"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...

Ms. Gentry clearly sought to expose the truth without fear of political repercussions,while other members of the press have long ignored the egregious abuse of our judicial system. While placing great importance on integrity, Ms. Gentry reports about issues important to everyone. Great Job, keep it up.

fellow voters wrote on October 31, 2008 09:04 AM: These judicial races are one of the most important contests in the state. These lawyers will do anything to become judges. Our judiciary is an incestuous hellhole of staged lawsuits and backroom deals. We have a Supreme Court Judge that signed a backroom contract with a certain law firm that the public knows nothing about. Your fair day in court? Forget it! This is only one of the scams running through our court.

You think it will not affect you? Think again. Get hit by a drunk driver that is well connected see how fast the story gets turned around against YOU.

Own a piece of property that they want, see how fast you end up in staged litigation to take it away from you.

Your doctor severely harm you? Bet you did not check to see who he invested with before you engaged his services.
You do not have a prayers chance in rigged litigation.

You say there are laws on the books to protect you. You will go broke trying to get your side heard. You will report it? To who? The bar? The AG? Metro? The JDC? And yes, the media will ignore you if the right people are involved. All the same little group. Just ask the people at the brunt of the HOA fiasco.

These judicial races are very important and worth the voters time to see who the candidate is hooked up with. When you elect these judges you are electing certain law firms, friends, cronies and yes other politicians.

Better to find out now instead of the hard way.

Thursday, March 23, 2000 Las Vegas Review Journal; "MOSLEY ACCUSED OF ETHICS LAPSES". By Peter O'Connell.

The Judicial Discipline Commission contends a district judge breached a code of conduct 11 times. The state Judicial Discipline Commission on Wednesday accused District Judge Donald Mosley of violating judicial ethics on 11 occasions. The allegations are contained in a formal statement of charges filed by Reno attorney Mary Boetsch, a special prosecutor for the commission. The Judicial Discipline Commission contends Mosley twice violated the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct when he used official court stationery to write two letters instructing school principals not to permit Terry Mosley, the mother of Mosley's son, to visit the child at school. The commission says Mosley violated the code on seven occasions in the case of Joe McLaughlin, who faced charges of burglary and robbery in Mosley's court and testified on the judge's behalf at a child custody hearing. The judge recused himself from McLaughlin's criminal case just before McLaughlin took the stand in the custody hearing. Local and federal authorities investigated McLaughlin's claim that Mosley reneged on a deal to levy a light sentence. No charges were ever filed, and Mosley said the allegation was "damned nonsense." The commission also says Mosley violated the Code of Judicial Conduct on two occasions involving the case of Robert D'Amore, who was arrested in June when he failed to pay restitution after pleading guilty to attempted theft. Though the case was before another judge, Mosley ordered the felon released on his own recognizance at the request of Barbara Orcutt, a friend of the judge and the employer. Discipline imposed $5000 and an ethics class.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/sets/2...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/2008/o...


http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/2008/o...

insidetheRJC wrote on October 25, 2008 01:12 PM:
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

Not Fooled wrote on October 25, 2008 11:55 AM: 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

In re Mosley, 120 Nev. Adv. Rep. 94 (2004)

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE- EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, MISUSE OF
JUDICIAL LETTERHEAD, AND FAILURE TO RECUSE IN A TIMELY MANNER

