Commission on Judicial Discipline,

DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO.: 2:08-cv-100

PLAINTIFFS BRIEF I

OF A PRELIMINARY

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Elizabeth Halverson, by and through her coun

G. Luke Ciciliano, Esq. and F. Peter James, Esq. of the law firm of Ciciliano &

LLC, who hereby submits her Brief in Support of a Preliminary Injunction.

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33 Filed 12/01/08 Page


2/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction is made and based on th

pleadings on file herein; the attached points and authorities, exhibits, and affida

upon any oral argument this Honorable Court will entertain.

Dated this 1stday of December, 2008

/s/ F. Peter James

G. LUKE CICILIANO, ESQ.Nevada Bar No. 9530F. PETER JAMES, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 10091

CICILIANO & ASSOCIATES, LL621 South 10th Street

Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

702-382-2209

702-382-6485 (fax)Counsel for Petitioner/Plaintiff

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I.

BACKGROUND

A preliminary injunction should issue staying Defendant Nevada Co

Judicial Disciplines (hereinafter the Commission) decision to remove Plaint

from the bench in the case In the Matter of the Honorable Elizabeth Halverso

1066. The preliminary injunction should also rescind Plaintiffs suspension fro

Judicial District Court as she was improperly suspended.

Plaintiff was elected to the Eighth Judicial District Court bench and her



3/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

held a non-public hearing on Plaintiffs suspension.1 While severely limiti

witnesses and access to evidence, the Commission upheld the suspension. Six

on January 7, 2008, the Commission filed formal charges and scheduled a f

hearing.

Plaintiff filed a series of motions regarding, among other things, due

other constitutional violations. The Special Prosecutor also filed motions whic

would violate Plaintiffs rights. The Commission ruled against Plaintiff on jus

issue concerning her constitutional rights.2 Some of these issues will be discu

infra, as they are the subject of the request for a preliminary injunction.

Over Plaintiffs objections, the Commission began the underlying hearin

4, 2008. The underlying proceedings were set to end August 8, 2008; however

this Courts explicit concerns about the arbitrary time constraints the Commis

on Plaintiff and that the Special Prosecutor had yet to finish presenting

Commission extended the hearings for two more days. Plaintiff had only one

her case, while the Special Prosecutor had six days.

Plaintiff alleges that a preliminary injunction should issue as the Commi

Plaintiffs rights by arbitrarily, irrationally, and irregularly limiting Plaintiffs ti

her defense and her case, denying Plaintiff access to witnesses and evidence, an

allow Plaintiff to present evidence of her physical impairments because she wou

to a psychological examination. The preliminary injunction should stay the C



4/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

decision to remove Plaintiff Halverson from the bench. The preliminary inju

also stay Plaintiffs suspension from the bench.

II.

DISCUSSION

A. THE YOUNGERABSTENTION DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY

The Youngerabstention doctrine does not apply. [F]ederal courts mus

hearing constitutional challenges to state action under certain circumstances in

action is regarded as an improper intrusion on the right of a state to enforce

own courts. Flangas v. State Bar of Nevada, 655 F.2d 946, 948 (9th Cir.

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971)). However, Younger

appropriate only if there are pending state judicial proceedings.Polykoff v. Col

1326, 1332 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Haw. Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 2

S.Ct. 2321, 2328, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984)). In addition to state judicial procee

abstention doctrine to apply, the state proceedings must implicate important

and the state proceedings must provide an adequate opportunity to raise fede

Id.

In the present case, there are no state court proceedings as the Nevada

on Judicial Discipline conducted its own investigation and fact finding. Furth

discussed infra, the Commission has denied Judge Halverson the abi

constitutional challenges. Accordingly, the Youngerabstention doctrine is not



5/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

B. THIS COURT MAY ISSUE A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Title 28 U.S.C. 2283, the anti-injunction statute, does not preclude th

issuing a preliminary injunction. Further, Plaintiff can establish the requite s

preliminary injunction to issue.

1. THE ANTI-INJUNCTION STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CA

A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay pro

State Court except as authorized by an Act of Congress, or where necessary

jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments. 28 U.S.C. 2283. How

under 42 U.S.C. 1983 fall within the expressly authorized exception to the a

statute. Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 243, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 2162, 32 L.Ed.2

Additionally, when the state proceedings are not in court, the federal anti-inju

does not apply. See Taylor v. Ky. Bar Assn, 424 F.2d 478, 482 (6th Cir. 1970)

anti-injunction statute does not apply to federal review of a states attorne

proceedings as the proceedings were not in state court).

As the present action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, the a

statute does not apply. Further, the anti-injunction statute does not apply in the

as the proceedings presently at issue are not in state court. Accordingly, th

properly issue a preliminary injunction in this matter.

2. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARDA preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates



6/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

quotations and citations omitted). These two formulations represent two point

scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probabil

decreases. They are not separate tests but rather outer reaches of a single contin

v. Westly, 488 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).

As will be discussed, Plaintiff will show irreparable injury and a strong

success on the merits.

C. A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD ISSUE STAY

COMMISSIONS DECISION AND/OR STAYING THE DELIBER

Plaintiff will be irreparably injured if the preliminary injunction does

has a high probability of success on the merits of her Civil Rights Action.

Submission to a fatally biased decision-making process is in itself a

injury sufficient to warrant injunctive relief, where irreparable injury wthe due course of events, even though the party charged is to be depriv

until the completion of the proceedings.

United Church of the Medical Center v. Medical Center Commission , 689 F.2d

Cir. 1982) (citing Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 571-72, 574-75, 93 S.Ct

1695-96, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973)). As will be discussed, Plaintiff was subjecte

biased decision-making process and is currently suffering a depravation pendin

of the proceedings, where she might suffer further depravation.

The United States Supreme Court has noted that [i]t would be very

system of law permitted a judge to act as a grand jury and then try the very per



7/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

75 S.Ct. at 627. As will be discussed, the Commission charged Plaintiff, inv

case, and tried her case.

In Withrow v. Larkin, however, the Supreme Court held that due process

tribunal to investigate and adjudicate a matter as tribunals have presumed

integrity; however, this presumption can be overcome if the risk of unfairness

high. 421 U.S. 35, 47-48, 58, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 1464-65, 1469, 43 L.Ed.2d

Plaintiff must show that the adjudicator has prejudged, or reasonably app

prejudged, an issue. Stivers v. Pierce, 71 F.3d 732, 741 (9th Cir. 1995) (intern

and citations omitted). Plaintiff can make this showing when the circumstance

the proceedings demonstrate an actual bias on the part of the tribunal. Id.(ci

Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501-04, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 2704-06, 41 L.Ed.2d 897 (1

impermissible bias can be established by irregular, irrational, and arbitrary a

tribunal. Id.at 745 (citingSinaloa Lake Owners Assn v. City of Simi Valley, 8

1409 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1016, 110 S.Ct. 1317, 108 L.Ed.2d 4

So, irreparable harm sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction can b

by showing that the decision making process was fatally biased. This bias can b

by showing that a tribunal which investigated and adjudicated a matter no l

presumption of fairness and integrity. That the tribunal no longer has such a pre

be established by showing that the tribunal has, or reasonably appears to have,

issue. Such prejudgment can be shown by irregular, irrational, and arbitrary act



8/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1. THE COMMISSION IMPERMISSIBLY LIMITED THE TIME FOR P

DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMISSIONS CHARGES

Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present wi

own defense. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 104

297 (1973). A defendants due process concerns are paramount and the

guarantees to a fair trial must be staunchly safeguarded. See U.S. v. Blum, 62 F

Cir. 1995). A tribunal should impose time limits on the presentation of evidenc

necessary and after making an informed analysis based on a review of the part

witness lists and proffered testimony, as well as their estimates of trial time

Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 66 F.3d 604, 610 (3d Cir. 1995).

In the present case, the Commission was going to hold the hearing ov

period, giving a five-ninths majority of the time to the Special Prosecutor to pr

against Plaintiff and a four-ninths minority of the time to Plaintiff to cross ex

present her own case.3(SeeScheduling Order for Formal Public Hearing at 2:6-

Exhibit 1). The Commission used a device similar to a chess timer to keep

The Commission did not review the parties proposed witness lists and proffe

prior to setting the arbitrary time constraints. The Commission arbitrarily dec

for trial and arbitrarily gave the Special Prosecutor a majority of the time.4

3 By the end of the scheduled time, the Special Prosecutor had not finished presenting



9/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

As a result of this time limitation and other issues to be discuss

Commission impermissibly prevented Plaintiff from presenting her case. The

effectively denied Plaintiff her Compulsory Process and Due Process rights b

her time.5 Had the Commission permitted Plaintiff even a reasonable amoun

would have conducted a more thorough cross examination of the prosecutions w

she would have called more witnesses in support of her theory of the case.

severely prejudiced by not being permitted to present her case due to the time co

As the Commission impermissibly and arbitrarily limited Plaintiffs ti

against the prosecutions case and to present her own case, he constitutiona

violated. The Commissions acts in violation of Plaintiffs constitutional right

Commissions bias in this case.

