I want to mention on Nov 2 the ballots in Nevada will have a question on whether or not we should take the elections of our Judges out of the peoples hands and give it to 13 people to decide. We will have no say in who these 13 appointees will be and or who will even appoint them. That is 13 people to pick all of our judges right up to the supreme count. Isn't that special???? How nice of them wanting to do this for US.

Well needles to say....We need to vote no on this. There are 4 questions and one advisory question on our ballots at least in the City of Las Vegas more in other places.

This I believe is question 1. I will vote no on all of them period...to me everyone of them is highly suspect and these people involved are trying to change our Nevada constitution for their own gain and against ours and I have notices that they are slanting in such a way as to confuse the voters into voting their way.......

I brought this post over from the Post & Mail to show you what is afoot here in Nevada...I hadn't even heard of this incident let along any law suit about till now...it is in Churchill County.

I imagine in each State there is going to trickery and foolery involved in all our elections...We need to aware if everything from now on.


[quote]
Grand Jury case goes to the Nevada Supreme Court
Print This Post
PRO SE PLAINTIFF WILL FIGHT FOR HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY HEARING

by Sharon Rondeau

Nevada was admitted to the Union by President Abraham Lincoln on October 31, 1864

(Sept. 13, 2010) — The Post & Email had previously reported on the case of two plaintiffs, one of whom is U.S. Senate candidate Tim Fasano, regarding their request for and subsequent denial of a grand jury hearing stemming from suspected criminal conduct on the part of a judge who had presided over a criminal case in which Mr. Fasano and his wife were injured in their home by several assailants.

Mr. Fasano contacted us last week to inform us that his case was placed on a 30-day schedule for hearing and disposition at the Nevada Supreme Court, where he will represent himself in requesting the convening of a grand jury in Churchill County, NV. If convened, the grand jury would examine evidence of criminal conduct against Judge David A. Huff, in keeping with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Nevada Revised Statutes.

According to Mr. Fasano’s research, Churchill County has not convened a grand jury in 35 years.

MR. FASANO: When we appealed the case to the Supreme Court, they had to assign us a new number. Once they do that, they give us a briefing scheduled. Generally, in this state, the briefing schedule says you have 180 days to submit your brief. Once that is done (in this case, with a Writ of Mandamus), they have 30 days, because it is a First Amendment petition, to rule on it. So as soon we get our number, we’re in court. We’re submitting our paperwork on Day One. So they’re not going to have a lot of time. We believe that we have a very, very strong argument, and we believe that they’re going to have to consider the box that they’re in. And they are in a box; we put them in a box with our argument such that they have virtually no way out. That’s good for us, and that’s one of the reasons I called you: to let you know that this document is done, and I will get it to you. It’s 270 pages, although the brief itself is only 30 pages long, which is the limit.

MRS. RONDEAU: Did you write it yourself?

MR. FASANO: Yes. No attorney helped me; I did all my own legal research, all my own case law references, statutory references, and precedent references. I don’t like to pat myself on the back, but I think I did a pretty good job on it. It’s the culmination of two weeks’ worth of solid work. Now that we’ll have a number today, we’ll complete the covers and probably submit them to the Supreme Court tomorrow.

MRS. RONDEAU: After the court receives it, how long do they have to hear and decide upon it?

MR. FASANO: It has to be decided; not heard, but decided, within 30 days. It’s a bifurcated schedule in the Supreme Court where certain issues must be heard within certain time frames. There will be certain issues that can be set aside and say, “OK, we’re going to put this on a 180-day briefing schedule,â€