Judge Nancy M. Saitta is a justice on the Nevada Supreme Court. She was elected to the Supreme Court on November 7, 2006. She will be up for re-election in 2012, when her 6-year term ends.
Judge Nancy M. Saitta needs to be defeated! Let's make sure Judge Nancy M. Saitta is removed as a judge in Nevada.
Lawless America has received many reports of judicial misconduct and what appears to be plain old judicial corruption by Judge Nancy M. Saitta....
A judge in their pocket
"Mr. Rizzolo has a good name in the community."
INSIDE VEGAS by Steve Miller
August 15, 2005
Untimely Court Order causes Speculation
In 2001, Clark County District Court Judge Nancy M. Saitta sanctioned Buffalo Jim Barrier $4,500 after witnesses mysteriously failed to show up, and his former attorney was late for trial in a civil racketeering lawsuit he brought against embattled Crazy Horse strip club owner Rick Rizzolo. Judge Saitta then summarily dismissed Barrier's suit, but not before stating on the record: "Mr. Rizzolo has a good name in the community."
Four years later, Rizzolo is currently awaiting federal indictment for racketeering, tax evasion, and political corruption. In an apparent effort to divest himself of his personal fortune before the indictment hits, last month Rizzolo divorced his wife of 27 years -- assigning her the bulk of his fortune including an amazing $83,333 per month in alimony.
Several months after dismissing the civil racketeering action, Judge Saitta was again "randomly selected" to rule on a motion for a gag order against Steve Miller, a motion brought by Rizzolo's lawyer Tony Sgro after I broke the story telling of the beating and crippling of Kirk Henry. Judge Saitta appeared poised to grant the motion until she noticed attorneys for the ACLU and Las Vegas Review-Journal, along with RJ Editor Thomas Mitchell take seats in the back of her courtroom. Subsequently, she reluctantly denied the gag order, and I continued writing.
The fact that Judge Nancy Saitta was presiding over five concurrent cases all involving Rick Rizzolo raised suspicion at a local weekly newspaper. An editorial entitled "Here comes the same judge" was published, and shortly thereafter Judge Saitta on May 29, 2002, suddenly reassigned four of her five Rizzolo cases to other randomly selected district court judges. However, Judge Saitta kept the most important case, the civil wrongful death action brought by the widow and children of Scott David Fau. Mr. Fau was found dead behind the Crazy Horse in 1995 after being beaten by club bouncers two hours earlier.
After eight years, two dismissals, and two postponements, coupled with the refusal of two District Attorneys to take criminal action, on January 13, 2003, following an abbreviated trial, Judge Saitta instructed jurors to not consider the delayed effect of blunt force trauma as the probable cause of Fau's death. Following her instructions to the letter, and after only two hours of deliberation, the jury ruled for the Crazy Horse.
Coincidentally, the current District Attorney, David Roger, after accepting and purportedly returning $50,000 in campaign contributions generated by Rizzolo, also refused to initiate criminal action after the September 21, 2001, beating and crippling of Henry, again forcing a family to take their case to civil court at great personal expense.
Judges are selected to preside over local cases in a purportedly random manner. As each case is presented to the court clerk, it is supposed to be given to the next judge in chronological order. There are 19 District Court judges. Unfortunately, its suspected that the court clerk sometimes sets aside special cases that certain judges desire, and waits until that judge's name is about to appear in numerical order, then pulls out the set-aside case to be assigned to that judge. In this way, its possible that all nationally televised trials including the Binion and Rudin cases were coincidentally assigned to Judge Joseph Bonaventure who loves the spotlight, and all cases involving Rizzolo were coincidentally assigned to Judge Saitta -- that's until the "Here comes the same judge" editorial in 2002, and her immediate recusals.
The Fau trial, Judge Saitta's final case involving Rick Rizzolo, finally went to the jury on January 13, 2003. From that date forward, all cases involving Rizzolo were assigned to other judges. But then something amazing happened. Last week, an out dated order signed by Judge Saitta suddenly surfaced in an up-until-then obscure Justice Court case involving Rizzolo.
Judge Siatta had signed the order on September 28, 2004, twenty months after she was officially off Rizzolo's cases.