2. THE COMMISSION IMPERMISSIBLY DENIED, OR PERMITTED T

PROSECUTOR TO DENY, PLAINTIFF ACCESS TO WITNES

EVIDENCE

a. The Commission Arbitrarily Denied And/Or Imped

Ability To Subpoena Witnesses And Evidence

The Commission violated Plaintiffs due process and compulsory proces

it arbitrarily denied and/or refused to issue Plaintiff the subpoenas she req

Commission is supposed to issue subpoenas pursuant to Rule 20 of the Proced

the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, which reads as follows:



10/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

The respondent and prosecuting counsel are entitled to compel atten

formal hearing of witnesses, including the respondent, by subpoena, a

for the production of documents, books, accounts and other records. Sube issued by the executive director of the commission in the sam

subpoenas are issued by clerks in the district courts of this state.

As subpoenas are issued by the clerk of the state district courts as a matter o

without review, the Commission must issue subpoenas as a matter of course

review. SeeNRS 174.305. Such was not the case in the disciplinary hearings a

Plaintiff had many issues obtaining subpoenas from the Comm

Commission, through the executive director, David F. Sarnowski, Esq., stated

Plaintiff, the Commission does not issue subpoenas in a carte blanch fashion

from Commission to Plaintiff dated June 16, 2008, attached as Exhibit 2). The

had some concerns about the amount and type of discovery materials Plaint

(See id.). In a formal Order, the Commission created a judicial Bill of Attain

that Plaintiff had to substantiate what relevant information she sought a

predicate for how the information would assist her defense.6 (SeeOrder Gra

Allowing Respondents Counsel to Withdraw, Order Granting Respondent

Continue Trial, Order Granting Special Counsels Motion for Discovery at 8:19

as Exhibit 3). The Commission further noted that it would be best f

Commission to deliberate on Judge Halversons request for subpoenas.7 (Id

This is curious, given that by the Commissions own procedural rules s

Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33 Filed 12/01/08 Page 1


11/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

supposed to issue without inspection or reviewthey are also to be issued whi

blank.

Defendant Holmes, the Special Prosecutor, also interfered with Plaintif

by unilaterally and without notice or a hearing relieving witnesses of their obli

properly-issued subpoenas. (See letters from Defendant Holmes to Plaintiff

2008 and July 9, 2008, attached as Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively). Defen

excused two key witnesses from their subpoena obligationsthe Eighth Jud

Court Executive Officer and the Office of Diversity of Clark County, N

witnesses have key evidence to which Plaintiff was entitled, but to which Defen

blocked and which the Commission permitted.8

Plaintiff was severely prejudiced by the Commissions, as well a

Holmes, obstructing Plaintiffs free access to witnesses and evidence. By for

to file motions and to have access to subpoenas and by a flat out refusal to ackn

enforce its own procedural rules, the Commission clearly acted arbitrarily, irr

irregularly.

b. The Commission Permitted The Special Prosecutor

Counsel For A Witness

Defendant Holmes was assigned to the underlying matter as a Specia

A Special Prosecutor was presumably appointed to attempt to avoid any

powers issues. As was discussed supra, Defendant Holmes improperly block



12/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

access to witnesses and their documents. In doing so, however, Defendant Ho

counsel for the witnesses, which was in direct conflict with her role as Special P

In her letters to Plaintiff where Defendant Holmes unilaterally

subpoenas, she wrote the letters at the request of, and on behalf of each w

Exhibits 4 and 5). It is axiomatic that when an attorney acts at the request of,

of a person or entity during and regarding litigation, that attorney has e

attorney-client relationship with the person or entity. The attorney acting as

another is the heart of the attorney-client relationship.

So, the Special Prosecutor represents both the State and two key wit

same proceeding. Defendant Holmes, the advocate for the State, represented

from whom Plaintiff, the opposing party in that litigation, subpoenaed inf

unilaterally excused them from their obligations under said subpoena. This is p

the very least, and also unethical.

Being that Defendant Holmes represented the two witnesses put Plaintif

dilemma. Plaintiff, who is an attorney, is not permitted to speak with represe

Given that the witnesses were represented by Defendant Holmes meant that,

Plaintiff to obtain information from the witnesses, Plaintiff would have to g

Special Prosecutor.

Based on Defendant Holmes unethical acts, Plaintiff filed a mot

Commission to disqualify the Special Prosecutor, which the Commission d


C 2 08 01006 RCJ LRL D 33 Fil d 12/01/08 P 1


13/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

3. THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO P

THEORY OF THE CASE

The Commission refused to allow Plaintiff to present her theory of the c

has multiple physical impairments, some of which are obvious, which limit

major life activities.9 Plaintiff wanted to admit evidence of her impairments t

theory of the case and refute the prosecutions case against her. The Commiss

refused because Plaintiff would not submit to a psychiatric evaluation.

Before the Commission would permit Plaintiff to introduce evidence of

disabilities, the Commission mandated that Plaintiff submit to a psychiatric ev

Dr. Melissa Piasecki, a forensic psychiatrist. (See letter from the Commi

counsel for Plaintiff dated August 15, 2008, attached as Exhibit 7; see also

10:25-26). Specifically, the Commission ordered the following: If Judge Halv

to utilize medical evidence or make arguments pertaining to her medical cond

than July 18, 2008, Judge Halverson shall submit to a medical examination by

Piasecki [a psychiatrist]. (SeeExhibit 3 at 12:8-10). It is both arbitrary and

the Commission would require a psychiatric evaluation to permit Plaintiff

evidence of her physical impairments.

The Commission cites NRS 1.4665 as its authority to force Plaintiff t

psychological examination.10

Assuming arguendo that NRS 1.4665 is cons


C 2 08 01006 RCJ LRL D t 33 Fil d 12/01/08 P 1


14/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Commission arbitrarily took away Plaintiffs right to explain how her physical

relate to the charges against her because she would not submit to a psychiatric

persons mental health is completely unrelated to a persons physical disabilities

understandable if the Commission were to refuse evidence of a mental health co

on failure to undergo a psychiatric examination, but such is not the cas

Commission acted completely arbitrarily and irrationally in precluding evidenc

impairments for not submitting to a mental examination.

Further, the statute upon which the Commission relies requires a comp

that the judge is incapacitated to warrant any mental or physical examinatio

1.4665(1). The complaint against Plaintiff does not even hint at any incapa

complaint alleges that Plaintiff violated judicial ethics / procedures, that she fell

bench, that her performance as a judge was insufficient, that she created a

environment, that she improperly hired outside security, that she improperly us

computer technician, and that she did not otherwise cooperate with her coll

Formal Statement of Charges, attached as Exhibit 8). The initial charges sim

provide any allegation of incapacitation. (SeeOrder of Interim Suspension at 2-

complaint submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological testing by a physpractice medicine in this State who is selected by the Commission.

2. If the Commission is unable to resolve the matter informally pursuant to s

Commission shall:

(a) Proceed as set forth in NRS 1.4667, 1.467 and 1.4673. If the matter


Case 2:08 cv 01006 RCJ LRL Document 33 Filed 12/01/08 Page 1


15/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Exhibit 9). As none of the charges even hint at any mental incapacitatio

Commission had no basis to even requestthat Plaintiff submit to a psychiatric

let alone order her to so submit. As such, the Commissions refusal to allow Pla

evidence of her physical impairments was completely improper.

Plaintiffs physical condition was important is it would have clarified, e

would have even been a defense to some of the allegations against her.

significantly prejudiced by not being able to even mention her physical impairm

The Commissions refusal to permit Plaintiff to introduce evidence r

physical condition unless she submitted to a psychiatric evaluation was arbitra

and irregular, thus showing the Commissions bias. This refusal denied

opportunity to defend against the Special Prosecutors case and to present her

case. As such, the Commission denied Plaintiff due process of law.

* * *

The underlying judicial discipline case is ripe with violations of due pr

The issues presented here are illustrative of the Commissions bias in the underl

The Commission arbitrarily, irrationally, and irregularly limited Plain

present her case, denied her access to witnesses and evidence, and refused to pe

to present evidence to refute the Special Prosecutors case and to further her

case. The Commissions arbitrary, irrational, and irregular actions establish an

biasthat the Commission either prejudged or reasonably appears to have p




16/100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

violated Plaintiffs due process rights as the Commission initially charg

investigated the case against her, and adjudicated the matter. In re Murchison

139, 75 S.Ct. at 627.

As such, Plaintiff was subjected to a fatally-biased decision-making proc

in itself a constitutional injury sufficient to warrant injunctive relief []. Unit

the Medical Center, 689 F.2d at 701;see also Gibson, 411 U.S. at 571-72, 574-7

1694, 1695-96. Accordingly, this Court should issue a preliminary injunctio

Commissions proceedings and its ruling, if any.

