Court Opinion

ID: 9573211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:49:54.817441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:07.054735
License: Public Domain

Rose, J.,
concurring:
I concur to address the statements made by Justice Springer in his concurrence and dissent.
I merely informed law enforcement authorities that a Clark Santini had filed an affidavit indicating that Kenneth McKenna had actual knowledge of my bar ownership prior to our decision in the Viani case, contrary to McKenna’s claim under oath. It appeared that a crime may have been committed by an attorney and I reported it to the appropriate law enforcement authorities as any citizen should and a judge is obligated to pursuant to the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, Section 3D(2).
Justice Springer also objects to my participating in this case; but it seems very hypocritical for Justice Springer to object to my participation in this motion to disqualify when this is precisely what Justices Steffen and Springer did when the Attorney General filed a motion against them claiming a disqualifying personal and financial interest in the Whitehead case. Whitehead v. Comm’n on Jud. Discipline, 110 Nev. 380, 422-29, 873 P.2d 946, 972-77 (1994).