Garage owner Barrier in a continuing battle with Rizzolo, his next door neighbor and landlord, appeared in Clark County Justice Court to force Rizzolo to pay a previous $281 judgment for illegally towing cars waiting to be repaired. In all past court actions including this one, Barrier had won judgments requiring Rizzolo to reimburse him for the cost of towing and impound. However Rizzolo opted not to pay, and all such judgments were appealed by Rizzolo's attorneys. Rizzolo apparently prefers to pay his attorneys thousands of dollars in legal fees, than to pay hundreds of dollars in towing fees. Rizzolo has lost all his appeals involving towing, so far, while his attorneys profit.
Possibly, Rizzolo is using his fetish for towing Barrier's client's cars as a method to distract himself from the years in prison he faces in the event the Federal Prosecutor succeeds in proving his racketeering and tax evasion charges?
Nonetheless, on Wednesday, Justice of the Peace Bill Jansen again ruled for Barrier ordering the $281 judgment be paid immediately, but not until Rizzolo's attorneys presented a surprise court order signed by none other than Judge Saitta over two years after she removed herself from the case -- an order that Rizzolo's attorneys tried to use to convince Judge Jansen to dismiss Barrier's judgment and allow their client to continue his obsession with towing Barrier's customer's cars.
When presented with the new order, Judge Jansen said, "We already have an order here," referring to Judge Gonzalez' order of September 23.
Keep in mind that Judge nancy M. Saitta removed herself from all cases involving Barrier on May 29, 2002, and her final case involving Rizzolo, the Fau case, was over in 2003. There was no legal reason why Judge Saitta was still issuing orders twenty months after leaving the case, and after it was reassigned to a new judge three years eariler.
Judge Nancy M. Saitta's surprise order stated: "Defendant, JAMES C. BARRIER'S Motion for Preliminary Injunction having come before this honorable Court this 25th day of August 2004;.. Defendant present and represented by counsel..."
However, Barrier was the Plaintiff, not the "Defendant," and he, his attorneys, and his witnesses were not "present" in Judge Nancy M. Saitta's courtroom for any reason on August 25! They were down the hall in Judge Gonzalez' court for the majority of the day.
That's when I started smelling a rat.
Judge Gonzalez wrote her order in objective, unbiased language correctly listing Barrier as the "Plaintiff."
In her order, Judge Gonzalez stated: "THIS MATTER came before this Court on August 25, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on the 'Application for Temporary Restraining Order' filed by the Plaintiff, JIM BARRIER dba ALLSTATE AUTO AND MARINE. The Plaintiff was represented by his attorney, GUS W. FLANGAS, ESQ. of the FLANGAS McMILLAN LAW GROUP. The Defendants, RICRIZ LLC and The Power Company, Inc. dba CRAZY HORSE TWO was represented by its attorney JON W. NORHEIM, ESQ. of PATTI & SGRO."
Judge Gonzalez went on to specify that an Injunction was not warranted, but that the court would interpret the lease agreement as to allow Barrier to park seven customer's cars overnight without the threat of towing. Barrier was very pleased by the order, however, Rizzolo defied the order and continued his towing practice.
But in contrast to Judge Gonzalez' order, Judge Nancy M. Saitta's "order" calling Barrier the "Defendant" stated: "Defendant, JAMES C. BARRIER'S Motion for Preliminary Injunction having come before this honorable Court this 25th day of August 2004; Plaintiffs present and represented by counsel, JON W. NORHEIM, ESQ. and DEAN R. PATTI, ESQ. and the law firm PATTI & SGRO, Defendant present and represented by counsel, GUS W. FLANGAS, ESQ. and the law firm of FLANGAS McMILLIAN LAW GROUP, the court having read the papers and pleadings on file, having heard the testimony of witnesses and having heard the argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in DENIED."
The rest of Judge Nancy M. Saitta's "order" was written in a subjective manner friendly to Rizzolo including a statement calling the towed cars "junk." Judge Nancy M. Saitta's signature was signed in pen.
Two problems are glaringly apparent.