III.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Honorable Court should issue a prelimina

staying the Commissions proceedings and its ruling, if any. Further, as th

proceedings were unconstitutional, Plaintiffs suspension from the bench sh

stayed.

Dated this 1stday of December, 2008

/s/ F. Peter JamesG. LUKE CICILIANO, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 9530

F. PETER JAMES, ESQ.Nevada Bar No. 10091

CICILIANO & ASSOCIATES, LL

621 South 10th StreetLas Vegas, Nevada 89101


Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33-2 Filed 12/01/08 Page 1 of 5


17/100

I

( ~ . ' ~ '

" ./--- ,

BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINESTA TE OF NEVADA FILED

4 In the Matter or thc ) AUG - 1 Z0085)

78-9

10I I12131 415

HONORABLE ELIZABETH HALVERSON,District COLIrt Judge. Eighth .JudicialDistrict COllrt. County of ClarkSlate of Nevada. " .Respondent.

)))))))

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )Case No. 080 I- I ()66

SCHEDULING ORDER-FOR FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING

CiPUNE

Pursuant to Nev Rev S t a t . ~ 1.4()7(J)(c), the Commission will h?ld a public hearing at3150 Paradise Rd . Rill. N250. Las Vegas. Nc\ ada, beginning on Monday. August 4, 2008 at9:00 a.m. Members of the Commission who.will attend the hearing and pa11icipatc in thedecision arc: Chaimlan Greg Ferraro, Vicc-Chainllan Davcel1 Nave, C'olllmissiollcrDoug Jones,COInmissioner (.Judge) Jerry Polaha, Commissioner (Judge) Richard ,Wagner, Commissioner

16 .Waync Chimarusti and Commissioner Karl .An11strong. Chainllan Ferraro has already designated,17 Judge Wagner to serve as the prcsiding officer. Chairman Ferraro is authorized to sign this order

18 by the participating commissioners.I The purpose orthe hearing will be whcther, pursuant to NRS 1.4673. there is clear and20, -convincing evidence to s h o ~ lhatthe respondent violated the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct,2122

2425

27

as is alleged in the Forrhal Statement of Charges filed by Special Counsel Dorothy Nash Holmeson January 7. 2 8 ~ and whether discipline is deemed appropriate. Nev. Rev. Stat. 1.4(J7J.p ursuant to Commission Procedural Rulc] 4), live or morc'membcrs Illllst concur in a vote todiscipline the respondent.

So as to make optimulTl lise of he ti me lour i.llldOllc-hal rdays) avai lable to theCOilllllission. and in light of hurden or prooLlIlti due process concerns. the following procedures.\\ i II bellti Iil.cti. It should be noted that the Co II issio/l wi II not he in open session_

W ~ d l l c s d a y morning. AugllSI (J. 2008 duc to other l l l i ~ s it mllst pCrll)nll in anoLhervenue.


18/100



19/100

r ' ~

. - , , ~ )

./

.,)

-5678

,C)

10

2345

6789

c ~ c h side s consumption of time during the c\idI.. IHiary phase of thc:procccdings. In othcr \vords.one party will not be allowed to (Ol1SUIllC the olhcr party s lime without (0I1SC411cllce

In furtherance or sayingtimc. opposing Olll lSd arc I.. ncollraged to discuss in adyancco r t h ~ h ~ a r i n g and to I l l a k ~ rCi.lsonahlc efforts to reach stipulations prior to the hearing regardingdocumentary c \ i d ~ n c c to be orrcred/aJmincd at the hearing.

)(7) The rule of exclusion of w'itncsscs \vi II be in effect. Each pat1y \vill be responsible

for ensuring that any witness they intend to call (with the exceptional' the respondcnt) is notpresent tor testimony duringany portion orthe hearing. The requirement not to discusstestinlOJiy\vith other witnesses will he a continuing duty of each witness through the conclusion oCthe case.Ir nvestigators from The Advantage Group or investigators tor the respondent are called as\Vilncsscs. they will not be prevented from perfol1ning necessary investigative duties in the future,to and including talking.to witnesses and/or prospective witnesses.

(8) Due to the fact that the respondent is co-counsel and she is also represented by counselas well. atthe beginning 9fthe hearing. the respondent will be required to inform the presidingofficer of the attorney who wiI1 act as primary spokesnian It)f the respondent. The spokeslllan will

. be required to inform the presiding officer which attol11cy will cxaminclcross-exanlinc each. witness before each witness' testiolony begins. Only the attorney designated to handle a witnesswill be allowed to make and argue objections regarding that particular witness' testinlony.Thcspokcsnlan will also be required to tell the prcsiding officer which attorney will present the

20 opcning statement and closing argumcnt.2

2.. .25

27

- 3 -



20/100

The clerk of the Comnlission shall immediately serve acopy of the instant order via., regular mail to all counsel. The c1crkwill also provide a facsimile copy to respective counsel as, soon as the order is filed.4 IT IS SO ORDERED5

78rdcr ill thel jnitcd Stales Mai I. i10stagc pre-paid. aJdresscd to the 1IllJcrsigncd:

Ms, Dorothy Nash Holmes, Esq.FahrcndorC Viloria. Oliphant Oster. L.L.P,P. O. Box 3677

c n o ~ NY 89505-3677Fax: (775)348-0540Honorable Juuge Elizabeth Halverson'JS50 E. Flamingo Ru. # 152Las. Vegas. NV 89121-6227Fax: (702) 450-9227

M chacl Alan SchwartzSchwartz Kelly Ollarz-Schwartz PC .3030() Norlhwcstenl Highway Sie l()OFarmirlgton Hills. MI 48334 .Fax: (248)932-2801Fax: (702) 797-6150

- 5 -



22/100

_ -,-;'

ill

123

BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISClPLINESTATE OFNEV A 'FILED

4 n the Matter of the5 HONORABLE EUZABETH HALVERSON,District Judge, Eighth Judicial6 District o ~ County ofClark,State ofNevada,7 Respondent.

)))))))))9 ORDER

NON PUBlIC

JUN 2 5 ZOO]

CASE NO. 2007-053SCfPLINE Clerk

10

12131415161718

The presiding Officer, Commissioner Judge Wagner, has detennined that for the purposesof he hearing with regard to respondent s interim suspension, the respondent s request for

1920

2122232425262728

subpoenas of he following witnesses and documents should be and hereby are denied.Raymond Visconti, Subpoena Puces Tecum Subpoena to Appear a nd Testify

To produce at or hefore the hearing any ana all documents tendingto show the x ~ t e n c e and nature of any and all complaints filed onor after January of 2004 ,to present by court einployees regarding ,the conduct of any magistrate. Commissioner. Justice Court Judge,District Court Judge or Supreme Court Justice ...

Le Dana Gamble, Subpoena Duces Tecum Subpoena to Appear and TestifyTo produce at or before the hearing any and all documents tendingto show the existence and nature of any and all complaints filed. onor after January of2004 to present by court employees regardingthe conduct of any a g i s t r a t ~ Commissioner, Justice Court Judge,DiStrict Court Judge or Supreme Court Justice....

Theresa Bow, Subpoena Duces Tecum Subpoena to Appear and TestifyTo produce at or before the hearing any and all documents tendingto show the existence and nature ofany and all complaints filed. onor after January of2004 to present by court employees regardingthe conduct of any Magistrate, Commissioner, Justice Court Judge,District Court Judge or Supreme Court Justice ...

Kathy Lainbermop,t, u b p o ~ a DUces Tecum Subpoena to Appear and Testify. . . .. . . -. . . .To i o d u c ~ before the heanng any and all documents tendmgto show the existence n ~ l n a t u r e of any anc;lall complaints filed onor after January of2004 topresent by comt employees regarding ,the conduct of any Magistrate, Commissioner, Justice Court Judge,District Court Judge or Supreme Court Justice ...

Jnni : L L n fil7:nC::ClL L oun Ogl7f1i :f1



23/100

}-

123456789

Therese Scupi. Subpoena Duces Tecum Subpoena to Appear and TestifyTo produce at or before the hearing any and all documents tendingt show the existence and nature of any and all complaints filed onor after January of 2004 to present by court employees regardingthe conduct of any Magistrate, Commissioner, Justice Court Judge,District Court Judge or Supreme Court Justice....

Charles Short, Subpoena Duces Tecum & Subpoena to Appear and TestifyTo produce at or before the hearing any and all documents tendingto show the existence and nature of any and all complaints filed onor after January of2 4 to present by any citizen, public employeeor court employees regarding the conduct of any Magistrate,C o ~ s i o n e r Justice Court u d g ~ District Court Judge orSupreme Court Justice....

10 The Honorable Kathy Hardcastle, Subpoena Duces Tecum Subpoena to Appear andTestifyTo produce at or before the hearing any and all documents tending12 to show the existence and nature of any and all complaints filed onor after January of2 4 to present by any citizen or public13 employee regarding the conduct of any Magistrate, Commissioner,Justice Court Judge, District Court Judge or Supreme Court14 Justice ...

