No: 73884 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA FILED In the Matter of ) AUG 29 207° ) i. THE HONORABLE DAWNHAVILAND, cote AE, | Goodsprings Township Justice Court, ) ” rR Goursyof Ck Sic ofNevade, 3 caseno, d Respondent ; estate Felco ateletdetst biota CERTIFIED COPY OF FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW [AND IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE. Pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 28(2), I hereby certify that the document attached ert is «te and conect copy of the FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND) IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE filed withthe Nevada Commission on Judicial Discpin on August 207 eh DATED this 29”ay of August, 207 STATE OF NEVADA ‘COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE P.O. Box 48 Carson City, NV 8974 os Ye PAULG DEYHLE General Counsel aad Executive Director ‘Nevada Bar No. 6854(CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby crit tat Iam an employee ofthe Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline and tha on te, 2? y of August, 2017, served copy ofthe CERTIFIED COPY OF FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE by ena and U.S Mail, postage pid, adresse tothe following Albert G, Marquis, Esa Marquis Aurbach Coffing 10001 Perk Run Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145, ssnargvis@macw-com Kathleen M. Paustian, E59 Law Office of Kathleen M. Peustin 3208 Skipworth Drive Las Vegas, NV 89107 kKathleenpaustian@icox net10 n 1B 4 1s 16 0 18 19 a 2 2 24 2s 26 n 28 DEFORE-THE NEVADA COMMISION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE starzornevapa [FILED AUG 2.9 2017 In the Matter of THE HONORABLE DAWN HAVILAND, |Goodsorings Township Justice Cour, [County of Clark, State of Nevada, tevoreaaprenapiow ace CASE NO. 2016-088-P Respondent. EINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE Pursuant to prior writen notice, the above-entitled matter came on for a formal, one-week public hearing in Las Vegas, Nevada, pursuant to NRS 1.467 and Commission Rule 18, commencing on| August 7, 2017, before the Nevada Commission on Judicial Dieipline (hereinafter, the “Commission”, regarding the allegations against the Honorable Dawn Haviland (hereinafter “Respondent”) for violations of the Revised Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (hereinafter, the “Code”, Kathleen M. Paustian, Esq. served as the Prosecuting Officer to the Commission (hereinafter, the “Prosecuting Officer") and was present. Respondent was represented by Albert G. Marquis, Esq and both were present. During the hearing, the Commission considered all evidence and testimony| presented, ‘This document contains the findings of fact and conclusions of law contemplated by| JCommission Procedural Rule 28. The findings set forth below establish that Respondent violated| multiple sections of the Code. A. FINDINGS OF FACT ‘The Commission finds that the legal evidence presented by the Proseeuting Officer at the nearing clearly and convincingly established each of the following facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 7 below: 1. Respondent was, at all times applicable to the allegations contained in the Formal Statement of Charges, a Justice of the Peace for the Goodsprings Township Justice Court located in| Clark County, Nevads, and whose conduct was subject tothe Code. 12 The factual allegations in Count One of the Formal Statement of Charges regarding Responden’s signing ofthe order sealing her former son-n-law’s criminal battery records pertaining to| her daughter, have been proven by clear and convincing evidence! ‘The credible evidence established that on or about April 22, 2014, Respondent sealed criminal records of her now former son-in-law perisining to domestic battery arests involving Respondent's daughter in Goodsprings Justice Court, Case Nos. 13CRGOOOL32 and 13CRGOO0020. Respondent testified that she knew she was signing her now former son-in-law’s onder to seal criminal records, she considered the order and thought that since it was approved by the District Atiomey's Office it was acceptable to sign, Recusal inthis situation was mandatory under the Code, and compounds the fact| that Respondent initially attempted to preside over the tral and only recased herslf after defense counsel noted the conflict on the record? Respondents actions in sealing her then som-in-law's criminal records clearly and convincingly established violations of Canon 1 of the Code, Rule 1.1, requiring Respondent to comply with the law, including the Code; Rule 1.2, for failure to promote confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality ofthe