vicky wrote on May 05, 2008 02:15 PM: oldlawdawg, you have it right on. Couldn't have said it any better than that.

Hmmm wrote on May 03, 2008 05:48 PM:


How does judge sleepy explain away these words in the constitution?

"...shall hold office for the term of 6 years (excepting those elected at said first election) from and including the first Monday of January..."

So, judge sleepy's "said first election" was mid term. So, her term is less than 6 years.

She can now go back to bed.

oldlawdawg wrote on May 03, 2008 02:08 PM: By filing this action now, Halverson has almost assured she will be removed from the Bench in July. Right or wrong (and she may well have the argument this time around), the judge assigned to her case will make sure just enough gets done to prevent Halverson from screaming to the press, but not enough to move the case meaningfully along, and certainly not enough to allow Halverson an opportunity to use the case as a soapbox as she clearly intends to do (thus, her timing).

I have no personal knowledge of the specific allegations against Halverson aside from seeing her nod-off while on the bench (just as I have seen Loehrer and Denton do more than once), but my own observations of and experiences in Halverson's court leave little doubt in my mind that she does not have enough training and experience as a lawyer to be sitting on the bench. I could not care less what she weighs or looks like, and other judges have far worse demeanor. It just doesn't seem that she learned very much in all those years allegedly spent writing briefs and opinions as a District Court Law Clerk before Hardcastle sacked her. Even allowing for 'newness' to the Bench, Halverson does not appear very smart, as does also 'newbie' Susan Johnson (who has screwed up, to be sure, but is actually very intelligent, sharp and hardworking). But Halverson was elected and is entitled to due process if 'they' want to remove her, and I can't say as how she is 'incompetent.'

That said, I do suggest Halverson and this whole mess only further demonstrates that we must end the practice of electing our judges, and instead switch to appointments subject to retention votes and an absolute two term limit.

Jen wrote on May 03, 2008 11:37 AM: Media Watcher you are so right. If the public would do their homework and pay attention they would see this is just a vindictive ploy because Halverson doesn't play.

The corruption at that courthouse is rampant. That is a well oiled machine that can do whatever it likes.

MediaWatcher wrote on May 03, 2008 10:56 AM: To B:

That "creature" is receiving a paycheck because the powers that be do not like honest people and whistleblowers so they got her out of their club so they can continue to rob us. Her house has long been clean. There were no illegal activities in SF as it was a rental dispute. (If everyone who had a difference with their landlord was committing an illegal activity, we would have to jail half the population!) Do you even understand the article that in a time when here is no money in the budget, when a widow is being billed $487,000for search and rescue, the judges are sneaking around and messing with the constitution to get a $480,000 raise that they do not deserve? Halverson may be fat and ugly, (as your calling her a creature implies--perhaps that isyour problem with her, but she is the one blowing the whistle on this. Look at Ralston's blog in yesterdays Sun and read the lawsuit. You will see that this time, Halverson is right and only trying to protect the public. She will still go on trial, but she is doing the right thing by exposing this money grab.

UNLVStud wrote on May 03, 2008 10:50 AM: Wow! What a biased article. How do you not discuss the merits of her case regardless of whether you like her personally or not?

She clearly lays out that what the Legislature did was illegal and in violation of the Nevada Constitution! Why was that not the center thread to the story? Instead, you focus on the "notice" that is irrelevant to her claim and use it to give the paper a pat on the back for reporting the change the Legislature proposed. Just because the public was notified of the shorter term, in violation of the constitution, doesn't make it legal.

Further, I'm all about equal pay for the same position, but the Legislature's creative way of shortening the term of office to make that happen is illegal. Let them serve on a library commission to receive the difference in pay. Obviously that's a better solution than violating the constitution by shortening the terms of office for those seats. If this law is allowed to stand, the Legislature could shorten the term of governor (something I personally wouldn't mind given who's in office now) based on the "compelling" interest of pay parity.

Also, if these positions are left on the ballot, the county will have to eat the cost of holding an unnecessary election. Just think about the additional printing costs, staff, etc that is needed.

I don't expect much out of the RJ, but some honest, factual, informative reporting would be nice to see once in awhile.

factsoflife wrote on May 03, 2008 08:33 AM: Yes they do and they are not the only branch that protects ea. other we all know what happens to a whistle blower.

b wrote on May 03, 2008 04:51 AM: Still no one in power will give us an answer as to why this creature is still receiving a paycheck. Do the lawyers and Judges really protect each other that much? Enough to keep robbing my pocket book? How much has she been paid since she was suspended? Has this creature ever paid her fines and judgements from the lawsuits she lost from her illegal activities in California? Has she ever cleaned up her yard that the city cited her for? We need term limits people, our fine judges won't give it to us, we have to do it. Elections are coming up, we have to vote out ALL encembents, and only one term for all from no on.