15 The Honorable Michael Memeo. Subpoena Duces Tecum Subpoena t Appear andTestify16 To produce at or before the hearing any and all documents tending17 to show efforts made on behalfof he Nevada Commission onJudicial Discipline to suspend you as a sitting judge pursuant to18 their authority ...19 The Chairman is authorized to sign this order on behalfofllie Commission.,22122232425262728

DATED this 25th day of June, 2007.NEVADA COMMISSION ONJUDICIAL DISCIPLlNEP.O. Box 48 - . , , - ; - - . : - - ~ - - - - - - ~ ' ~Carson 8970



24/100

.

I CERTIFICATE OF MAILING2 I hereby certifY that I am an employee of he Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline3 ~ d on the 1X.5 iilday of June 2007 I seIVed the foregoing ORDER by placing a copy of he4 order in the United States Mail postage pre-paid addressed to the undersigned:5 Ms. Dorothy Nash HoImes Esq.10488 Chadwell Dr.6 Reno NY 895217 Mr. Dominic P Gentile Esq.Gentile e P ~ Ltd.8 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Ste. 850Las Vegas. Y 891099 Mr. William H. Gamage Esq.10 Gentile DePalma Ltd.3960 Howard Hughes ParlCway Ste. 85011 Las Vegas NV 89109

12 Mr. John L. Arrascada Esq.Arrascada Arrascada Ltd.13 P. O. Box 42514151617181922122232425i2728

Reno NY 89504



25/100

GREG FERRAROhairman STATE OF NEVADACOMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

P O ox 48Carson City, Nevada 89702

Telephone 775) 687-4017 e Fax 775) 687-3607Website: http://www.judicial.state.nv.Lls

June 16, 2008

DAVID F SARNOWSKIGeneral ounsel nd

Executive Director

ent via facsimile and regular mailJudge Elizabeth Halverson3850 E. Flamingo Rd. #152Las Vegas, NY 89121-6227

Re: Case No. 0801-1066 Subpoenasear Judge Halverson:

This will confilm receipt of your letter dated June 14, 2008 regarding the subpoenas youhave requested. There is no doculuentation to forward to you regarding what you characterize aslegal challenges. The COlumission has S0111e concenlS about the runount and type of discoveryluaterials you :lave requested, in light of the inlpending hearing and the Inany months that passedwithout you luaking any attempts at discovery at all.

Like any other COllIi, the Comlnission has a duty to ensure that the subpoenas it issues areproper in scope. In short, the Commission does not issue subpoenas in a carie blanche fashion.To the extent you characterize the COlulnission' s intent to inquire about this topic or youothelwise infer that the COlllmission is running interference for those who receive subpoenas,I suggest you are mistaken. Of course, you can convey your concerns to the Commission at thetilue of the hearing on June 26, 2008.



26/100

Judge Elizabeth HalversonJune 16 2008Page 2 of

If you get the subpoenas prepared and sublnitted to Ms Schultz far enough in advance ofthe hearing will ensure they are signed and ready to deliver to you personally in the event theCommission concludes on the date of the hearing that one or more of them should be issued.

DFS:klscc: Dorothy Nash RolInes Esq.

SincerelyNEVADA COMMISSION ONJUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

f Z ) r ~ / 7 ~ - - w 4 / :David F. SalTIowskiGeneral Counsel and Executive Director

Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33-4 Filed 12/01/08 Page 1 of 127/02/2008 13: 10 JUDICIAL COMMISSION 1 -10.691 [;1 2


27/100

BEFORE THE NEVADA C01 v1Jv.1ISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE23

STATEOFNEV

4 In the Matter of he5 HONORABLE ELIZABETH HAL E R S O N ~District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial6 District Court County of Clark78

State ofNevada,Respondent.

)))

Cleric

Case No. 0801-1066

9 ORDER GRANTING MOTION Al.LOWING RESPONDENT S COUNSEL TO WITHD:RAW,10 ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT S MOTION TO CONTJNUE TRIAL,11 ORDER GRANTING SPECIAL COUNSEL S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY12 A. Preface.13 This order disposes of several motions filed by Special Counsel, Dorothy Nash Holmes, and14 the Respondent, District Judge Elizabeth I-:Ialverson. At the beginning of its discllssion of he legal .15 issues below, the Conmlission will address its ~ l r i s d i c t i o n to enter this order in light of\vhat it16 concludes is a premature attempt by Judge rIalversoD to appeal what is clearly a non-appealable order17 setting a hearing on the I n e ~ t s sooner than Judge Halverson. wants to have a hearing on the merits. t18 should be noted there are several other outstanding motions to \vhich one side or rhe other still has19 time to reply. Once the ti.me for responses to the respective motions expires, those motjons will e20 d.ecided by the Presiding Officer, Alternate Comm.issioner (Judge) Richard Wagner) pursuant to21 directive of the ntH commission. In light of the fact that Vice-ChaimlaIl Daveen Nave participated in .

both recent hearings r e g a r d i n ~ this Inatler1 she is authorized by the full commission to sign this order23 on its behalf24 On May 29, 2 0 0 8 ~ the Commission conducted a hearing in. Reno regarding certain motions25 that Judge Halverson and .her attorneys had. filed. Those motions will be the subject of discu.ssion26 below. Conmrissioners who participated in the panel and. voted were: Chairman Greg Ferraro, Yice-27 Chairman Daveen Nave, Commissioner Doug Jones, Altern.ate Commissioner (Judge) Richard28 Wagner, Co mmissioner (Judge) Jerry Polaha, Conunissioner Karl Annstrong and Coml nissioner

REC D L o 2 4 6


28/100


29/100


30/100


31/100


32/100


33/100


34/100


35/100


36/100


37/100

Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33-4 Filed 12/01/08 Page 12 of 127 02 200E: . 13:10 JUDICIAL COMMISSION t--lO.6'31 15


38/100

1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING2 I e r e b ~ t h t I am an employee of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline3 and that on the . . , day ofJuly, 2008. I placed a copy of tbe ORDER GRAN'TING MOTION4 ALLOWING RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW. ORDER GRANTING5 RESPONDENT:>S MOTION TO CONTlNUE TRIAL, ORDER GRANTING SPECIAL6 COUNSEL S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed7 to the undersigned.:89

10

1213141516171819202122232425262728

Dorothy Nash Holmes, Esq.Fahrendorf, Viloria) Oliphant Oster, L.L.P.P. O. Box 3677ReBo, NY 89505-3677Special CounselJudge Elizabeth Halverson5850 E. Flamingo Rd. 152Las Vegas, NY 89] 21Respondent ~ ~ e r k

14


Robert r. FahrendorfThomas E. ViloriaI t Sh;lwn Oliphant

FAHRENDORF,. J . . VU

ATTORNEYSANDCOl.' :\ S E I. 0 s


39/100

.fb),mond E. OsterSf " L Broh:n"'n

~ a t h a J l J. Anlill1S ~ O t l F GillesErin L. AlbrightJa:mn A. RoseDurothy ;-.Jash H o h n t s ~Also Aclfllllh:d ,n c. \

VILORIA,OLlPHANT& OSTERLLP

July 2008SERVED VIA FACSIMILE (702) 450-9227 U.S. I\-IAILJudge Elizabeth Halverson3850 E. Flanlingo Rd. #] 52Las Vegas, NV 89121-6227

Re: In the I v1atter of the Honorable Elizabeth HalversonCase No. 0801-1066Dear Judge Halverson:,

A T LA \\'Office: 775348 9lJ99Five 775-348-05.:10www.rCI1011\ aW.Cllll1

PUfsuunt to NRCI' 45(c)(2)(8). this letter is written to you at the request o f ~ and on behalfof rhe Court Executive Officer of the Eighth Judicial District Court. in order to object to theirproduction of documents and materials you have subpoenaed from them in the itttachedSubpoena Duces Tecum served on June 26. 2008. A copy of the subpoena is attached for yourreierence. The production of the items you subpoenaed would be extremely burdensome and. expensive; seeks some items that do not currently exist and it is unknown i f they can be

p r e p a r e d ~ seeks contidential materials; seeks some items previously provided to the investigatorsfOf the Commission on Judicial Discipline (and also provided to yuu ;n D i s c o v e r ) ) ~ and seeksitems that are irrelevant to the matters before theComrnission.\\lith this o b j e c l i o n ~ the Eighth Judicial District Court Executive Officer is relieved of itsobligation to comply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum; If you desire to pursue this matterfurther. you must cOInply with NRCP 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even i f youobtain such an Order from the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Eighth Judicial DistrictCourt Executive Onlcer is required to be protected from significant expense resulting from theinspection and copying commanded:' Id.

P.O. [30 X 1 (, -:: 7 R f. \: O. : : [ \ A 0 A x (I )

Yours truly_FAHRENDORF, VILORfA.OLIPHANT & OSTER L.L.l'.

