Opinion ID: 1205480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: court's syllabus

Text: 1. Statement of the Case. The subject matter of this opinion is the continued effort by two justices of the supreme court, Justices Young and Rose, who are disqualified to act in this case, to thwart the judgments of this court by clearly improper and unlawful means. The court in this case, a duly empaneled court made up of three supreme court justices and two jurists designated to take the place of the disqualified justices, Young and Rose, has entered lawful and unimpeachable judgments which relate (a) to preservation of Judge Whitehead's due process rights and (b) to the duty of the court not to condone violations of its orders and other contempts of court. This opinion is occasioned by a second unlawful attempt by the disqualified justices, Young and Rose, to reenter this case and to issue bogus, collateral orders that purport to contradict or overrule the judgments of the supreme court entered in this case. Once before, the disqualified justices attempted to intrude themselves into this case and to overrule the court's judgments by signing an ex parte administrative order, purporting to overrule the judgments of the court. The court declared this administrative order to be void (111 Nev. 1459, 908 P.2d 219). Now, they try again to interfereÔÇöthis time by an ex parte writ of prohibition issued by the disqualified justices without notice to the parties in this case. Justices Young and Rose have now issued an order declaring that certain of the court's judgments in this case are invalid and unenforceable and that the duly-empaneled members of the court must cease and desist from any further action. As with the void administrative order, it is now necessary for the court to declare void this latest intrusion into the case by disqualified justices. This is the purpose of this opinion. 2. The Rule of Necessity. Although the latest attempt by Justices Young and Rose to reenter this case is void on its face, the court considers it necessary and prudent to make formal declaration of this circumstance, as it did with respect to the ex parte administrative order. NRS 2.140 provides that [t]hree justices shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Justices Young and Rose have rendered it impossible for the court to have a quorum of three in this case by frustrating the constitutional process for replacing retiring or incapacitated justices. There are two vacancies on the court in this case. District Judge Guy has retired. Senior Justice Zenoff declines to serve on the panel and has asked to be replaced. The chief justice, in accordance with long-established practice, has requested the governor to appoint replacements for the two absent justices, but the governor refuses to commission the requested replacements (Judge John P. Davis and Senior Judge Joseph O. McDaniel, who have agreed to sit on this panel). The governor bases his refusal to perform his constitutional duty to fill vacancies on this court on a rule recently adopted by Justices Young and Rose and the dissenting justice. The new rule prohibits the chief justice from filling vacancies absent the concurrence of a majority of the elected justices. The present status of this case is that under the rule as written, it is impossible for the vacancies on the court in this case to be filled. The only two elected justices who seek the replacement of absent justices in this case are Chief Justice Steffen and Justice Springer. Not only do the remaining three elected justices refuse to request the governor to make the replacements, the two disqualified justices (Young and Rose) are not competent to participate in the replacement process. [1] Two vacancies remain indefinitely unfilled, and the court is therefore unable to function as a court in the manner contemplated by the laws of this state. The resulting impasse has, as fully supported by authorities cited in this opinion, rendered it necessary for two justices, Justices Steffen and Springer, to issue this opinion so that the void writ of prohibition [2] now on file will not stand as the apparent law of this state. 3. Present Status of Case. This is the sixth formal opinion issued in this case. Past rulings of the court that are of most significance to the present opinion are: a) A judge accused of judicial misconduct is entitled, under the Nevada Constitution and rules of the Discipline Commission (ARJD), to confidentiality at all times prior to a finding of probable cause. This includes proceedings for judicial review provided for by ARJD, Rule 40(7). b) The disciplinary prosecution of Judge Whitehead was conducted in violation of Judge Whitehead's due process rights and in violation of the Nevada Constitution and Commission rules. The court did not order the Discipline Commission to stop proceedings against Judge Whitehead but, rather, to proceed against him only in accordance with the Constitution and Commission rules. c) There were serious, repetitive contempts of the supreme courtÔÇösome in the form of violations of court orders relating to Judge Whitehead's procedural rights and right to confidentiality, some in the form of direct refusals to obey the orders of the supreme court and some in the form of false defamatory public statements made against the court. The court decided that it was bound to hold those responsible for these contempts accountable for their actions. The court ruled that it was necessary to appoint a special master to uncover facts relating to repeated contempts of court and to make recommendations to the court relative to the contemptuous conduct. The court appointed a special master for this purpose. 4. Conclusion. The void, ex parte orders of Justices Young and Rose (both the administrative order and the prohibition order) purport to overrule vital judgments of this court. The disqualified justices have not challenged the court's judgments holding that Judge Whitehead's due process rights have been violated and that the Commission must proceed against Judge Whitehead in a proper manner. The disqualified justices have, however, ruled that this court's official, published judgments relating to a judge's right to confidentiality are void. The disqualified justices have now re-issued orders purporting to thwart the court's investigation into the contempts of court. Whether Judge Whitehead has been denied due process, whether judges are entitled to confidentiality until there has been a finding of probable cause and whether serious contempts of this court should be followed up or ignored are, of course, issues which have already been decided by this court and are the law of the case. Such are not, obviously, matters which are subject to interference by the disqualified justices, Young and Rose. The issue presented is whether Justices Young and Rose, who were disqualified from acting in this case, have the power, directly or indirectly, to overrule the judgments of the court in this case. They do not have such power; accordingly, all actions of Justices Young and Rose that affect in any way the judgments of the court in this case are declared to be void, and specifically, the opinion and writ issued under Case No. 27847 are declared void and of no legal force or effect.