#1. Judge Gonzalez -- who is the only judge with jurisdiction over this case -- signed her order on September 23, 2004. Then, Judge Nancy M. Saitta signed her order -- without authority -- five days later on September 28 -- something acknowledged last week by Judge Jansen.
#2. In Judge Gonzalez' order, she states that only Jon W. Norheim, Esq. was present representing Rizzolo. But in Judge Nancy M. Saitta's order it states that Norheim's partner Dean R. Patti, Esq. was also present in her courtroom.
Somebody is not telling the truth. Also keep in mind that Patti & Sgro are well known political fund raisers, so much so that in 2003, they lent their plush offices to then-DA candidate David Roger to be used as his campaign headquarters. They covet their close relationships with the local judiciary, and vice versa.
The revelation of this information will undoubtedly be a giant slap in the face to Judge Saitta's colleagues, though she probably never imagined I would ever get my hands on her intriguing order, and make light of it.
But the biggest problem was that no such hearing took place in Judge Saitta's court on August 25, 2004. Her statement: "Defendant present and represented by counsel," was a bold faced lie bearing her signature!
Why and how did Rizzolo's attorney get his hands on a helpful order bearing Judge Nancy M. Saitta's signature twenty months after Judge Nancy M. Saitta removed herself from the case -- an order that favored his client -- an order that contradicted that of another district court judge? I called Judge Nancy M. Saitta to inquire.
The judge's phone was answered by her law clerk, a man identifying himself as "Chris." After being thoroughly informed of the questions I intended to ask his boss, Chris responded, "Someone must have made an error. I'll give these questions to the judge, and we should get back to you soon."
An error? I waited two days for Judge Nancy M. Saitta's response, but none followed, and the mystery continues.
Courthouse observers inquire whether the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, or possibly the FBI, should be notified of the anomaly? And in the meantime, Judge Nancy M. Saitta's silence is speaking louder than words.
Las Vegas Review-Journal
* If you would like to receive Steve's frequent E-Briefs about Las Vegas' scandals, click here:
Copyright © Steve Miller
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
by Anya Duke
The Anya Duke Medical Malpractice Case Anya Shapiro Duke went from 20-20 vision to legally and functionally blind in one day following a doctor’s 10 minute experimental gas bubble procedure. A doctor’s medical procedure destroyed her vision--lawyers and judges destroyed her case.>
THE COST OF “DUE PROCESS”
Anya Shapiro Duke had fought for 7 years to have her medical malpractice case heard in District Court, Clark County, Las Vegas, Nevada. She wanted to show a jury of her peers how a medical procedure performed by Dr. Roger Simon had resulted in her blindness.
She wanted to show her evidence of how in 1991, she had normal 20/20 vision.
Anya Shapiro Duke wanted to show how a harmless “floater” in her eye had been misdiagnosed. The doctor, who told her she would become blind if she did not have the experimental “gas” bubble procedure, failed to perform a simple ultrasound test that would have enabled him to diagnose her correctly and avoid the procedure that she would show had cost Anya Duke her vision, her health, and her independence.
The gas bubble procedure lasted approximately ten minutes and cost $4,700.
At no time did either of Anya Duke’s doctors, Dr. Roger Simon or Dr. Parker, inform her of the danger that the gas bubble procedure could cause PVR, a condition in which fluid from under the retina comes up over the retina.
The consent form which Anya Duke signed mentioned only risks of blood clots or infection, standard risks for most surgeries.
Neither Dr. Roger Simon nor Dr. Parker mentioned to her that the gas bubble procedure was contraindicated because Anya Duke’s small pupil made it difficult for the doctor to see what he was doing. The result of the procedure was retinal and severe caroidal detachment.
In fact, Dr. Roger Simon’s own report states August 28, 1991: (Right eye) “The view is extremely limited secondary to the small pupil.”
Dr. Roger Simon’s own Examination Report on Anya Duke the day before the procedure, August 28, 1991, states, “The patient is in good health at this time.”
Yet only five days later, on September 4, 1991, Anya Duke was taken to the Emergency Room at Nellis Air Force Base Hospital and diagnosed with acute sinus infection, and retinal detachment in her right eye.