Summary
This case is an appeal of the evidentiary findings of the Nevada Commission on Judicial
Discipline (Commission) on eleven different counts of an official complaint filed by a special
prosecutor against the Honorable Donald M. Mosley (Judge Mosley). The complaint listed
eleven inappropriate actions Judge Mosley allegedly committed from August of 1997 through
August 1999. The counts alleged that Judge Mosley:
Count I- Wrote a personal letter on official judicial letterhead to the
principal of his son s school in August 1999;
Count II- Wrote a personal letter on official judicial letterhead to the
principal of his son s school in February 1998;
Count III- Engaged in an ex parte conversation with friend Barbara Orcutt,
regarding the arrest and release of Robert D Amore in August 1999;
Count IV- Ordered the release of Robert D Amore on his own
recognizance, without notifying the district attorney s office, after the
police arrested D Amore on a bench warrant issued by a different district
court judge in August 1999;
Count V- Engaged in an ex parte telephone conversation with Catherine
Woolf, an attorney representing Joseph McLaughlin in a criminal case that
was assigned to Judge Mosley s chambers;
Count VI- Engaged in an ex parte conversation in his chambers with
attorney Woolf in August 1997;
Count VII- Engaged in an ex parte conversation with Woolf, McLaughlin
and McLaughlin s wife in August 1997;
Count VIII- Failed to recuse himself from McLaughlin s criminal case
until after Mrs. McLaughlin had testified in Judge Mosley s custody case;
Count IX- Communicated with McLaughlin s wife regarding
McLaughlin s incarceration;
Count X- Assisted McLaughlin s wife in obtaining the return of her
vehicle;
Count XI- Continued to communicate with McLaughlin and his wife after
recusing himself in McLaughlin s criminal case, the continued
communication creating an appearance that Judge Mosley was rewarding
the McLaughlins for assisting him in his custody dispute.

After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the Commission concluded that Judge Mosley
committed the violations admitted in Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, and VIII, and dismissed
Counts V, IX, X, and XI. Judge Mosley was ordered to attend the first general ethics course at

Message created & sent from Corel WordPerfect Lightning - try it today for free at www.wordperfect.com/lightning !



http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/sets/2...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/2008/o...


http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/sets/2...

In re Mosley, 120 Nev. Adv. Rep. 94 (2004)

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE- EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, MISUSE OF
JUDICIAL LETTERHEAD, AND FAILURE TO RECUSE IN A TIMELY MANNER

Summary
This case is an appeal of the evidentiary findings of the Nevada Commission on Judicial
Discipline (Commission) on eleven different counts of an official complaint filed by a special
prosecutor against the Honorable Donald M. Mosley (Judge Mosley). The complaint listed
eleven inappropriate actions Judge Mosley allegedly committed from August of 1997 through
August 1999. The counts alleged that Judge Mosley:
Count I- Wrote a personal letter on official judicial letterhead to the
principal of his son s school in August 1999;
Count II- Wrote a personal letter on official judicial letterhead to the
principal of his son s school in February 1998;
Count III- Engaged in an ex parte conversation with friend Barbara Orcutt,
regarding the arrest and release of Robert D Amore in August 1999;
Count IV- Ordered the release of Robert D Amore on his own
recognizance, without notifying the district attorney s office, after the
police arrested D Amore on a bench warrant issued by a different district
court judge in August 1999;
Count V- Engaged in an ex parte telephone conversation with Catherine
Woolf, an attorney representing Joseph McLaughlin in a criminal case that
was assigned to Judge Mosley s chambers;
Count VI- Engaged in an ex parte conversation in his chambers with
attorney Woolf in August 1997;
Count VII- Engaged in an ex parte conversation with Woolf, McLaughlin
and McLaughlin s wife in August 1997;
Count VIII- Failed to recuse himself from McLaughlin s criminal case
until after Mrs. McLaughlin had testified in Judge Mosley s custody case;
Count IX- Communicated with McLaughlin s wife regarding
McLaughlin s incarceration;
Count X- Assisted McLaughlin s wife in obtaining the return of her
vehicle;
Count XI- Continued to communicate with McLaughlin and his wife after
recusing himself in McLaughlin s criminal case, the continued
communication creating an appearance that Judge Mosley was rewarding
the McLaughlins for assisting him in his custody dispute.

After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the Commission concluded that Judge Mosley
committed the violations admitted in Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, and VIII, and dismissed
Counts V, IX, X, and XI. Judge Mosley was ordered to attend the first general ethics course at

Message created & sent from Corel WordPerfect Lightning - try it today for free at www.wordperfect.com/lightning !



http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/sets/2...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/2008/o...


http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/sets/2...