User profile: notfoold

"Chief District Judge Kathy Hardcastle subsequently intervened, instructing Leavitt to schedule a hearing on whether to take herself off the contempt case. That hearing has been set for Dec. 8."

When Terry Mosley filed her Motion To Recuse Judge Manoukian,(visiting judge) with evidence of numerous exparte communications between Judge Mosley and Judge Manoukian,it landed in front of Judge Hardcastle not the chief judge in family court. Hardcastle simply denied the motion (the following day) with no objection filed and NO HEARING.

In addition, Judge Hardcastle had previously recused on three separate cases involving Mosley, due to the appearance of impropriety in hearing a matter involving a fellow member of the bench.

In the same exparte court order signed, "Judge Kathy Hardcastle for Judge Manoukian", Judge Mosley is granted an emergency hearing to change custody scheduled for the same day and time as the "intended" hearing for the Motion To Recuse, (the hearing which never happened). Coincidence? Fix?

What exactly are the rules? Do they change during election time? Do they apply one way to Judge Mosley and another to others? Does Judge Kathy Hardcastle exceed the limits of your authority at her sole discretion?

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov...

"Chief District Judge Kathy Hardcastle subsequently intervened, instructing Leavitt to schedule a hearing on whether to take herself off the contempt case. That hearing has been set for Dec. 8."

When Terry Mosley filed her Motion To Recuse Judge Manoukian,(visiting judge) with evidence of numerous exparte communications between Judge Mosley and Judge Manoukian,it landed in front of Judge Hardcastle not the chief judge in family court. Hardcastle simply denied the motion (the following day) with no objection filed and NO HEARING.

In addition, Judge Hardcastle had previously recused on three separate cases involving Mosley, due to the appearance of impropriety in hearing a matter involving a fellow member of the bench.

In the same exparte court order signed, "Judge Kathy Hardcastle for Judge Manoukian", Judge Mosley is granted an emergency hearing to change custody scheduled for the same day and time as the "intended" hearing for the Motion To Recuse, (the hearing which never happened). Coincidence? Fix?

What exactly are the rules? Do they change during election time? Do they apply one way to Judge Mosley and another to others? Does Judge Kathy Hardcastle exceed the limits of your authority at her sole discretion?

http://www.lvrj.com/news/27901399.html#b......

And then there is this cover-up:

Smoky wrote on September 05, 2008 06:59 AM: OnTheInside wrote on July 27, 2008 06:54 AM: 1990 Judge Mosley hires Landess for girlfriends real estate lawsuit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-......

1993 Judge Mosley rules on cases for Landess' son Justin

http://www.lvrj.com/news/19245844.html

Today, Mosley's rulings are buried in Blackstone so as not to expose Mosley's involvement.
District Case Inquiry - Minutes

Case 03-C-191619-C Just Ct. Case# 03-F -06394 Status CLOSED
Plaintiff State of Nevada Attorney Roger, David J.
Defendant Landess, Justin T Attorney Public Defender
Judge Leavitt, Michelle Dept. 12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event 06/25/2003 at 09:00 AM SENTENCING
Heard By Mosley, Donald M.

FURTHER ORDERED, Sentence to run CONSECUTIVE to any other sentence and deft. released to P&P only.
CLERK'S NOTE: 7/31/03 Sentence to run CONSECUTIVE to C190087.

SEEMS A VOTE FOR LANDESS IS A VOTE FOR MOSLEY YOU DECIDE

May. 25, 2008
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal

DISTRICT JUDGE RACE: Lawyer's judgment at issue

Candidate says bankruptcy, gambling problem in past

Jason Landess should not be the only focus in this article. Look carefully. The U.S. and Nevada require that Judges withdraw from cases where the average person would question their impartiality. Judges should avoid the appearance of impropriety and implied bias, and reveal on the record (in open court) anything that could be relevant to disqualification. That does not mean that Judge Mosley should render decisions on at least two cases involving this litigant on 4/23/03; 4/29/03; 5/7/03; 8/14/03; and THEN RECUSE on 8/20/03. Perhaps Judge Mosley and everyone else involved didn't clearly understand the judicial canons.