Dorothy ~ a s h Holmes, Esq.Special Prosecutor l()r the ~ e v a d aCommission on Judicial Discipline

1 2 C.-\ L rr 0 R N I A \ V E U [ :1:. R E O. E V A 0 A \ 5 I <


Robert P. FahrendorfThomas E. Viloria*R. Shawn OliphantRaymond E. Oster

FAHREN DORF,VILORIA,ATTOR0iEYS

Ai'\OO U ~ S E L O R S

AT LAW


40/100

;ean L Brohawn OLLPHANTOSTER Ll.P.Nathan J. AIllJnScott F. i l k s ~Erin L AlbrightJason A. Rost:

Office: 775-348-9999Fax: 775-348-0540\\ \\'\\'.n:nonvla\\.com

D o r o t h ~ ?\ash HolmC':-."Is,) Adllllth:d .11 ( , \

July 9,2008.SERVED VIA FACSIMILE TO (702) 450-9227 U.S. MAIL

The Han. Elizabeth L alverson3850 E. Flamingo Rd. # 152Las Vegas, NY 89121-6227Re: In the Matter of the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson

Case No. 0801-1066Dear Judge Halverson:Pursuant to NRCP 45( c)(2)(B). this letter is sent a t the request of, and on behalf of, the Office ofDiversity of Clark County, NY and constitutes a written objection to the production yourequested from them in your Subpoena Duces Tecum served on June 27, 2008. A copy of thesubpoena is attached for your reference. The production of the items you subpoenaed would beextremely burdensome and expensive; seeks items that do not exist and it is' unknown if they canbe prepared; seeks privileged and conf identiall nateria ls; and seeks items that are irrelevant to thematters befo re the Commission.With this objection, the Office of Diversity of Clark County, NV is relieved of its oblIgation tocomply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. If you desire to pursue this matter further, you mustcomply with NRCP 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even i f you obtain such anOrder from the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Oftice of Diversity is required to beprotected from significant ~ x p e n s e resulting from the inspection and copying commanded. lfL.

RfC J Ul l .,. 200p

Yours truly,FAHRENDORF, VILORIA,OLIPHANT OSTER L.L.P.15;'-t, ,-/';' y / A - r { ~ - - 41 - -j

Dorothy Nash Holmes, Esq.Special Prosecutor for the NevadaCommission on Judicial Discipline

XNO )u _ _ ._ ._ ._ . _______

1 : 7 C \ 1.1 r 0 R N I A A V E U E R ENO N E VA D A Xl) 5 19


Elizabeth L. Halverson FILEDPUBLIC


41/100

Nevada Bar No. 46622 ,)850 E. Flamingo Rd. 152Las Vegas, Nevada 89121-62273 ~ 0 2 436-4521702) 450-9227 Fax4 espondent in Propria Persona

JUL 1 5 Z008

56789

. BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINESTATE OF NEVADA

In the Matter of the10 =

314

Respondent.

CASE NO. 0801-1066MOTION TO DISQUALIFYSPECIAL COUNSEL

15 NOW coMEs the Respondent, Elizabeth Halverson, in propria persona who files16 her MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SPECIAL COUNSEL.17 DATED this 14th Day of July 200818192021222324

. . ): , . .. . ,- I < , _ ~ , , : , , , -"j l . . ' ~ - - - \. ( .

E l t z ~ 6 e t h L. HalversonNevada Bar No. 46623850 E. Flamingo Rd. 152Las Vegas, Nevada 89121-6227(702) 436-4521(702) 450-9227 (Facsimile)

25 Facts26 Dorothy Nash Holmes is the Commission's Special Prosecutor in the above-captioned27 matter. Simultaneous with the obligations as Special Prosecutor, she also has undertaken to28 serve as attorney for a witness in the above-captioned matter, to wit: the Court Executive

Officer of he Eighth Judicial District Court upon which Respondent had 'served a subpoena.


[See Exhibit A. appended hereto.] Additionally, Ms. Hohnes also has undertaken to serve


42/100

23456789

10

1213141516

171819202122232425262728

as attorney for another witness in the above-captioned a t t e r ~ Theresa Scupi. Director of heClark County Office of Diversity. (See Exhibit .... appended hereto.]

The Special Prosecutor, who represents both this Commission and the witnesses., inletters sent to the Respondent on behalfof those witnesses in the above-captioned matter,objected to subpoenre duces tecum addressed to those witnesses for production ofdocumentsneeded by the Respondent for her defense ofcharges being prosecuted by the same SpecialProsecutor on behalf of this Commission. [Exhibits A and B. J The Holmes letters weresent after Respondent had received letters ofobjection from the Eighth Judicial District StaffAttorney, Ms. PrietO and from Ms. S c u p i ~ herself, despite the fact that as a County employee,Ms. Scupi s attorney is the District Attorney and more speci fically, the County Counsel, Ms.Mary Ann Miller. [Exhibits C and ~ 4 D ]

THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR CANNOT ETHICALLY REPRESENTA WITNESS IN THIS CASE

Standint:Respondent has a specific personal and legal interest in the matter of this dualrepresentation as it as it specially and injuriously affects her right to defend her case in the

manner in which she sees fitthus violating the Constitutional Right to Due Process of Law.Due Process requires the right to obtain evidence and to use that evidence in examiningwitnesses for whatever reason they are called.

~ ' D u e process o f l w ~ ... requires that the accused should be advised o he charges and havea reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation. We think thisincludes the assistance of counsel, if requested, and the right to call witnesses to givetestimony, relevant either to the issue of complete exculpation or in extenuation of theoffense and in mitigation of he penalty to be imposed. See Hollingsworth v. Duane, 12 Fed.Cases 359. 360; In re Stewart . I 1 8 La. 827: Ex parte Clark. 208 Mo. 12I H

Cooke v United Stales 45 S. C1. 3 9 0 ~ 267 U.S. 517. 537: 69 L. Ed. 767 (1925). See also: lv/organel al v United Slates el al. 58 S. Ct. 999, 304 U.S. 1, 18, 82 L. Ed. 1129 (1938) holding asfollows:

Page 2


43/100


sought to deny subpoenas for this hearing and a Motion lo Issue the Subpoenas Immediately


44/100

2 'Pursuant to the Rule 20 was necessary to obtain the subpoenas. Ms. Holmes has attempted3 t terminate all ofRespondent' s discovery and even to seek to force this case to trial with two4 \veeks orpreparation. Ms Holmes theme is that since Respondent has ~ l i v e d this case , that5 Respondent has no right to seek evidence or present witnesses on her o\vn behal f In fact,6 the t i m e ~ dates and length of the trial were determined with no input from the Respondent as

to her defense needs. The Commission was only concerned with Ms. Holmes's thirty-one8 witnesses and it appears from Ms. Holmes' arguments in her opposition to the Motion to9 Continue that she expects Respondent case to consist only ofcross examining Ms. Holmes'

1 w-itnesses 2 The Prosecutor and the Commission can not do indirectly what they could not11 -do directly. By directly interfering with the subpoenas by representing third parties to this12 case, Ms. Holmes is doing just that.3 Lastly, as this is the only case before the Commission in which this type of reatment14 has occurred, the issue of equal protection is also implicated. Why is Respondent being15 ,treated differently from other judges who have or are appearing before the Commission? Is16 this disparate treatment based on the fact that Respondent is a member of protected classes17 under 42 U.S.C. 20DOe et. seq and 42 U.S.C. 12010, et. seq.? There is ample evidence that18 other have not been suspended nor subjected to numerous violations ofdue process who do19 not belong to the suspect classi fications above. J As Respondent's constitutional rights are20 directly implicated by the multiple representations of a variety of l i e n t s ~ Re'spondent has21- standing t


45/100

2 defendants in criminal cases also apply to respondents in disciplinary cases.3 In this matter. the Respondent served t\VO subpoena duces tecum seeking infonnation4 necessary for defense of the charges herein. Those subpoenre \vere not directed to the5 Commission. Ra[her. [he subpo'enre were directed to \vitnesses \vho are third-parties. The6 COlnmission' s ~ p e c i a l Prosecutor has no\v declared that not only is she the attorney for this7 Comlnis sion. bur she is also the attorney. in [his matter, for the witnesses who were the8 subjects of the subpoenre served by the Respondent.9 In these multiple roles, not only does the Special Prosecutor represent the Commission

l in pursuing charges of misconduct, but the Special Prosecutor also represents witnesses inII an effort to deny Respondent infonnation necessary for her defense.2 For a p r o s e c u t o r ~ in the very case which she is prosecuting, to become an attorney for3 a witness in order to assist that witness in refraining from providing infonnation necessary4 for the defense can hardly be considered as conduct which comports with .the Special5 Prosecutor's duty to seek justice. A prosecutor's primary duty is not to convict, but to see6 that justice is done. Williams v State 103 Nev. 106, 110; 734 P.2d 700 703 (1987).7 The Special Prosecutor's duty is to see that justice is done. The duty of an attorney

18. for a non-party witness is to represent the interests of that witness. irrespective of whether9 such will work an injustice to a party to the-litigation. M o r e o v e r ~ an attorney who represents

20 a party to litigation may be called upon to cross-examine a witness whom he represents, and2 may possib ly be required to choose between conducting the type of examination which will22 benefit the party-client or the witness-client.23 c c o r d i n g l y ~ representing a witness to litigation is incompatible with representing a24 party to that same litigation. Here. Ms. Holmes has chosen to represent two witnesses to the25 above-captioned matter' at the same time as she represents this Commission.26 [0 a case which sets forth some of the considerations which are attendant to the27 situation herein the Colorado Supreme Court concI uded that disquali.fication ofa lawyer was28 required.

