Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, May 29, 2009 | 4:22 p.m.
Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki
Related Document
Sun archives
The state Attorney General’s Office says a district judge in Las Vegas “manifestly abused its discretion” when it barred the office from prosecuting Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki on a charge of mishandling a multi-million dollar college saving fund.
The office filed an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court from the decision of District Judge Elissa Cadish that knocked the attorney general’s criminal division from going forward with its case against Krolicki for actions committed while he was state treasurer.
Attorneys for Krolicki argued, among other things, that the office of attorney general advised him while he was handling the money and it has a conflict of interest now in prosecuting him.
Chief Deputy Attorney General Christine Guerci-Nyhus said it is plain from the law established by the Legislature “that the prosecution of a state officer who has been represented in his official capacity by the attorney general is not a per se conflict of interest.
“Nevada law requires the attorney general to prosecute the same state officials that she is required to advise on all state related legal matters,” said Guerci-Nyhus.
The brief said an investigation by the criminal division of the attorney general’s office produced evidence "that from 2001 to 2006 Krolicki and (Kathryn) Besser failed to properly account for program fees and marketing money generated through the Nevada College Saving Program.”
There was evidence that between 2001 and 2006, Krolicki and Besser, the aide to the treasurer, spent $2.8 million of state money outside the state budget act, the attorney general’s office said. The prosecutors say the defendants failed to get permission from the state Legislature to exceed the $83,500 budget imposed by the 2003 Legislature.
Krolicki and Besser have asked the district court to dismiss the charges but a ruling has not been made.
Krolicki has been indicted by a Clark County grand jury of two felony counts of misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officer and two felony counts of misappropriation by treasurer.
Besser is accused of one felony count of being a principle to the crime of misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officer and one felony count of being a principle to the crime of misappropriation.
Guerci-Nyhus said Judge Cadish failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to permit evidence to be presented that there was a “conflict wall” established between the civil attorneys and the criminal lawyers in the attorney general’s office.
The investigation by the state Department of Public Safety lasted 18 months before the attorney general’s office went before the grand jury in Las Vegas.
If the ruling of Judge Cadish is permitted to stand, the practical effect will be that state officers and employees can avoid prosecution by the attorney general’s office if they say they asked for and received legal advice.
“Such a ruling undermines the statutory authority of the attorney general and will prohibit the office of the attorney general from carrying out its duties,” said Guerci-Nyhus.
Wow, I am very interested to learn how the court will rule in this matter. Ms. Guerci is a fine attorney, although I'm sure Mr. Krolicki's lawyers are excellent, as well.
The whole thing is funny and sad.
A while back the Attorney General Masteo says that her office has a conflict in pursuing charges against a Democratic state offical because her civil division worked with him in the past.
Now Attorney General Masteo presents the exact opposite argument to pursue charges against a top Republican state offical.
It would be nice if one day we could get an Attorney General that is not so partisan in their job.
We need an Attorney General that represents all Nevadans and not just Democrats.
Hey Sgt Rock - you don't know what you are talking about. The AG's office has many divisions.
Duh.....but they can't be saying in one case that the civil division triggers a conflict of interest then in the next breath says it does not trigger a conflict of interest.
The only difference is that in one case it was a Democratic offical and in the other case it was a Republican offical.
"Duh.....but they can't be saying in one case that the civil division triggers a conflict of interest then in the next breath says it does not trigger a conflict of interest."
Of course they can, James F. Nance, Jr... err, SgtRock... errr, jfNance32. The Attorney General's office is comprised of several divisions and dozens of employees. Are you really that naieve to think that both cases are identical?
LOL, guess so!
I've got to side with SgtRock on this one. This state's Attorney General is far too politically ambitious, far too eager to interpret law to her own (not Nevada's) advantage, and seems too aggressive in the wrong areas. That office does represent all Nevadans and their interests, and there is only one AG, not divisions, when you look for who to blame.
Yeah, it's painful to take that side right now. But in the end I think that dusty old saying we like out west will come true -- "give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves."
If Masteo's AG criminal divison worked side-by-side in the Democratic state offical then she might have a valid arugment on conflict of interest but it was not the criminal division that worked with the Democratic state offical.
So her previous very broad claim of conflict of interest is working against her in this claim because it was a non-criminal divison that worked with the Democratic state offical. Now she is agruing that broad claims of conflict of interest are not valid. Nice to see that she has seen the day of light on that issue.
The Democratic offical broke the law and he did so without advice from the AG on the topic of increasing his salary by 30% without state authorization. So this is also an agrument against the AG "conflict of interest" in that case.
In this case, the AG division gave direct legal advice to the Treasury department on this contract that is focus of the charge. In a in-direct way, Masteo is attacking her very own office's work product.
This whole thing is so comical and sad.
Heck, she might need to file an indictment against herself for being part of a conspiracy to break the law with the Treasury Department.
This is exactly why USAjudges.com invites the public to detour away from state run, so called Judicial Commissions, and make their own reports.
Enough reports and pretty soon some attorney truly interested in public service might run for office.
We are the answer. We cannot look to officials who created self-canceling "commissions" to perform.
This is exactly why AB99 should fail. However, media isn't covering this and a public not demanding coverage deserves exactly what it gets.
Writenow -- what does a site about judges have anything to do with this AG? What is "AB99" and how is it relevant to this Discussion?