RJC Snitches Get Stitches

Apparently, the higher-ups didn't appreciate the RJ's recent article concerning flaws with the RJC security camera system. So, what's a whistleblower to do when the passive-aggressive emails start flying? Send the emails to the RJ, of course.

It all started when Chief District Judge T. Arthur Ritchie Jr. "chastised" Judge Susan Johnson - who chairs the courthouse security committee - for talking to the RJ about the camera issue:

"I assume you meant well, but you were specifically told that you were not authorized to address this issue for the court," Ritchie wrote. "I am disappointed that you would take it upon yourself to address this issue in this way. ... We will see whether your approach makes this better or worse for the court."

Uh oh. Chief Ritchie is "disappointed," but SJ wasn't about to take Ritchie's little lecture lying down:

Johnson responded that, "You never informed me I was not authorized to address this issue for the court. Your response was ... that you would 'handle this,' which you did not do. Further, while I respect your role as chief judge, you have no authority to instruct me or any district judge that he or she cannot speak to the media without your consent."

Snap! Beautiful and feisty - how bout them apples, Chief?

Next, Chief Justice of the Peace Ann Zimmerman jumped into the "Reply All" pool to defend her fellow Chief:

"I believe that your interview further compromised security at the RJC by exposing potential weaknesses to those who may wish to do harm to our judges and/or the public at the RJC," Zimmerman wrote [to Johnson]. "I believe you had good intentions, but the outcome is otherwise."

"[T]he outcome is otherwise?" That can't be right, can it?

Judge Doug Smith then decided to go ALL CAPS on everyone's ass:

"In the future, please do not disclose our safety to the newspapers. I don't feel comfortable with that disclosure."

When one judge [taking bets on who] responded with a simple "?", Smith wrote back in capital letters: "THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE NEWSPAPER PERSON ALLOWED INTO OUR BACK OFFICES AND THE BAD PRESS WE RECEIVED. WHO APPROVED THE RELEASE(?)"

CALM DOWN DOUG. THE PUBLIC CLEARLY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT JUDICIAL ELECTIONS - ANY PRESS IS YOUR FRIEND.

Judge Cadish also had some thoughts:

"I too was extremely disturbed to read in the paper about exactly what cameras around the courthouse don't have the view they should have because they're blocked by trees or otherwise out of position. I do think it can easily put us at risk."

By "us," Cadish of course meant all the employees and visitors in the RJC, right? She wasn't just talking about the robed ones who already have private security guards ... right?

SJ defended herself by noting that by speaking to the RJ she "in fact, made the story less negative than it would have been."

We look forward to the next email thread from the judges explaining how organizing a witch hunt instead of just fixing the security problem made the story more positive.

(LVRJ; Thanks Tipsters!)

Henness & Haight Lands $3.5 Million Verdict

Local firm Henness & Haight landed themselves a big verdict last Thursday.

According to our tipster, an eight-day trial ended in an eight-person jury returning a verdict of $3.51 million (it's $1.4 million for those of you slow at math) in favor of Las Vegas resident Roger Johnson, and against JP Flexibles, a New Jersey corporation as a result of injuries Johnson suffered from a defective high pressure paint hose.

It all started with a man and a dream ... a dream of painting houses:

Plaintiff, a professional house painter, was using a flexible hose manufactured by Defendant with a paint sprayer. The hose ruptured, injecting paint into Plaintiff's right hand. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff underwent six surgeries, including having his right index finger amputated.

Yikes! That one must be hard to explain at parties. Don't worry Roger, they'll forget all about that missing finger when you're "makin' it rain" at the club.

Judge Susan Johnson presided over the case, boring details are available here.

The ambulance chasers rainmakers on this case were Michael D. Haight and Jay A. Kenyon, both of Henness & Haight. Looks like Haight is already a member of MDAF, and we're sure Kenyon's $1,200 check is already in the mail.

(Thanks, Tipster)

What is the opposite of a "happy ending?"

The great Jane Ann Morrison over at the RJ busted two District Court Judges for using jury deliberation rooms as their own private massage parlors. The judges in question are Elissa Cadish and Susan Johnson. From Morrison's blog:

Cadish was the instigator. She said her former law firm let a massage therapist visit the law office for the convenience of employees. About a year ago, she contacted him and he started coming up on Fridays, setting up his massage bench in the jury deliberation room and offering massages for a dollar a minute like the ones at the mall.

Damn. Hale Lane hires massage therapists for the convenience of their employees? Nice!

The judges were just getting upper body massages, no nudity involved, but Chief Judge T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr. (again, the most pretentious name on the bench) thought that the public perception of the massages may be a problem. Thus, Judge Ritchie has asked that if the judges insist on continuing with the massages, they have them done in their private chambers. Yeah, that should help with perception.

(LVRJ; Thanks to everyone who sent this in)

Careful where you protest, you could go to jail

A Las Vegas woman is serving two days in jail this week for violating a court order prohibiting her from picketing a jewlery store. Apparently, Diana Bickel, became disenchanted with the Tower of Jewels after the diamond the store set in her engagement ring fell out one month later. When discussion of the faulty installation reached an impasse, Bickel took to the sidewalk in front of the store with signs that read, "I have a problem with Tower of Jewels," and "I want my cash back Jack."

Problem is, the sidewalk in front of the Sahara Ave jewlery store is private property.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports:

Diana Bickel claims she was exercising her First Amendment rights last month when she picketed a Las Vegas jewelry store to complain that she received poor service when she had a heart-shaped diamond set in an engagement ring.

Not only did District Judge Susan Johnson disagree with Bickel on Tuesday, but she sent her to jail. While Bickel serves a two-day sentence, her attorneys vow to take her plight to federal court. "It's ridiculous," said attorney Barry Levinson, who was stunned when his client was carted off to jail. "I'll be damned if I am going to let a judge violate someone's constitutional right."

The dispute landed in District Court last month, when Johnson had to determine whether Bickel had a right to use the sidewalk as a public forum from which to exercise her right to free speech or whether she was trespassing.

To solve the alleged trespassing, Judge Johnson issued a court order restricting the picketing to the public sidewalk on the other side of Sahara. Bickel also agreed to stop picketing until the First Amendment issue was resolved in Federal Court.

But Bickel returned twice. Rather than picketing in front of the store, she hoisted her signs and walked from the corner on the north side of Sahara into the middle of the road, each time obeying the pedestrian traffic signal.

"The fact that she is walking across the street, pressing a little button to cross back across the street -- there is nothing wrong with that," Levinson said.

On Tuesday, Johnson ruled that Bickel violated her court order to stay away from the business or impede customers visiting the jewelry store.

Other cities have civil rights disputes over racial or class discrimination. In Vegas, our First Amendment fights boil down to diamonds and poorly crafted jewlery.