Page 5


46/100


1 A criminal prosecutor who engaged in such conduct wouldjeopardize any conviction which


47/100

2 might result from the trial.Here, we have the virtually unprecedent ed situation ofa lawyer 's agreeing to represent

4 witnesses during the pendency of a case \vhere the lawyer already was representing a party.5 Query: \vhy would the Special Prosecutor engage in such conduct especially when the6 witnesses have access to government la\vyers \vho are unconnected with this case?7 Nonnally a lay witness is subject to enquiry by a lawyer for a party to a case without8 first asking permission of opposing counsel. However by becoming the la\vyer for these9 witnesses.: the Special Prosecutor invokes Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct . 2 ~ which1 states as follows:II121314

In representing a c 1 i e n t ~ a lawyer shall not communicate aboutthe subject of the .representatIon with a person the lawyerknows to be represented by anottier lawyer in them t t e r ~ unless the lawyer has the consent of he otlier laW)'er oris authorized to do so by law or a court order. [Emphasissupplied.]

15 Thus, by representing witnesses. the Speciat Prosecutor engages in a scheme which16 would potentially prohibit the Respondent from speaking with the witnesses, under penalty17 of violating the Supreme Courfs disciplinary rules. At the very least, the Special18 Prosecutor s conduct in representing the witnesses.places impediments in the Respondent' s19 abi lity to. communicate with those witnesses and obtain infonnation necessary for the20 defense.421 Given the virtually unprecedented nature of the Special Prosecutor s actions herein',22 one is hard pressed to envision a legitimate reason why the Special Prosecuto r should have232425262728

I should be observed that-t he language of Rule 4.2 speaks in tenns ofperson the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter,and not a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer inthe matter.' Accordingly, since the Rule does not place a limitation on the\ person, it would be applicable to any ~ \ . p e r s o n , ' including non-partywitnesses or witnesses who are not affiliated with a party.

Page 7


undertaken to serve as attorney for the \vitnesses. The only rational purpose \VQuld be to seek


48/100

23456789

10

1213145

16789

20222

to place an artificial restriction on the RespondenCs ability to engage in preparation for herdefense by placing a bar to Respondent s access to \vitnesses \vhich bar. \vould not ordinarilybe present.

As the United States Supreme Court held decades ago,[The prosecutor] is in a peculiar and very definite sense theservant of the law, the t\votold aim of Vhl h is that guilt shallnot escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute \vithearnestness and vigor -- indeed he should do so. But while hemay strike hard blows., he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. Itis as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculatedto produce wrongful c ~ n v i c t i o n as It s to use every legitimatemeans to bnng about aJust onc. .

Berger v United Stales. 295 U.S. 78 88; 55 S.Ct. 629, 633; 79 L E d ~ 13 14. 1321 (1935).This principle \vas reaffinned by our Nevada Supreme Court most recently in Tavares

v State 7 Nev. 725, 731: 30 P.3d 1128, 32 (2001).Engaging in conduct whichmakes it harder for Respondent to obtain evidence also

implicates federal constitutionalprinciples of due process of law.'. Due process does not require simply the disclosure of

~ ~ e x c u l p a t o r y ' evidence. Evidence also must be disclosed i itprovides grounds for the defense to attack the reliability.thoroughness, and good faith of the police investigation or toimpeacl1 the credibility of the State s witnesses

ay State I 16 Nev. 1185, 1194; 14 P 3d 1256, 1262 (2000).Apparently, it is not enough for the Special Prosecutor to present evidence in support

of the charges of misconduct. She goes one step further. by -employing the device ofrepresenting witnesses to subject the Respondent to the strictlires of Rule 4.2 so as to blockRespondenCs access to witnesses and evidence under threat of further disciplinary

23 prosecution. In so doing, the Special Prosecutor has run afoul of principles of fundamental2425262728

fairness.Moreover, the Special Prosecutor in this quasi-criminal proceeding is subject as are

all other attorn.eys, to Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(f) which provides that ~ ' A

Page 8


lawyer shall not: [r]equest a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving2 relevant infonnation to another party .. [Emphasis supplied.]


49/100

3 Thus, in the absence ofan attorney-clien t relationship with the witnesses the Special4 Prosecutor would be forbidden from request ing that the witnesses refrain from voluntarily5 giving relevant evidence to the respondent. However, once the witnesses became clients of6 the Special Prosecutor, the language of Rule 3 .4(t) provided her with a loophole by \vhich7 she could do that which she other wise would have been prohibited from doing.8 It should be clear even to the untutor ed that putting herself in a position whereby she9 becomes exempt from Rules which are designed to promotejustice is inimical to her position1 as Special Prosecutor.1 R.espondent has conducted extensive legal research in an effort to discover any other12 cases in which a prosecutor has engaged in the dual role of prosecutor and attorney for13 witnesses in the same case. It seems that the impropriety of a prosecutor s simultaneously14 prosecuting a case and representing witnesses in that same case is so self-evident that thereI 5 are no. cases which Respondent was able to locate on the subject. Nevertheless , the16 incompatibility of the dual roles is stark.1718 ON LUSION19 Ms. Holmes ought to be disqual ified from this case. She has engaged in conduct20 which smacks ofuneth ical n t ~ r f e r e n c e of he Respondent s access to witnesses by becoming2 I the attorney for those witnesses, thereby improperly and illegitimately exempting herself22 from the prohibitions otherwise imposed by Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(f)23 while at the same tim subjecting Respondent to the restrictions imposed by Nevada Rule of4 Professional Conduct 4.2 which would not otherwise be imposed. 0 legitimate purpose was

25 served by the Special Prosecutor's undertaking the representation of witnesses who were26 served with subpoenre. If hose witnesses sought to challenge the s u p o e n r e ~ they certain'ly7 could have availed themselves of government attorneys who are independent from these8 proceedings. The Special Prosecutor's engaging in the dual role of prosecutor and attorney

Page 9


for \vitnesses taints these proceedings and smacks ofsharp practice. In representing this


50/100

Commission, the Special Prosecutor must be above the unethical proclivities of those who3 viould seek to win at all o s t s ~ irrespective of the prosecutor's special responsibility to see4 that just ice s done. In so acting, the Special Prosecutor has sullied these proceedings. The5 only remedial curative is t disqualify her as Special Prosecutor and to appoint another6 Special Prosecutor in her place.78 Dated this 14th d yof July. 200891

121314151617181922122232425262728

Nevada Bar No.46623850 E. Flamingo Rd. 152Las Vegas, Nevada 89121-6227(702) 436 4521(702) 450-9227 (Facsimile)

Page 10


CERTlFICATE OF SERVICE


51/100

2( 34567891II1213141516171819202122232425262728

I certify that on July 2008, I caused the foregoing document entitled MOTION TO 0DISQUALIFY SPECIAL COUNSEL to be served as follows:

o by placing a copy of the same for mailing in the United States ~ a i l certifiedreturn receipt requested, with first class postage prepaid thereon addressed as follows; and/or

X by placing a copy of the same for mailing in the United States mail with first classpostage prepaid thereon addressed as follows; and/or

X by causing a copy to be sent via facsimile at thenumber{s) listed below; and/or

o by hand-delivering a copy to the party or parties as listed below:

Commission on Judicial Discipline P.O. Box 48Carson City, NV 89702Fax Number: (775) 687-3607Dorothy N. Holmes, Esq.Fahrendorf. Viloria. Oliphant OsterP.O. Box 3677Reno NY 89505Fax -Number : (775) 348-0540Special rosecutor

/0 II/ t I

Page II

. c .._ O -._---- ._. _ _ ..