judiciary, avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; Canon 2, Rule 2.2, requiring judges to uphold the law and perform all duties of the judicial office faily and impartially; ule 2.3, requiring judge to perform her duties without bias; Rule 2.5(A), requiring judges to perform judicial and administrative duies competently and diligently; Rules 2.11(A), requiting a judge to disqualify herself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonebly be questioned, and 2.11(A)2)@), requiring disqualification when her child i a party and/or (lis ikey to be a material witness in acase, vit "Te Commision di not find sufcentevdeace thatthe sald cates ware twise removed from the cous sealed records storage fer judge has been dsqulie rom case, he fe it prokbited fom taking Farther action inthe case, with the exception fr ministerial actions requed forthe case to be reasiged to another judge, Tht bar applies even 1 vcontested mons or spulate ations. See Marland Advisory Opinion 2009-18 (a judg who hs eased bere fos cass involvig certain attorneys due fo personal relaioaships with them and their flies should abstain even foes uncontested acts ofthe cases, absent waiver or necessity): New York Advisory Opinion 12-25 ajue whois dual om mater in which a particular attorney appears may nt eter "so-ordered” discovery stipulations by that atorey). 20 0 2 B 4 1s 16 ” 18 0 2 2 2 26 7 28 3. The factual allegations contained in Count Two of the Formal Statement of Charges regarding Respondext ordering staff to conduet an illegel criminal records search for the benefit of| Respondents fiend have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. On or about May 4, 2015, Respondent gave Goodsprings Bailiff Kenneth Smith a dtivers license photograph and eked hm to run criminal history onthe man inthe picture, Bruce Nelson. As ine Goodsprings Temninal Agency Coordinator, Bailiff Smith was responsible for suc inquiries and knew the Nationel Cime Information Cente ("NCIC") rules for criminal checks require that there be a case number associated with such a records request. Because Respondents request included no case number, Bailiff Smith id not ran the NCIC search. It came to Bailiff Smiths attention through a history had ater been run approximately eight (8) times on Bruce subsequent audit thet erimi Nelson by the other Goodsprings Bailiff, William Carter. Respondent testified that she had directd| Bailiff Carter to rua the criminal check as pre-employment screening. In order to run a pre-| employment sereenirg through NCIC, an employment application and a waiver of applicant is required prior to the screening, and none was provided inthis instance by Respondent Respondent admitted that Bruce Nelson was the boyftend of Respondents friend, Tracy Coy, who wanted to know bis background. Respondent, n ordering staff to conduct an illegal criminal records NCIC search for the benefit of her fiend, clearly and convincingly established violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.1 forfeiture to comply with the law, including the Code; Rule 1.2, requiring her to promote confidence in the independence of the judiciary; Canon 2, Rule 22, requiring her to act with imparility and faimess; Rule 23, mandating that she act without tia; Rule 2.5(A), requiring her to carry out er duties competently and diligent; Rules 2.9(C), preclucng her from conducting her own independent investigations into matters before her, and (D), requiring her to ensure that her staff complies with Rule 29; and Canon 3, Rules 3.1(E), Prokbiting improper use of court resources, and 3.5, prohibiting her from using nonpublic information for any purpose unrelated to her offical duties. v1 Respondent waste NCIC Syste Administrator for he Goodsprings Court. As such, Respenat was used on the [NCIC system and ll appleabl ws, an signed an Acknowiedgent eparding the sae. 3w 2 B “ 1s 16 7 18 19 2 2 2 23 26 Fa 28 4. The factual allegations contained in Count Three regarding Respondents sentencing of} an unrepresented individual without any criminal charges filed against him to eight (8) months in jal have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. ‘The eredble evidence established that on or about July 7, 2015, Respondent conducted a civil hearing which led to her sentencing Richard Klosinski appearing without counsel and in shackles, to eight (8) months in jal without any criminal charges being filed. The civil hearing was forthe violation| of a protective order which entailed the slashing of truck tres, and was recorded by the court's JAVS system. Despite the civil nature ofthe ease, a Deputy District Attomey (“DDA") was present during the| nearing, and interjected herself