MOSLEY AND LANDESS MANIPULATED THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM FOR YEARS. THEY ARE JOINED AT THE HIP AND IF ELECTED, LANDESS WILL SIMPLY CARRY OUT MOSLEY'S DIRECTIVES ONCE MOSLEY RETIRES IN JANUARY

http://www.lvrj.com/news/27901399.html#b...

And then there is this cover-up:

Smoky wrote on September 05, 2008 06:59 AM: OnTheInside wrote on July 27, 2008 06:54 AM: 1990 Judge Mosley hires Landess for girlfriends real estate lawsuit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-...

1993 Judge Mosley rules on cases for Landess' son Justin

http://www.lvrj.com/news/19245844.html

Today, Mosley's rulings are buried in Blackstone so as not to expose Mosley's involvement.
District Case Inquiry - Minutes

Case 03-C-191619-C Just Ct. Case# 03-F -06394 Status CLOSED
Plaintiff State of Nevada Attorney Roger, David J.
Defendant Landess, Justin T Attorney Public Defender
Judge Leavitt, Michelle Dept. 12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event 06/25/2003 at 09:00 AM SENTENCING
Heard By Mosley, Donald M.

FURTHER ORDERED, Sentence to run CONSECUTIVE to any other sentence and deft. released to P&P only.
CLERK'S NOTE: 7/31/03 Sentence to run CONSECUTIVE to C190087.

SEEMS A VOTE FOR LANDESS IS A VOTE FOR MOSLEY YOU DECIDE

May. 25, 2008
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal

DISTRICT JUDGE RACE: Lawyer's judgment at issue

Candidate says bankruptcy, gambling problem in past

Jason Landess should not be the only focus in this article. Look carefully. The U.S. and Nevada require that Judges withdraw from cases where the average person would question their impartiality. Judges should avoid the appearance of impropriety and implied bias, and reveal on the record (in open court) anything that could be relevant to disqualification. That does not mean that Judge Mosley should render decisions on at least two cases involving this litigant on 4/23/03; 4/29/03; 5/7/03; 8/14/03; and THEN RECUSE on 8/20/03. Perhaps Judge Mosley and everyone else involved didn't clearly understand the judicial canons.

MOSLEY AND LANDESS MANIPULATED THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM FOR YEARS. THEY ARE JOINED AT THE HIP AND IF ELECTED, LANDESS WILL SIMPLY CARRY OUT MOSLEY'S DIRECTIVES ONCE MOSLEY RETIRES IN JANUARY

Nightmare continues for victim of priest

<br/>http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2004/sep/09/nightmare-continues-for-victim-of-priest/

A week ago the now 21-year-old victim learned that a Clark County district judge had placed Mark Roberts, the priest who pleaded guilty to molesting him and four others, in a church-run treatment center only 25 miles from his home. He says he's "petrified" that he'll see Roberts again, or that Roberts will escape and hurt someone else"<br/>Under Mosley's order, Roberts is not allowed to serve as a priest and may not leave the facility without supervision for the three years he is to stay in the center. Roberts, under a plea agreement, also was supposed to be defrocked. A Las Vegas Diocese spokeswoman said the process was still ongoing.<br/>SNAP advocates questioned the center's security as well as how Mosley could properly supervise Roberts in Missouri while the judge is in Las Vegas.<br/>Mosley said in his previous interview that he did not believe Roberts' actions, though perverse, warranted jail time. Roberts pleaded guilty to reduced charges of fondling, verbally abusing and beating five boys between Jan. 1, 2001, and Feb. 1, 2002"..<br/>The victim said he had to build up his courage to even report the abuse he said he endured from the time he was 15 to age 19. He was the first of 11 teens to report Roberts' misconduct while Roberts was a priest at St. Peter the Apostle Church in Henderson.<br/>"Judge Mosley has kind of slapped me in the face once again, along with the Catholic Church," said the victim, who is part of a civil suit against Roberts and the Las Vegas Diocese. "It's a never-ending fight with them."

WATCH FACE TO FACE; SUNDAY 11-2-08 11:00 a.m.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/final-t...