52/100

EXHIBIT


Robert P. Fithrendorf. Tbomn5 E. ViloriaI t Sh;awn Oliph ntRa),mond E. OsterSe:1O L. Broh:n'\'n

FAHRENDORF,VILORIA,OLIPHANT

4: : JUUJ. / UUI

ATTORNEYSANDCOL':\SEI.ORSAT LAW


53/100

~ l h n J. AnmnS ~ O I l F. GillesErin L. AlbrightJason i \ . RoseDurothy ~ s h Holrncs Also AtJrnlll\:d.n C ,

& OSTERLLP

July 2 8SERVED VIA FACSIMILE (702) 450-9227 & U.S. IHAILJudge Elizabeth Halverson3850 E. rlanlingo Rd. #] 52.Las Vegas, NV 89121-6227

. Re: In the l\.1.aner of the Honorable Elizabeth HalversonCasc No. 080 I -I 066

Dear Judge Halverson:

Office: 775-3489999Fax: 775-J48()5.:JOwww.rcnollv :;l\.i.com

Pursuant to NRCP 4S(c)(2)(B). this letter is written to you at the requcst o f ~ and on behalfor the C01ll1 Executive Officer of the Eighth Judicial District Court in ortkr to object to theirproduction or documents and materials you have subpoenaed (rom them in the attachedSubpoena ,Duces Tecum served on June 26. 2008. A copy of the subpocnn is atlac.hcd for yourreierence. The production of the items you subpoenaed would be extremely burdensome andexpensive; seeks SOlne items that do not currently exist and 'it is unknown i f they can beprepared; seeks confidential materials; seeks some items previously provided to the investigatorsfor the Commission on Judicial Discipline (and also provided (0 you in Discovery): and seeksitems that are irrelevant to the matters before the Commission.V-lith this objection. the Eighth .Judicial District Court Executive Officer is relicved of itsobligation to cOlnply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. If YOll desire to pursue this matterfurther. you must comply \vith NRCP 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even j youobtain slich an Order from the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Eighth Judicial DistrictCoun Executive OOicer is required to be protected from significant expense resulting from theinspection and copying commanded:' Id.

p 0. 00 X 1 , 7 t :Q R f '\;0, E \ A 0 A x ) )

Yours truly.FAHRENDORF, VILORfA.OLIPHANT & OSTER LL.P.

~ 4 t d 4 ~Dorothy ~ s h Holmes, Esq.Special Prosecutor for the ~ e v t d aCommission on Judicial Discipline

1 I C.-\ UfO H N I A \ V E " U [ tt R E 0 , N E V AD r \I j 19

Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33-7 Filed 12/01/08 Page 14 of 41Robert P. FahrendorfThomas E. Viloria*R. Shawn OliphantRaymond E. OsterSean L BrohawnNathan J. Aman

FAHRENDORFVILORIA

OLIPHANTATTORNEYSANDCOliNSELORS

\ T LA WOfficI : 7753489999Fax: 775-3480540


54/100

Scott F. GillesErin L AlbrightJason A. R O ~Dorolhy Nash H o l m ~ s

'so Admitted In Ct\

OSTERLLP.

July 8,2008

\ \ \ \ 'W ,n:nonv law.com

REC D JUL ~ D OSERYED,VIA FACSIMILE (702)450-9227 & U.S. MAILJudge Elizabeth Halverson3850 E. Flamingo Rd. #152Las Vegas, NV 89121-6227

Re: In the Matter of the Honorable Elizabeth HalversonCase No. 0801-1066Dear Judge Halverson:

Pursuant to NRCP 45(c)(2)(B), this letter is written to you at the request of, and on behalfof the Court, Executive Officer of the Eighth Judicial District Court, in order to object to theirproduction of documents and materials you have subpoenaed from the'm in the attached:Subpoena Duces Tecum served on June 26, 2008. A copy of the subpoena is attached for yourreference. The production of the items you subpoenaed would be extremely burdensome andexpensive; seeks some items that do not currently exist and it is unknown if they can beprepared; seeks confidential materials; seeks some .items previously provided to the investigatorsfor the Commission on Judicial Discipline (and also provided to you in Discovery): and seeksitems that are irrelevant to the matters before the Commission.With this objection, the Eighth Judicial District Court Executive Of licer 'is relieved of itsobligation to cOlnply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. If you desire to pursue this matterfurther, you mllst comply with NRCP 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even if youobtain such an Order from the Comrnission on Judicial Discipline, the Eighth Judicial DistrictCourt Executive Officer is required to be protected from significant expen se resulting from theinspection and copying commanded. n Id.

P O. BOX } l 7 7 .w RENO. NEVADA X9505

Yours truly,FAHRENDORF VILORIA

OLIPHANT & OS TER L.L.P.j;pv.J/ ky lht- hi f;Y--(4


: '27 CALIFORNIA AVENUE * RENO. NEVADA 89519



55/100

EXHI IT


Robert P. fahrendorfThomas E. ViloriuR Shawn OliphantRaymond E. OSlerSean L. Brohawn

F A H R E ~ D O R FVILORIA,OLIPHANT

4;UU1.-0U3

,\"I r0 R \II': Y S: \ \1

C () l: S I: L 0 It S:\ r 1.,\ \\


56/100

"'iOllhJII 1. AmlinScun F. Ci 1111,.-:-;"Enn L AlbrightJa$un A Ruse

& OSTERLLP

July 9. 2008SERVED VIA FACSIM.ILE TO (702) 450-9227 ... C.S. VIAlL

The Han. Elizabeth L. Halverson3850 E. Flamingo Rd. # 152. Las Veg.as. NV H9121-6227Rc: In the V1nrter of the Honorable l : l j z ~ b ( ' t h lIalverson

Case ~ o . agO 1- 1-066Dear Judge Halverson:

Of/icc' 775-3-HS-999'Jf a:\ 775-3 ,,8-0;.:10\\ \\ \\ .renon\ la\\.t:l1m

Pursuant to ~ R C P 45(c}(2)(B). this letter is sent at the request 01: and on b e h ~ t I " or. thl:" Of/ice orDiversity of CJark County, ,:\V und constitutes a written objection 10 t h ~ production YOLIrequested from t h ~ m in your Subpocnn Duces Tecum 'ierved on June :'7. : ' O O ~ L \ copy of thesubpoena is attached ror your rekrence. The production or the: items you subpoenaed would beextremely burdensome and expensive: seeks i terns that do not e."\ ist and i1 is unknown i Ihey canbe prepared: SCL ks pn\'jleged and L " o n l i d e n t i ~ d mal("rials: ~ l I 1 d seeks ileITIs thaI :lrc irrelc\'::lnt to thematrcrs before the Commission.With this objection. the Office or Diversity of CI(Irk County. NY is relieved or irs obligation [comply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. I f you desire to pursue this matter fUl1hcr. you mustcomply with NRC? 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even i f yOll obl;lin sLlch anOrder from [he Commission on Judicial Discipline. the Office or Diversity required to beprotected "from significant expense resulting from the inspection and copying comm:.lnded." .fL

Yours truly.F A H R E ~ D O R F VILORIA.

Oll PHA ' T & OSTER L. L P.--f-tf/f & ' i f ~ ~ # - 0 : < k : ' ; /

Dorothy ~ a s h Holmes. Esq.Special Prosecutor for the evadaCommission on Judit.:ial Discipl inc

_ .._--_._----_ ..-..- -_ .._- -_ . _ - - - _ ..-_._--

Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33-7 Filed 12/01/08 Page 17 of 41Robert P. FahrendorfThomas E. Viloria*R. Shawn OliphantRaymond E. Oster;ean L. BrohawnNathan 1. Aman

FAHRENDORF,ViLORIA,OLIPHANT

ATTORNEYS;\I\D

COU;..JSELORSAT LAW

Office: 775-348-9999Fax: 775-3-t8-0540


57/100

Scott F. GillesErin L. AlbrightJasun A. Rose

D o r o l h ~ :\ ash 1 1 l > l m C ~ '

OSTERLLP.

July 9, 2008SERVED VIA FACSIMILE TO (702) 450-9227 U.S. MAIL

The Hon. Elizabeth L. Halverson3850 E. Flamingo Rd. # 152Las Vegas, NV 8912 I-6227Re: In the Matter of the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson

Case No. 0801- 1066Dear Judge Halverson:

\\ ww.renonvla\\ .com

Pursuant to NRCP 45(c)(2)(8). this letter is sent at the request of. and on behalf of, the Office ofDiversity of Clark County, NV and constitutes a written objection to the production yourequested from them in your Subpoena Duces Tecum served on lune 2 7 ~ 2008; A copy of thesubpoena is attached for your reference. The production of the itelns you subpoenaed would beextremely burdensome and expensive: seeks items that do not exist and.it is unknown if they canbe prepared; seeks privileged and confidential materials; and seeks items that are irrelevant to theInatters before the Commission.With this objection, the Office of Diversity of Clark County, NV is relieved of its obligation tocompJy with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. If you desire to pursue this matter further, you mustcomply with NRCP 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even if you obtain such anOrder from the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Office of Diversity is required to beprotected ~ ; ' f r o m significant expense resulting from the inspection and copying commanded. Id.

RfC J Ul l 1. t2 e

Yours truly,FAHRENDORF. VILORIA,OLIPHANT OSTER L.L.P.[;':.b'--t-tf-/ l' Y / ~ , , ~ 4/ - . /


, -: i Ll r 0 R N [A A V E U E R E \iO. N E V A 0 A l} 5 I



58/100

EXHI IT C


L. .-.,-. .' .ljiJ 1 ..:t IJ IJ I / J U :j


59/100

troFax II

Subject:

COM1AENTS:

FAX TRANSMISSIONEIGIITH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT200 LEWIS AVENUELAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89155(702) 671-4528Fax:(702) 611-4546

. ..

