12 1 8 Doc 33 1006 Halverson's Brief in Support of A Preliminary Injunction Against Nash Holmes NJDC

Page 1 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
G. LUKE CICILIANO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9530
luke@lgclawfirm.com
F. PETER JAMES, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10091
peter@lgclawfirm.com
CICILIANO & ASSOCIATES, LLC
621 South 10
th
Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
702-382-2209
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 in
her official capacity as Special Prosecutor for the
Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline,

DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO.: 2:08-cv-1006-RCJ-LRL

PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN SUPPORT
OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Elizabeth Halverson, by and through her counsel of record,
G. Luke Ciciliano, Esq. and F. Peter James, Esq. of the law firm of Ciciliano & Associates,
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 1 of 16

Page 2 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction is made and based on the papers and
pleadings on file herein; the attached points and authorities, exhibits, and affidavit; as well as
upon any oral argument this Honorable Court will entertain.
Dated this 1
st
day of December, 2008

/s/ F. Peter James
Nevada Bar No. 9530
621 South 10th Street
702-382-2209
702-382-6485 (fax)

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
BACKGROUND
A preliminary injunction should issue staying Defendant Nevada Commission on
Judicial Disciplines (hereinafter the Commission) decision to remove Plaintiff Halverson
from the bench in the case In the Matter of the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson, No. 0801-
1066. The preliminary injunction should also rescind Plaintiffs suspension from the Eighth
Judicial District Court as she was improperly suspended.
Plaintiff was elected to the Eighth Judicial District Court bench and her term began in
January 2007. On May 10, 2007, the Commission suspended Plaintiff from the bench,
alleging that she violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. On July 16, 2007, the Commission

Page 3 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
held a non-public hearing on Plaintiffs suspension.
1
While severely limiting Plaintiffs
witnesses and access to evidence, the Commission upheld the suspension. Six months later
on January 7, 2008, the Commission filed formal charges and scheduled a formal public
hearing.
Plaintiff filed a series of motions regarding, among other things, due process and
other constitutional violations. The Special Prosecutor also filed motions which, if granted,
would violate Plaintiffs rights. The Commission ruled against Plaintiff on just about every
issue concerning her constitutional rights.
2
Some of these issues will be discussed in detail,
infra, as they are the subject of the request for a preliminary injunction.
Over Plaintiffs objections, the Commission began the underlying hearings on August
4, 2008. The underlying proceedings were set to end August 8, 2008; however, likely due to
this Courts explicit concerns about the arbitrary time constraints the Commission imposed
on Plaintiff and that the Special Prosecutor had yet to finish presenting her case, the
Commission extended the hearings for two more days. Plaintiff had only one day to present
her case, while the Special Prosecutor had six days.
Plaintiff alleges that a preliminary injunction should issue as the Commission violated
Plaintiffs rights by arbitrarily, irrationally, and irregularly limiting Plaintiffs time to present
her defense and her case, denying Plaintiff access to witnesses and evidence, and refusing to
allow Plaintiff to present evidence of her physical impairments because she would not submit
to a psychological examination. The preliminary injunction should stay the Commissions

1
Some of the due process violations from the non-public hearing will be discussed infra.
2
The Commission did grant a limited continuance for Plaintiff to hire new counsel and to get up to
speed on the case. Plaintiff asserts that her prior counsel did no discovery and did not keep her involved in the
case. Plaintiff requested a much longer continuance so she could adequately conduct discovery, get up to speed
on the case, find counsel, and bring counsel up to speed on the case.

Page 4 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
decision to remove Plaintiff Halverson from the bench. The preliminary injunction should
also stay Plaintiffs suspension from the bench.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. THE YOUNGER ABSTENTION DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY
The Younger abstention doctrine does not apply. [F]ederal courts must refrain from
hearing constitutional challenges to state action under certain circumstances in which federal
action is regarded as an improper intrusion on the right of a state to enforce its laws in its
own courts. Flangas v. State Bar of Nevada, 655 F.2d 946, 948 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971)). However, Younger abstention is
appropriate only if there are pending state judicial proceedings. Polykoff v. Collins, 816 F.2d
1326, 1332 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Haw. Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 238, 104
S.Ct. 2321, 2328, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984)). In addition to state judicial proceedings, for the
abstention doctrine to apply, the state proceedings must implicate important state interests
and the state proceedings must provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions.
Id.
In the present case, there are no state court proceedings as the Nevada Commission
on Judicial Discipline conducted its own investigation and fact finding. Further, as will be
discussed infra, the Commission has denied Judge Halverson the ability to raise
constitutional challenges. Accordingly, the Younger abstention doctrine is not applicable in
the present matter.
/ / /
/ / /

Page 5 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
B. THIS COURT MAY ISSUE A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Title 28 U.S.C. 2283, the anti-injunction statute, does not preclude this Court from
issuing a preliminary injunction. Further, Plaintiff can establish the requite showing for a
preliminary injunction to issue.
1. THE ANTI-INJUNCTION STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE
A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a
State Court except as authorized by an Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its
jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments. 28 U.S.C. 2283. However, actions
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 fall within the expressly authorized exception to the anti-injunction
statute. Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 243, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 2162, 32 L.Ed.2d 705 (1972).
Additionally, when the state proceedings are not in court, the federal anti-injunction statute
does not apply. See Taylor v. Ky. Bar Assn, 424 F.2d 478, 482 (6th Cir. 1970) (holding that
anti-injunction statute does not apply to federal review of a states attorney disbarment
proceedings as the proceedings were not in state court).
As the present action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, the anti-injunction
statute does not apply. Further, the anti-injunction statute does not apply in the instant matter
as the proceedings presently at issue are not in state court. Accordingly, this Court may
properly issue a preliminary injunction in this matter.
2. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD
A preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates either: (1) a
likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious
questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the
plaintiffs favor. The Lands Counsel v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal

Page 6 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
quotations and citations omitted). These two formulations represent two points on a sliding
scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success
decreases. They are not separate tests but rather outer reaches of a single continuum. Taylor
v. Westly, 488 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
As will be discussed, Plaintiff will show irreparable injury and a strong likelihood of
success on the merits.
C. A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD ISSUE STAYING THE
COMMISSIONS DECISION AND/OR STAYING THE DELIBERATIONS
Plaintiff will be irreparably injured if the preliminary injunction does not issue and
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 constitutional
injury sufficient to warrant injunctive relief, where irreparable injury will follow in
the due course of events, even though the party charged is to be deprived of nothing
until the completion of the proceedings.

United Church of the Medical Center v. Medical Center Commission, 689 F.2d 693, 701 (7th
Cir. 1982) (citing Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 571-72, 574-75, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 1694,
1695-96, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973)). As will be discussed, Plaintiff was subjected to a fatally-
biased decision-making process and is currently suffering a depravation pending completion
of the proceedings, where she might suffer further depravation.
The United States Supreme Court has noted that [i]t would be very strange if our
system of law permitted a judge to act as a grand jury and then try the very persons accused
as a result of his investigations. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 137, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625, 99
L.Ed. 942 (1955). The Murchison Court held that it was a violation of due process to permit
a court to try a case where it had charged the defendant and investigated the case. Id. at 139,

Page 7 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
75 S.Ct. at 627. As will be discussed, the Commission charged Plaintiff, investigated her
case, and tried her case.
In Withrow v. Larkin, however, the Supreme Court held that due process can permit a
tribunal to investigate and adjudicate a matter as tribunals have presumed honesty and
integrity; however, this presumption can be overcome if the risk of unfairness is intolerably
high. 421 U.S. 35, 47-48, 58, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 1464-65, 1469, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975).
Plaintiff must show that the adjudicator has prejudged, or reasonably appears to have
prejudged, an issue. Stivers v. Pierce, 71 F.3d 732, 741 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations
and citations omitted). Plaintiff can make this showing when the circumstances surrounding
the proceedings demonstrate an actual bias on the part of the tribunal. Id. (citing Taylor v.
Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501-04, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 2704-06, 41 L.Ed.2d 897 (1974)). Such
impermissible bias can be established by irregular, irrational, and arbitrary actions by the
tribunal. Id. at 745 (citing Sinaloa Lake Owners Assn v. City of Simi Valley, 882 F.2d 1398,
1409 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1016, 110 S.Ct. 1317, 108 L.Ed.2d 493 (1990)).
So, irreparable harm sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction can be established
by showing that the decision making process was fatally biased. This bias can be established
by showing that a tribunal which investigated and adjudicated a matter no longer has the
presumption of fairness and integrity. That the tribunal no longer has such a presumption can
be established by showing that the tribunal has, or reasonably appears to have, prejudged an
issue. Such prejudgment can be shown by irregular, irrational, and arbitrary actions.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /

Page 8 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1. THE COMMISSION IMPERMISSIBLY LIMITED THE TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO
DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMISSIONS CHARGES
Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his
own defense. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1049, 35 L.Ed.2d
297 (1973). A defendants due process concerns are paramount and the constitutional
guarantees to a fair trial must be staunchly safeguarded. See U.S. v. Blum, 62 F.3d 63, 67 (2d
Cir. 1995). A tribunal should impose time limits on the presentation of evidence only where
necessary and after making an informed analysis based on a review of the parties proposed
witness lists and proffered testimony, as well as their estimates of trial time. Duquesne
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 over a five-day
period, giving a five-ninths majority of the time to the Special Prosecutor to present the case
against Plaintiff and a four-ninths minority of the time to Plaintiff to cross examine and to
present her own case.
3
(See Scheduling Order for Formal Public Hearing at 2:6-8, attached as
Exhibit 1). The Commission used a device similar to a chess timer to keep track of time.
The Commission did not review the parties proposed witness lists and proffered testimony
prior to setting the arbitrary time constraints. The Commission arbitrarily decided the time
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 the case in chief
against Plaintiff. The Commission scheduled two extra daysone for the Special Prosecutor to finish and
another for Plaintiff to call limited witnesses. The Special Prosecutor had six days to present its case; whreas,
Plaintiff had one. It is worth noting that the Commission only gave Plaintiff more time after this Court stated
how concerned it was over the arbitrary time allocations.
4
The Commission similarly mandated arbitrary time limits in the non-public hearing, giving the Special
Prosecutor 210 minutes and giving Plaintiff only 150 minutes.

Page 9 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
As a result of this time limitation and other issues to be discussed infra, the
Commission impermissibly prevented Plaintiff from presenting her case. The Commission
effectively denied Plaintiff her Compulsory Process and Due Process rights by so limiting
her time.
5
Had the Commission permitted Plaintiff even a reasonable amount of time, she
would have conducted a more thorough cross examination of the prosecutions witnesses and
she would have called more witnesses in support of her theory of the case. Plaintiff was
severely prejudiced by not being permitted to present her case due to the time constraints.
As the Commission impermissibly and arbitrarily limited Plaintiffs time to defend
against the prosecutions case and to present her own case, he constitutional rights were
violated. The Commissions acts in violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights illustrate the
Commissions bias in this case.
2. THE COMMISSION IMPERMISSIBLY DENIED, OR PERMITTED THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR TO DENY, PLAINTIFF ACCESS TO WITNESSES AND/OR
EVIDENCE
a. The Commission Arbitrarily Denied And/Or Impeded Plaintiffs
Ability To Subpoena Witnesses And Evidence
The Commission violated Plaintiffs due process and compulsory process rights when
it arbitrarily denied and/or refused to issue Plaintiff the subpoenas she requested. The
Commission is supposed to issue subpoenas pursuant to Rule 20 of the Procedural Rules of
the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, which reads as follows:

5
The Commissions proceedings are at least quasi-criminal in nature as the proceedings involve the
removal of a judge from office. See In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 551, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226, 20 L.Ed.2d 117
(1968). Further, that a Special Prosecutor was assigned to prosecute the case further establishes that the
disciplinary proceedings were at least quasi-criminal in nature. As the proceedings are quasi-criminal, many of
the constitutional rights afforded to criminal defendants are afforded to Plaintiff. Id.

Page 10 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The respondent and prosecuting counsel are entitled to compel attendance at the
formal hearing of witnesses, including the respondent, by subpoena, and to provide
for the production of documents, books, accounts and other records. Subpoenas must
be issued by the executive director of the commission in the same manner as
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 of course and
without review, the Commission must issue subpoenas as a matter of course and without
review. See NRS 174.305. Such was not the case in the disciplinary hearings at issue.
Plaintiff had many issues obtaining subpoenas from the Commission. The
Commission, through the executive director, David F. Sarnowski, Esq., stated in a letter to
Plaintiff, the Commission does not issue subpoenas in a carte blanch fashion. (See letter
from Commission to Plaintiff dated June 16, 2008, attached as Exhibit 2). The Commission
had some concerns about the amount and type of discovery materials Plaintiff requested.
(See id.). In a formal Order, the Commission created a judicial Bill of Attainder by ruling
that Plaintiff had to substantiate what relevant information she sought and a factual
predicate for how the information would assist her defense.
6
(See Order Granting Motion
Allowing Respondents Counsel to Withdraw, Order Granting Respondents Motion to
Continue Trial, Order Granting Special Counsels Motion for Discovery at 8:19-20, attached
as Exhibit 3). The Commission further noted that it would be best for the entire
Commission to deliberate on Judge Halversons request for subpoenas.
7
(Id. at 8:22-23).
This is curious, given that by the Commissions own procedural rules subpoenas are

6
The Commission cited Matter of Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007) in support of its obstructing
Plaintiff access to subpoenas. Said decision also created a judicial Bill of Attainder denying only Plaintiff
unfettered access to subpoena witness and documents.
7
The Commission similarly sua sponte quashed Plaintiffs subpoenas for the non-public hearing. (See
June 25, 2007 Order, attached as Exhibit 10).

Page 11 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
supposed to issue without inspection or reviewthey are also to be issued while completely
blank.
Defendant Holmes, the Special Prosecutor, also interfered with Plaintiffs subpoenas
by unilaterally and without notice or a hearing relieving witnesses of their obligations under
properly-issued subpoenas. (See letters from Defendant Holmes to Plaintiff dated July 8,
2008 and July 9, 2008, attached as Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively). Defendant Holmes
excused two key witnesses from their subpoena obligationsthe Eighth Judicial District
Court Executive Officer and the Office of Diversity of Clark County, Nevada. Both
witnesses have key evidence to which Plaintiff was entitled, but to which Defendant Holmes
blocked and which the Commission permitted.
8

Plaintiff was severely prejudiced by the Commissions, as well as Defendant
Holmes, obstructing Plaintiffs free access to witnesses and evidence. By forcing Plaintiff
to file motions and to have access to subpoenas and by a flat out refusal to acknowledge and
enforce its own procedural rules, the Commission clearly acted arbitrarily, irrationally, and
irregularly.
b. The Commission Permitted The Special Prosecutor To Act As
Counsel For A Witness
Defendant Holmes was assigned to the underlying matter as a Special Prosecutor.
A Special Prosecutor was presumably appointed to attempt to avoid any separation of
powers issues. As was discussed supra, Defendant Holmes improperly blocked Plaintiffs

8
That Defendant Holmes acted as counsel for the witnesses and as Special Prosecutor in the same case
and that the Commission permitted the same, will be discussed infra.

Page 12 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
access to witnesses and their documents. In doing so, however, Defendant Holmes acted as
counsel for the witnesses, which was in direct conflict with her role as Special Prosecutor.
In her letters to Plaintiff where Defendant Holmes unilaterally quashed the
subpoenas, she wrote the letters at the request of, and on behalf of each witness. (See
Exhibits 4 and 5). It is axiomatic that when an attorney acts at the request of, and on behalf
of a person or entity during and regarding litigation, that attorney has established an
attorney-client relationship with the person or entity. The attorney acting as the agent of
another is the heart of the attorney-client relationship.
So, the Special Prosecutor represents both the State and two key witnesses in the
same proceeding. Defendant Holmes, the advocate for the State, represented two witnesses
from whom Plaintiff, the opposing party in that litigation, subpoenaed information and
unilaterally excused them from their obligations under said subpoena. This is problematic, at
the very least, and also unethical.
Being that Defendant Holmes represented the two witnesses put Plaintiff in an ethical
dilemma. Plaintiff, who is an attorney, is not permitted to speak with represented persons.
Given that the witnesses were represented by Defendant Holmes meant that, in order for
Plaintiff to obtain information from the witnesses, Plaintiff would have to go through the
Special Prosecutor.
Based on Defendant Holmes unethical acts, Plaintiff filed a motion with the
Commission to disqualify the Special Prosecutor, which the Commission denied. (See
Motion to Disqualify Counsel; Opposition; and Reply, attached collectively as Exhibit 6).
The Commissions refusal to disqualify the Special Prosecutor for her clearly
unethical actions is arbitrary, irregular, and irrational.