How could a woman in good health with normal vision suddenly become blind and very ill only one day after Dr. Roger Simon’s ten minute, $4,700 procedure?
NEVADA’S MEDICAL-LEGAL SCREENING PANEL MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE CONSTITUTION, OF EQUAL JUSTICE, AND OF DUE PROCESS.
Before Anya Duke’s medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Roger Simon ever went to the Clark County Nevada District Court, it was viewed by three doctors and three lawyers, members of the screening panel that determine which cases have merit and which do not.
This mockery of justice, a screening panel consisting of three doctors and three lawyers, provides an opportunity at the outset for the more powerful and wealthy party to prejudice the judge and jury against the weaker party and to play legal tricks that cannot adequately be defended against.
ANYA DUKE’S 27-PAGE COMPLAINT, SUBMITTED TO THE SCREENING PANEL IS ANSWERED BY ATTORNEY MORTENSEN WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 1,000 PAGE DOCUMENT
Dr. Roger Simon and his attorney, David Mortensen, presented an approximately 1,000 page Answer to Anya Duke’s 27 page medical malpractice complaint against the doctor.
Not until over five years later when she was forced to defend herself in proper person and received all the documents pertaining to her case, did she discover that among those
1,000 pages were:
1. Her medical records from Dr. Roger Simon’s office indicated she had had a laser procedure which she had NOT had.
2. Her signature had been placed on a form giving the doctor her consent
to do laser surgery on her right eye. She had NOT signed this document.
3. The check mark indicating she did not have a cataract had been crossed out and another check placed in the box indicating that she did have a cataract. The fact is she did not ever have a cataract.
4. Up to 3 exact copies of some of the documents were included in the 1,000 pages, apparently to pad it and make it appear thorough and daunting to the panel.
5. Some of the pages were blank except for a doctor’s name. Some of these were doctors Anya Duke had never heard of.
Medical-Legal Screening Panel’s Decision Favoring Dr. Roger Simon was NOT Based on Complete and Accurate Information
The documents Dr. Roger Simon gave to Anya Duke did not match the one he gave the Screening Panel and Anya Duke had no way of knowing this at the time.
The Medical-Legal Screening Panel ruled that Anya Duke’s case was without merit based on David Mortensen and Dr. Roger Simon’s 1,000 page Answer, its errors, distortions, and outright falsifications. So went the first round in the Nevada Court’s legalized battering of blind plaintiff Anya Shapiro Duke.
BEFORE AND AFTER DR. ROGER SIMON:
BEFORE seeing Dr. Roger Simon, Anya Duke
--had 20/20 vision
--was in very good health
--had no retinal detachment
--had no sinus problems
--had a harmless floater
--had a happy marriage
--drove her car, traveled, and ran a business
--had no cataracts
AFTER seeing Dr. Roger Simon, Anya Duke
--was left legally and functionally blind
--suffered retinal detachment of her right eye
--suffered chronic acute sinus infections
--suffered deterioration of remaining left eye caused by the gas procedure
--forced to be under almost constant medical care
--suffers depression and extreme anxiety caused by medical and legal abuse
--suffers severe strain on her marriage
--lost her life savings and her business
--lost her independence including ability to drive
SO MANY LAWYERS, SO LITTLE JUSTICE
From the Screening Panel to the Clark County Courtroom, Anya Duke persisted in her belief that the Court would ultimately be fair and honorable and give her a chance to present her evidence, even if for the moment the Panel seemed prejudiced in favor of the wealthy doctor and the powerful law firm representing him: Alverson, Taylor, David Mortensen, Nelson & Sanders, the firm with connections to U.S. Senator Harry Reid.
Anya Duke’s own lawyers, the last of whom were Lewis Gazda, (Adam Kuttner), and Gus Flangas, were neither powerful not dynamic in their representation. In fact, due to their ineffectiveness, vital expert witness testimony was excluded from the jury trial--evidence about the harm to her left eye and evidence showing the consent form she had signed for the experimental gas bubble procedure did not properly warn her of the dangers involved--this important evidence was barred and excluded from the jury trial, a trial that was supposed to present the facts of the case to the jury.