into the case when she presented documents to the court and had a) Sidebar discussicn with Respondent. Kespondent tested that the DDA produced the police report regarding the slashed truck tres. Respondent testified that she made a mistake in issuing the eight (8) month sentence. The| testimony and documentary evidence revealed that Mr. Klosinski's due process rights were blatantly violated and the resulting sentencing failed to comply with the law. Responded admitted it was a “bad” sentence. The docketing of the case memorialized the inappropriate actions of Respondent in that Mfr. Klosinski was sentenced to eight (8) months in jsil, with six (6) months suspended under the criminal case number 15FGOO21X, despite the fact that the proceeding was fora civil violation ofa protective! ‘order. Furthermore, all such proceedings should be noticed publicly. While the first Klsinski hearing was docketed, the second hearing was not. Moreover, after Mr. Klosinski was sentenced, the attending] [DA stated on the record that she would not be filing a criminal complaint forthe slashing of the tres [based upon the cvil proceeding’s sentence.‘ On July 27, 2017, following discussions with the DDA, [and the Public Defender’s Office, Respondent amended the charge to contempt of coun with no bail and amended the case number to 15TPGO010 pertaining tothe civil protective order. However, there was never any mention of contempt of court in the prior proceecings, no prior notice and no hearing on contempt. Respondent's actions revealed incompetence in handling the! nearing and sentencing, as well as a lack of knowledge and understanding of the basic tenets of the law *Aitough the DDA vas present in the courtroom, the DDA wa ten active paticpat. Respondent condted lst all ofthe questioning dung the bearing 40 " 2 B 4 15 16 " 18 19 a 2 4 25 26 n 28 and due process protections. The Commission found it very troubling that Mr. Klosinski appeared atthe hearings shackled and with no attomey representation, which led to his imprisonment and less of| freedom for twenty 20) days without any formal criminal charges being filed. Even more troubling vas Respondent's sctions afterwards where, in an apparent attempt to cover her tracks, impropery| changed the sentence to a contempt of court charge without any justification under the law. Respondent's sentencing of Mr. Klosinski to eight (8) months in jail for violation of a civil protective order clearly and convincingly established violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.1, for failure to Jcomply with the law, including the Code; Rule 12, for fuilure to promote confidence in the independence of the judiciary; Canon 2, Rule 2.2, requiring her to act impartially and with faimess, and Rule 2.5(A), requiring her to conduct her official duties competently nd diligently, 5. The Jictual allegations contained in Count Six regarding Respondent's verbal abuse of| Baititt Smith by using the term “sperm donor” to describe men, and more specifically, calling tat ‘Smith a “sperm doror” in the presence of other court staff, have been proven by clear and convincing evidence; however, he other factual allegations contained in Count Six were not sustained. ‘The credible evidence established that Respondent generalized men as "sperm donors" and specifically called Bailiff Smitha "sperm donor” inthe presence of other court staff, The testimony of| Respondent and court staff established that this term was used by Respondent inthe courthouse in ont lof staf. The Commission found Respondent's conduct in this regard to be highly inappropriate ‘or a| judicial officer and rot in keeping with maintaining the dignity of her office. Respondent's verbal abuse and discriminatory actions clearly and convincingly established| violations of Canon I, Rule 1, requiring Respondent to comply with the law, including the Code; Rule| 1.2, requiring her to promote confidence in the judiciary; Canon 2, Rule 2.2, requiring her to act with impartiality and feimess; Rule 2.3, requiring her to avoid bias in the performance of her duties; and Rule 2.8(B), mandating that she exercise patience, dignity and courtesy to court staff, officials and others she deals with in her offical capacity 6. ‘The factual allegations contained in Count Nine regarding Respondent ordering ste to conduct an independeat investigation of the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) auto registration wirdatabase and using the information to issue orders regarding vehicle ties to individuals eppearing| before her a Small Claims Cour, have heen proven by clear and convincing evidence, ‘The credible evidence established that Respondent isued judgmentsin Small Claims