Page 13 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3. THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO PRESENT HER
THEORY OF THE CASE
The Commission refused to allow Plaintiff to present her theory of the case. Plaintiff
has multiple physical impairments, some of which are obvious, which limit many of her
major life activities.
9
Plaintiff wanted to admit evidence of her impairments to support her
theory of the case and refute the prosecutions case against her. The Commission, however,
refused because Plaintiff would not submit to a psychiatric evaluation.
Before the Commission would permit Plaintiff to introduce evidence of any physical
disabilities, the Commission mandated that Plaintiff submit to a psychiatric evaluation from
Dr. Melissa Piasecki, a forensic psychiatrist. (See letter from the Commission to then
counsel for Plaintiff dated August 15, 2008, attached as Exhibit 7; see also Exhibit 3 at
10:25-26). Specifically, the Commission ordered the following: If Judge Halverson intends
to utilize medical evidence or make arguments pertaining to her medical condition, no later
than July 18, 2008, Judge Halverson shall submit to a medical examination by Dr. Melissa
Piasecki [a psychiatrist]. (See Exhibit 3 at 12:8-10). It is both arbitrary and irrational that
the Commission would require a psychiatric evaluation to permit Plaintiff to introduce
evidence of her physical impairments.
The Commission cites NRS 1.4665 as its authority to force Plaintiff to submit to a
psychological examination.
10
Assuming arguendo that NRS 1.4665 is constitutional, the

9
These claims are rooted in the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
10
NRS 1.4465 states in relevant part:
1. If a complaint received by the Commission alleges that a justice or judge is incapacitated, the
Commission shall, after examining the complaint and conducting an investigation pursuant to
NRS 1.4657 and 1.4663, attempt to resolve the matter informally. In attempting to resolve the
matter informally, the Commission may request that the justice or judge named in the

Page 14 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Commission arbitrarily took away Plaintiffs right to explain how her physical impairments
relate to the charges against her because she would not submit to a psychiatric evaluation. A
persons mental health is completely unrelated to a persons physical disabilities. It would be
understandable if the Commission were to refuse evidence of a mental health condition based
on failure to undergo a psychiatric examination, but such is not the case here. The
Commission acted completely arbitrarily and irrationally in precluding evidence of physical
impairments for not submitting to a mental examination.
Further, the statute upon which the Commission relies requires a complaint alleging
that the judge is incapacitated to warrant any mental or physical examination. See NRS
1.4665(1). The complaint against Plaintiff does not even hint at any incapacitation. The
complaint alleges that Plaintiff violated judicial ethics / procedures, that she fell asleep on the
bench, that her performance as a judge was insufficient, that she created a hostile work
environment, that she improperly hired outside security, that she improperly used an outside
computer technician, and that she did not otherwise cooperate with her colleagues. (See
Formal Statement of Charges, attached as Exhibit 8). The initial charges similarly fail to
provide any allegation of incapacitation. (See Order of Interim Suspension at 2-3, attached as

complaint submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological testing by a physician licensed to
practice medicine in this State who is selected by the Commission.
2. If the Commission is unable to resolve the matter informally pursuant to subsection 1, the
Commission shall:
(a) Proceed as set forth in NRS 1.4667, 1.467 and 1.4673. If the matter proceeds to the
point at which the prosecuting attorney files a statement of formal charges pursuant
to NRS 1.467 and the justice or judge named in the complaint denies all or part of
those charges, the Commission shall deem such a denial to be consent on the part of
the justice or judge to submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological testing by a
physician licensed to practice medicine in this State who is selected by the
Commission.

Page 15 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Exhibit 9). As none of the charges even hint at any mental incapacitation issues, the
Commission had no basis to even request that Plaintiff submit to a psychiatric examination,
let alone order her to so submit. As such, the Commissions refusal to allow Plaintiff to offer
evidence of her physical impairments was completely improper.
Plaintiffs physical condition was important is it would have clarified, explained, and
would have even been a defense to some of the allegations against her. Plaintiff was
significantly prejudiced by not being able to even mention her physical impairments.
The Commissions refusal to permit Plaintiff to introduce evidence relating to her
physical condition unless she submitted to a psychiatric evaluation was arbitrary, irrational,
and irregular, thus showing the Commissions bias. This refusal denied Plaintiff the
opportunity to defend against the Special Prosecutors case and to present her theory of the
case. As such, the Commission denied Plaintiff due process of law.
* * *
The underlying judicial discipline case is ripe with violations of due process of law.
The issues presented here are illustrative of the Commissions bias in the underlying matter.
The Commission arbitrarily, irrationally, and irregularly limited Plaintiffs time to
present her case, denied her access to witnesses and evidence, and refused to permit Plaintiff
to present evidence to refute the Special Prosecutors case and to further her theory of the
case. The Commissions arbitrary, irrational, and irregular actions establish an impermissible
biasthat the Commission either prejudged or reasonably appears to have prejudged the
underlying matter. See Stivers, 71 F.3d at 741. As such, the Commission no longer has the
presumption of honesty and integrity. See Withrow, 421 U.S. at 47-48, 58, 96 S.Ct. at 1464-
65, 1469. Without that presumption of honesty and integrity, the Commissions proceedings

Page 16 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
violated Plaintiffs due process rights as the Commission initially charged Plaintiff,
investigated the case against her, and adjudicated the matter. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. at
139, 75 S.Ct. at 627.
As such, Plaintiff was subjected to a fatally-biased decision-making process which is
in itself a constitutional injury sufficient to warrant injunctive relief []. United Church of
the Medical Center, 689 F.2d at 701; see also Gibson, 411 U.S. at 571-72, 574-75, 93 S.Ct. at
1694, 1695-96. Accordingly, this Court should issue a preliminary injunction staying the
Commissions proceedings and its ruling, if any.
III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, this Honorable Court should issue a preliminary injunction
staying the Commissions proceedings and its ruling, if any. Further, as the underlying
proceedings were unconstitutional, Plaintiffs suspension from the bench should also be
stayed.
Dated this 1
st
day of December, 2008

/s/ F. Peter James
Nevada Bar No. 9530
621 South 10th Street
702-382-2209
702-382-6485 (fax)

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

" ./ '---,
BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
STA. TE OF NEVADA
FILED
4 In the Matter or thc )
AUG - 1 Z008
5
()
7
8-
9
10
I I
12
13
1'4
15
HONORABLE ELIZABETH HALVERSON,
District COLIrt Judge. Eighth .Judicial
District COllrt. County of Clark
Slate of Nevada. " .
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 080 I-I ()66
SCHEDULING ORDER-
FOR FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
CiPUNE
Pursuant to Nev. Rev. 1.4()7(J)(c), the Commission will h?ld a public hearing at
3150 Paradise Rd . Rill. N250. Las Vegas. Nc\!ada, beginning on Monday. August 4, 2008 at
9:00 a.m. Members of the Commission who.will attend the hearing and pa11icipatc in the
decision arc: Chaimlan Greg Ferraro, Vicc-Chainllan Davcel1 Nave, C'olllmissiollcr Doug 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 c) The purpose orthe hearing will be whcther, pursuant to NRS 1.4673. there is clear and
20, -convincing evidence to lhatthe respondent violated the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct,
21
22
24
25
27
as is alleged in the Forrhal Statement of Charges filed by Special Counsel Dorothy Nash Holmes
on January 7. 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 to
discipline the respondent.
So as to make optimulTl lise of the ti me (lour i.llldOllc-hal r days) avai lable to the
COilllllission. and in light of hurd en or prooLlIlti due process concerns. the following procedures.
\\'i II bellti I il.cti. It should be noted that the Co III 111 issio/l wi II 'not he in open session_
morning. AugllSI (J. 2008 duc to other it mllst pCrll)nll in anoLhervenue.
,
-.
.'
( 1 ) special counsel will present c\"idencc regarding the c\"iJentiary basis for the
linding of\"iolations f"ro'n1 l\1onday. August 4. 20()8 through th"c close orille Jay on 'vVedncsday.
'(1. 200S. As noteJ abo\-e. the C()l11l11ission \\-ill be in recess on Wednesday J1lornitH! to
. . .
."1.' conduct other husiness. Thc special COllllSel shall include an opcning statcment in her
5
7
8
10
II
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
.,'")
24
25
27
2X
prescntation. In short. due to thc burden or proal' allocated to the special counsel. she shalH1uvc
live-ninths or the lime allocated for this hearing. Judge HalvcrSOi'l shall he pn:pareJ to start her
presentation on Wednesday. August (1. 2008 at I :00 p.m .. in the I..!venl the special counsel finishes
early.
(2) Judge shall have the days or Aligllst 7 and to prescnt evidencc to
rcbut the charges. as \\:dl as evidence in mitigation and extenuation of punisillllCn1. Judge
Halverson shall include an,opening statement in her presentation. It may be rescrved until the
beginning ofhcr case, but it may not he waived. The taking of evidence' will concludc at 4:00
p.ni. on Friday, August 8, 2008. Scheduling of hours on each day is subject to the discretion of
the Commission. It is likely there will he cxtended hours on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursd.ay.
(3) At the conc1usionofthe evidentiary phase .. the l0l11111ission shall entertain final,
argumcnts not to exceed forty-live minutes by each party. The Commission nlay direct thc
partics to submit written arguments simultancollsly. iflimc constraints so dictate or other
circumstances warrant slIch a procedure.
(4) A nerthc presentation 0 f evidence and linal arg'lII11cnts. the Com 111 issioll anticipates
that i,t \\/jll not have sufficient timc to deliberatc 011 site due to the travel schedules orlllcmbers
\\'ho must return to northern Nevada 011 Friday. August 200X. Therefore. the C0111mission
plans to deliherate lhe following week unless written argulllents arc rcqucstet.l. A linal decision
\,"j \I he announced thcrcal1cr in a l11anncr and in a formal consistentvv'ith appi-opriatc practice and
the law.
(5) Each side should take nole 0 r the 1:IC1 that the c krk or the COlll1 wi II keep track 0 r the
lime conslimed hy each side. The lime a party conslimes in ils cross-ex'tullination and any re-
cross-examination orlhe other party's witness"will be tkduCled frO-ill the lnlallimc a\'ailahle to
that party .. The prcsitling oiTiccr wi II make adjuslments to the hasic allocation hased on
'")

./
.,
)
-+
5
6
7
8
,C)
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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 (OllllSd arc I..!ncollraged to. discuss in adyancc
and to rCi.lsonahlc efforts to reach stipulations prior to the hearing regarding
documentary 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 not
present 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.
I r investigators 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 counsel
as well. atthe beginning 9fthe hearing. the respondent will be required to inform the presiding
officer 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 witness
j
will be allowed to make and argue objections regarding that particular witness' testinlony.Thc
spokcsnlan will. also be required to tell the prcsiding officer which attorney will present the
20 opcning statement and closing argumcnt.
21
2..+ .
25
27
- 3 -
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 ORDERED.
5
7
8
<)
to
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
11
22
23
24
25
27
DATED this 1st
day of August. 2008.
NEVADA COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
P.O. Box-48
Carson City. NV 89702:. ____ --_
-4-
,
,
.'1
5
7
s
10
11
12
IJ
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
,.,
."
_.'1
2.+
25
27
CERTIFICATE OF \IAUJNG
. [ hereby rerti that I am an of Nc\'ada ('ol11lllission on Judicial Discipline
and 011 the or August. 2008. I sern:d the liJregoing SCHEDliLI!\G ORDER FOR
FORl\t1AL PUBLIC HEARING by hoth the orlier and placing i.I copy orthc"t>rdcr ill the
l 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
NY 89505-3677
Fax: (775)348-0540
Honorable Juuge Elizabeth Halverson'
JS50 E. Flamingo Ru. # 152
Las. Vegas. NV 89121-6227
Fax: (702) 450-9227
M ichacl Alan Schwartz
Schwartz. Kelly & Ollarz-Schwartz PC .
3030() Norlhwcstenl Highway Sie l()O
Farmirlgton Hills. MI 48334 .
Fax: (248)932-2801
Fax: (702) 797-6150
- 5 -
- _ -,-;'
fill
1
2
3
BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISClPLINE
STATE OFNEV A
'FILED
4 In the Matter of the
5 HONORABLE EUZABETH HALVERSON,
District Judge, Eighth Judicial
6 District County of Clark,
State of Nevada,
7
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 8
9 ORDER
NON-PUBlIC
JUN 2 5 ZOO]'
CASE NO. 2007-053
SCfPLINE
Clerk
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The presiding Officer, Commissioner Judge Wagner, has detennined that for the purposes
of the hearing with regard to respondent's interim suspension, the respondent's request for
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
subpoenas of the following witnesses and documents should be and hereby are denied.
Raymond Visconti, Subpoena Puces Tecum & Subpoena'to Appear and Testify
To produce at or hefore the hearing any ana all documents tending
to show the and nature of any and all complaints filed on
or 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 Testify
To produce at or before the hearing any and all documents tending
to show the existence and nature of any and all complaints filed. on
or after January of2004 to present by court employees regarding
the conduct of any Commissioner, Justice Court Judge,
DiStrict Court Judge or Supreme Court Justice.... '
Theresa Bow, Subpoena Duces Tecum & Subpoena to Appear and Testify
to show the existence and nature of any and all complaints filed. on
or after January of2004 to present by court employees regarding
the conduct of any Magistrate, Commissioner, Justice Court Judge,
District Court Judge or Supreme Court Justice ....
Kathy Lainbermop,t, DUces Tecum & Subpoena to Appear and Testify
. . . . . . .'. -. . . .
To before the heanng any and all documents tendmg
to show the existence of any anc;lall complaints filed on
or after January of 2004 topresent by comt employees regarding ,
District Court' Judge or Supreme Court Justice ....
Jnni': L L Jn fil7:nC::ClL L oun Ogl7f1i':f1
}- ....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Therese Scupi. Subpoena Duces Tecum & Subpoena to Appear and Testify
to show the existence and nature of any and all complaints filed on
or after January of 2004 to present by court employees regarding
District Court Judge or Supreme Court Justice.... "
Charles Short, Subpoena Duces Tecum & Subpoena to Appear and Testify
" To produce at or before the hearing any and all documents tending
to show the existence and nature of any and all complaints filed on
or after January of2004 to present by any citizen, public employee
or court employees regarding the conduct of any Magistrate,
Justice Court District Court Judge or
Supreme Court Justice.... "
10 The Honorable Kathy Hardcastle, Subpoena Duces Tecum & Subpoena to Appear and
Testify
11
To produce at or before the hearing any and all documents tending "
12 to show the existence and nature of any and all complaints filed on
or after January of 2004 to present by any citizen or public "
13 employee regarding the conduct of any Magistrate, Commissioner,
Justice Court Judge, District Court Judge or Supreme Court
14 Justice ....
15 The Honorable Michael Memeo. Subpoena Duces Tecum & Subpoena to Appear and
Testify "
16
17 to show efforts made on behalf of the Nevada Commission on
Judicial Discipline to suspend" you as a sitting judge pursuant to
18 their authority ....
19 The Chairman is authorized to sign this order on behalf ofllie Commission.,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this 25th day of June, 2007."
JUDICIAL DISCIPLlNE
P.O. Box 48
Carson 8970
-2-
."
I
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
2 I hereby certifY that I am an employee of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
3 ~ d on the 1X.5"iil day of June, 2007, I seIVed the foregoing ORDER by placing a copy of the
4 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 89521
7 Mr. Dominic P, Gentile, Esq.
Gentile e P ~ Ltd.
8 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 850
Las Vegas. NY 89109
9
Mr. William H. Gamage, Esq.
10 Gentile DePalma, Ltd.
3960 Howard Hughes ParlCway, Ste. 850
11 Las Vegas, NV 89109
12 Mr. John L. Arrascada, Esq.
Arrascada & Arrascada, Ltd.
13 P. O. Box 425
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i6
27
28
Reno, NY 89504
3 ~
GREG FERRARO
Chairman
STATE OF NEVADA
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
P.O. Box 48
Carson City, Nevada 89702
Telephone (775) 687-4017 e Fax (775) 687-3607
Website: http://www.judicial.state.nv.Lls
June 16, 2008
DAVID F. SARNOWSKI
General Counsel and
Executive Director
Sent via facsimile and regular mail
Judge Elizabeth Halverson
3850 E. Flamingo Rd. #152
Las Vegas, NY 89121-6227
Re: Case No. 0801-1066 Subpoenas
Dear Judge Halverson:
This will confilm receipt of your letter dated June 14, 2008 regarding the subpoenas you
have requested. There is no doculuentation to forward to you regarding what you characterize as
legal challenges. The COlumission has S0111e concenlS about the runount and type of discovery
luaterials you !:lave requested, in light of the inlpending hearing and the Inany months that passed
without you luaking any attempts at discovery at all.
Like any other COllIi, the Comlnission has a duty to ensure that the subpoenas it issues are
proper 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 you
othelwise 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 the
tilue of the hearing on June 26, 2008.
June 16, 2008
Page 2 of2
If you get the subpoenas prepared and sublnitted to Ms. Schultz far enough in advance of
the hearing, I will ensure they are signed and ready to deliver to you personally, in the event the
Commission concludes on the date of the hearing that one or more of them should be issued.
DFS:kls
cc: Dorothy Nash RolInes, Esq.
Sincerely,
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