Lawyer David Mortensen seized the Duke's last $100 in the bank
Flangas failed to respond to a Summary Judgment motion to dismiss Dr. Parker from Anya’s suit. The judge granted the Summary Judgment resulting in a judgment of over $75,000 against Anya. Subsequently, Judge Nancy M. Saitta granted Mortensen’s motion to seize the Dukes’ bank account. David Mortensen took the last $100 in the account. James Duke had written checks on the account to pay utility bills. Those checks bounced.
Unfortunately, blind plaintiff Anya Duke did not have a powerful, politically well connected law firm behind her. In fact, she had no one behind her. She was alone. Except, of course, for her husband, James, the retired Special Forces Green Beret who had willingly placed himself at risk to defend the rights he had mistakenly believed he and his wife enjoyed as Americans. Now he wrestled with bitter disillusionment and despair.
It came as a crushing shock that the pursuit of due process would bankrupt them, sap their energy, break their health, and nearly destroy their spirit.
Judge Nancy M. Saitta prohibits jury from hearing testimony or viewing evidence
The jury seated in Judge Nancy M. Saitta’s courtroom was not allowed to hear the testimony of Dr. Sheldon Stein, D.O., who has stated, “...it is my medical opinion, and I strongly believe, as I stated in my Deposition, taken on March 28, 2000, that Mrs. Anya Duke’s Major Depression, Attacks of Anxiety, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, were triggered by Dr. Simon and the lengthy Litigation with Legal Abuse, that Mrs. Duke is involved in.”
Damage done by the medical profession was Anya Duke’s tragic introduction to justice in the court system of Clark County in Las Vegas, Nevada. An immigrant from Russia who as a child fled with her family from the onslaught of the Nazis into Russia, Anya Duke believed the United States was truly the land of “liberty and justice for all.”
As a young woman, she had an idealized image of America. Along with many others who survived Nazis, she viewed the United States as the savior of the world.
Is this the justice system Green Beret James Duke risked his life to defend?
She had met her husband James Duke in Germany. He was a Green Beret serving in the Special Forces, putting his life on the line to defend Americans from the oppression and injustices suffered around the rest of the world wherever tyrants and dictators ruled. Anya Duke wanted merely the opportunity to tell her story before a jury which would decide whether she had a case or not. She was blissfully unaware of the tyrants and dictators who control the US courts, where money and power consistently determine who gets vigorous and thorough representation in court and who does not. No money. No case. No justice.
[Attorney Paul Campos writes in his book Jurismania, “(The legal system) has become so elaborate, so complicated, so unwieldy, and therefore so expensive that as a practical matter, it exists almost exclusively for the benefit of the upper class.”]
CASE DISMISSED: A SEVEN YEAR BATTLE FOR A ONE HOUR “TRIAL”
As Anya Shapiro Duke had received a lesson in medical procedure, she was to learn a lesson about legal procedure. Five different lawyers had allowed her case to be “stipulated” away.
In an article on Anya Duke’s case in the July 30, 2000 issue of the Las Vegas Review Journal, Vin Suprynowicz spoke with Lawyer and former Clark County District Court Judge Don Chairez on this matter and quotes Judge Chairez:
Bruce J. Alverson is Harry Reid’s former law partner. Oftentimes the defense firms are the bigger, more powerful firms and they paper you to death. It’s litigation by attrition and they stipulate the case away.
So based on the procedural posturing that these lawyers have gone through here, I don’t want to say this lady is going to lose her case, it’s almost a done deal....
The other firm files motion after motion to throw out this evidence, to disallow that expert witness. Anya Duke saw her expert witness’s statement about damage to her left eye thrown out. The consent form she signed before her surgery--which she says would show she was not properly warned about the risks--has also been disallowed.
The whole reason for the procedural technicalities was to make sure that people would not be ambushed at trial, but what’s ended up happening is that the unwary are being ambushed prior to trial. It’s winnowing the case down to nothing...
Legal costs, such as depositions, expert witnesses, filing fees, and court costs, wiped out the Duke’s life savings of $100,000. What did Anya Duke receive from the Clark County District Court system for $100,000? Nothing except legal abuse. Anya Duke would probably have been better served at a casino roulette table with her life savings than in the Nevada court system.