Court that awarded titles to plaintfs regarding motor vehicles. In conducting those hearings, Respondent ordered staff to conduct searches of the DMV license pate database to obtain the names of the owners andlor of interested paries forthe titles to the vehicles in question. Respondents court would then send out levers entitled “Notice of Hearing In Lieu of Summons” to any party that ha an interest in the vehicle Respondent would enter a judgment regarding ttle to the vehicle in question, nd in the judament, order tne DMV to issue ttle tothe plaintiff. Small Claims Courts specifically allow for only monetary damages, ands such, tls cannot be awarded within such Court. NRS 73.010 Resposdent, in ordering staff to conduct independent searches of she DMV auto registration database and tsing the information to identity pares with Inerest in the vehicle des, sending Lewes 10 nose parties and then issuing orders regarding vehicle tiles to individuals appearing before her in Small Claims Court, clearly and convincingly established violations of Caron 1, Rule 1.1, mandating| that she comply withthe la, including the Code; Rule 1.2, which requires that she promote confidence in the judciay; Canon 2, Rule 22, requiring her to act with impartiality and faimess; Rule 23,| requiring her to act without bias; Rule 2.5(A), requiring her to carryout ber duties competently and| iligenty; Rule 2.6(A), giving every person who has « legal interest in a proceeding the right to be| ‘heard; Rules 2.9(C), precuding her from conducting her own independent investigations into matters before her, and (D), requiring her to ensure that her staff complies with Rule 2.9; and Canon 3, Rules 3.1€), prohibting improper use of court resources; and 3.5, prohibiting her from using nonpublic information fo any purpose unrelated to her official duties, vis yin Prior to avang th ight feof «voice Sal Clans Cort proesting, Repondest condo “summty| proceedings whee pry ners in bang ie ight vehicle woul lot frm cout sal woul conc DMV sere, sed at ltrs t interested pris, 04 Respndest woul hold borg aad le Respondent isontmad he summay proceedings” process opon niet by the Nevada Atorer Gene's Office tat ts was no rope. However, instead of discontinuing his process, Resondel simply labled the procera 2 Small ins [Cour ater and contioue to conduc sina proceedings as she id before. Respondent i ot have jection to awa test motor veils in Sal Chims Cou either. 60 2 B 4 15 16 n 18 19 20 21 2 4 25 6 2 2B 7. The facta allegations contained in Count Ten regarding Respondent. improperly running a juvenile divenion program in Sandy Valley’ Goodsprings Justice Court have been proven by clear and convincing evience ‘The credible evidence established that Respondent was improperly rennin a juvenile diversion program through Goodsyrngs Justice Court. The testimony, law and Department of Juvenile Justice Services’ instructional sheet (Respondents Teal Exhibit H) set out how a juvenile diversion progr works in Clark County, Nevada, A basic overview ofthe juvenile diversion program, refered t as informal supervision, is helpful, A diversion program must go through the Department of Juvenile Justice Services (D1IS" Probation Division A probation officer determines whether the misdemeanor offense should go to an informal diversion program or juvenile court. NRS 62C.100. The juvenite must voluntarily admit to the allegations in the charging citation in onder to be eligible to goto a juvenile civesion program. NRS 62C200(1X@), A juvenile cannot plead guy oF not gully but rather just admit or deny the allegations in the charging citation. Upon mectng withthe probation officer, if the juvenile admits to the charges, and with parental consent, voluntarily enters the diversion program, D11S will issue a eter t the parent/guardian notifying them of a date to appear in Goodsprings istic (Court. Citations will be entered into Family TRACS. A writen agreement is entered into, and th! informal supervision of the diversion program must not exceed 180 days. I the juvesile does not comply, the court may remand the charges back fo Family Court. Ifthe juvenile complies withthe version program, then the casei closed. ‘The Honorable William 0. Voy, a District Court Judge who oversees juvenile delinquency matters for Clark County, testified that referals to a diversion program must frst come fom a Probation officer and ary diversion program must be voluntary. Similarly, Chief Deputy Distt Attomey (‘DDA") Brigid Duffy, Director of the Juvenile Division for Clark County, also testified that a Pio to the submission of clang arguments, the Prosecuting Ofer made an oral motion o amend the Formal Ssemeat of Charges, Count