David F. SalTIowski
General Counsel and Executive Director
07/02/2008 13: 10 JUDICIAL COMMISSION 1'-10.691
BEFORE THE NEVADA C01'v1Jv.1ISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
2
3
STATEOFNEV
5 HONORABLE ELIZABETH HAL
District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial
6 District Court, County of Clark
7
8
State of Nevada,
.. Respondent.
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
Cleric
Case No. 0801-1066
[;102
9 ORDER GRANTING MOTION Al.LOWING RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL TO WITHD:RA W,
10 ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO CONTJNUE TRIAL,
11 ORDER GRANTING SPECIAL COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
12 A. Preface.
13 This order disposes of several motions filed by Special Counsel, Dorothy Nash Holmes, and
14 the Respondent, District Judge Elizabeth I-:Ialverson. At the beginning of its discllssion of the legal .
15 issues below, the Conmlission will address its to enter this order in light of\vhat it
16 concludes is a premature attempt by Judge rIalversoD to appeal what is clearly a non-appealable order
17 setting a hearing on the sooner than Judge Halverson. wants to have a hearing on the merits. It
18 should be noted there are several other outstanding motions to \vhich one side or rhe other still has
19 time to reply. Once the ti.me for responses to the respective motions expires, those motjons will be
20 d.ecided by the Presiding Officer, Alternate Comm.issioner (Judge) Richard Wagner) pursuant to
21 directive of the ntH commission. In light of the fact that Vice-ChaimlaIl Daveen Nave participated in .
both recent hearings this Inatler
1
she is authorized by the full commission to sign this order
23 on its behalf
24 On May 29, the Commission conducted a hearing in. Reno regarding certain motions
25 that Judge Halverson and .her attorneys had. filed. Those motions will be the subject of discu.ssion
26 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) Richard
28 Wagner, Commissioner (Judge) Jerry Polaha, Conunissioner Karl Annstrong, and Coml'nissioner
REC'D J L o 2 4006
07/02/2008 13: 10 JUD I C I AL COMl'1 I SS I ON NO.S91
I James Beasley. The transcript of the proceedings was filed onJune 2008.
1
Part of the
2 proceedings was open to the public and part was closed. As discussed more fully below, the upshot
3 of the hearing is that the three,private attOlneys who Judge Halverson had retained to represent her,
4 were allowed to withdraw. Judge Halverson then proceeded to represent herself.
5 Additionally, at the request of Jud.ge Halverson) the Commission continued the merits
6 hearing, which was then scheduled for one week beginning on June 9, 2008 in Las Vegas. Judge
7 Halverson requested a continuance of several n101?-ths but the COlnmission concluded the hearing
8 should begin on August 4,2008, sixty-seven days later. On June 9,2008, the Conlmission issued an
9 Order Resetting I-fearing and Notice of Panel Members for the merits hearing.
2
The aforesaid order
10 specified that the following panelists were scheduled. to participate in the Au.gust 4, 2008 merits
11 hearing: Chainnan Greg Ferraro, Vice-Chairman, :Daveen Nave, Commissjoner Doug Jones, Alternate
12 'Commissioner (Judge) Richard Wagner, Comnlissioner (Judge) Jerry Polaha, Commissioner L'trl
13 Annstrong and COlnmissioner Wayne Ch.ilnarusti.
14 On June 26, 200g., the Co.mmission conducted a hearing in Las Vegas regarding certain other
15 motions that both sides had filed. Cotnmissioners who participated in the panel and voted were;
16 Vice-Chainnru1. Daveen Nave, Commissioner Doug Jones, Altenlate Conunissiol"l.er (Judge) Richard
17 Wagner .. Commissioner (Judge) Jerry Commissioner Wayne Chimarusti, and
18 Alternate Cornm.issjoner Willirun Hoffman. Chainnan Greg Ferraro, ColtlmisSloller I(arl Armstrong
19 and Commissioner Beasley were unavoid.ably absent. The upshot of the hearing is that the
20 Commission authorized its Executive Director to issue certain subpoenas by Judge
21
22
23
1 The portion of the hearing that was not open to the public was transcribed by the court reporter.
24 Pursuant to the order of the Commission, that portion ofth6 transcript is not available for review by the
public at this time. .
25
2 It should be noted that the p.rrmary panel members are routinely scheduled to sit in aU matters.
26 However1 due to the fact they have other duties either within the judiciary or in the private business
primary often are not physically to .atten4 all hearillgsor to sit in merits
27 heanngs .. some of whlcb can last severa] days. AddItIonally, dIsqualifications often occur due to the
law. For exam.pIe, routinely sits in place of
28 COlnnussloner Mark Denton, who lS a Judge of the El&hth Judiclal DlstnC"t Court, the same court to
which Judge Halverson was elected. The law prohibits a Judge from a particular court from participating
in a case involving another judge from the sante coul1. Nev. Const. Art. 6 21{1 0).
2
07/02/2008 13:10 IUD I C I AL CI][1f1 r SS ION (;705'
1 The Nevada SUprelne Court has held that the ,right of appeal to the SUprenle Court is one
2 based entirely upon statute and that the COUIt is prohibited from taking jurisdiction unless the party
3 July 2, 2008 appealing has the statutory right of appeal. 0 'Neill v. Dunn, 83 Nev. 228,427 P.2d 647
4 (1967). The statutes governing appeals from Commission decision.s provide for an appeal when the
5 Commission decides to suspend a judge on an interim basis. NRS 1.4675(4). There is no statuto.ry
6 provision for an appeal regarding a respondent judge's disagreement with a hearing schedule
7 determined by the Conlmission, althougb the legislature c01,;dd readily have provided one had it
8 intended to allow an appealllnder such circumstances.
9 Similarly) the Nevada Supreme Court has provid.ed for an appeal by a respondent judge only
10 where there is an order of suspension i'om the exercise of office under NRS 1.4675, or where the
11 Commission has issued rul 'ord.er of ce'D.sl.lre, removal, retireJ.nent, or other form of discipline,"
12 NRAP 3D(3). Therefore, the Commission. concludes that the Coun has not provided for an appeal
13 from an interlocutory order of the Commissioll. Ullder applicable case law that has been in effect for
14 'a long time, an appellate court shall not consid.er Inatters which concern interlocutory orders which
15 are 110t appealable under former N.R.C.P. 72. Transcontinental Oil co. v. Free, 80 Nev. 207., 391 P.
16, 317 (1964); see also Medical Dl!Vice Alliance, Inc v. Ahr) ] 15 Nev- 323, 988 P.2d 308 (1999).
17 Finally, the Nevada Suprelne Court bas held. that a premature appeal has no effect on the
18 jurisdiction of the court to which the case is assigned and that the court retains jurisdictiol1 over that
19 case despite an effort by a party to seek appellate relief. Southern lVevcr.da J-Jomebuilders Ass'n v.
20 City ofN L.as Vegas, 112 Nev- 297,913 P.2d 1276 clarified, v. GNLV 116 Nev.
21 ,424, 996 P_2d 416 (2000). In those cases, the court set forth well establi.shed principles of law
22 regarding what and when a ruling can be appealed. The following requirements IUlIst be met (1) an
23 appeal may be taken from a final judgment; (2) the Co'urt defines final judgrnent a.s a judgment that
24 disposes of the issues presented. in a case, deteooines costs and leaves nothing for fLlture
25 collsideration of the tria.l court; (3) a notice of carmot be filed. prior to entry of a written
26 judgment and b.efore a resol1.1tion of all present?d to the trial court.
27 Judge Halverson cannot meet the requirements at this time. The Commission has not issued a
28 final judgment as defined by the Nevada. Supreme Coun. It has issued an order setting the h.earing on
4
07/02/2008 13:10 IUD I C [AL COMr
y
l I r ()H HI]. 6'31
t,he merits. Judge Halverson cannot appeal such orders and any action on her part to do so does not
2 divest this Com"missio.n of jurisdiction. Having concluded that the Notice of Appeal did not divest
3 the Commission of the a.bility to etlter any orders, including th:ts one, the Comlnission will now tum
4 to a discussion of the various motions.
5 C. The Motion to Withdraw by Counsel for Judge Halverson.
6 Judge Halverson had retained three attorneys to represent her at the outset of the
7 Commission's proceedings. They were John Arrascada, Domiuic Gentile and William Gamage .. On
8 . May 22,. 2008, the attorneys filed a Motion. to Withdraw as Counsel. Relying 011 Supreme
9 Court Rule 46, the attorneys asserted. that 'an irreconcilable conflict of interest has arisen between
10 counsel - - . and Respondent Halverson such that they can no longer represent her in this matter. If
11 required counsel, [sic) will expand on the irreconcilable conflict through an affidavit filed
12 under seal or during a closed session of the Conlnlission." The attolneys asserted they had met with
13 Judge Halverson. on May 29, 2008 and she C011Sentedto their nl0tion. The attorneys also filed a
14 Motion for Order Shortening Time so that the Commissjon. could act in advance of the hearing whicb
. 15 was scheduled for Ju.ne 9, 2008.
16 On Monday, May 27, 2008, Judge Halverson filed her response to the motion,. She asserted
17 that her attorneys infonned her they "were unable to continue in their roles as a.ttom.eys for the .
18 Respond.entdue to the fact that Respondent is u.nable to pay for their services.
H
She also asserted that
19 the "impetus of the Motion to Witlldraw is the Respondent's jllability to pay the attorney's fees)?
20 : despite the fact the attorneys asserted they had irreconcilable differences w"ith their client. Thus,
21 according to the pleadings, the attorneys position. differed from that of Judge Halverson although she
22 agreed they should be allowed to wjthdra\v. On the sam.e day that she filed her response, Judge
23 Halverson filed a Illotion to continue the trial, suggesting that the continuance should be at least a
24 five Inonth period of time. TItis 'would have set the hearing in late October, 2008, at the earliest.
25 The Special Counsel also filed a response to the nlotion on May 27, 2008. Ms. Nash Holmes
26 asserted that she was not privy to th.e exact nature of the conflict. She suggested. that the Connnission
27 should inquire about the situation in a non-public meeting. She also argued that the hearing should
28
5
1Z17/02/2008 i3: 10 JUD I C I AL COf1r'"1 1'3'3 1 eN 1'10.6'31
I not be continu.ed and that Judge Halverson should be required to proceed on June 9, 2008, with or
2 without new counsel.
3 On May 27,2008, the Commission issued an Order Setting :Hearing on Motions and it
4 proceeded with a hearing on May 2008. Judge I-Ialverson appeared via a telephonic link to the
5 hearing room, which was located at the State Bar offices in Reno.' Mr. Galnage also appeared by
6 telephone. Mr. Arrascada appeared in person. Mr. Genti[e did not appear at all due to a prior
7 teaching commimlent at the Boyd School ofLa.w in Las Mr. An"ascada asserted that he had
8 authority to speak on Mr. Gentile's behalf. Ms. Nash Holmes was also present bu.t did not participate
9 in the portions of the hearing that were closed.
10 At the conclusion of the hearing) the Cornnlission voted unanimously to allow all
11 attorneys to Th.e Commission directed. Mr. Gamage to provide Judge Halverson a copy of
'12 all investigative materials the attorneys had received rr0111 the e0111Jnlsslon n.o later than the end of
13 the business day. On May 30, 2008, Mr. Gent.iJ.e subm,itted a dOCUlnent entitled Receipt of a Copy of
14 FHe signed by Ju.dge Halverson on May 29,2008.
15 By this point in time, the attOlneys had presented in their plea<;lil1gs a.nd d.uring the closed
16 hearing sufficient jnfonnation to the COlnmission to establish good cause to be allowed to withdraw.
17 The Commission concluded there are two viable reasons to ,allow the attorneys'
18 Rule of Professional Cond.uct L16(b). The attorneys had zealously a,nd ahly re:presented Judge
19 ; Halverson and had expended what appears to be a. substantial outlay of.honrs in the course of
20 representing her. Judge Halverson readily admitted she could not a.fford. to cOl1tinue paying them and.
21 she acceded to their motion. More importan.tly, the Commission was faced with the prospect of
22 having one ifnot all three attonleys being fotced to conduct a lengthy bearing regarding their clienrs
23 professional future even though the attoDleys had. already concluded they couldn"t effectively do so
24 because of the irreconcilable differences that had The was concel.'Tled about
25 Judge HALVERSON being forced. to accept counsel for th.e hearing even through s.he contended they
26 __________________ _
27 4 It shouJd be noted that prior to the hearing, Alternate Commissioner (Judge) Wagner and only
. Judge Wagner
1
to the exclusion of all other cOlnmissioners, revie'wed certain written statements
28 sUbmitted directly to his Lovelock chambers by the attoDleys. Pursuant to his order, those materia.ls are
under seal and. in the possession of the COl1nnission clerk. Judge Halverson is privy to those statemeJlts
but Ms. Nash rIohnes is not, the other cOlnmissioners are not and neither is the COlnlnission' s staff.
6
07/02/2008 13:10 JUDICIRL COMMISSION NU.o'='l
1 h ~ i not adequately prepared for a hearing. Therefore, it was the Commissiol1.'S conclusion that it
2 would be inappropriate to force counsel to proceed as scheduled even th.ough their motion was made
3 shortly before the schedu.led hearing on the merits_
4 D. Judge Halvefson's Motion to Continoe the Merits Hearing.
S The Commission also conclu.ded that J ud.ge Halverson's request for ~ continuance of several
6 months was unreasonable. It should be noted that at various times throughout the course of litigation,
7 Judge Halverson and her' counsel have criticized the Coolmlssion [or not moving rapidly enough.
8 Even the Nevada Supreme Court expressed. silnilar concerns. Judge Halverson, wIllie still
9 represented. by counsel, had already requested and obtained a continuance of the hearing date from
10 April 14, 2008 to June 9, 2008.
11 The record of the May 29, 2008 is replete with Judge Halverson's accusations that she could
12 not possibly be prepared for a bearing 11: ... hme or any other near term tinle fram.e beeanse of what she
13 characterized as her attorneys' lack of preparation on her behalf. The Conlmission notes that Judge
14 Halverson has been dtvested of her duties for Inany nlonths, while being paid a.districtjudge's
15 substantial salary. Givell the la.ck of work requirements, there is no reason she could not have been
16 more engaged in the process of her own defense, ifin fact she was not so engaged during the time she
17 had couIlsel working o.n her behalf.
18 The Commissi.on C011cluded that it would be appropriate to give her some time to prepare, but
19 not the extensive amOUl1t oftilne she \,vanted. Therefore, it sched.uled. the merits hearing [nore than
20 two months from the date of the May 29, 2008 hearing, and nearly two m.onths from the' date of the
21 hearing Judge Halverson was seeking to delay on June 9, 2008. In the estimation of the Commission
1
22 this was and is a fair resolution of the competing demands of this case, i.e., allowing Judge Halverson
23 sufficient time to prepare the case in ord.er to effectjvely represent herself in propria person.a while
24 recognizing the public's need for a disposition within a reasonable period of time, Therefore, while
25 Judge Halverson's objection to the August 4-9, 2008 hearing dates is noted, it is rejected. Good
26 cause appearing, this matter will proceed as ordered ltUless a court of co,rr.lpetel1t jurisdiction orders
27 otherwise.
28
7
07/02/2008 13:10 JUDICIAL COi'lMI:3Srm..J 1-10.6'31
Judge Request for Subpoenas.
2 On June 11,2008, Judge Halverson submitted a request for several subpoenas through the
3 clerk of the Commission. At the direction of Judge Wagner, the Executive Director did not
4 immediately sign, and. issue them .. At the direcl:ion of Ju.dge Wagner, the Executive Director notified
5 Jl.ldge Halverson and Ms. Na.sh Holmes via a letter dated June 2008 that the COlnmission would
6 consider them along with another m.otion during a June 26, 2008 hearing in Las Vegas.
7 On June 26, 2008, Judge Halverson filed a Motion to Issue Requested Subpoenas
8 Imme<;iiatelyPursuant to Procedural Rule 20. This motion was also sellt via facsimile on June 24.
9 2008 and was unsigned. It was filed ;n open session of the Commission. Much of the motion can
10 best be described as a factually llusubstantiated diatribe by Judge Halverson, largely directed at Mr:
11 Sarnowski, the Com.mission's Executive Director. Sbe accuses him of interfeting with her case by
12 not issuing subpoenas upon deman.d an.d pursuant to the process llsed in the Eighth Judicial District.
13 ,During the June 26,2008 hearing? Judge Wagner informed Judge fIaJverson that Mr. Samo\vski
14 acted at Judge Wagner's direction when he did not lltlmediately sign and issue the subpoellas. Judge
15 Wagner also told Judge'Halverson that there are a \vide variety of practices throughout the courts of
16 this state pertaining to the'issuance of subpoenas.
17 The Comolission observes that the Nevada Supreme Court affinned its cro-lier refusal to issue
18 SUbpoenas at the requ.est of Jud.ge :Halverson because it appeared she was engaged in :fishi.ng
19 expedition. The COUlt o.bserved that Judge Halverson had failed to substantiate what relevant
20 information she sought and a factua 1 predicate fOT how the information would assist her defense.
21 Matter of Ii alverson , 123 Nev. ___ , 169 P.3d ] 161 (2007). Here, Judge Wagner rightfully concluded
22 that it would be best for the entire COlnmission to deliberate on Jud.ge Halverson's request for
23 subpoenas. Therefore, he told the Executive Director to act according to h.is directive and not LO
24 complyilnlnediately with Judge Halverso11's request. In the exercise of its discretion and after due
25 deliberation as a body 011 June 26,2008, the COflU1ussion directed Mr. Sarnowski to sign the
26 subpoenas, blank ones and specific ones, that she had requested. Mr. Sarnowski completed that task
27 before the condusion of the hearing and. they were delivered to Jud.ge Halverson in. person prior to
28 her depmture from the h.earing roanl. Should. any party to whom the subpoenas are directed want to
8
07/02/2008 13: lCl IUD I C I AL COl111 r 3:3 IOt-.J t'-ltJ.691
the scope of a subpoena, they can do so by flJing an appropriate motion with the
2 Commission. Any such challenges \vjl1 be adjudicated by Judge Wagner.
3 F. The Special COUl1sePs Motion for Discovery_
4 On April 17,2008, the Special CQunsel filed a MOlion for Discovery. Counsel for Judge
5 Halverson did not respond. On June 12) 2008, Judge Halverson filed her opposition to the motion.
6 On June 26
J
2008, the Commission heard oral arguni.ents on the motion and directed Judge Halverson
7 to nlaice a record of certain decisions by specified dates as noted below.
8 In the motion, which was filed in anticipation of the Jtule 9, 2008 hearing date, Ms. Nash
9 Holmes asserts that the hearing should not be a "trial by ambush." She asks the Comrnisslon to
10 require Judge Halverson to divulge the names of witnesses she intend.s to call at the hearing. The
11 Special Counsel also asserts that Judge Halverson should be required to divulge whether she intends
12 to assert any defense or proffer any evidence of physical or mental disability to excuse or explain her
13 actions. The Special Counsel asks for an. order so "th.ere is tim.e for the provisions of Rule 31(3) and
14 (5) to be carried out before [the hearing]."
15 Judge Halverson's opposition she is of the beljefthat this body cannot inquire into
16 her n1.edicaI status because of what she erroneously a Hfederal preetnption." She asserts that
17 the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibi.ts inquiry by an employer or other covered entity "about
18 the existence, nature, or severity of a disability" and that applicants Inay only be asked about
19 ability to perfoml specific job functions," Unconvincingly, Judge Halverson asserts that the
20 Cotnmission Inay not inquire into her or lneutal status because to do so would violate federal
21 law.
22 The CommissiOll would first observe that it is not Judge Halversoll's employer. The State of
23 Nevada is her enlployer and she is employed by tbe State only to the extent that she is elected, or
24 and then not removed by the Comnlission or the legislat1.1re during her judicial tenure.'
25 TheCommissjon is a sUb-division ofllie State of Nevada and is given specific investigative and
26 adjudicatory duties pursuant to constitutional and statutory law. Some of those duties require the
27
28 5 NRS 3.060(1){e) says that a person is 110t qualified to be a district has ever been
removed froln any judicial office by the Legislature or removed or retired frOlTI any Judicial 0 fflee by the
Conllllission on Judic'ial Discipline."
9
07/02/2008 13:10 COMMISSION NO.691 Oil
1 Commission to in.quire about the existence of physical problems and m.ental in.firmity. 1.4665
2 gives the COlnmission specific authority to order ajudge to "submit to med.ical, psychiatric or :l
3 psychologjcaJ testing by a physician licensed to practice medicine in this state who is selected by the
4 Commission."
5 Prior to the filing of the fo.anal statement of public ctlarges by the Special Counsel, the
6 Commission attenlpted to have Judge Halverson undergo an examination pursuant to its statutory
7 authority to do so because the original cOlnplaint and Judge Halverson's post .. conlplaint behavior
? suggested that to SOl11.e deg;:ree. she rn.ay have been incapacitated. NRS 1.4665. While there was an
9 . exchaJ.1ge of correspondence, the Commiasion concluded that Judge Halverson had chosen not to
10 eooper-ate.
11 Ultimately, the Commission didn.ot issue a finding of reasonable cause to proceed as to
12 specific aUegati011S ofillcapa.c.ity. H.owever. NRS 1.4665(2) provides as follo\vs:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
.([the Commission is unable to resolve the matter informally
pursuant to subsection 1) the Commission shall:
(a) Proceed as set forth in NRS 1.467 and 1.4673. If
the matter proceeds to the point at which the prosecuting attorney files
a statenlcllt of fonnal charges pursuant to NRS 1.467 and the justice or
judge named in the cOlnplaint denies an or part of those charges, the
Commission shall deem such a denial to be conSf!ot on pm-t of the
justice or judge to submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological
testing by a physician tice.nsed. to practice medicine 1 n this state who is
selected by the C01runission.
20 TIJ.us, it is arguable that the Co.mmission would be warranted in requiring Judge Halverson to
21 undergo such extnninations because she has con.sented via her denial of allegations contained in the
22 : fonnal statenlent of charges. However, the COTIlnlission has taken a narrower approach to this case,
23 one that allows Judge :Halverson to avoid the examination if she chooses not to proffer medical
24 reasons-either mental or physical-regarding her behavior. If she intends to do s<? at any time du!ing
25 the hearing which will begin on August 4, 2008) she n1ust subn1it to an. exam in advance of the
26 hearing. The Commission agrees with the Special Counsel that Judge Hal shou14 not be
27 allowed to conduce a trial by mnbush. Such tactics are not allowed in civil or crimi.nal cases in which
28 litigallts make atl issue of their medical stams during the course of litigati.on and they will not be
10
07/02/2008 13: 10 JUD I C I AL COMM I S3 I 01'1 HO.691 012
II
1 allowed in this case. The Commission is aware of no case, and Judge :Halverson has not cited to any
2 decision appJied to a court tasked to adjudicate cases, [hat stands for the proposition that she can
3 avoid having the opposing litigant obtain ind.ependent information about her medical status even
4 though she intends to pJace at issue, via either evide.nce or argument, that vet}' medical status and its
5 impact on- her behavior.
6 . There is sufficient evidence in this record, including her affinn.a.tive defense number
7 for the Comnnssion to conclude Judge Halverson has such intentions. It dates back to multiple
8 allusions during the interinl suspension hearing in July 2007 and it als.o includes )1.1dge Halverson's
9 recent assertions that she has some sort of disability. She asserts that the Commission must proffer
10 some sort of unspecified "reasonable acconllnodation}' thus suggesting that she is at least
II considering the llse of medical disability to funher her litigation strategy. If she intends to do so, she
12 must make that election a matter of record quickly and perform other tasks as well. Upon a
13 unamnl0us vote of the <,:OlnJllissio:n on. June 26, 2008, the Cmnlnission has ordered as follows:
14 (1) The Special Counsel's Motion for Discovery is granted to dle extent noted ira paragraphs
15 . immediately bc:low;
16 (2) No later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 3,2008, Judge Halverson. shall produce a
17 written list of all potential witnesses by providing it to the Special ConnseL She does not have to
18 provide the list to the Commission but she w:ill have to file a. written statement with the Clerk
19 indicating she has co.mpliedno later than 5:00 p.ll1. on July 3,2008. If Judge- intends to
20 caU any expert witnesses, she must provide a curriculum vitae for each to the Special Counsel at the
21 same time as this list;
22 No than 5:00 p.m . .on Mond.ay, July 28,2008, Judge Halverson shall produce a
23 written Jist of witnesses that she actuaHy intends to call at the hearing by providing it to the Special
24 Counsel. She does not have to provide the list to the Comlnission. but she will have to provide a
25 written statement with the Cler.k indicating she has complied; no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 28,
26 2008;
27
28
6 . the June 26, 2008. hearing, Judge :Halverson questioned whether i11is r.equirement will
be effectIve 111 the absence of a wntten order. Judge Wagner Illfonned her that she must cOlnpIy.
11
.t
,
07/02/2008 13: 10 JUDICIAL COMMISSION NO.691
I (4) No later than 3, 2008, Judge Halverson shall :file a written statement with the Clerk of
2 the Commission and provide a copy to the Special COLIDsel indicating whether she intends to proffer
3 medical evidence Or argument of any kind, including relian.ceon a disability. If she files such a
4 statement, it will specify the nature of the disability. Ifshe intends to proffer any expert opinions, sbe
5 : simultaneously shall provide to the S.peciaI Counsel any records, medical or otherwise, upon which
6 that expert has relied to form an opinion about her medical status; and she shall provide a signed
7 release to the Special Counsel allowing the Spccial COllnsel to obtain the record.s from the providers;
8 (5) If Judge H4Jverson intends to utilize nledical evidence' or make arguments pertaining to
9 her medical condition) n.o later than July 2008, Judge Halverson shall SUbluit to a medical
10 ex.amination by Dr. Melissa Piasecki. The Special Counsel wi.ll be responsible for (l) providing
11 Judge Halverson with a copy of Dr. Piasecki
1
s cumculuID. vitae; (2) arranging the examination ill Las
12 Vegas; and (3) procuring a copy of a repoli by Dr. Piasecki forthwith. The Special Cotmsel shall
13 'provide a copy to Judge Halvel'son itnmediately. That report shaH not be filed \vith the ComlnissjcHl
14 until and unless it is deem.ed necessary at the hearing by the C01TIlnlSsion. In the event the Special
15 Counsel intends to call Dr . .Piasecki as a witness at the hearing, she must procure and canse to be
16 served the necessary subpoella and/or subpoena duces tecum;
17 (6) Any failure on Judge Halverson's part to comply with any aspect oft11is order may be
18 deemed by the Commission a sufficient reaSOll to disallow the admission of evid.ence about or the
19 making of any argUlnent based on medical reasons to explain or excuse Judge behavior.
20 Failure to comply could a.lso be considered contemptuous cotlduct.
21 In sum, Judge Halverson has control over whether she must provide infonnat.ion about her
22 claimed disability and whether she must submit to an examination of any kind. If she chooses to rely
23 on evidence and argument of a medical nature, then she will have to cooperate according to the steps
24' set forth above. This Commission will110t .allow Judge HalverSOl1. to continue to refuse to
25 and to "llave it both ways1T by clajming protection from inquiry while at the Sall1e time asserting an
26 absolute right to proffer evidence and lnake arguments free frOln reasonable inquiry by the opposi ng
27 side in advance of trial. Federal law d.oes not require otherwise and fun.danlenta1 fainless requires
28 Halverson to comply with n.tles applicable to all litigants. even those claiming disability.
12
Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33-4 Filed 12/01/08 Page 12 of 12 07/02/200E: . 13:10
JUDICIAL COMMISSION
t--lO.6'31
1
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
2 I I am an employee of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
3 and that on the '.., day of July, 2008. I placed a copy of tbe ORDER GRAN'TING MOTION
4 ALLOWING RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW. ORDER GRANTING
5 RESPONDENT:>S MOTION TO CONTlNUE TRIAL, ORDER GRANTING SPECIAL
015
6 COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed
7 to the undersigned.:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dorothy Nash Holmes, Esq.
Fahrendorf, Viloria) Oliphant & Oster, L.L.P.
P. O. Box 3677
ReBo, NY 89505-3677
Special Counsel
Las Vegas, NY 89] 21
Respondent

