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!)

How To Avoid The RJC Security Cameras

The RJ published an article yesterday which claims "officials" have known about "flaws" in the RJC security camera system for more than six months, and have done little to fix the problem. From the article:

The Review-Journal saw camera obstructions outside firsthand from the 17-story courthouse's main control room operated by marshals.

As the marshals remotely panned two separate cameras mounted near the main entrance on the north side of the building, palm trees and other trees clearly were blocking several camera angles.

Just in case you had some wild delusion that you were safe inside the courthouse, the RJ went ahead and gave some fairly specific secret entry points for the RJC:

Cameras posted above a covered parking lot for judges across the street from the south side of the building encountered obstructions from the metal rooftops, making it nearly impossible, for the most part, to see anyone going in and out of their cars.

When the cameras were panned to a walkway leading to a private courthouse entrance, it was clear that the cameras would have a difficult time picking up anyone hiding in tall bushes near the walkway.

Just remember that the next time you get frustrated waiting with the great unwashed at the northern entrance metal detectors ... you are just a metal rooftop and some tall bushes away from the VIP entrance, Mr. Bond.

(LVRJ; Thanks, Tipster!)

Marshal Law

There seems to be a little conflict brewing at the RJC between the marshals who man the security checkpoints and the marshals in charge of keeping the judges and courtrooms safe. Apparently, while both are paid equally, the judicial marshals get some extra perks.

From LV Legal News:

In recent months, according to marshals who work for the administration, as many as a dozen of the roughly 40 marshals assigned to judges and justices of the peace have gotten into the habit of leaving well before their daily shifts end. This usually occurs after the jurists shut down their courtrooms for the day.

Maybe we can get the judicial marshals to open up the south entrance after their judges leave for the day. Win-win!

(LV Legal News; Thanks Tipster!)

Secret Security Breach at the RJC

LV Now is reporting (via current Boyd student Colleen McCarty) that after the January 4th federal courthouse shooting began, a crowd of people in the lobby of the RJC pushed their way past the metal detectors without being screened:

Neither Glasper [head of RJC security] nor Clark County Courts Spokesman Michael Sommermeyer discussed the events of January 4th in detail. But, sources tell the I-Team a panicked public, fleeing the sound of gunfire, pushed past the metal detectors at the Regional Justice Center and into the lower level. The security breach was one reason authorities shut down the building. "We took the necessary precautions to protect the public," Glasper said.

It's well known that security at the RJC is under-funded and, as a result, under-staffed. That's been the reason given for the closing of the south entrance. However, what really caught our eye about the LV Now story was Clark County Courts Security Chief Lt. George Glasper's estimate of how many people they actually catch attempting to smuggle weapons into the courthouse:

"We do have probably 10 percent of the folks who are coming in who are actually trying to smuggle a weapon in to do harm."

Ten percent?! As in one in ten people who go through security at the RJC are in possession of a weapon? If that number is even remotely accurate judges, attorneys and court personnel should be absolutely outraged.

While we commend the job that the current security officers are doing, it is inexcusable for the RJC to be under-staffed with a threat level that is so ridiculously high. It's time for the county to step up and take security at the RJC seriously before we have another tragic incident occur.

We'd like to hear your thoughts and comments on this situation. Were any of you in the building when the breach occurred on January 4th? What do you think needs to be done in order to improve this situation? We know the powers-that-be are reading ... let them know how you feel.

(LV Now)