Te, pursuant to Nevada Riles of Civil Procedure NRCP") 15() and NRS 1 4676 to conform tothe evidence prescoted atthe heaiag, tht a probation ocr mut be iavolved in any juveale diversionary program. The Commission food tht Responent had ample noice tat she was being accused of property running a juvenile diversion propram though Goodsprings Taste Court despite Responders argument of ark of tote, The Commision concloded tat te motion was corsistent with NRCP 15() and NRS 1.4678), teefore the motion was groted and Coust 10 was amended pening othe ned for a pobaion officer tobe involved in ay uve dvension progr, 7|juvenite’s referral into # diversion program for informal supervision must first be made by « probation| officer and be voluntary. NRS 62C.100; NRS 62C.200, Chief DDA Dusty further testified that she was not aware that juveniles were being seat directly to Respondent's court and bypassing the probation office process altogether. Even Judge Voy, when asked during the hearing whet he would of done if he had directly received a certain citation admitted into evidence, he responded that he would have forwarded the citation to the probation affice. No probation officers were ever involved in Respondent's juvenile cases even though probation officers were assigned to the rural courts. Additionally, both Judge Voy and Chief DDA Dufly testified that juveniles cannot te found guilty in juvenile matters, but may only admit or deny the allegations in the| [itation. Moreover, the Honorable Tim Atkins, Justice of the Peace for Laughlin, Nevada, further testified as to the requirement and importance of the involvement of probation officers in # diversion program.” Respondent failed to run the diversion program through the probstion office in violaion of the| law; the diversion program lacks a “voluntary” aspect as Respondent “orders” juveniles and parents to appear in court; and Respondent accepts guilty pleas and creates a court record. Consequently, the juvenile cases taking place in Respondent's court mirror juvenile court proceedings wherein hearings are held in court attended by court staff, case number is generated as are court minutes. ‘Responden’s running ofa juvenile diversion program in Sandy Valley through the Gcodsprings| Justice Court failed to comply with the law, and clearly and convincingly established viclations of| [Canon 1, Rute 1.1, for her failure to comply withthe law, including the Code; Rule 1.2, for failure to promote confidence in the independence of the judiciary; Canon 2, Rule 2.2, requiring her to exercise| impartiality and feimess in her official capacity; and Rule 2.5(A), requiring her to competently and diligently discharge her official duties. 8, The Commission finds that the factual allegations contained in Counts Four, Five, Seven, Eight and Eleven have not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. a bir Judge Atkins and Respondent are ot ceased atomeys, therefore by law, hey cannot be juvenile bearing mass 810 2 B 4 15 6 1” 18 9 20 a 2 2 4 25 26 a 2 B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1, As to Count One of the Formal Statement of Charges, the Commission finds that the| Prosecuting Officer has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's actions constitute violations of Cancn 1 ofthe Code, Rules 1.1 and 1.2; and Canon 2, Rules 2.2, 2.3,2.5(A),2.11(A), and, 2.14A)2Xa) andlor (@). 2. As to Count Two of the Formal Statement of Charges, the Commission finds that the| Prosecuting Officer has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's actions constitute ‘violations of Canon 1, Rules 1-1 andl.2; Canon 2, Rules 2.2, 2.3 2.5(A), 2.9(C) and (Dy; and Canon 3, Rules 3.1(B) and 35. 3. Asto Count Three of the Formal Statement of Charges, the Commission finds that th| Prosecuting Officer has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's actions constitute Violations of Canon 1, Rules 1.1 andi.2; and Canon 2, Rules 2.2 and 2.5(A), 4. As to Count Six of the Formal Statement of Charges, the Commission finds that the Prosecuting Officer has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's use of the term| ; and Canon 2, Rules 2.2, 23, and “sperm donor” constitutes violations of Canon 1, Rules 1.1 and | 2.808), ‘As 10 Count Nine of the Formal Statement of Charges, the Commission finds thatthe Prosecuting Officer has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's actions consttute| violations of Canos 1, Rules 1.1 andl.2; Canon 2, Rules 2.2, 2.3, 2.5(A), 2.6(A), 2.9(C) and (D); and (Canon 3, Rules 3.1(6) and 35. 