14
Robert r. Fahrendorf
Thomas E. Viloria"
It Sh;lwn Oliphant
.fb),mond E. Oster
Sf!!" L Broh:n"'n
J. Anlill1
F Gilles
Erin L. Albright
Ja:mn A. Rose
Durothy ;-.Jash
Also Aclfllllh:d ,n c.-\
F AHRENDORF,
VILORIA,
OLlPHANT
& OSTERLLP
July 2008
SERVED VIA FACSIMILE (702) 450-9227 & U.S. I\-IAIL
3850 E. Flanlingo Rd. #] 52
Las Vegas, NV 89121-6227
Re: In the I'v1atter of the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson
Case No. 0801-1066
Dear Judge Halverson:,
__ .J..'VU'
ATTORNEYS
AND
COl.' :\ S E I. 0 s
A T LA \\'
Office: 775348-9lJ99
Five 775-348-05.:10
www.rCI1011\!aW.Cllll1
PUfsuunt to NRCI' 45(c)(2)(8). this letter is written to you at the request and on behalf
of rhe Court Executive Officer of the Eighth Judicial District Court. in order to object to their
production of documents and materials you have subpoenaed from them in the itttached
Subpoena Duces Tecum served on June 26. 2008. A copy of the subpoena is attached for your
reierence. 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 if they can be
seeks contidential materials; seeks some items previously provided to the investigators
fOf the Commission on Judicial Discipline (and also provided to yuu ;n and seeks
items that are irrelevant to the matters before theComrnission.
\\lith this the Eighth Judicial District Court Executive Officer is relieved of its
obligation to comply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum; If you desire to pursue this matter
further. you must cOInply with NRCP 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even if you
obtain such an Order from the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Eighth Judicial District
Court Executive Onlcer is required to be protected '''from significant expense resulting from the
inspection 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 Holmes, Esq.
Special Prosecutor l()r the
Commission on Judicial Discipline
1 2 I C.-\ L r r 0 R N I A !\ V E U [ :1:. R E O. E V A 0 A \) 5 I <)
Robert P. Fahrendorf
Thomas E. Viloria*
R. Shawn Oliphant
Raymond E. Oster
;ean L Brohawn
F AHREN DORF,
VILORIA,
OLLPHANT
& OSTER Ll.P.
ATTOR0iEYS
Ai'\O