Blind Plaintiff’s Case Contained over 800 Pleadings: Motions, Oppositions, Replies, Affidavits, and Supreme Court Writs. SHE WROTE OVER 300 OF THESE HERSELF.
Now, after 9 long years of blindness, battling legal maneuverings by one of the most powerful law firms in Nevada, a firm in which US Senator Harry Reid, D, is a silent partner, the constant stress of writing and filing over 800 pleadings, over 300 of which she wrote herself, Anya Shapiro Duke stood alone, blind, and bankrupt, defending herself in Proper Person before an imperious judge looming over her in a black robe.
In a shrill voice, stumbling over words, stalling over “um’s” every few syllables, Judge Nancy M. Saitta dismissed Anya Duke’s malpractice case against Dr. Roger Simon, a prominent Las Vegas Ophthalmologist. After 7 long, arduous years of legal twisting and game playing, Judge Nancy M. Saitta simply said, “Case dismissed.” Anya’s “trial” lasted less than an hour.
The jury had been selected over a period of three hours, was seated, and was prepared to hear the evidence. They would hear none.
Encouraged by Judge Nancy M. Saitta, Defense Attorney David Mortensen moved to dismiss the case, saying that it would be appealed anyway. He did not add that this would, of course, add to his own bank account while causing the blind plaintiff several years more of expense, suffering, and extremely cruel waiting, inconvenience, lost time, more years of her life wondering if her case would ever be heard, what was left of it. Justice delayed, of course, is justice denied for ordinary citizens, but for lawyers, justice delayed is more money in the bank.
Judge Nancy M. Saitta even barred Anya Duke from hearing what she (Saitta) said to the jury in explaining that she had dismissed the case after only one hour. Why would Judge Nancy M. Saitta not want the blind plaintiff to hear her comments to the jury explaining why the case had been dismissed?
On September 8, 2000, Anya Duke appealed her case to the Nevada Supreme Court.
David Mortensen asked the judge to hold Anya Duke liable for over $400,000 in legal fees for the defendant, Roger Simon, M.D. and Jeffrey Parker, M.D. Anya Duke objected based on the fact that these fees are not only unreasonable but resulted from delays in the “trial” caused by David Mortensen and his clients, Roger Simon and Jeffrey Parker.
Anya Duke is blind, has no money, and can’t afford a lawyer to represent her, but this does not stop Alverson, Taylor, David Mortensen, Nelson, & Sanders, the firm with which U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D) is silent partner. They seized the Dukes’ last $100, battled to prevent Anya Duke from presenting her case, and now appear eager to crush her with a $400,000 judgment that she cannot possibly pay.
So many lawyers and judges, so many questions left unanswered:
1. Upon what legal grounds was Judge Nancy M. Saitta allowed to dismiss Anya Duke’s case before any evidence was presented to the jury?
2. Why was Judge Nancy M. Saitta allowed to order the Bailiff to sort through Anya’s satchel looking for her tape recorder to confirm that it was turned off? Are judges unbridled tyrants or servants of the people?
3. Who gave Judge Nancy M. Saitta the right to refer mockingly to Anya’s satchel as a “bag of tricks”? Are Clark County Nevada judges gree to insult and ridicule plaintiffs, especially those forced by economic restraints to defend themselves in proper person? Are judges no more than bullies in black robes? Is anyone allowed to ask Judge Nancy M. Saitta about her own bag of tricks?
4. How could Judge Nancy M. Saitta be allowed to exclude the most important claim of the lawsuit--the misdiagnosis--part of the complaint for six years-- excluding it with no legal grounds eight days before the beginning of the jury trial?
5. Why was David Mortensen allowed to continue ex parte communications with Anya’s witnesses even after he was warned to stop by the Discovery Commissioner.
6. Why was Anya prohibited from stating in front of a jury of her peers that she is blind, disabled, or ill?
7. Why did Judge Nancy M. Saitta deny Anya accommodations such as an assistant or interpreter of legal terminology or someone to read pleadings for her? Why, when she did get an assistant, was she ordered to sit behind the rail so she could not assist Anya?
