Judge lands in middle of feud

Sam Skolnik

Friday, July 21, 2006 | 7:48 a.m.

Was it nothing more than a clerical slip-up, the kind that occasionally happens in the busy offices of Clark County judges?

Or was it something less innocent when, at the behest of lawyers for a strip-club owner, a clerk in 2004 stamped a judge's signature on an order in a civil case - a case the judge hadn't presided over for years?

The incident stemmed from a case involving Crazy Horse Too owner Rick Rizzolo and auto repair shop owner James "Buffalo Jim" Barrier, and led to an investigation by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.

The probe was prompted by a complaint filed against District Judge Nancy Saitta, who is running for the Nevada Supreme Court. It was dismissed late last month, but the commission did send Saitta, 55, a nondisciplinary "letter of caution."

The issue in question began on Aug. 25, 2004, when District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez heard a motion in a long-standing dispute between the topless club and its neighbor, Barrier's Allstate Auto and Marine Electric, over parking spaces.

Gonzalez issued her ruling and order a month later: Barrier could park seven of his customers' cars on an Industrial Road lot managed by the strip-club owners, and those owners could not tow any of Barrier's cars parked there overnight.

But five days later, on Sept. 28, an attorney for Rizzolo sent his own proposed order to Saitta's office. The judge's clerk stamped Saitta's signature on the document, even though it had not been Saitta's case for more than two years.

Barrier's friend Steve Miller, a former Las Vegas councilman, thought it was proof that Rizzolo's attorneys were trying to get an order into the record that was more favorable to Rizzolo by finding a second judge to sign their order - one who may have felt indebted to Rizzolo because of a campaign contribution.

Miller - a Rizzolo critic who reportedly owns land beneath a competing topless club - filed a complaint with the judicial discipline commission on Aug. 23. In it, he claimed that Saitta had signed the order either because of gross negligence or as an "apparent favor" to Rizzolo.

Rizzolo, who last month pleaded guilty to several tax conspiracy charges that could cost him almost $17 million and 16 months in prison, contributed $1,000 to Saitta's 1998 campaign for District Court. He did not contribute to her 2002 race.

Her name came up in connection with Rizzolo in an FBI investigation when another strip-club operator and convicted felon, Michael Galardi, told agents that Rizzolo claimed he had paid Saitta $40,000 to $50,000, in under-the-table, cash contributions.

In repeated interviews, Saitta has vigorously denied accepting any payments from Rizzolo. She also has said that she doesn't know him and only met him once - at a well-attended Christmas party Rizzolo threw.

Saitta said that neither she nor her clerk had erred regarding the dual orders in the Crazy Horse Too case.

"There was no wrongdoing, no party was harmed, no one ever had to correct anything," Saitta said. She added that the clerk who affixed the stamp, whom she declined to name, followed proper procedures when doing so.

Three District Court judges, including Saitta, say that typically, when an order is dropped off in a judge's chambers, it is first processed by a secretary. Then it goes to the judge's clerk, who verifies that the substance of the order matches what was reported by the courtroom clerk on an electronic filing system.

The clerk usually also checks the electronic record to make sure that the order landed in the correct courtroom.

The order then goes to the judge to review and sign. In some situations, however, the clerk will stamp the judge's signature on the document.

It is easy for mistakes to be made, the judges say, in part because judges, especially those who handle civil case calendars, are often swamped with more than 100 orders a day to process.

Saitta said her staff uses the signature stamp to sign orders for her occasionally, when she is too busy . She noted she has 2,000 cases before her at any given time, and said she didn't remember seeing that particular 2004 order.

Saitta said she doesn't know why the order was sent to her office, but said it might have simply been a mistake on the part of Rizzolo's attorneys.

She added that if any of the attorneys in the case thought the dual orders would have an adverse effect, all they had to do was ask for another hearing to address the situation, which was not done in this case, she says.

Barrier's attorney, Gus Flangas, says he was never served with the order, meaning that he had never been given notice that it was official, so he didn't feel it was worth it to bill his client to ask for the fix.

But Flangas said there was no valid reason for a second order. "I will tell you I didn't like what I saw," he said. "I'd hate to think that something nefarious could've been involved there. I want to give (Saitta) the benefit of the doubt."

The main thrust of the two orders was similar. An injunction requested by Barrier was denied in both orders, and a deal was struck regarding the seven overnight vehicles.

But Flangas said the language in the order signed by Saitta's stamp clearly appears more favorable to Rizzolo, though the judge disputes the notion. In Saitta's order, Rizzolo's attorneys write that Rizzolo has "been willing, and remain(s) willing, to make changes to the parking regulations to accommodate Mr. Barrier."

Flangas says that's untrue. The underlying case between Rizzolo and Barrier is continuing.

Flangas said that he is more inclined to blame Rizzolo's attorneys.

Tony Sgro was the Rizzolo attorney who signed the proposed order that was delivered to Saitta's office. His law partner, Dean Patti, speaking on Sgro's behalf, said he didn't know the exact circumstances in this particular case. But he said it was possible that a simple clerical mistake by one of his paralegals was at fault.

Patti said regardless, the language of the two orders was substantively similar enough that the incident is being blown out of proportion. "I don't think it mattered at all" in how the case proceeded, he said.

Patti vehemently disputes that his firm had sent the second order to Saitta because they thought she was favorably disposed to their client.

"Absolutely not," Patti said. "This is beyond ridiculous."

The judicial discipline commission's investigation into Saitta ended with a June 29 letter to Miller. "Although the commission has dismissed your complaint, it has taken what it considers to be appropriate action under the circumstances," wrote David F. Sarnowski, commission general counsel and executive director.

Because the complaint was dismissed, there was no public investigation of Saitta.

She confirmed that the commission issued her a "letter of caution," to make sure, she said, that her staff understood the procedures on the use of her signature stamp.

In a later conversation, Saitta denied that there was anything cautionary about the letter from the commission. Neither the commission nor Saitta would provide a copy of the letter to the Sun.