6. As to Count Ten of the Formal Statement of Charges, the Commission finds that th| Prosecuting Office: has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's actions consttute| violations of Canon 1, Rules 1.1 andl.2; and Canon 2, Rules 2.2 and 2.5(A), 7. Ast Counts Four, Five, Seven, Eight and Eleven of the Formal Statement of Charges, the Commission found that the factual proof was insufficient to sustain the charges at the clear and| convincing threshold, 8. The Commission has both personal jurisdiction over Respondent and subject matter tons of the Code at issue inthis case. ° jurisdiction over the vio10 2 B 1“ 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 2 2 2s 26 2 28 ©. IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE In consideration of the totality of Respondent's actions and her multiple violations ofthe Code, the Commission concludes that the appropriate discipline under Commission Rule 28 shall be as| follows: By unanimous vote ofthe Commission, after due deliberation and consideration of the evidence| presented; Respondent's prior disciplinary record of a public reprimand regarding a traffic citation; Respondent's workin the community of Sandy Valley; and Respondent’ letters of commendation and ‘character witnesses; but nevertheless, in light of the seriousness of Respondent's failure to follow the law and the Code on muliple occasions spanning over several years, itis decided that pursuant to subsections 5(a) and (b) of Article 6, Section Zt of the Constitution of the State of Nevada, NRS 1.4653(1) and (2), NRS 1.4577(1}(6),(), and (D, and Commission Rule 28, Respondent shal be hereby| suspended without pay for a period of one (1) year, required to complete judicial education classes at her own expense during the one (1)-year suspension period, and be mentored for one (1) year by a judicial officer (licensed to practice law) upon her return to the bench for having committed the acts as| fally set forth above. If Respondent fails to comply withthe educational and mentoring requirements of| this Order, such actions will result in her permanent removal from the bench. NRS 1.4677(1}(). ‘The primary purpose of the Revised Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct isthe protection of the| public, not the punishment of judges. The Commission protects the public by instilling confidence in| the integrity of the judicial system in Nevada, as publi trust is essential to the administration of justice. In carying out this duty, the law provides the Commission a broad range of disciplinary measures to be| imposed which include, but are not limited to, removal from office, suspensions, fines, educational requirements, public reprimands, ete. The imposition of discipkine further serves the function of| discouraging future misconduct by the disciplined judge as well as the judiciary as a whole, ‘Accordingly, the purpose of the Commission's decision in this case is to protect the public by’ suspending, educating, mentoring, and thus, rehabilitating Respondent ‘The imposition ofa one (1)-year suspension without pay is based upon Respondents repeated ure over several years to follow the law, her proclivity towards following her own moral compass in administering her version of justice imespective ofthe law, and her lack of remorse and admission of| 10wrongdoing for the same. The Commission found it very troubling that Respondest didnot realize there ‘were any disqulifation issues pertaining to the signing of her now former soni-law’s petition to seal his domestic violence cximinal proceedings that involved Respondents daughter issuing vehicle tte determinations because she personally fl there was a need to issue the tiles; umning her juvenile version program without the probation office's involvement or any semblance of voluatarness as required by law; and sentencing Me. Klosnsk to jl for eight (8) months wthout counselor any criminal charges fle, and then changing the sentence afterwards to contempt charge in an epparent| tempt o coverup for depriving Me Klosinki of his ibertyfor approximately twenty (20) days, The now ccntempt charge didnot comply withthe law or afford Mr. Klosnski any of his due proces hts. Forthermore, while the evidence in some ofthe Covnts inthe Formal Statement of Charges regarding poor treatment of staf did not meet the clear and convining threshold (which resulted in ane Counts being dismissed, he testimony &id support dseriminaory langue being Used by all court sa, and nor-chargo but admit evidence of highly inappropriate emails sent by Respondent o court ersonel via the Clark County email system depicting sexual themes, vulgarity, and negative stercotpes of various nationalities and religions. Every staf member who ceived these emails testified that they were inappropriate. Equally troubling was the unchrged evidence demonstrating