AT LAW
Nathan J. AIllJn
Scott F.
Erin L Albright
Jason A. Rost:
Office: 775-348-9999
Fax: 775-348-0540
\\"\\'\\'.n:nonvla\\.com
?\ash HolmC':-."
""Is,) Adllllth:d .11 (",\
July 9,2008
.SERVED VIA FACSIMILE TO (702) 450-9227 & U.S. MAIL
The Han. Elizabeth L. Halverson
3850 E. Flamingo Rd. # 152
Las Vegas, NY 89121-6227
Re: In the Matter of the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson
Case No. 0801-1066
Pursuant to NRCP 45( c)(2)(B). this letter is sent at the request of, and on behalf of, the Office of
Diversity of Clark County, NY and constitutes a written objection to the production you
requested from them in your Subpoena Duces Tecum served on June 27, 2008. A copy of the
subpoena is attached for your reference. The production of the items you subpoenaed would be
extremely burdensome and expensive; seeks items that do not exist and it is' unknown if they can
be prepared; seeks privileged and confidentiallnaterials; and seeks items that are irrelevant to the
matters before the Commission.
With this objection, the Office of Diversity of Clark County, NV is relieved of its oblIgation to
comply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. If you desire to pursue this matter further, you must
comply with NRCP 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even if you obtain such an
Order from the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Oftice of Diversity is required to be
protected "from significant resulting from the inspection and copying commanded." lfL.
RfC7J JUll .,
". "" 200p.
Yours truly,
FAHRENDORF, VILORIA,
OLIPHANT & OSTER L.L.P.
15;'-t,#,-/';' 41'--j
Special Prosecutor for the Nevada
XNO!)
__ . u __ ... _ u ___ _._._._. __ _______ __________ --- ----.---
.1 :""7 C;\ 1.1 r 0 R N I A A V E i' U E R EN O. N E V A D A Xl) 5 19
Elizabeth L. Halverson
Nevada Bar No. 4662
2 ,)850 E. Flamingo Rd. #152
Las Vegas, Nevada 89121-6227
3 436-4521
702) 450-9227 Fax
4 espondent in Propria Persona
FILED
PUBLIC
JUL 1 5 Z008
5
6
7
8
9
. BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the Matter of the
10 =
11
13
14
Respondent.
CASE NO. 0801-1066
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
SPECIAL COUNSEL
15 NOW, coMEs the Respondent, Elizabeth Halverson, in propria persona, who files
16 her MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SPECIAL COUNSEL.
17 DATED this 14th Day of July .. 2008
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.' . ):" ( , .! '.
. '. ,- I ,< i , __ ,!-"j '- -' - \. ( .
L. Halverson
Nevada Bar No. 4662
(702) 436-4521
(702) 450-9227 (Facsimile)
25 Facts
26 Dorothy Nash Holmes is the Commission's Special Prosecutor in the above-captioned
27 matter. Simultaneous with the obligations as Special Prosecutor, she also has undertaken to
28 serve as attorney for a witness in the above-captioned matter, to wit: the Court Executive
Officer of the Eighth Judicial District Court .. upon which Respondent had 'served a subpoena.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
--
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[See Exhibit A. appended hereto.] Additionally, Ms. Hohnes also has undertaken to serve
as attorney for another witness in the above-captioned Theresa Scupi. Director of the
Clark County Office of Diversity. (See Exhibit .... appended hereto.]
The Special Prosecutor, who represents both this Commission and the witnesses., in
letters sent to the Respondent on behalf of those witnesses in the above-captioned matter,
objected to subpoenre duces tecum addressed to those witnesses for production of documents
needed by the Respondent for her defense of charges being prosecuted by the same Special
Prosecutor on behalf of this Commission. [Exhibits "A" and "B."J The Holmes letters were
sent after Respondent had received letters of objection from the Eighth Judicial District Staff
Attorney, Ms. PrietO' and from Ms. 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
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR CANNOT ETHICALLY REPRESENT
A WITNESS IN THIS CASE
Standint:
Respondent has a specific personal and legal interest in the matter of this dual
representation 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 examining
witnesses for whatever reason they are called.
process ... requires that the accused should be advised of the charges and have
a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation. We think this
includes the assistance of counsel, if requested, and the right to call witnesses to give
testimony, relevant either to the issue of complete exculpation or in extenuation of the
offense and in mitigation of the 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. 267 U.S. 517. 537: 69 L. Ed. 767 (1925). See also: lv/organ,
el al. v. United Slates, el al., 58 S. Ct. 999, 304 U.S. 1, 18, 82 L. Ed. 1129 (1938) holding as
follows:
Page 2
2
3
4
5
But a "full hearing" -- a fair and open hearing"-- requires more than that. rhe right
to 1Ilteurinf: embraces not onlv the riglltto present evidence but (Ilso a reasonable
opportunity to know tlte claims of the opoosing party and to mee/them. The right
to submit argument implies that opportunity: otherwise the right may be but a barren
one. Those who are brought into contest with the Government in a quasi-judicial
proceeding aimed at.the control of their activities are entitled to be fairly advised of
what the Government proposes and to be heard upon its proposals before it issues its
final command .... (Emphasis added) .
6 For a prosecutor to repres,ent multiple parties for the purpose of denying Respondent the
7 right to evidence and to fonnulate" her defense is unprecedented and a direct infringement on
8 the Nevada "and United States Constitutions.
9 Further, the Special Prosecutor has duties under PRe 3.8 which she owes not only
IOta her client, the but also specifically to the Defendant in the action which she is .
11 prosecuting.' Therefore, Respondent has the appropriate standing to raise the issue of this
12 inappropriate and unethical dual/multiple representation. Here, a prosecutor is seeking to '
13 formulate the In fact both in Holmes' letters to Respondent and the witnesses letter
14 object to the subpoenre based on the fact that "according to our conversation with your
15 opposing counsel, seeks items that are irrelevant to matters before the Commission."
16 It is odd that the recipients of a subpoena do not speak with their own readily available
17 counsel but instead discuss the matter with the prosecutor. The prosecutor then tells the
18 recipients that the items requested in each subpoena is irrelevant? How does Ms. Holmes
19 know what is relevant to the defense of this case? Moreover, why should Ms. Holmes or the
20 Commission seek to control the defense in this action? This is not the first time that the
21 Commission or Ms. Holmes has sought to interfere in the defense ot this matter. The
22 COlnmission denied subpoenas without scheduling any argument in the suspension phase
23 after detennining what they thought was relevant to the defense. The Commission has also
24
25
26
27
28
I the Respondent. See ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 3.8 Comment:
A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.
This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant IS accorded
procedural justice" that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence, and that special
precautions are taken to prevent and to rectity the conviction of innocent persons ...
Page 3
sought to deny subpoenas for this hearing and a Motion lo Issue the Subpoenas Immediately
2 'Pursuant to the Rule 20 was necessary to obtain the subpoenas. Ms. Holmes has attempted
3 to terminate all of Respondent' s discovery and even to seek to force this case to trial with two
4 \veeks or preparation. Ms. Holmes theme is that since Respondent has this case", that
5 Respondent has no right to seek evidence or present witnesses on her o\vn behal f. In fact,
6 the dates and length of the trial were determined with no input from the Respondent as
7 to her defense needs. The Commission was only concerned with Ms. Holmes's thirty-one
8 witnesses and it appears from Ms. Holmes' arguments in her opposition to the Motion to
9 Continue that she expects Respondent case to consist only of cross examining Ms. Holmes'
1 D w-itnesses
2
The Prosecutor and the Commission can not do indirectly what they could not
11 -do directly. By directly interfering with the subpoenas by representing third parties to this
12 case, Ms. Holmes is doing just that.
13 Lastly, as this is the only case before the Commission in which this type of treatment
14 has occurred, the issue of equal protection is also implicated. Why is Respondent being
15 ,treated differently from other judges who have or are appearing before the Commission? Is
16 this disparate treatment based on the fact that Respondent is a member of protected classes
17' under 42 U.S.C. 20DOe et. seq and 42 U.S.C. 12010, et. seq.? There is ample evidence that
18 other have not been suspended nor subjected to numerous violations of due process who do
19 not belong to the suspect classi fications above. J As Respondent's constitutional rights are
20 directly implicated by the multiple representations of a variety of Re'spondent has
21- standing t<? bring this Motion to Disqualify the Special
22
23
24
Points and Authorities
Professional disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. In re
25 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222.20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968): In reJudge Thomas P. Quirk,
26
27
28
2Respondent is entitled to have and will have many witnesses of her own.
JFor example, Judges Assad, Jones and Del Vecchio.
Page 4
I 705 So.2d 172. 187 (La. 1997). Accordingly. certain protections \vhich are applicable to
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 infonnation
4 necessary for defense of the charges herein. Those subpoenre \vere not directed to the
5 Commission. Ra[her. [he subpo'enre were directed to \vitnesses \vho are third-parties. The
6 COlnmission' s Prosecutor has no\v declared that not only is she the attorney for this
7 Comlnission. bur she is also the attorney. in [his matter, for the witnesses who were the
8 subjects of the subpoenre served by the Respondent.
9 In these multiple roles, not only does the Special Prosecutor represent the Commission
lOin pursuing charges of misconduct, but the Special Prosecutor also represents witnesses in
II an effort to deny Respondent infonnation necessary for her defense.
12 For a in the very case which she is prosecuting, to become an attorney for
13 a witness in order to assist that witness in refraining from providing infonnation necessary
14 for the defense can hardly be considered as conduct which comports with .the Special
15 Prosecutor's duty to seek justice. "A prosecutor's primary duty is not to convict, but to see
16 that justice is done." Williams v State, 103, Nev. 106, 110; 734 P.2d 700 .. 703 (1987).
17 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 whether
19 such will work an injustice to a party to the-litigation. an attorney who represents
20 a party to litigation may be called upon to cross-examine a witness whom he represents, and
21 may possibly be required to choose between conducting the type of examination which will
22 benefit the party-client or the witness-client.
23 representing a witness to litigation is incompatible with representing a
24 party to that same litigation. Here. Ms. Holmes has chosen to represent two witnesses to the
25 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 the
27 situation herein .. the Colorado Supreme Court concI uded that disquali.fication of a lawyer was
28 required.
Page 5
2
3
4
5
6
as an employee of the \velfare department \vho is
himseJf cqarged \vith fraup .. is l}ecessarily subject to cross-
examInatIon and. possIble Impeachment for his o\vn
involvement in the alleged \vel fare fraud. At the same time.
however, the public detCnder' \vould have the duty, as Allen's
attorney .. to protect Allen's rights against se1t:'incrimination and
against -admissions which coufa be used to prove the
case against Allen. [n our view, the public
defender is not able .... to fulfill both functions at the. same
time and still Qrovide a proper defense to either Allen
or Hernandez.'" [EmphaSIS supplied.] ,
7 Allen v District Court in and/or the Tenth Judicial District" 184 Colo. 202.206: 519 P.2d
8 351,353 (1974).
9 Although Allen is in a slightly different context than the instant case. principles are
lathe same, to wit: a lawyer cannot represent two or more clients ifby representing one he may
. I I act adversely with respect to another. It would be adverse to a witness to be impeached or
12 to have his or her credibility attacked by his or her own lawyer who also represents one of
13 the parties in the very action in which the witness is testifying. At the same time, the Special
14 Prosecutor acting in the role of attorney for witnesses.essentially vouches for those witnesses
IS because they are her clients. The Courts have held generally that it is .improper for a
16 prosecutor to vouch for witnesses. Anderson v State, 12 I Nev. 511, 516; 118 P .3d 184, 187
17 (2005); United States v Kerr, 981 F.2d 1050, 1051 (9
th
Cir. 1992).
18 Here, Ms. Holmes represents the witnesses not in an unrelated action to the instant
19 matter, but in this very matter, itsel f. While some courts have found that if a witness in a
20 pending matter was a former client of an attorney who represents a party in the pending
21 matter, disqualification mayor may not be required .. here we have a different circumstance.
22 All of the clients-the Commission and the witnesses-are clients in the above-captioned
23 matter. None of them are former clients in an unrelated matter. Furthermore. the Special
24 Prosecutor chose to commence representation of these witnesses during the pendency of this
25 case., kno\ving that she would be representing the Commission at the same time as she was'
26 representing these new clients-the witnesses.
27 If a lawyer representing a party in a civil case engaged in such conduct., at the very
28 least that lawyer would be admonished by the Court for engaging in such improper conduct.
Page 6
1 A criminal prosecutor who engaged in such conduct would jeopardize any conviction which
2 might result from the trial.
3 Here, we have the virtually unprecedented situation of a 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 the
6 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 without
8 first asking permission of opposing counsel. However .. by becoming the la\vyer for these
9 witnesses.: the Special Prosecutor invokes Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct which
10 states as follows:
-II
12
13
14
In representing a a lawyer shall not communicate about
the subject of the . representatIon with a person the lawyer
knows to be represented by anottier lawyer in the
unless the lawyer has the consent of the otlier laW)'er or
is authorized to do so by law or a court order. [Emphasis
supplied.]
15 Thus, by representing witnesses. the Speciat Prosecutor engages in a scheme which
16 would potentially prohibit the Respondent from speaking with the witnesses, under penalty
17 of violating the Supreme Courfs disciplinary rules. At the very least, the Special
18 Prosecutor's conduct in representing the witnesses.places impediments in the Respondent's
19 abi lity to. communicate with those witnesses and obtain infonnation necessary for the
20 defense.
4
21 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 Prosecutor should have
23
24
25
26
27
28
I t should be observed that- the language of Rule 4.2 speaks in tenns of
person 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 in
the matter.'" Accordingly, since the Rule does not place a limitation on the
\"person," it would be applicable to any including non-party
witnesses or witnesses who are not affiliated with a party.
Page 7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
undertaken to serve as attorney for the \vitnesses. The only rational purpose \VQuld be to seek
to place an artificial restriction on the RespondenCs ability to engage in preparation for her
defense by placing a bar to Respondent's access to \vitnesses \vhich bar. \vould not ordinarily
be present.
As the United States Supreme Court held decades ago,
[The prosecutor] is in a peculiar and very definite sense the
servant of the law, the t\votold aim of \VhlCh is that guilt shall
not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute \vith
earnestness and vigor -- indeed .. he should do so. But" while he
may strike hard blows., he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It
is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated
to produce wrongful as It is to use every legitimate
means to bnng about aJust onc. .
Berger v United Stales., 295 U.S. 78" 88; 55 S.Ct. 629, 633; 79 13 14. 1321 (1935).
This principle \vas reaffinned by our Nevada Supreme Court most recently in Tavares
v State, 117 Nev. 725, 731: 30 P.3d 1128, 1132 (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
evidence. Evidence also must be disclosed if it
provides grounds for the defense to attack the reliability.
thoroughness, and good faith of the police investigation or to
impeacl1 the credibility of the State's witnesses
Lay v 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 of
representing witnesses to subject the Respondent to the strictlires of Rule 4.2 so as to block
RespondenCs access to witnesses and evidence under threat of further disciplinary
23
prosecution. In so doing, the Special Prosecutor has run afoul of principles of fundamental
24
25
26
27
28
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
Page 8
lawyer shall not: [r]equest a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving
2 relevant infonnation to another party ... '" [Emphasis supplied.]
3 Thus, in the absence of an attorney-client relationship with the witnesses .. the Special
4 Prosecutor would be forbidden from requesting that the witnesses refrain from voluntarily
5 giving relevant evidence to the respondent. However, once the witnesses became clients of
6 the Special Prosecutor, the language of Rule 3 .4(t) provided her with a loophole by \vhich
7 she could do that which she otherwise would have been prohibited from doing.
8 It should be clear even to the untutored that putting herself in a position whereby she
9 becomes exempt from Rules which are designed to promotejustice is inimical to her position
. 10 as Special Prosecutor.
1 I R.espondent has conducted extensive legal research in an effort to discover any other
12 cases in which a prosecutor has engaged in the dual role of prosecutor and attorney for
13 witnesses in the same case. It seems that the impropriety of a prosecutor"s simultaneously
14 prosecuting a case and representing witnesses in that same case is so self-evident that there
I 5 are no. cases which Respondent was able to locate on the subject. Nevertheless, the
16 incompatibility of the dual roles is stark.
17
18 CONCLUSION
1 9 Ms. Holmes ought to be disqualified from this case. She has engaged in conduct
20 which smacks ofunethical of the Respondent's access to witnesses by becoming
2 I the attorney for those witnesses, thereby improperly and illegitimately exempting herself
22 from the prohibitions otherwise imposed by Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(f)
23 while at the same time subjecting Respondent to the restrictions imposed by Nevada Rule of
24 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 were
26 served with subpoenre. If those witnesses sought to challenge the they certain'ly
27 could have availed themselves of government attorneys who are independent from these
28 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
2 Commission, the Special Prosecutor must be above the unethical proclivities of those who
3 viould seek to win at all o s t s ~ irrespective of the prosecutor's special responsibility to see
4 that justice is done. In so acting, the Special Prosecutor has sullied these proceedings. The
5 only remedial curative is to disqualify her as Special Prosecutor and to appoint another
6 Special Prosecutor in her place.
7
8 Dated this 14th dayof July. 2008
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nevada Bar No.4662
(702) 436-4521
(702) 450-9227 (Facsimile)
Page 10
2
(
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTlFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on July 2008, I caused the foregoing document entitled MOTION TO 0
DISQUALIFY SPECIAL COUNSEL to be served as follows:
o by placing a copy of the same for mailing in the United States certified
return 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 class
postage 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 48
Carson City, NV 89702
Fax Number: (775) 687-3607
Dorothy N. Holmes, Esq.
Fahrendorf. Viloria. Oliphant & Oster
P.O. Box 3677
Reno, NY 89505
Fax -Number: (775) 348-0540
Special Prosecutor
/0" II?
.. /
"/ '- t .. I
Page II
."
c . ..._-----------
O
""'"'-._---- -.
_.-...... _--_ ...
EXHIBIT A
Robert P. Fithrendorf
. Tbomn5 E. Viloria"
It Sh;awn Oliph nt
Ra),mond E. Oster
Se:1O L. Broh:n'\'n
J. Anmn
F. Gilles"
Erin L. Albright
Jason i\. Rose
Durothy Holrncs"-
"Also AtJrnlll\:d.n C . ..),
F AHRENDORF,
VILORIA,
OLIPHANT
& OSTERLLP
July 2008
SERVED VIA FACSIMILE (702) 450-9227 & U.S. IHAIL
3850 E. rlanlingo Rd. #] 52.
. Re: In the l\.1.aner of the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson
Casc No. 080 I -I 066
4:!:JUUJ./UUI
ATTORNEYS
AND
COL':\SEI.ORS
AT LAW
Office: 775-3489999
Fax: 775-J48()5.:JO
www.rcnollv!:;l\.i.com
Pursuant to NRCP 4S(c)(2)(B). this letter is written to you at the requcst and on behalf
or the C01ll1 Executive Officer of the Eighth Judicial District Court in ortkr to object to their
production or documents and materials you have subpoenaed (rom them in the attached
Subpoena ,Duces Tecum served on June 26. 2008. A copy of the subpocnn is atlac.hcd for your
reierence. The production of the items you subpoenaed would be extremely burdensome and
expensive; seeks SOlne items that do not currently exist and 'it is unknown if they can be
prepared; seeks confidential materials; seeks some items previously provided to the investigators
for the Commission on Judicial Discipline (and also provided (0 you in Discovery): and seeks
items that are irrelevant to the matters before the Commission.
V-lith this objection. the Eighth .Judicial District Court Executive Officer is relicved of its
obligation to cOlnply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. If YOll desire to pursue this matter
further. you must comply \vith NRCP 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even jf you
obtain slich an Order from the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Eighth Judicial District
Coun Executive OOicer is required to be protected "from significant expense resulting from the
inspection 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.

Dorothy Holmes, Esq.
Special Prosecutor for the
1 I C.-\ UfO H. N I A !\ V E " U [ tt R E 0, N E V AD r\ \I j 1 9
Thomas E. Viloria*
R. Shawn Oliphant
Raymond E. Oster
Sean L Brohawn
Nathan J. Aman
Scott F. Gilles
Erin L Albright
Jason A.
Dorolhy Nash
""'so Admitted In Ct\
F AHRENDORF,
VILORIA,
OLIPHANT
&OSTERLLP.
July 8,2008
ATTORNEYS
AND
COliNSELORS
:\ T LA W
OfficI!: 7753489999
Fax: 775-3480540
\\"\\'W ,n:nonv law.com
REC'D JUL 11
SERYED,VIA FACSIMILE (702)450-9227 & U.S. MAIL
Re: ,In the Matter of the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson
Case No. 0801-1066
Pursuant to NRCP 45( c)(2)(B), this letter is written to you at the request of, and on behalf
of the Court, Executive Officer of the Eighth Judicial District Court, in order to object to their
production 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 your
reference. 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 if they can be
prepared; seeks confidential materials; seeks some .items previously provided to the investigators
for the Commission on Judicial Discipline (and also provided to you in Discovery): and seeks
items that are irrelevant to the matters before the Commission.
With this objection, the Eighth Judicial District Court Executive Oflicer 'is relieved of its
obligation to cOlnply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. If you desire to pursue this matter
further, you mllst comply with NRCP 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even if you
obtain such an Order from the Comrnission on Judicial Discipline, the Eighth Judicial District
Court Executive Officer is required to be protected "from significant expense resulting from the
inspection and copying commanded.
n
Id.
P O. BOX }(l77 .w RENO. NEVADA X9505
Yours truly,
j;pv.J/'ky lht-,hi #f;Y--(4
:'27 CALIFORNIA AVENUE *' RENO. NEVADA 89519
EXHIBIT B
Robert P. fahrendorf
Thomas E. Viloriu
R Shawn Oliphant
Raymond E. OSler
Sean L. Brohawn
"'iOllhJII 1. Amlin
Scun F. Ci 1111,.-:-;"
Enn L Albright
Ja$un A Ruse

VILORIA,
OLIPHANT
& OSTERLLP
July 9. 2008
SERVED VIA FACSIM.ILE TO (702) 450-9227 ... C.S. !VIAlL
. Las Veg.as. NV H9121-6227
Rc: In the V1nrter of the Honorable lIalverson
Case agO 1- 1-066
4;UU1.-0U3
,\"I r 0 R \II': Y S
:\ \1)
C () l: S I: L 0 It S
:\ r 1.,\ \\
Of/icc' 775-3-HS-999'J
f a:\ 775-3",,8-0;.:10
\\ \\ \\ .renon\"la\\.t:l1m
Pursuant to 45(c}(2)(B). this letter is sent at the request 01: and on or. thl:" Of/ice or
Diversity of CJark County, ,:\V und constitutes a written objection 10 production YOLI
requested from in your Subpocnn Duces Tecum 'ierved on June :'7. 1\ copy of" the
subpoena is attached ror your rekrence. The production or the: items you subpoenaed would be
extremel y burdensome and expensive: seeks i terns that do not e."\ ist and i 1 is unknown i I" I hey can
be prepared: SCL"ks pn\'jleged and mal("rials: seeks ileITIs thaI :lrc irrelc\'::lnt to the
matrcrs before the Commission.
With this objection. the Office or Diversity of CI(Irk County. NY is relieved or irs obligation [0
comply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. If you desire to pursue this matter fUl1hcr. you must
comply with NRC? 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even if yOll obl;lin sLlch an
Order from [he Commission on Judicial Discipline. the Office or Diversity required to be
protected "from significant expense resulting from the inspection and copying comm:.lnded." !.fL
Yours truly.
VILORIA.
Oll PHA!'!T & OSTER L. L P.
8v'--f-tf/f
Dorothy Holmes. Esq.
Special Prosecutor for the 'evada
Commission on J udit.:ial Discipl inc
----_ ... _--_._----_ ... -.. - ,-_ ... _--_._--- --- ... -,_ .. -_._--
Thomas E. Viloria*
R. Shawn Oliphant
Raymond E. Oster
;ean L. Brohawn
Nathan 1. Aman
Scott F. Gilles
Erin L. Albright
Jasun A. Rose
:\ ash '"
F AHRENDORF,
ViLORIA,
OLIPHANT
&OSTERLLP.
July 9, 2008
SERVED VIA FACSIMILE TO (702) 450-9227 & U.S. MAIL
The Hon. Elizabeth L. Halverson
Las Vegas, NV 8912 I -6227
Re: In the Matter of the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson
Case No. 0801- 1066
ATTORNEYS
;\I\D
COU;..JSELORS
AT LAW
Office: 775-348-9999
Fax: 775-3-t8-0540
\\"ww.renonvla\\ .com
Pursuant to NRCP 45(c)(2)(8). this letter is sent at the request of. and on behalf of, the Office of
Diversity of Clark County, NV and constitutes a written objection to the production you
requested from them in your Subpoena Duces Tecum served on lune 2008; A copy of the
subpoena is attached for your reference. The production of the itelns you subpoenaed would be
extremely burdensome and expensive: seeks items that do not exist and.it is unknown if they can
be prepared; seeks privileged and confidential materials; and seeks items that are irrelevant to the
Inatters before the Commission.
With this objection, the Office of Diversity of Clark County, NV is relieved of its obligation to
compJy with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. If you desire to pursue this matter further, you must
comply with NRCP 45 and seek an Order to Compel Production. Even if you obtain such an
Order from the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Office of Diversity is required to be
protected significant expense resulting from the inspection and copying commanded." Id.
RfC7J JUll '1
". t200e
Yours truly,
FAHRENDORF. VILORIA,
[;':.b'--t-tf-/"l' 4/,,-./
, -: C i\ Ll r 0 R N [A A V E U E R E l\i O. N E V A 0 A Xl} 5 I t)
EXHIBIT C
tro:
Fax II:
Subject:
COM1AENTS:
.", L.""" .-.,-. ......... J ".' .".ljiJ .... 1 ..:,
FAX TRANSMISSION
EIGIITH'JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
200 LEWIS AVENUE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89155
(702) 671-4528
Fax:(702) 611-4546
. ~ ~ ..
tI IJ IJ I / 'J U :j
~ ;
I .... "'
.... ",
. ""
CLARK
Clark COllnty Courts
Admi
.. .,. t"
nlSL.ra lon
./uly x ..
Tilt.: lIon. Elizaheth I .. r f:-llvl!rS(111
3R50 E. F(;llllillgO Rd, :/. 151
Vcg;'ls. NV :)9 J 2 J
I{c: III (he ;VIallcr orthe flonorabh: Halverson
Cast: 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 (Ihjeclion ({) till' prodU(.;lion
you from rhe Court l:xl.!culiv(: Oniccr of (h(." fighlh Judicial District Court ill
your Suhpoena J)uces TCClIl1l served on .funl 20. 200X. A ";(1PY of [he subpoena is
aft:lc.hl=d fllr Thc prndLH'::lit)l1 nfrh..; ilCIl1$ you SlIbpOl.:nacd \\.otlld
cXLn:mdy and I:!xpc..':n5ivc:; sl:(:ks SOUle iLems thac d(l not ';UfTl:Jllly exist and it
is unknowll i r they can be c.ollfi(/(:ntinJ materia Is: secks somt: ilems
prt:vilJllsly pro\'iuc.tf to the nlr tht.:: PrO!'iL"CllLOr or the COlllmission 011
Judicial Discipline: and. (.(1 our conversations wilh your oppnsing COUIISel,
indcv:ml 10 the mallcr:- before {he Commission,
\Vilh this obj(=c(ion .-. a bst=1l I a court ()rdcr the Eighth Judicial Di!'ilrid Court
is relieved of its nhligalion to comply with tht: Suhprll.::nn Ouces
T CCUJl1. I f you ohlHin '1Il Order to C(lcnpd ProuucLi(lIl, rhe Eighth Judicial Dislricr C<.)tU'1
EX(;l:utivL' Oflic(:r is required to be protected si[.!niric(l/1( rC!iui[in1! from the
inspection and copying. hl
REGIONAL JUSTrCE CEN1'ER
Sincen."y,
lillian Priell)
Sl:.Iff Atrnrnl:'Y
200 LEWIS AVENUE LAS VEGAS NEVADA 1$9155
(702) tJ,1-J100 FAX; (702) G71-454a
EXHIBIT 0
FAX#.:
Office of Diversity
500 S Grand Centtal PIty 5th A Box 551113 Las Vegas NV 89155-1113
(702) 455-5760 .. Fax (702) 455--5759
Therese Seupi. Oirector
FACSIMILE MESSAGE
.y S-o - 9 d- d. 7
tgJ 1)1.1 1
_____ ____ __ ___
....;;..U_ ______ - __ _
.. ____ -
rc:: rt oRol-IO/() &
j
____________________________________________________ __

