Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

sponsored by
News


JANE ANN MORRISON: Judicial commission might have a say on Halverson controversy

People keep asking three questions about District Judge Elizabeth Halverson: What's her party affiliation? How did she win? How can she be removed from the bench?

The first answer is easy: She's a Republican.


Most Popular Stories
  • Traffic accident claims life of longtime, successful lawyer
  • TRAFFIC STOP: Shooting accounts conflict
  • One motorcyclist killed, another critically injured in accident
  • THE FACES OF JOBLESSNESS: Family had to get help for first time
  • NORM: Buchanan called 'larger than life'
  • NORM: Marie Osmond, manager battling
  • Nurseries fence out day laborers
  • Second person dies after being restrained by police
  • REFUSING THEIR OWN MEDICINE: Vaccination policy spurs legal action
  • NORM: Agassi reveals bad vibes with Shields




  • The second: She was the lone woman in a crowded field of men, she campaigned relentlessly, and she told people what they wanted to hear, including the Review-Journal's editorial board, which endorsed her. Former District Judge Don Chairez vouched for her in GOP circles, saying she was brilliant.

    As for the third, although state laws allow impeachment and recalls, neither method has been used in Nevada against judges. The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline is the way we ban judges from serving in Nevada. Since 1998, the commission has banned five judges from the bench.

    In 2005, two Southern Nevada judges were barred from the bench, Peter LaPorta, a pro tem justice of the peace and municipal judge in Henderson, and former Clark County District Judge Jeff Sobel.

    LaPorta was banned based on three issues: He failed to pay $8,000 worth of parking tickets, he practiced law though his license had been suspended, and he fraudulently took money from a client while in his chambers and wearing his judicial robes and then didn't do the work.

    The late Sobel was permanently banned from serving as an elected or appointed judge because of his improper solicitation of campaign contributions from attorneys.

    Another Las Vegas judge, Family Court Judge Fran Fine, was removed from the bench for having ex parte communications about cases. Fine got a public reprimand in 1995 for ex parte communications, and in 1998, after she kept on doing it, the commission bounced her from the bench.

    Two Northern Nevada judges had resigned, but the commission ruled in 2004 they could never return to the bench: former Sparks Justice of the Peace Paul Freitag, who retired in 2003 and left 48 cases undecided, and Gerlach Justice of the Peace Philip Thomas, who resigned after three drunken driving convictions.

    The commission's executive director, David Sarnowski, explained there is no set timetable for hearing cases, it depends on the complexity. The complaint becomes public only if the commission decides there is merit in going forward and after a special prosecutor writes a complaint and files it with the commission.

    By law, Sarnowski could not comment on whether there is an investigation into Halverson. (I hear the commission investigators are already hard at work checking allegations.)

    But, if failing to pay your debts is a partial cause for removing a judge as it was in LaPorta's case, then Halverson's failure to pay her $42,000 judgment from a California court over a rent-control dispute certainly is pertinent.

    After Halverson moved to Las Vegas in 1995 to work as a law clerk in District Court, her sister moved into her rent-controlled San Francisco apartment. When landlords raised the rent in 2000, Halverson sued, saying she was only in Nevada temporarily. Halverson fought it all the way to the California Supreme Court, losing every step of the way.

    Other issues also could lead to her losing her judgeship.

    The five canons governing a judge's behavior are fairly direct, and Canon 3 is the one that seems to be on point for Halverson: "A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently." (Sleeping on the bench and talking to the jury without attorneys present is wrong?)

    "A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity." (Don't call lawyers liars and your clerk the anti-Christ?)

    "A judge must refrain from speech, gestures or other conduct that could reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment. (No back massages and foot rubs?)

    "A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly." (Telling staff how much you hate a certain law firm or attorneys who didn't contribute to your campaign is showing bias?)

    Best guess: A complaint against Halverson will become public.

    But anyone who appeals a rent-control case to the California Supreme Court is likely to fight all they way, even if she has to represent herself.

    If it brings disrepute on the judiciary, so be it. Not her problem.

    Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0275.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 22 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    Lydia wrote on June 15, 2007 10:19 PM: Waiting, waiting, waiting.....year after year as Former Judge Peter Laporta goes through more & more medical problems one after the other. Has anyone ever SUBPOENAED the Doctors & really have them testify "under oath" as to all these illnesses that may now require him to move to California & get "intensive" treatment there??? Oh my gosh! Nevada doesn't have good medical care...is that what he means? When will the "Restitution Agreement" ever get paid in full? When will anyone get paid in full? and sitting on the bench with a "suspended" license, that too? Hmmmmm, all those court cases heard before an "inactive" Judge? Can't be. I must have read that wrong. Oops, I didn't.