that Respondent engaged in ex: parte communications with her friend, Tracy Coy, prior to thre separate civil mates being fled in he court involving Ms. Coy ncudng a protective order application acepted by Respondent without any {acts which would suppor the granting of such an application (Ihe explanation scion of the application vas Toft ently bank). tm addition, Respondent ordered illegal NCIC searches for Ms. Coy, who waned the information conceming someone Ms. Coy was dating. Respondents court should not be used as an investigative dating sevice for her personal fiends. This is nether the proper use ofthe INCIC system nor ofthe cout’ judicial resources and staff Respondent's actions were illegal and constited a misdemeanor crime. Moreover, when notified bythe Attomey General's Office that her practice of awarding Vehicle titles in her “summary proecting” in Justice Cout was inappropriate, Respondest completely ignored such notice and then proceed to handle the vey same cases inher ‘Small Claims Cour in violation ofthe law. n10 " R B 4 15 6 "7 8 » 20 a 2 2 25 26 ” 28 For these resons, the Commission finds that Respondents misconduct justifies a one (I)-yer suspension from the bench without ay. Respondent is layperson untrained inthe law; however, that docs not relieve her of the ity to flow the law. The Commission's educational requirements of this Onder address Fespo Respondent's repeated failure to follow the law, and her proclivity to render her own justice in ‘Goodsprings. Respondent's actions in the Klosinski matter indicate & lack of understanding of te law which resulted in Mr. Klosinski’s loss of liberty for approximately twenty (20) days. The Klosinski matter is even more troubling when viewed inthe ight that Respondent is not new to the bench, as she has been ected as te Justice ofthe Peace since August of 1999. Additionally, Respondent's lack of| ability to recognize any ethical issues regarding her signing of a petition to seal two criminal cases involving her now former son-indaw, and refering to men as “sperm donors", suggests 2 lack of| lunderstanding of basic ethical standards and, thus, a need for additional ethical education, Furthermore, while Respondent attempted to run a juvenile diversion program to assist the citizens of| her rural community, Respondent failed to comport with the due process mechanisms put in place to Jensure that the divesion program is voluntary and run with the oversight of a probation officer. Therefore, the Commission believes that education isan essential component of the discipline imposed ‘upon Respondent Furthermore, as a non-lawyer justice of the peace, she has disregarded legal advice on two prior occasions regarding (1) not charging the owners of commercial vehicles when the driver received the citation, and (2) awarding the right to ttle in vehicle cases despite the Attorney General's legal advice to cease the practice. While the Commission recognizes the issue of separation of powers, Respondent’ disregard of the Distict Attomey's advice concerning Respondent improperly finding truck owners in| violation based upon citations tothe driver, and subsequently issuing warrants in the owners” names, "Te charge in the Formal Statement of Charges perined to Respondent changing waransimpropey issued to vec owners back ino the dives anes. ‘The evidence atthe trial supped slong practice by Respondent of improper sering citation responsiblity. > case No. 1802-137 pertine oa sipalation eperdng Sticky Tick’ lac. La that mater, Respondent ordered her sta to vestigate who was the registred owner of commercial trick afer th diver of aid tuck ressived trac ction. Respondent thea iste a beach waa! asia the owner of the commercial rick nd engnged inex pr communications wih sid come. The cure cas revealed the exteat ofthe prior tucking citation ns, td a8 sch referenced heen, however, te underlying siolations previously addressed ia Case No. 1502-137 were not pr of the Formal Statemect of 2and Respondents attempt to circunvent the Attomey General's direction to cease awarding ttle to vehicles tough summary proceedings without a named defendant, and subsequently doing the same through her Small Claims Court, was viewed by the Commission as very problematic. Equally troublesome i Respondent's use of discriminatory language when interacting and commimicating with her cour staff. For these reasons, the Commission believes tht in addition to further education, one (-year mentorship following Respondents suspension is critical to ensure that the lw is followed, staf is teated propery, and the constitutional rights of the citizens of Sandy Valley and elsewhere ae protected no les than any othe tien of