BRYCE DUCKWORTH FAMILY COURT JUDGE STORMS OFF THE BENCH

CLICK HERE FOR: Veterans In Politics requesting the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline to launch an investigation into Family Court Judge Bryce Duckworth

http://files.constantcontact.com/f4fde64c401/2196d403-ac90-4d7b-bb7c-14b947930db6.pdf

Dear Commission:

We are writing to ask that you investigate Judge Bryce Duckworth in connection with a hearing we had before him on August 30, 2017, in the Ansell v. Ansell divorce case, Eighth Judicial District Court case no. D-15-521960-D. A copy of the video of the hearing is attached as Exhibit 1.

We believe that Judge Duckworth violated at least the following Rules of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (the “Code”): Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Preamble requiring a judge to maintain the dignity of the office and avoid the impropriety; Rule 1.1 requiring the judge to comply with the law, including the Code; Rule 1.2 for failure to promote confidence in the judiciary; Rule 1.3 for using the prestige of his judicial office and the judicial process of other parties to advance his personal and economic interests; Rule 2.1 requiring the judge to give precedence to the duties of the judicial office; Rule 2.2 requiring impartiality, open-mindedness and fairness; Rule 2.5 for failing to give due regard for a party to be heard; Rule 2.9 requiring the judge not to collude with one of the parties; Rule 2.10 requiring the judge not to make statements on pending and impending cases; and Rule 2.12 for failing to control staff from colluding with a party.

As you are aware, Veterans In Politics International, Inc. (“VIPI”) is a government watchdog organization and media outlet. VIPI and I were recently dragged into the Ansell divorce case by the family court lawyer, Marshal Willick, who is personally suing me and VIPI for defamation in connection with articles we published about him and his fiancees (Jennifer Abrams, also a family court lawyer) improper professional tactics. Mr. Willick is representing the wife in the Ansell divorce case.

Until the August 30, 2017 hearing, the judge in the divorce case was Bryce Duckworth, one of the family court judges against whom we recently complained in an open letter to the Presiding Judge of District Court, each of the Supreme Court justices, and to the public corruption directors of law enforcement as part of VIPI’s “war” on Family Court corruption. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 2.

In the Ansell divorce case, VIPI and I had filed motions to quash the subpoenas that were served on us by Willick. Instead of having the motions referred to a Discovery Commissioner as provided by Eighth Judicial District Court Rule 2.34, Judge Duckworth decided to hear the motions himself. As discussed below, he improperly ordered me into court under false pretenses, turned the hearing into an evidentiary hearing with no notice, questioned me on issues that he admitted he had a conflict on with, stifled my counsel's objections, and launched into an unsupported implausible rant accusing VIPI of corruption and generally attacked our organization and investigations. At the end of the hearing, he recused himself for conflicts of interest, claiming that it was because he may be called as a witness if there is a corruption investigation against us when in actuality, he was recusing himself because he had a conflict of interest between one of his staff members and the husband in the divorce case.

It was clear to us that the whole hearing was a set-up for him to launch into a self-serving tirade to discredit us and our investigation of him and to try to paint himself as a hyper ethical judge to deflect from his own improper behavior. The coup de gras is that the judge or someone in his office then leaked the video of the hearing to Willick hours or a day before the Court Clerk could make it available to the public and before the Court Clerk could officially unseal the case. (The case was unsealed pursuant to VIPI’s request at the hearing.) It is clear to us that the video was leaked to Willick with the specific intent that it be distributed online to discredit our organization and our complaints against Judge Duckworth and other family court judges and practices.

We also believe that this event makes it probable that the judge and Willick have either directly or indirectly had ex parte communications regarding this case and/or this hearing.