8. Why, after Anya Duke and James Duke spent over $100,000 on legal expenses including expenses generated by their lawyers, depositions, filing of motions, typing of documents, etc. and they had no more money, were they told by Judge Nancy M. Saitta to get a lawyer when Judge Nancy M. saitta obviously knew they were broke and that no lawyer wants a case that other lawyers have ruined.
9. Why did Judge Nancy M. Saitta prohibit Anya Duke from hearing Saitta’s closing statement to the jury after Judge Nancy M. Saitta dismissed the jury and the case? Was it because Nancy M. Saitta was again prejudicing the jury against Anya Duke by implying that Anya Duke posed some sort of danger and stating to the jury “I will protect you.” (This is on tape.)
10. Why would opposing attorneys of the firm of Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen, Nelson, and Sanders request to be awarded their fees of over $400,000 when they were being paid by the doctor’s insurance company,a multimillion dollar corporation well able to afford a powerhouse law firm for it’s policyholder.
11. In asking the Court that Blind Plaintiff Anya Duke be forced to pay over $400,000 in legal fees for Dr. Simon, Defense Attorney David Mortensen failed to acknowledge that he had caused the trial date to be postponed 7 times, thus increasing costs and inconvenience for Anya Duke.
12. Why did this firm seize the last $100 the Dukes had left in the bank to pay utility bills? Was it to reduce the Dukes to beggars just to show the muscle of this law firm that is affiliated with Harry Reid?
13. Why the virtually total discrimination against Anya Duke at every juncture? Is it because she is blind? Jewish? Poor? Because she can’t fight back? Because lawyers and judges can get away with it? Because no one will stop them?
Climbing Mt. Everest may be a great feat of endurance. Swimming the English Channel or sailing alone around the world may be cause for adulation. But to have survived both the Nazis and the Clark County Court System, blind, disabled, and bankrupt, but still standing is a feat that certainly surpasses any of the others for strength, and courage. It is a terrible price that has to be paid to stand up for justice in America. May God Himself judge a nation that punishes those who seek the Constitutional right of due process in its courts of law.
NO MERCY: Harry Reid’s brand of compassion for a blind, disabled constituent
In August, 2000, I wrote a letter to Landra Reid, wife of U.S. Senator from Nevada Harry Reid, on behalf of Anya Duke. I had read in the Las Vegas Review Journal that Mrs. Reid, who is Jewish, and her husband were visiting Israel and had received an award honoring them. I told her about Anya Duke who had lived in Israel with her family for several years before coming to live in Las Vegas, Nevada.
I explained how Anya had become blind after a medical procedure and had sought relief in the courts. I explained how the firm of Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen, Nelson, and Sanders had intimidated Dr. Kirmani, who was treating her, that he became hostile to her and she was unable to return to his office to seek medical treatment.
Dr. Kirmani indicated that it was the harrassment and intimidation of lawyers that motivated his rejection of Anya as a patient. He was simply unable to function under the stress of their harassment.
I explained to Mrs. Reid that if we were interested in peace and justice in the Middle East, how much more should we be interested in it here at home. As a Jewish woman married to a powerful man and aware of resources in the state, I thought logically that Mrs. Reid might empathize with Anya Duke’s situation and be able to offer suggestions as to what relief the state of Nevada and it’s government might be able to offer a blind citizen in need of help. Is relief only for the rich and powerful?
Mrs. Reid apparently did not have time to respond to my concerns about a blind Nevadan in need of help or even offer best wishes for a better tomorrow. Not even a polite, “Sorry I can’t help you.”
What I received was the following reply. Lawyers have been hated and despised since before Shakespeare’s time. One can certainly understand why they continue to inspire such contempt.
Mr. Reid knows as well as any mobster, con artist, or lying politician that anyone with money can get a lawyer. If Anya Duke were wealthy, she would have had a powerful law firm to stand in her defense. She wouldn’t have had her case dismissed. She wouldn’t have had to endure the shrieking, scoldings of Judge Nancy M. Saitta.
Surely those who faithfully served this country, willing to risk their lives to defend freedom and justice for all deserve better than this.Attribution: Justice At Any Cost
And what's with this horrible hairdo?