Nevada. “The discipline imposed aguinst Respondent is based upon the facts ofthe case, the seriovsness oF the offenses involved, and consideration of mitigating circumstances, The Commission aso found it very conceming that the Respondent had no remorse and did not admit any wrongdoing at any time ‘iow dhe Ging of de Formal Suement of Charges through the conclusion of te Rearing. The only semblance of an admission of wrongdoing was regarding Mr. Klosinki's orginal sentence which she refered o as a “bad sentence, but then proceeded to cover it up by changing the sentence to a contempt charge that was neither previously mentioned or noticed during the proceedings in question, ‘nor was ahearing on the contempt charge ever held. A man lost his liberty and freedom for twenty days as aresul. In consideration ofthe foregoing, the Commission finds that Respondent's misconduct justifies ' one (1)-year suspension without pay, the completion of addtional educational requirements and the assignmeat of a mentor. The Commission also commends the complainants for having the courage to Jcome forward and file their respective complaints. If they had not done so, these disturbing matters would not have come to light and, quite probably, would have continued far into the future” iy ye [Charges in his mater. Inti ease, Clark County Disrit Antony Chi fr Owtying Cours, Cvistpher Laren, tied tha in 2008 be informed Respondea to cease fading the owners ble in commercial ting citation eases when the aver was ced forthe volaons "in Respondent's couse’ closing srgument, he atacked the complinnts and clained that there wil be x mak aust tha for theres ofthe ives just for Sing the complaints against Respondent 132 B 4 1s 6 ” 18 19 20 a 2 23 2% 2s 26 a 28 D. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by unanimous vote of Commissioners Chairman Gary Vause, Karl Armstrong, Esq, Honorable Thomas Armstrong, Bruce C. Hahn, Esq., John Krmpotic, Stephanie| Humphrey, and Honorable Mason Simons that Respondent be and hereby is suspended for one (1)-year without pay, effective as of the filing date of this Order, for multiple violations of Canon 1, Rules 1.1 and 1.25 Canon 2, Rules 2.2, 2.3, 2.5(A), 2.6(A), 2.8(B),2.9(C) and (D); and Canon 3, Rules 3.1(E) and| 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent attend and complete during her one (1)-year suspension period, at her own expense, the following educational courses and conferences: Novada| Judges of Limited Jurisdiction Conference held in either 2017 or 2018; Special Considerations for the [Rural Curt Judges; Best Practices in Handling Cases with Self: Represented Litigants; and Sexual the Workplace; or such similar classes as may be avallable with Harassment and Discseninaio approval by the Commission's Executive Director. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon Respondent's resumption of her judicial duties following her one (1}-year suspension without pay, that Respondent be appointed a judicial mentor (Gicensed to practice law) by the Administrative Office of the Courts or the Nevada Supreme Cour, ‘upon approval, for a one (I}-year period with the requirement that quarterly reports be filed by the appointed mentor with the Commission noting Respondent's progress or lack thereof, her treatment of| staff, andher knowledge and understanding of te law in carrying out her judicial duties, TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to comply with the educational and mentoring requirements shall result in Respondent being permanently removed from the bench and forever burred| from serving asa judicial officer inthe future. Accordingly, the Comission retains jurisdiction over this mater for the required period of time for Respondent to comply with this Order. air yi is ir mw 42 B “4 15 6 ” 18 9 a 2 2 2 26 a 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by unanimous vote that the Charman is authorized to sign this document on bebalf of voting Commissioners DATED this ay of August, 2017, STATE OF NEVADA, COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE P.O. Box 48 Carson City, NY-89702 By. connssi6x CHAIRMAN 1sCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | hereby certify that I am an employee of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline end that onthe iy of Ave 2017, serve a copy othe FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE by email and U.S Mail, postage paid, addressed to he folowing Albert G, Marquis, Esq Marquis Aurbach Coffing 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145 amarquis@maclav.com Kathleen M. Paustian, By. Law Office of Kathleen M. Paustian 3205 Skipworth Drive Las Vegas, NV 89107 ‘athlesnpaustian@cox.nst 16