    Report abuse

    Stephen wrote on June 04, 2007 04:19 PM: If, as was reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on May 26, 2007, Judge Halverson’s husband of 8 years has multiple serious felony convictions and at least one long prison sentence under his belt (See, http://www.lvrj.com/news/7700407.html), then how can Judge Halverson be considered to be completely impartial as a judge in criminal cases?


    Report abuse

    licon wrote on June 02, 2007 12:51 PM: Morrison, is that a roll of fat around your neck? You should really try and lose some weight before you comment on other's body size.

    Oh.. and while your at it.. time to get a new hairdo?? It's like 20 years behind the times pudgy one.


    Report abuse

    Ginger wrote on June 02, 2007 11:41 AM: Jane Ann Morrison - Great article! Excellent job. Thank you.


    Report abuse

    Larry Pratt wrote on June 01, 2007 02:43 PM: Ha-Ha Where's the Jello? Where's the Mud? Cat Fight....Cat Fight....Cat Fight.....Cat Fight. I love it!


    Report abuse

    Sabastian wrote on June 01, 2007 11:08 AM: Marie, why the phoney name? I see you responded to another article by Ms. Morrison under the name Gina. Or is your real name Elizabeth?


    Report abuse

    Vicky wrote on May 31, 2007 11:52 PM: Come on people. Stop turning this issue into a weight issue. Who cares how much she weighs? Stop using the lame excuses to hide behind. Let's face it, any elected person is put under the public microscope. It's part of holding office. Everyone knows that their life is no longer private and accept that as part of the job when they run. Whether amyone likes it or not, someone in public view is held to a higher standard. That's the way it is and has been. She should be an example and if there are skeletons in the closet, prepare to be held accountable. As far as I'm concerned, she shouldn't owe one dollar on a Judgment. Who cares who has what portion of it? This is the same person who has the power to order any amount won in Court reduced to Judgment which means she has the power to tell us we have to pay if we lose our case or face garnishments or contempt. What is her fate? Oh yes, she's a Judge so that doesn't count. Fran Fine was removed from the bench for far less. It boils down to this: How can this woman decide the fate of others when her own fate is undecided? There shouldn't be a Judgment or a trashed yard. She should be an example, and even without those things, she has just plain lost the respect and the confidence of a good number of voters (this one included). I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but how many times are we supposed to turn our heads before enough is enough?


    Report abuse

    Mr. Jenkins wrote on May 31, 2007 04:55 PM: Halverson is an embarassment and should be removed asap. The fact that she is unqualified is reason enough for her to be fired. it doesnt help that she is so obese, that just makes other large people look bad.


    Report abuse

    Halvedperson wrote on May 31, 2007 02:59 PM: um, so how soon can we get rid of her?


    Report abuse

    Marie wrote on May 31, 2007 02:55 PM: Ms. Morrison,

    It seems that once again you have not given all the facts.

    You state that Judge Halverson has not paid a 42K judgment against her from a Lawsuit in SF. Is Judge Halverson the only person who filed this lawsuit, or was this lawsuit filed by someone additional to Judge Halverson? Are you sure Judge Halverson is the only person responsible for that debt? Are you sure there are no outstanding suits addressing what portion of the debt Halverson is truly responsible for??

    You quote the following in your article, " Halverson fought it all the way to the California Supreme Court, losing every step of the way".

    Once again, have you checked your facts? I don't think so. It appears what you did not tell your readers is that the lawsuit was first WON by the plaintiffs. It was the Landlord who appealed the decision. Yet you fail to mention either of these things in your
    column.

    How are we the reader to believe anything you write. In this example alone you have not told the whole story and out and out lied.

    Anything to make Judge Halverson look bad.. after all isn't this what this is all about. Making sure the Judge is destroyed and removed.

    BTW.. As reader Robert mentioned. Why is it that in all the documents filed by Hardcastle to the Supreme court is there is no affidavit from Bailiff Johnny Jordan?? The only affidavits mentioning these alleged events with Jordan were filed by Spoor (who's credibility is at best questionable) & Stueber.
    Why is it Mr. Jordan is not signing his name to these alleged events?

    Wake up people.. there is more to what is going on here than you are being led to believe.


    Read All Comments