(Initials)
THlS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF TH INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO
WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE ONDER APPLICABLE LA WI IF THE
READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR
AGENT RESPONSmLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE JNTENDED RECIPffiNT, YOU
ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBTITlON OR COPYING OF TIDS
COM:MUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
IF YOU HAVE RJ!:CEIVED TDIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THIS OFFICE
IM:MEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORlGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE
ABOVE ADDRESS. THANK YOU.
.- ....
IiiJCAAD OF COUfffY COMM8SIOHeft5
ROm' REID, Chalnnan CHIP MAXFlELO. \IIo..charmllM\
SUSAN BRAGER TOM COUJN5 CHRIS G/UNCHIGUANI .. LAWRENCE WEEKlY BRUCE L WOOOBUF
VIRGINIA VALENTINE. P.E.. County
Office of Diversity
500 S Grand Central Pky 5th FI Box 551113 Las Vegas NV 89155-1113
(702) 455-5760 Fax (702) 455-5759
July 9,2008
3850 E .. Flamingo Rd. # 152
Las vegas. NV 89121-6227
Therese Scupf, Director
L Faxed to (702) 450-9227 lDd Sent Via U.s. Mail1
Re: In the Matter of the Honorable Halverson
Case No. 0801 .. 1066
Pursuant to NRCP 45(c)(2)(6), this letter constitutes a written objection to the
production 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 attached
for your reference. The production of the items you subpoenaed: would be extremely
burdensome and expensive; seeks some items that do not exist and it is unknown if
they can be prepared; seeks privileged and confidential materials; and, according to our
conversations with your opposing counsel, seeks items that are irrelevant to the matie.fS
before the Commission. .
With this objection, the Office of Diversity of Clark County, NV is relieved of its
obligation to comply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum. If you desire to pursue this
matter further, you must comply with NRCP 45 and seek an Order to Compel
Production. Even if you obtain such an Order from the Commission on Judicial
Discipline. the Office of Diversity is required to be protected "from significant expense
resulting from the inspection and copying commanded." fd.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RORY REID, Chairm'EJ'l CHIP MAXFIELD, Vice-Charman
SUSAN BRAGER TOM COLLINS CHRIS GlUNCHIGlIANI LAWRENCE WEEKlY BRUCE l. WOODBURY
VIRGINIAVALHITINE. P.E., Coonty Manager
Nevada Bar No. 2057
2 OLIPHANT & OSTER L.L.P.
3 P.O. Box 3677
Reno, Nevada 89505
4 (775) 348-9999
Special Prosecutor for the
5 Judicial Discipline Commission
6
BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLfNE
7
OFTHESTATEOFNEVADA
8
10
HONORABLE ELIZABETH HALVERSON,
11 District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court,
12
13
14
15
16
County of Clark, State of Nevada .
CASE NO.: 0801-1066
Respondent.
OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
COMES NOW, Dorothy Nash Holmes, Special Prosecutor for the Nevada Commission
17 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. This
19 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 currently
21
on file and any evidence to be produced at a hearing on this matter.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this 28th day of July, 2008.
FAHRENDORF, VILORIA
OLIPHANT & OSTER, L.L.P.
B Y ~ ~ ~
Dorothy Nash olmes, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 2057
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2'
Respondent Judge Elizabeth Halverson has til.ed a motion seeking to disqualify the
3
undersigned attorney from acting as Special Prosecutor in this case. She alleges a conflict of
4
interest, claiming that this counsel is representing witnesses in this case in their effort to resist
5
6 Discovery requests she made to them through her subpoena duces tecum served on the Court
7 Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District, Charles Short (on June 26, 2008) and the Clark
8 County Office of Di.versity-- Therese Scupi (on June 27,2008).
9
10
1 1
The Special Prosecutor believes this motion is moot in that Commissioner Judge Wagner
ruled in a telephone conference calli hearing on July 25, 2008 that the Special Prosecutor does
not represent any witnesses, and he scheduled another hearing (via telephone) for Monday, July
12
13 28, 2008 with the witnesses named above and their attorneys, to address the Motion to Compel
14 Discovery.
IS Nevertheless, because of Respondent's penchant for asserting that anything not denied is
16 admitted, the Prosecutor is hereby responding, simply to counter the facts alleged and
17
deny the accusations made by Judge Halverson.
The facts have already been established in the telephone conference call I hearing of
20
July25, 2008 that the attorney for Charles Short and the Eighth Judicial District Court system is
21 Jillian Prieto, Nevada Bar No.1 0 I 90. The Attorney General's Office, through DAG Jill David,
22 Nevada Bar No. 8418, has also served as counsel to the courts in the past. The attorney for the
23 Office of Diversity of Clark County is Yolanda Givens, Nevada Bar No. 4434. All three
24 attorneys stated on the record, during the telephone hearing, that they represented their respective
25
clients.
26
27
Respondent's confusion was caused by this counsel notifying Respondent, in that
the witnesses she had subpoenaed would not be supplying the Discovery she requested. See
28
-3-
Affidavit oj Dorothy Nash fJoimes, filed herewith as Exhibit 1, incorporated by reference and
2 affirm.ing the facts stated herein. The Special Prosecutor did not file any kind of document or
3 pleading with the Commission; this was simply correspondence to Judge Halverson.
1
At that
4 point in time, Respondent and this Special Prosecutor were handling Discovery issues by
5 correspondence faxed back and forth to one another and this counsel considered it prudent and
6
appropriate to fonnally notify the judge so she would have time to pursue her legal remedies by
7
filing a Motion to Compel Discovery. Copies of letters attached as Exhibit A and B to
8
9 Respondent's motion. This counsel used the unfortunate wording that the letter was sent at the
10 request of and on behalf of the witnesses, when it would have been better to simply assert that
11 the witnesses had notified the Special Prosecutor of their objection to the subpoenas and that
12 they would be advising her of their refusal to comply. Both witnesses separately sent their own
13 NRC? 45 letters directly to Judge Halverson notifying them of the same
2
See copies attached as
14
Exhibits C and D to Respondent's motion. The content of our letters is similar because we
15
discussed the appropriate wording to use to impart precise notice to the judge so she could not
16
17 assert procedural defects later. There is no legal error or misconduct or conflict of interest in the
18 prosecutor discussing procedural matters about the case with witnesses or their attorneys.
19 To try to further document her allegations about the Special Prosecutor and
20 directly involve the Commission, Judge Halverson apparently then contacted the Executive
21
Director requesting copy of the consent the Commission signed to allow Ms. Holmes to
22
23
24
25
26
I This is asserted as a clarification because at the telephonic conference. Commissioner Judge Wagner staled that
27 anything filed by the Special Prosecutor indicating she represented the witnesses was to be stricken from the record
of this case, as a fugitive document. There was no such filing.
28 2 The obvious bad faith nature of Respondent's motion is proved by the fact that the letter sent her by witness
Charles Short was authored and scnt to her by lillian Prieto, attorney for the Court Administrator.
-4-
represent other parties in this litigation.") Obviously, she did not receive anything because no
2 such thing exists.
3 This Special Prosecutor will not waste the time of the Commission in discussing six
4 pages of inapposite legal citations or argument provided in her motion by Judge Halverson to
5 support her propositions: that Respondent is being treated differently than other judges because
6
she was suspended (Motion to Disqualify Special Prosecutor, p. 4); that discipline matters are
7
quasi-criminal in nature (id, p.4); that a prosecutor has a duty to "do justice" (Id., p. 5); that
8
public defenders cannot represent co-defendants (Jd, p.6); that the Special Prosecutor somehow
9
10 has prevented the Respondent from speaking with witnesses ([d, p. 7); and that the Special
I I Prosecutor somehow has made it harder for the Respondent to obtain evidence (ld.. p.8). It is
12 sufficient that the factual basis fOT Respondent's motion has been discredited and the
13 Commission has ruled that the Special Prosecutor is not the attorney for the witnesses.
14
Finally, Respondent cannot claim any prejudice to her because she filed her Motion to
15
Compel Production of Documents
4
and the above-identified attorneys for the witnesses are
16
17 representing them in a telephonic hearing on the matter to be held on Monday, July 25, 2008.
18 NRCP 45 has been complied with by the witnesses. The Special Prosecutor did not respond to
19 the motion because she does not represe!1t the witnesses who are resisting Discovery. She will,
20 however, attend the telephonic hearing in the event the Commission has any questions about the
21
relevance of any of the requested items to matters in the discipline hearing.
22
CONCLUSION
23
24
Based uponthe foregoing, Respondent's conflict of interest issue allegations contained in
25 the instant motion are hereby denied. Furthermore, her allegations have been discredited and
26
J This Special Prosecutor was not copied on the letter but it is referenced in one written by David Sarnowski, CJD
27 Executive Director, advising (he judge that there was no such document. See letter date July 24. 2008 attached
hereto as Exhibit 2.
28 4 Inexplicably, she served it on only one of the subpoenaed witnesses, Therese Scupi. and not on Charles Short or
the attorney who wrote his NRCP 45 leiter to Judge Halverson. See her Certificate of Service on-her motion.
-5-
disproved. The matter is moot by virtue of the Commission finding that the Special Prosecutor is
I
2 not the attorney for any of the wi tnesses.
3
4
5
6
7
20
21
,22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated this 2S
th
day of July, 200S.
FAHRENDORF, VILORIA
OLIPHANT & OSTER, L.L.P.
B Y ~ o r ~ ~ ~
Nevada Bar No. 2057
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit "1"
2
STATE OF NEVADA
3
AFFIDAVIT OF DOROTHY NASH HOLMES
IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
)
4 COUNTY OF WASHOE
) ss.
)
5
6 says:
7
Dorothy Nash Holmes, Esq" being first duly sworn on oath, according to law, deposes and
1. I am duly licensed to law in the State of Nevada and have been so licensed
8 since 1977.
9
2. I am serving as the Special Prosecutor in the above-entitled action. As such, I
10 have personal knowledge of the matters discussed in the attached opposition, am competent to
11 testify to the same, and would so testify if I were called to do so.
12
3.
I have prepared and read the attached Opposition to Motion to Continue Public
13 Hearing and I know the contents thereof; the same are tnle of my own knowledge, except for
14 those matters therein contained which are stated upon information and belief and, as to those .
15 matters, I bel ieve them to be true.
16 DATED this 1J!t day of July, 2008.
20 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me
this dJ rr-- of July, 2008.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

: ........ .......... -.............atI ........ HI_.iNI" ...... ...,. ........ ... _, ..... " " ..
j. STACIE C. KIEF i
'. . '. Public - Slale or Nevada
. . . Appointmenl Recorded in Washoe County
; " .' No: 08-5436-2 Expires November 6, 2011 a
..".' ............... III ... .. i...,.. ' ......, ........_ ................... ji'..... , tIII "III......... 111:

C
a
s
e

2
:
0
8
-
c
v
-
0
1
0
0
6
-
R
C
J
-
L
R
L

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

3
3
-
7

F
i
l
e
d

1
2
/
0
1
/
0
8

P
a
g
e

3
1

o
f

4
1
~ ~ ~ N N N N N N
F AHRENDORr-.
VILORIA,
OLIPHANT
& OSTER L L P.
A HORNEYS AND
. COUNSELORS AT LA W
Office: (775) 3489999 Fax: (775) 3480540
P. O. Box 3677 - RENO, NEVADA 89505
327 CALI FOR N 11\ A VENUE - RENO. NEVADA 89509
00 ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ W N o ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ W N
M
~
;e
....:
eo
~
~
N
GREG
Chairman
STATE OF NEVADA
P.O. Box 48
Carson City, Navada 89702
Telephone (775) 687-4017 Fax (775) 687-3607
WebsIte: hrtp:/lwww.judicial.state.nv.us
JUly 24, 2008
OAVlD F. SARNOWSKI
Genet<J1 Counsel 8/ld
Exowtlve Olrecfor
Sent via !acsfmile and regular mail
Honorable Judge Elizabeth Halverson
Las NY 89121...:6227
Ms. Dorothy Nash HoLmes, Esq.
Fahrendorfl Viloria, Oliphant & Oster. L.L.P.
P. O. Box 3677
Reno
7
NY 89505-3677
Re: Public Case Nurnber 0801-1066
Dear Judge Halverson and Ms. Nash Holmes:
r have received inquiries fToln both of you regarding the letter that I sent yesterday
pertaining to Judge Halverson's lnotion to compeL Due to the short time frame in which we are
'working, Judge Wagner directed me to at1empt to get counsel for the non-patties onthe phone for.
the July 25,2008 conference. It is likely that he will not resolve the motion on the merits atthat
time, and that he will schedule a separate,conference for next week, possibly before August 1,
2008. after input from the outside attonleys.
As you know, I have contacted attorney Jillian Prieto, who represents the Eighth Judicia]
District Court. Based on her input, r helieve she will be able to participate tomorrow. I have a
call in to Deputy District AttOluey Yolanda Givens, who was identified as the contact point for
representation of the Office of Diversity. I bope to hear frOIl1 her tomorrow aJ.ld to arrange her
pfll1icipation or another attorney who can speak for her. I{er phone nunlber is (702) 455-5761.
Judge Halverson has asked if she "could have a copy of the consent the Comnlission
signed to allow Ms. Holmes to represent other patties in this litigation" and she has requested a
copy of any such dOCUlnent, ifit exists. This is to advise everyone that there is no such document
July 24, 2008
Page 2 of2

l 1
"U, I .L.... .....I:C.I..)
because the COlnmission never consented or otherwise authorized. her to represent arty outside
party.
Please en.sure you are on the call shortly before 12:00 noon because Ms. Givens has a
12:30 p.m. appoi-atnlent. I hope we can dispose of this matter first and then n1QVe on to the issue
of Mr. Schwartz's proposed association of counsel, as requested by Judge Halverson.
TIlank you.
DFS:kls.
cc: Honorable Richard Wagner
Jillian Prieto, Esq.
S i.ncerely,
NEV ADA COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

David F. SarD.owski
Executive Direc"tor and General Counsel
Yolanda Givens, Deputy District Ano111ey
Michael Schwanz, Esq.
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the law firm of
3 FAHRENDORF, VILORIA, OLIPHANT & OSTER L.L.P., and that on the date shown below, I
4 caused service to be completed by:
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
x
x
personally delivering
delivery via Reno-Carson Messenger Service
sending via Federal Express or other overnight
delivery service
depositing for mailing in the u.s. mail with
sufficient postage affixed thereto
delivery via facsimile machine to fax No (702) 450-9227 (Halverson) and
(775) 687-3607 (Commission) ..
a true and correct copy of the attached document addressed to:
13
14
15
17
j
-i
o -r-x 18
!:)<CZ!.lJ
Z-<f-
19
e::::-la..O
0(3
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nevada COlnmission on Judicial Discipline
P.O. Box 48
Carson City, NY 89702
DATED this 28.flr day of July, 2008.
8y:
1 Elizabeth L. Halverson
Nevada Bar No. 4662
2 3850 E. Flamingo Rd. #152
3 Q02) 436-4521
702) 450-9227 Fax
4 espondent in Propria Persona
5 Michael Alan Schwartz
Schwartz, Kelly & Oltarz-Schwartz, P.C.
6 30300 Northwestern Highway, Ste 260
Farmington Hills, MichIgan 48334-3218
7 Tel. 785-0200
Fax 248} 932-2801
8 Pro ac Vice
Attorney for Respondent
9'
10
11
12
, BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUI1ICIAL DISCIPLINE
STATE OF NEVADA
13
)
)
HONORABLE ELIZABETH HALVERSON, J
14 District Judge, Eighth Judicial District )
Court, County of Clark, State of Nevada, I
15 )
16
17
18
Respondent.
<
<
.:

CASE NO. 0801-1066
REPLY TO OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SPE'CIAL PROSECUTOR
19
20
21
NOW COMES the Respondent, by and through her attorney, MICHAEL ALAN
SCHWARTZ, and also in propria persona, who files her Reply to Objection to Motion to
22
Disqualify Special Prosecutor, which Reply is based upon the following Points and
23
24
25
Authorities.
DATED this 31 st day of July, 2008
26
27
Schwartz, Kelly & Oltarz-Schwartz, P.C.
28 30300 North-western Highway, Ste 260
Farmington MichIgan 48334-3218
Tel. (248) 785-0200