I .... '.... ,.

Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33-7 Filed 12/01/08 Page 20 of 41CLARK C O U N ~ Y C O U R T ~

Clark COllnty CourtsAdmi . . t"nlSL.ra lon


60/100

./uly x ~ O ( ) X

Tilt.: lIon. Elizaheth I . r :-llvl rS(1113R50 E. F(;llllillgO Rd, :/ 151I . . ~ I ' Vcg;'ls. NV :)9 J 2 J 6 2 ~ 7I{c: III (he ;VIallcr orthe flonorabh: E l i z ~ l h ~ l h HalversonCast: Ntl, ()SO I-I O()(,Dcaf .fudge: I.lalvcrslln:

FaXL'd [0 (7()1) 450-9227

Pllr"I1:11lt to NRCP 45(c)':2}(B), this Idler consfirutct.; a w r i l l ( ~ J l (Ihjeclion ({) t i l l prodU(.;lionyou r l ~ q u c ~ t < : d from rhe Court l:xl. culiv(: Oniccr of (h(." f ighlh Judicial District Court illyour Suhpoena J)uces TCClIl1l served on .funl 20. 200X. A ";(1PY of [he subpoena isaft:lc.hl=d fllr y ( ~ l I r r o : . . ~ r c r c : n ( : . c . Thc prndLH'::lit)l1 nfrh..; ilCIl1 you SlIbpOl.:nacd \\.otlld h c ; ~cXLn:mdy b U l ' d c ; ~ n : ' 1 n r n c and I: xpc..':n5ivc:; sl:(:ks SOUle iLems thac d(l not ';UfTl:Jllly exist and itis unknowll ir they can be p r e p a r e d ~ s c : . ' c k ~ c.ollfi(/(:ntinJ materia Is: secks somt: ilemsprt:vilJllsly pro\'iuc.tf to the i n \ r e . q i g a l o , , ~ nlr tht.:: j p ~ c i a l PrO 'iL"CllLOr or the COlllmission 011Judicial Discipline: and. ( K ~ e o n l i n g (.(1 our conversations wilh your oppnsing COUIISel, ~ l r L 'indcv:ml 10 the mallcr:- before {he Commission,\Vilh this obj(=c(ion .-. abst=1l I a court ()rdcr the Eighth Judicial Di ' ilr id Court

~ ~ x t . : c t l l i v c o n l ~ e r is relieved of its nhligalion to comply with tht: Suhprll.::nn OucesTCCUJl1. I f you ohlHin '1Il Order to C(lcnpd ProuucLi(lIl, rhe Eighth Judicial Dislricr C


61/100

EXHIBIT


Office of iversity500 S Grand Centtal PIty 5th A Box 551113 Las Vegas NV 89155-1113702) 455-5760 .. Fax (702) 455 5759

tgJ 1)1.1 1


62/100

FAX .:

Theres e Seupi.Oirector

FACSIMILE MESSAGE

.y S o - 9 d. 7~ m ~ ~ ~ s I ____ __ ___ m ~ d ~ C ~ a h ~ .F R O M : _ ~ _ - - - - - . ; . _ ;; U_ S a ~ C A 6 ? J ~ ~ R E ~ 1 Z e ~ . - c : : ; . . J & _ G J - 0 : : : - @ e ~ = - - - - - - + P ~ - ~ ~ - - = - - \ - f C ? : ; . . , . . ; ; , . ~ - - : ; ~ ~ ~ -

rc rt oRol-IO/ )C O ~ N T S ~ :

P R O C E S S E D B Y ~Initials)THlS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF TH INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TOWHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE ONDER APPLICABLE LAWI IF THEREADER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE ORAGENT RESPONSmLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE JNTENDED RECIPffiNT, YOUARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBTITlON OR COPYING OF TIDSCOM:MUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED

IF YOU HAVE RJ :CEIVED TDIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THIS OFFICEIM:MEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORlGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THEABOVE ADDRESS. THANK YOU..

IiiJCAAD OF COUfffY COMM8SIOHeft5ROm REID, Chalnnan CHIP MAXFlELO. \IIo..charmllM\SUSAN BRAGER TOM COUJN5 CHRIS G/UNCHIGUANI .. LAWRENCE WEEKlY BRUCE L WOOOBUFVIRGINIA VALENTINE. P.E.. County


Office of iversity500 S Grand Central Pky 5th FI Box 551113 Las Vegas NV 89155-1113

(702) 455-5760 Fax 702) 455-5759


63/100

July 9 2008

The Han. Elizabeth L. Halverson3850 E .Flamingo Rd. 152Las vegas. NV 89121-6227

Therese Scupf, irector

L axed to (702) 450-9227 l d Sent Via U.s. Mail1

Re: In the Matter of the Honorable e l i ~ b e t h HalversonCase No. 0801 .1066Dear Judge Halverson:Pursuant to NRCP 45(c)(2)(6), this letter constitutes a written objection to theproduction you requested from The Office of Diversity of Clark Co.unty, .NV in your.Subpoena Duces Tecum served on June 27, 2008. A copy of the subpoena is attachedfor your reference. The production of the items you subpoenaed: would be extremelyburdensome and expensive; seeks some items that do not exist and it is unknown ithey can be prepared; seeks privileged and confidential materials; and, according to ourconversations with your opposing counsel, seeks items that are irrelevant to the matie.fSbefore the Commission. .With this objection, the Office of Diversity of Clark County, NV is relieved of itsobligation to comply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. If you desire to pursue thismatter further, you must comply with NRCP 45 and seek an Order to CompelProduction. Even if you obtain such an Order from the Commission on JudicialDiscipline. the Office of Diversity is required to be protected from significan t expenseresulting from the inspection and copying commanded. fd.Sincerely,

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSRORY REID, Chairm EJ l CHIP MAXFIELD, Vice-CharmanSUSAN BRAGER TOM COLLINS CHRIS GlUNCHIGlIANI LAWRENCE WEEKlY BRUCE l. WOODBURYVIRGINIAVALHITINE. P.E., Coonty Manager


Dorothy Nash Holmes, EsqNevada Bar No 2057FAHRENDORF, VILORIA,2 OLIPHANT OSTER L.L.P.


64/100

3 P.O. Box 3677Reno, Nevada 895054 775) 348-9999

Special Prosecutor for the5 Judicial Discipline Commission6 BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLfNE7

OFTHESTATEOFNEVADA89 In the Matter of the

10 HONORABLE ELIZABETH HALVERSON,District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court,1234

156

County of Clark, State of Nevada . CASE NO.: 0801-1066Respondent.

OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SPECIAL PROSECUTORCOMES NOW Dorothy Nash Holmes, Special Prosecutor for the Nevada Commission

7 on Judicial Discipline, and opposes the motion filed on July 15,2008 by Respondent Halverson,18 who seeks to disqualify her opposing counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest. This9 opposition is based upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Affidavit of

20 Dorothy Nash Holmes, all documents and pleadings on file in this case, the evidence currently2 on file and any evidence to be produced at a hearing on this matter.222324252627

28

DATED this 28th day of July, 2008. FAHRENDORF, VILORIAOLIPHANT OSTER, L L P

B Y ~ ~ ~orothy Nash olmes, Esq.Nevada Bar No. 2 57Special Prosecutor for the NevadaCommission on Judicial Discipline


MEMOR NDUM OF POINTS ND UTHORITIES2 Respondent Judge Elizabeth Halverson has til.ed a motion seeking to disqualify the


65/100

3 undersigned attorney from acting as Special Prosecutor in this case. She alleges a conflict of4

interest, claiming that this counsel is representing witnesses in this case in their effort to resist56 Discovery requests she made to them through her subpoen duces tecum served on the Court7 Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District, Charles Short on June 26, 2008) and the Clark8 County Office of Di.versity-- Therese Scupi on June 27,2008).9

1

The Special Prosecutor believes this motion is moot in that Commissioner Judge Wagnerruled in a telephone conference c lli hearing on Ju ly 25, 2008 that the Special Prosecuto r doesnot represent any witnesses, and he scheduled another hearing via telephone) for Monday, July

1213 28, 2008 with the witnesses named above and their attorneys, to address the Motion to Compel14 Discovery.IS Nevertheless, because of Respondent s penchant for asserting that anything not denied is16 admitted, the p e c ~ a l Prosecutor is hereby responding, simply to counter the facts alleged and17 deny the accusations made by Judge Halverson.

The facts have already been established in the telephone conference call hearing of

20 July25, 2008 that the attorney for Charles Short and the Eighth Judicial District Court system is21 Jillian Prieto, Nevada Bar No.1 0 I 90. The Attorney General s Office, through DAG Jill David,22

12 1 8 doc 33 1006 halverson's brief in support of a preliminary injunction against nash holmes njdc

Documents