ABETH L. HALVERSON
Nevada Bar No. 4662
(702) 436-4521
1
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 The Special Prosecutor's Objection to Motion to Disquality Special Prosecutor is
4 replete with statements which are neither forthright nor
5 The Special Prosecutor claims that since the correspondence which she sent to the
6 Respondent was not filed with the Commission, such stands as proof that did not
7 represent the witnesses.
8 In other papers filed with this Commission,. the Special Prosecutor indicated that she
9 has been an attorney since 1977. One would suppose that in 31 years in the practice of law,
10 one would know that the filing of papers with a tribunal is not the sine qua non of the status
11 as a lawyer representing someone.
12 The Special Prosecutor assiduously avoids the text of her own letter of July 8, 2008,
13 annexed as part of Exhibit "A" to Respondent's Motion to Disquality, wherein the Special
14 Prosecutor states as follows:
15
. 16
17
18
19
Pursuant to NRCP 45( c )(2)(B);, this letter is written to you at the
re.guest of, and on behalf 01- the Court Executive of the
Eighth Judicial District Court, in order to object to their
Qroduction of documents and materials you have subpoenaed
from them in the attached Subpoena Duces Tecum served on
June 26,2008. [Emphasis supplied:] .
If a lawyer writes a letter "on behalf of' someone, in order to object to a court process
20 which requires that the person produce evidence before a tribunal, can it really be said, with
21 even the slightest degree of good-faith, that said lawyer is not representing that someone in
22 a legal matter? Is it required that the letter be filed before the tribunal before the lawyer is
23 deemed to have represented that someone?
24 Obviously, the Special Prosecutor's understanding of what constitutes representation
25 of someone is rather different from the understanding of the rest of the legal profession.
26 How does a lawyer act "on behalf of' someone in a legal matter without representing that
27 person? Is not a person who is represented .by a lawyer a client of that lawyer?
28
Page 2
1 As is well known, the practice of law involves matters beyond the filing of papers
. 2 with trihunals. There are some attorneys who never even appear in court and who Tefer all
3 litigation to others. They may serve as in-house counsel for corporations or as lawyers who
4 devote their practice to the drafting of commercial documents or who engage in other areas
5 of law outside of They act on behalf of their clients in communications with
6 others. In so doing, they represent their clients.
7 The Special Prosecutor herein acted at the request of and on behalf of the Court
8 Executive Officer for the Eighth Judicial District Court in communicating with the
9 Respondent to.object to a subpoena. Whether the letter which the Special Prosecutor sent
10 was" filed with the Commission or not, and whether the letter was thus a "fugitive document"
11 or not, is not deterniinative of whether she represented the Court Executive Officer. By her
12 own words in the letter, she acted on his behalf in a legal matter for which a license to .
13 practice law is required. If that does not constitute representation of a client, the concept of
14 attorney-client relations.hip has no meaning.
15 The same applies to the letter of July 9,- 2008, appended as Exhibit "B" to the
. 16 Respondent's Motion to Disqualify Special Prosecutor. In that matter, the Special Prosecutor
17 stated that "at the request of, and on behalf of, the Office of Diversity of CJark
18 County" she was objecting to Respondent's subpoena duces tecum. [Emphasis supplied.]
19 The same principles applicable to the representation by the Special Prosecutor of the
20 Court Executive Officer pertain to this representation.
21 It is irrelevant that the witnesses may also have had other counsel who appeared on
22 their behalf. The Special Prosecutor undertook to represent these witnesses in these
23 proceedings after she had been appointed Special Prosecutor. That constitutes a classic
24 conflict of interest and serves to taint these proceedings. For the Special Prosecutor to
25 engage in a conflict of interest by taking on as clients witness to the case she is prosecuting
26 cannot simply be ignored by this Commission lest there be an inference that this
27 is willing to tolerate conduct by its own Special Prosecutor which it would condemn had it
28 been perfonned by The damage to the integrity of this process cmmot be overstated.
Page 3
1 The Respondent did not ask the Special Prosecutor to represent witnesses at the same
2 time as she was engaged in prosecution in the same case. Why the Special Prosecutor
3 decided to engage in such misconduct, especially since the witnesses had the availability of
4 other counsel, is a to which no satisfactory answer has been provided.
5 What is at stake in this Motion is whether this Commission is serious in insisting that
6 rectitude and professional conduct are to be required of its own appointee. For, if the
7 Commission is unwilling to enforce standards of ethics with regard to its own, how can it
8 justify to the public its insistence that those whom it judges should be held to a higher
9 standard?
10
11
12
13
14.
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.26
27
28
MICHAEL ALAN SCHWARTZ
Schwartz, Kelly & Oltarz-Schwartz,P.C.
30300 Northwestern Highway, Ste 260
Fannington Hills, Michlgan 48334-3218
Tel. (248)
Page 4
UZABETH L. HALVERSON
Nevada Bar No. 4662
(702) 436-4521 . .
.1
I certify that on July 31,2008, I caused the foregoing document entitled REPLY TO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR to be served as
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
follows:
o
by placing a copy of the same for mailing in the United States Mail, certified
return receipt requested, with first class postage prepaid thereon addressed as follows; andJor
X by placing a copy of the same for mailing in the United States mail with first class
postage prepaid thereon addressed as follows; andJor
.x
by causing a copy to be sent via facsimile at the number(s) listed below; and/or
o by hand-delivering a copy to the party or parties as listed below:
18 Commission on Judicial Discipline
19 P.O. Box 48
I Carson City, NV 89702
20 Fax Number: (775)687-3607
21
22
23
24
25
26.
27
28
Dorothy N. Holmes, Esq.
Fahrendorf, Viloria, Oliphant & Oster
P.O. Box 3677
Reno, NY 89505
Fax Number: (775) 348-0540
Page 5
TIna Esq. <"bbA)
301 East ClarieSt.. #.700
Las Veg<ls.,NVS91Q1
(702)
'Charles 'Short
Court ExecutiVe,;Officer
200 Lewis,Avenue
las vegas, NV 89101
(702)6714533
Alondta ,Smith
3355 'West Cheyenne Avenue'tSuro
North Las Veg'as
f
NV 89032
(702)
Been Spoor
Judicial B<ecutive AsSIstant
District Court
Regional JUstlteCenter
Las 'Vegas, NV 89'1055
(702) 21.8-6606
Nickolas Starling
-6880 'NiCketiMine
LasVegas,NV89122
702339.,2321
Kathleen'Streuber
Courtroom Clerk
District-Court
Regional Justice Center
Las Vegas,NV

Bobbi Tackett
Former JEA Dept23
200 ,Lewis':Avenue
Las, :Vegas., NV:f}9:1;,55
.(7.02) 4'5$-.. 2723 (H-otne)
'\Nl'Uiam Tetry,:-Esq.
-539$outh :Seventh;'Street
'Las Vegas, NV ;,891:01
, (702) 385-;;079-9
ViUard-
.Eighth-Juett'cial DiStrict COurt
-Department-1'7
330S'oUth '3
M
':Stteet
Las 'Vegas., NV '8910'1
_ (702) '671-4469
Valerie A. Villegas. :Esq.
Chief -Deputy ,District,Attorney
-30'1 East'Clark Avenue
Las Vegas, 'NV 89101
(702)671-2860
-L .. 'Water:s, ESq.
DepulyDistrict Attorney
'Vehicular Crimes Unit
30'1E'3-st -Clark Avenue
ll
'9
th
Floor
Box 5'52212
.Las VegastNV 891,55--;.221'2
(702) '671-3847
April Watkins
,Court:Clerk Dept 12
Eighth Judicial District Court
200 Lew.1s -Ave
Las Veg'as, :NV 891-55
(702) 630-2782
Mr. Jason West
-Bailiff
200 Lewis Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89155
(702),671-O594
,Jeanne'Wi-hlder.
500 :South R:ancho_:Dr ..
Las'V$gas. NV 891:.0'6
,{702:) 3'8012245
Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33-8 Filed 12/01/08 Page 1 of 4 06124/2008 14: 4L FAX
L
...
. j
-,.

.,
-- .I

GREG FERRARO
Chairman
STATE OF NEVADA
P.O. Box 48
DAVID E SARNOWSKI
GenenvCounseland
executive Director
Carson City, Nevada 89702
Telephone (775) 687-4017 Fax (775) 687-3607
Website: http://www.judicial.state.nv.us
Mr. Dominic P. Gentile, Esq.
Gentile DePalma, Ltd.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, SteM 850
Las Vegas, NY 89109
Mr. William H. Gamage, Esq.
Gentile DePalma, Ltd.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 850
Las Vegas, NY 89109
Mr. J oIm L. Arrascada, Esq.
Arrascada & Arrascada, Ltd.
P. O. Box 425
Reno, NY 89504
Re: Judge Halverson
August 15,2007
Dear Mr. Gentile, 1\t[r. Ganunage and Arrascadh:
Sent via Facsimile and Regular Mail
, "
This letter will serve to notify you of the need for Judge Halverson to undergo both
Inental and physical exmninations. You may recall that in its original Order 0 f Interinl
Suspension, on May 10,2007, the Commission noted it had voted "to require the
respondent to tmc1ergo both mental and physical examinations, pursuant to .NRS 1.4 55 and
1.4665."
I have arranged for a luentaI status exmnination to be condueted by 1!lelissa
M.D., a forensic psychiatrist affiliated with the University of Nevada School ofivledicine in
Reno. She is wiIIing to travel to Las Vegas to exarnine Judge Halverson. She is available to do
so on l\'ugtist 24 and 31. 2007. However, her calendar may be filling up and may have changed
since \ve last conversed, so I \vill provide you with her phone llumber and n1:11 ling aclc1n:ss so one
of you can contact her directly in order to arrange the date and tirne for the exarnination. [
understand that it n1ay take up to eight hours. I \VOU ld nof have any' ohjection to Judge Halverson
06/24/2008 14:42 FAX
August 15, 2007
Page 2 0[2
.
n
-=-- 1
. _ .. I
contacting Dr. Piasecki directly but if that is your choice, both the doctor and I would appreciate
a brief letter from one OfYOll stating that will be the process you want to follow.
I enclosed a release provided by Dr. Piasecki in order for Judge I-Ialverson to
provide direct access to documentation pertaining to the prior medical and psychiatric
history. The doctor will select the proper sources from which to obtain the documents
based on input from Judge Halverson as to treatment providers that Dr. Piasecki deems relevant.
I have provided her the investigative reports generated by The Advantage Group which were .
provided to you prior to the hearing, as well as the large stack ofnewspaper and other articles
pertaining to this matter. Also, she has the two items of medical documentation you 0 ffered and
which were admitted into evidence during the hearing.
Dr. Piasecki's address and relevant phone/fax contact infonnation is as follo\vs: 561
Keystone Avenue, #104, Reno, NV 895'03; 775-682-8452 (phone) 3l1d 1-866-500-7716 (fax)_ I
have enclosed her Curriculum Vitae, revised in July 2007. Her billingrate to the Commission is
$350_00 per hour.
I will soon be providing information related to the identity and contact information of the
physical examiner. feel free to contact me if YOll have questions or concerns.
DFS:kls
Enclosures as stated
cc: i'v1elissa Piasecki, M.D.
Dorothy Nash Holmes, Esq. (wiencl.)
Sincerely,
NEVADA COl'vIMISSION ON
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

David F. Sarnowski
Executive Director and General Counsel .
06/24/2008 14:43 FAX
'.
a
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE RELEASE OF INFORl'\-lATION
(Medical. Psychiatric ,Psychological. Forensic. Drug/Alcollol Abuse.)
NAfi.-1E:
DATE Of BrRTlt:
I CONSENT TO THE RELEASE OF INFORMATION FROM MY ru:CO]U) TO GO
FROM: .

N::me:
Address:
Telephone Number: ( . )
Name: Melissa Piasecki, MD
AQaress: 561 Ave. #104. Reno NV 89503
THE INFORJVlA nON i AJlTHOJUZE TO BE RELEASED IS :
(pJe.c.se miUa/ eacli ikna oj'ln/cnnaliDn 10 be rdeastd)
Psychiatric. Di3gnoses... ... Drug and/or Alcohol Abuse Jnformation
Progress Notes .. ,..... Consultation Reports
Medication Records Forensic Evaluation ... _."
MedficaJ Assessment I Diagnosc:s.. ..... _ Infonnation ........ .
.... :::::::..-.... .. -...... -......... --.... -.......... ..
'I1IE PURPOSE FOR THE RELEASE OF MEDICAL INFORMATION IS:
This consent is effective . / I' and is subject to revoc2tion in writing:lt :my
time. except to the extent thit acdon has already been t:lkeo in reJ1:mce thereon. Otherwise,
tnis authorization will expire ODe (1) year from the date of the signing.
I have read and been advised AS to the provisions outlined on tbe reverse side of this j'orm.
r have beeD fully informed of my rigbtsto the ormy records.
I understand this is a required consent and tbat I must vohmtarfly and knowingly sign my
consent prior to any reeords being releasedo
I thoroughly llDderstand I may refuse to sign the Authorization Ij'OI Release ofJ\.rledical
Information., and upcn my refusal to consent, my records c:mnot and will not be released.
PaoenilRepresentanve is SlgD,ltlU'C
I I .
Date
I I
\lVttncss Srgnature Dace
017 ;021
06/24/2008 14:43
, .
r'

"" J
FOR INFORMED CONSENT
The confidentiality of psychIatric,. ADd substance abuse information is
protected by State and Fed.eral Statutes, Rules, and Regulations including Nevada
Revised Statutes and Title 42 of tbe Code of Federal Regulations. These-Statutes,. Rules,
snd Regulations Teqwre that the client give mformed cDnsent prior to the of any
healtblbospital records or information, except as speciflcally provided fDr within the
Statutes, R.ules, Regubtions.. .
A consent to release- health/hospital information will be considered valid only when it
states: I} wbo will release the information; 2} woo wil1 receive the information; 3} the
purpose for whieb the infonD2tioD will be used; 4) what specific informaticn will be
reJeased; aDd 5) when the consent will expire .. The consent must also contain the
client'slaathorlzed representative's signature and the date of the signature. This
Authorization for the ReJease ofMedieal Information waives any and all rights that the
client DOW has or may iu tbe future have to bring :my legal action against the releasing
person/facility for any dalOa:ges eaused direetly or indirectly by the release of this
information Dr other confldential .
Authorized representatives signing for the client must subPlit legal documents
supporting the of this authority.
consent.tim
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Nevada Bar No. 2057
P.O. Box 18414
Reno, NY 89511
(775) 250-0330 _
(775) 852-6930 (Facsimile)
Special Prosecutor
for the Commission
FILED
PuBLIC
JAN - 7 2008
BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
STATE OF NEVADA
)
) CASE NO.: 0801-1066
10 HONORABLE ELIZABETH HALVERSON, )
)
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court )
County ~ Clark,. State of Nevada,
)
)
)
-.:.'
Respondent. )
FORMAL" STATEMENT
OF CHARGES
COMES NOW, Dorothy Nash Holmes, Esq., Special Prosecutor for the Nevada
Commission on Judicial Discipline, established under Article 6, Section 21 of the Nevada
Constitution, who, in the name of- and by the authority of the Commission, as found in NRS
1.425 through 1.4695, hereby files this Formal Statement of Charges against The Honorable
Elizabeth Halverson, and monns you that the following events occurred and the following acts
were committed by you, and they warrant disciplinary action by the Commission under the
Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct:
At all times relevant to these charges, and each of the counts that follow, you were a
District Court Judge for the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, and the
following acts took place in Clark County.
-1-
COUNT ONE
1
2 1. You violated Canons 3B(5), 3B(7)(a) and 3B(8}. or any combination of those
3 canons, by engaging in one or more of the fonowing acts:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(a)
(b)
2.
by contacting Family Court Hearing Master Cynthia Beller in February 2007 in an
ex parte fashion, in order to gather information or to transmit information about
attorney Jeanne Winkler, who had aP1?eared as counsel for Defendant Thomas
Cecerle in a case (C-226959, State v. Cecerle) stin pending before you, when a
separate case (R-113139, Mathison v. Cecerle), was still pending before'Hearing
Master Beller;
by failing, prior to conducting further proceedings related Thomas Cecerle in
Case No. C-226959, to disclose to Thomas Cecerle or his attorney, or the
prosecutor in the criminal case pending before you, that in February 2007 you had
contacted Hearing Master Sylvia BeHer, who was presiding Qver Case No.R-
113139 involving Mr. Cecerle, to gather information or to transmit infonnation
about Mr. Cecerle's attorney, Jeanne Winkler.
COUNT TWO
You feU asleep on the bench in violation of Canons 1, 2, 3A, and 3B(l) and
3B(8), or any combination of those canons, during one or more of the foHowing specified times,
or at any other time to be proved by the evidence presented at the .hearing:
(a)
(b)
(c)
In January, 2007, during the course of your first civil trial, involving attorneys
John Lukens and Robert E. Marshall, in Case No. A-505776, Mentis v. Republic
Services, Mitchell, et al.
In February, 2007, during the course of a criminal trial involving Deputy District
Attorney Tina Sedlock and !?eputy Public Defender Violet Radosta, in Case No.
C-228204, State v. Sotomayor.
In March, 2007, during the course of a criminal trial involving Deputy District
Attorney Elissa Luzaich and D.eputy Public Defender Jeffrey Maningo, in Case
-2-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3.
No. C-212375, State v. McDaniel, as established at the hearing on your
suspension.
COUNT THREE
You violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3B(7), 3B(8) and 3B(9), or any combination of
those canons, by one or more of the following acts:
(a) by engaging in, outside the presence of the parties and without the knowledge or
approval of the attorneys for the respective parties, an improper and unauthorized
ex parte conversation with deliberating jurors in the case of State v. McDaniel,
Case No. C-212375;
(b)
(c)
(d)
by making a public corrunent to the media while the aforementioned McDaniel
case was pending, which statements might reasonably have been expected to
affect the outcome of a case or impair its fairness;
by falsely stating in a post-trial media interview that at least one attorney or
perhaps attorneys for both of the respective parties either "conned" you into
engaging or "encouraged" you to engage in an impennissible ex parte contact
with the jurors in the aforementioned McDaniel case;
by engaging in, outside the presence of the parties, an unauthorized and improper
ex parte conversation with deliberating jurors in the case of State v. Sotomayor,
Case No. C-228204.
COUNT FOUR
4. You violated Canons 1, 2A, 3C(1), 3C(2) and 3C(8), or any combination of those
canons, by one or more of the following acts taken between the time you assumed your judicial
office and the end of May, 2007:
(a) by returning, without signing them, one or more draft judgments of conviction in
criminal cases to your then-Court Clerk II Katherine Streuber and then failing to
explain to Ms. Streuber why, in your opinion, the documents were incorrectly
prepared or otherwise erroneous;
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25-
(b) by returning, without signing them, one or more' draft orders to your then-Law
Clerk Lisa Carroll and then failing to explain to Ms. Carroll why, in your opinion,
the documents were incorrectly prepared or otherwise erroneous.
COUNT FIVE
5. You sexually harassed, harassed on a religious or ethnic basis, discriminated
against, retaliated against, or created a hostile work environment for your then-bailiff, Johnnie
Jordan, Jr., or otherwise mistreated him or required him to perform tasks in violation of Canons
1, 2A, 2B, 3B(5), 3C(l),.3C(2), and 4A, or any combination of those canons, by one or more of
the foHowing acts:
(a) by yelling at him;
(b) by calling him names;
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(k)
(I)
by referring to other employees in his presence as "dumb fucks,"
"fucks," or "dllll1b asses" I sic];
by touching him;
by regularly requiring him, or causing him, to arrive at work before 7:00 a.m., and
work excessive hours without overtime pay;
by regularly requiring him, or causing him, to stay at work after 5:00 p.m. and
work excessive hours without overtime pay;
by requiring him, or causing him, to perform duties during the regular lunch hour
period so that he would be forced to forego consuming his own hmch;
by requiring him to "spy" on other empioyees, judges, or anyone else;
by chidiI?-g him for not socializing with other bailiffs so he could find out what
they were saying about you;
by giving him $20 at a luncheon and telling him to "go play with the other
bailiffs";
by refusing to allow him to augment building security when other judicial bailiffs
were allowed to do so;
by requiring him to heat and serve you meals;
-4-
2
3
4
5
6-
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(m) by requiring him to keep your water glass and/or pitcher filled with ice at a
precise level suitable to you;
(n)
(0)
(P)
(q)
(r)
by requiring him to assist you in de-linting and/or donning your judicial robe
and/or straightening your robe, while it was hanging in your chambers, to a
position deemed suitable by you;
by requiring him to assist you in donning or removing your shoes;
by regularly requiring him to escort you from and to YO.m car at the courthouse;
by requiring him to pick up papers or other objects you had deliberately thrown
on the floor;
by stating to him words to the effect of "Are you going to worship me from near
(s) by requiring him to massage your feet and/or your neck and/or your shoulders;
(t) ,by requiring him to cover you with a blanket in chambers so you could nap;
(u) by trying to give him money ($20), via delivery by your husband, after Mr. Jordan
was removed from his assigrunent to your department;
(v) by urmecessarily inhibiting his enrollment in a mandatory POST course so that he
had to enroll in the course on his personal time, on a part-time basis;
(w) by requiring him to sit in your presence as punishment for appearing to write a
personal letter or appearing otherwise unoccupied with court business.
COUNT SIX
6. You created a hostile work environment, harassed on a religious or ethnic basis,
or otherwise violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3B(5), 3C(1), 3C(2), and 4A, or any combination of
(a) by yelling at other employees in the presence of Ilene Spoor, your then-Judicial
Executive Assistant (lEA);
(b)
(c)
by utilizing foul language in the presence of JEA Hene Spoor;
by stating to lEA Ilene Spoor, and/or others, that Lisa Carroll was a tenible law
clerk and would never make a good attorney;
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(d)
(e)
by referring to your then-Law Clerk Lisa Carroll as a "faux Jew" in the presence
of JEA Ilene Spoor;
by referring to attorney Kenneth Pollack as a "faux Jew'>:! in the presence of JEA
Ilene Spoor.
COUNT SEVEN
7 . You created a hostile work environment, or otherwise violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B,
3B(I), 3B(2), and 4A, or any of those canons, by one or more of the following acts:
(a) by requiring Katherine Streuber, a Court Clerk II, to administer a sworn oath to
Ilene Spoor, your Judicial Executive Assistant, so that you could question Ms.
Spoor about her communications with Nevada Supreme Court Justice Cherry or
Nevada Supreme Court Justice Gibbons, or about other issues related to what you
perceived as Ms. Spoor's alleged disloyalty to you;
(b) . by Katherine Streuber, a Court Clerk II, to administer a sworn oath to
Ed Halverson, your husband, so that you could question Mr. Halverson about
whether or not he had completed certain tasks at your home, which questions
were whol1y unrelated to court business.
COUNT EIGHT
8. You created a hostile work environment, harassed on a religious basis, or
otherwise violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3B(5), 3C(l), 3C(2), and 4A, or any combination of those
canons, by one or more of the following actions:
(a) by yelling at other employees in the presence of Katherine Streuber;
(b) by referring to Katherine Streuber as "the evil one;"
(c) by calling Ilene Spoor "an idiot" in the presence of Katherine Streuber;

(d) by calling Ed Halverson stupid son of a bitch" in the presence of
/
I
I
Streuber.
-6-
1
COUNT NINE
2
9.
You created a hostile work environment or otherwise violated Canons 1, 2A., 2B,
3. 3C(I), 3C(2), and 4A, or any combination of those canons, by one or more of the following acts:
4
5
6.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(a) by stating to your then-Court Recorder Richard Kangas that he was assisting
Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle in spying on you through use of the Jefferson
Audio Video System (JAVS);
(b) by yelling at or belittling Richard Kangas;
( c) . by instructing Richard Kangas, on one or more occasions, to remove from the
official record in JA VS a statement you had made in court during the course of
proceedings;
(d)
(e)
by yelling at other employees in the presence of Richard Kangas;
by using foul or profane language in the presence of Richard Kangas.
COUNT TEN
1 O. You created a hostile work environment, harassed on a religious basis, or other
wise violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3B(5), 3C(l), 3C(2), and 4A, or any combination of those
canons, by one or more of the following acts:
(a)
(b)
(c)
by yelling at other employees in the presence of your then-Law Clerk Lisa
Carroll;
by utilizing foul language in the presence of Lisa Carroll;
by referring to Lisa Carroll as a "faux Jew."
COUNT ELEVEN
11. You violated Canons 1, 2A, 3C(l), 3C(2), and 4A, or any combination of those
canons, by one or more of the following acts:
(a)
(b)
by improperly or Without or surreptitiously allowing Nickolas
Starling (aka Nicholas Starling), or Stephen Fortune, or either of them, to gain
access to the Regional Justice Center in May 2007;
by allowing Nickolas Starling, or Stephen Fortune, or either of them, to serve as
your so-caUed "security officers" or "bodyguards" at the Regional Justice Center,
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
without infonning or coordinating with the Chief Judge or the Chief Judge's duly
appointed Administrative Officer;
(c) . by purporting to Nickolas Starling, or Stephen Fortune, or either of them,
12.
to perfonn duties on the premises of the Regional Justice Center as your personal
bodyguards or security officers, when neither had obtained a proper license as a
private patrolman from the State of Nevada Private Investigator:s Licensing
Board, and while neither was employed. as a registered employee by an entity
with a proper license issued by said board.
COUNT TWELVE
You violated Canons 1, 2A, 3C(l), 3C(2), and 4A, or any combination of those
canons,. by one or more of the following acts:
(a)
(b)
13.
by privately utilizing the services of either Supertech Computers, or Gregory
Klassoff, in May 2007, in an to breach the computer system installed in
the Regionallustice Center, in order to further your private purposes of accessing
the email or reading the input of other employees;
by privately utilizing the services of either Supertech Computers, or Gregory
KIassoff, in May 2007, in an attempt to breach the computer system instaHed in
the Regional Justice Center, without authorization from the Chief Judge or her
duly appointed Administrative Officer.
COUNT THIRTEEN
You violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3B(l), 3B(2) and 4A, or any combination of
(a) by making the false statement that, during a meeting you attended on April 6,
2007 with Judge Stewart Bell, ludge Sally Loehrer, and Judge Arthur Ritchie,
Judge Stewart Bell yelled at you and said "We're going to get rid of you right
away/' as was reported by K.C. Howard in the Las Vegas Review Journal on
Tuesday, September 18, 2007;
-8-
I!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/
(b)
(c)
14.
by making the false statement that, during a meeting you attended on April 6.,
2007 with Judge Stewart Ben, Judge SaUy Loehrer, and Judge Arthur' Ritchie,
Judge Arthur Ritchie kept throwing his "hands in the air," as was reported by
K.C. Howard in the Las Vegas Review Journal on September 18,2007;
by making the false statement that, during a meeting you attended on April 6,
2007 with Judge Stewart Bell, Judge Sally Loehrer, and Judge Art Ritchie, Judge
Sally Loehrer was screaming, as was reported by Jane Ann Morrison in the Las
Vegas Review J oumal on September 20, 2007.
COUNT FOURTEEN
You violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B; 3B(l), 3B(2), and 4A, or any combination of
those canons, by impeding the administrative functions of Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle, of the
Eighth Judicial District Court, by one or more of the following acts:
(a) by refusing to communicate about court administrative functions and/or by
purporting to require Chief Judge Hardcastle, or her authorized representatives, to
commWlicate about administrative subjects with you, only through your attorney,
Robert Spretnak;
(b)
(c)
by refusing to cooperate during the investigation by the Clark County Office of
Diversity, when personnel from that office were investigating a complaint made
against you by Jobrmy Jordan;
by refusing to communicate or cooperate with Court Administrator Chuck Short
when he attempted to retrieve the Rolodex claimed by JEA Ilene Spoor as her
personal property;
(d) by reporting to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department the erroneous
statement that unauthorized personnel were attempting to access your chambers
on May 8, 2007, when in fact, you knew that said personnel, including Chuck.
Short, were employed by the court and as such, were authorized to be on the
premises, including in your chambers, for court-related business.
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Based upon the foregoing, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline shall hold a
public hearing on the merits of these charges, pursuant to NRS 1.467(3)(c), and, if violations as
alleged are found to be true, the Commission shall impose whatever sanctions and/or discipline it
deems appropriate, pursuant to NRS 1.4673.
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of January, 2008.

Dorothy Nash olmes, Esq.
Nevada Bar. No. 2057,
Special Prosecutor for- the Nevada Commission
on Judicial Discipline
P.O. Box 18414
Reno, NV 89511
(775) 250-0330
(775) 852-6930
-10-
1 STATE OF NEVADA , )
2
3
4
5
6
) ss
COUNTY OF CARSON )
DOROTHY NASH HOLMES, Esq., being first duly sworn oath, according to
Nevada law, and Wlder penalty ofpeIjury, hereby states:
1.
I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the S:tate of Nevada, and I have
7 been retained by the Nevada Corrunission on Judicial Discipline to serve in the capacity of
8 Special Prosecutor in The Matter of the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson, Case No. 0801-1066
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2.
I have prepared and reviewed the foregoing Formal Statement of Charges against
the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson, and pursuant to the investigation conducted in this matter,
and based on the contents of that investigation, and following reasonable inquiry, I am'infonned
and believe that the contents of the foregoing Formal Statement of Charges are true and accurate.
Dated this 1zf{: day of January, 2008.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public,
this 7 tlJ day of January, 2008.
NOT
-11-

DOROTHY NASH HOLMES
2
3 I hereby certify and affmn that on the day of January 2008, I served a copy of the
4 foregoing FORMAL STATEMENT OF CHARGES in Case No. 0801-1066, by placing copies
5 of the same in the United States Mail, First Class pre-paid postage attached, for delivery to:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 .
23
24
25
J oM L. Arrascada, Esq.
145 Ryland Street
Reno, NV 89501.
Dominic P. Gentile, Esq.
Law Offices of Gordon and Silver, Ltd.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, 9
th
Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89109
William H. Gamage, Esq.
Gamage & Gamage
231 South Third St., 2
nd
Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89101
~ ~ 4 ~
Dorothy N Holmes
Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33-10 Filed 12/01/08 Page 1 of 3 8028450 line 1 GENTILE DEPALMA LTD.
16:33:07 07 11 2007
I
2
3
1,3EFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISClPUNE
STATEOFNEV
FILED
NOJ'l.P\JIlUC
4 In the Matter oftha
MAy 10 200iJ
5 HONORABLE BLIZABETH
District Judge, Eighth 1udioial
l
159100 CIPUNE
6 District Court, County
State ofNevada
t
7
8
Respondent.
)
)
)

9 ORDER OF INTERIM SUSPENSlON
ledt
10 Tho on Judicial Discipline hery suspends Eighth Judicial District Cow1
3/46
11 Judge Elizabeth Halverson ftom the exercise of office pending a :fina1 detetl:tJ.ination in a judicial
12 cUsciplinaryproceeding. This suspension will be conditioned on the continued payment of the
13 Judge's salary. The C;,tmnil!llrion has concluded preliminarily that Halverson poses a
14 substantial threat of serious harm to the public and to the administration of justiee.
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NRS 1.4675 s.tates in pertinent part:
(3) The Commission may suspend ajustioe or judge ftoln the
exercise of office with salaryithe Commission determines,
pending a final detcmnination in ajudicial disciplinary proceeding.
that the justice or judge poses a substantia! threat of serious harm
to the public or to the administration of justice.
(4) Ajustice or judge suspended pursuant to this section may
appeal the suspension to the Supreme Court for reconsideration of

(5) The Cotnmit!lsion may suspend a. justice or judge pmsuant to
this section only in accordance with its procedutalmles.
Interim. Rul5 9 of the ColIUI!isBion's Procedural. Rilles states;
(1) The commission may suspend ajudge or justice from the
exercise of office in acc:ordance with NRS 1.4675 and NRS
1.4677(2),
(2) The commission shall give the respondent 7 days notice of its
intention to suspend. The justice or judge may submit docUlnlOllts
in oppoaition to suspension which shall be considered by the
comnrission. A hearing ma.y be granted. upon of the
respondent.in "the sole discretion of the OOmmiSS10:tl.
(3) A respondent under these rules may apply to the
Nevada supreme (lom for reconsideration of the order m
accordance with the rules and procedures established by that court.
"ON
53:) : W01!:l.:l
Case 2:08-cv-01006-RCJ-LRL Document 33-10 Filed 12/01/08 Page 2 of 3 28450
I
i.
I
Line 1
1
2
GENTILE DEPALMA LTD.
. "._ . __ , ".0.". __
1ti:::S;;S:L4
l.t!;:I .... v., vv t
VI "I I
-- ._--- -- -
(4) The comnnssion shall promptly file a certWed copy of the
notice of suspmsion with the clerlc of the suprem.e court.
3 On Apr.il25, 2007, a oomplaint was filed against the respondent with the Commissions
4 clerk. On May 2007. the complainant filed an addendum to the complaint. The full
5 Commission considered the complaint md addendum during a telephonic meeting conducted OIl
6 May 2001.1 In addition to the motion regarding the :interim suspension" the Commission voted
7 to investigate fully the allegations :in the complaint and to:require the respOll.dfm.t to undergo both
8 rnefitallmd physical examinations, pursuant to NRS 1.455 and 1.4665.
9' Based on the aUlllgations in the complaint, the Commission concludes that it is necessary
10 to suspend the respondent on aD interim basis for the following reasons:
U
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
1)
2)
3)
There is substantial evidence to believe that JUdge Halverson is without sufficient
legal abilities to conduct trials in cri.m:inal cases without threat of serious hm::m. to
tbepuhlic or the admjnistration of justice;
'I'h.ere is substantiBl evidence to believe that Judge Halverson has failed to perform
the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently in that there is substantial
that she has not treated staff and litismts 'With patience. dignity or
courtesy. Further there is IiilbStantiai evidence that she has treated statrto a
homlework and sexual hanlSl.iment to the extent that there is a.
serious th:l'eat to the administl'mon ofjw:tl.ee;
'Ibere is substantial eVidenoe that Judge Halverson has failed to diligently perl'mm
her duties by fulling asleep at least on one occasion and possibly more while on
the bench during ajury trial;
24 IVotingmeuibet'S ina:ttendance atthe private session included Chairman Greg Ferraro.
Chairman Na.ve:. Commissioner Doug Jones, Commissioner (Judge) Jerome Polaha,
25 Alternate COrxmUssioner (Judge) Richard Wagner, Comtnissioner Karl Amlstrong and
Commissioner James Beasley. Due to the need to conduct other CommissioX). business. Alternate
26 CoD.'lmiesloner (Judge) Jo1m. Jroz attended the phone conferenee. He did not participate in the
27 discussion otthe iD5tant case nor did he 'Vote.. The Commission voted uDanimouslyto suspend the
respondent with paYt on an interim basis. The Commission. has authori!lcd the Clurinnan to sign the
28 SU!lpcm.sion order.
-2-

1
2
3
4
Line 1
4)
5)
GENTILE DEPALMA LTD.
16:33:41 07 11 2007
There is substa.ntial evidence that Judge Halverson tailed to impartiallype.r.form
her duties mxd. being openly biased towards certilin :Utomoys;
Thtm) is substantial evidence to believe that Judge Halverson failed to diligently
oarry out the duties other office and failing to cooperate with other judges and
CQu.:rt ad:rr.dnistratom; and,
5/46
5
6 6) There is substantial evidence to believe that Judge Halverson has failed to dispose
7 of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and tairly.
B Ptu.1iuant to Interim Rule 9, the respondent shall have If. mibimmn of seven days to
5) respond in writing. NRCP 6(a) applies to the caloulation of time in this situation.
10 The must be delivered to the Commission's office within that period
11 of time. The Commission win accept a facsimile 1ran5mimon as long as it is .legible but the
12 respondent is required to sUbmit an original and nine copies via mail. No extensions ofiline will
13 be entertained or granted.
14 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERlID that District Judge Elizabeth
IS Halverson should be and hereby is suspended on ill interim basis from the exercise QfjudiclaJ.
16 office in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark Nevada.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this 10th day of May, 2007.
ruDICIAL DISCJFIJl'.IE
P.O. Box 48
City, NY 89702
3-

12 1 8 Doc 33 1006 Halverson's Brief in Support of A Preliminary Injunction Against Nash Holmes NJDC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 1 8 Doc 33 1006 Halverson's Brief in Support of A Preliminary Injunction Against Nash Holmes NJDC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 16

You might also like