Trending...
- ServiceAgent.ai Brings 24/7 AI Call Answering to America's Home Services
- New Children's books celebrate Moon Trees
- PebblePad Welcomes Justin Reilly as New CEO to Drive Innovation and Growth
Will Nevada's Highest Court Confront Corruption—Or Allow It to Continue?
LAS VEGAS - Marylandian -- Source: The Verity Project
Karina Singer, a pro se appellant and daughter of the late Steven J. Singer, is awaiting a critical ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court after filing extensive, unrebutted evidence of fiduciary misconduct, elder financial abuse, and judicial irregularities in her father's trust and estate case.
The appeal—Case No. 89171—was originally retained by the Supreme Court for over eight months before being suddenly transferred to the Nevada Court of Appeals just days after Singer formally requested summary disposition, citing NRAP 31(d), and presenting direct evidence of court record tampering, elder exploitation, and constitutional due process violations.
Despite following every procedural rule available to self-represented litigants—including the Court's own Informal Brief Form, which lacks a section for a routing statement—the transfer was carried out without addressing any of the pending dispositive motions or the substantial evidence submitted into the record, some of which includes:
Singer has since filed an Emergency Motion to Recall Transfer and Retain Jurisdiction, along with a Supplement and Renewed Request for Summary Disposition or Evidentiary Hearing, refuting every baseless argument in the Respondents' opposition. All motions are currently before a panel of three Supreme Court Justices, Patricia Lee, Linda Bell, and Douglas Herndon.
More on Marylandian
"The law is not in question. The facts are not in dispute," said Singer. "If the Nevada Supreme Court fails to apply the law and address the uncontested evidence already in the record, it exposes both the Court and the State of Nevada to federal intervention, civil rights litigation, and a potential RICO action for coordinated misconduct involving trustees, attorneys, and judicial officers. This is no longer just about my father; it's about a systemic breakdown that cannot be ignored."
The Court has everything it needs to act. The real question is: Will the Nevada Supreme Court stand for truth and justice under controlling law and binding precedent; or sacrifice its legitimacy, trigger federal scrutiny, and lose the trust of the people it was created to protect?
Singer's filings argue that the transfer violated the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure and, if not reversed, would leave constitutional violations unaddressed and incentivize further abuse within Nevada's probate and guardianship courts. She asserts that the Supreme Court has a mandatory, non-waivable obligation under NRAP 17(a)(9)–(11) to retain jurisdiction over appeals involving judicial misconduct, systemic due process failures, issues of first impression, and matters of statewide public concern. Singer requests that the Court recall the transfer, retain jurisdiction, and summarily rule in her favor under NRAP 31(d), citing the complete absence of an answering brief and any disputed facts in the record. She further urges the Court to grant en banc review, hold responsible parties accountable, and issue a published decision that restores public trust by acknowledging and correcting the serious legal errors committed in the lower court.
More on Marylandian
As Nevada watches, the decision in The Matter of Steven J. Singer Trust & Estate - Singer v. Boekankamp could set a precedent for how the state's highest court handles self-represented litigants, judicial accountability, and the integrity of trust and estate proceedings.
Karina Singer, a pro se appellant and daughter of the late Steven J. Singer, is awaiting a critical ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court after filing extensive, unrebutted evidence of fiduciary misconduct, elder financial abuse, and judicial irregularities in her father's trust and estate case.
The appeal—Case No. 89171—was originally retained by the Supreme Court for over eight months before being suddenly transferred to the Nevada Court of Appeals just days after Singer formally requested summary disposition, citing NRAP 31(d), and presenting direct evidence of court record tampering, elder exploitation, and constitutional due process violations.
Despite following every procedural rule available to self-represented litigants—including the Court's own Informal Brief Form, which lacks a section for a routing statement—the transfer was carried out without addressing any of the pending dispositive motions or the substantial evidence submitted into the record, some of which includes:
- Forged financial account documents and unopposed motions for trustee removal, accounting, criminal fraud, and elder abuse.
- Allegations of perjury and false police reports by opposing parties,
- Tampering with electronic court service systems and docket manipulation,
- Improper distribution of over $1 million in trust assets in direct violation of the trust's provisions.
Singer has since filed an Emergency Motion to Recall Transfer and Retain Jurisdiction, along with a Supplement and Renewed Request for Summary Disposition or Evidentiary Hearing, refuting every baseless argument in the Respondents' opposition. All motions are currently before a panel of three Supreme Court Justices, Patricia Lee, Linda Bell, and Douglas Herndon.
More on Marylandian
- Herman Law Leads Fight to Stop HB1378 as Survivors Speak Out Before Justice Is Denied
- Webinar Announcement: Mexico's Evolving AML/CFT Environment: FATF Review and FTO Designations
- Damian Redd's "Caught in a Fantasy" Surpasses 100,000 Views on VEVO/YouTube Following Album Reissue
- "May the Fourth Be With You" Epic Star Wars Day Run/Walk in Alexandria, Va
- Museum Hack Presents Hacked Gala: A Rebellious Night of Art, Fashion, and Change at the Met
"The law is not in question. The facts are not in dispute," said Singer. "If the Nevada Supreme Court fails to apply the law and address the uncontested evidence already in the record, it exposes both the Court and the State of Nevada to federal intervention, civil rights litigation, and a potential RICO action for coordinated misconduct involving trustees, attorneys, and judicial officers. This is no longer just about my father; it's about a systemic breakdown that cannot be ignored."
The Court has everything it needs to act. The real question is: Will the Nevada Supreme Court stand for truth and justice under controlling law and binding precedent; or sacrifice its legitimacy, trigger federal scrutiny, and lose the trust of the people it was created to protect?
Singer's filings argue that the transfer violated the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure and, if not reversed, would leave constitutional violations unaddressed and incentivize further abuse within Nevada's probate and guardianship courts. She asserts that the Supreme Court has a mandatory, non-waivable obligation under NRAP 17(a)(9)–(11) to retain jurisdiction over appeals involving judicial misconduct, systemic due process failures, issues of first impression, and matters of statewide public concern. Singer requests that the Court recall the transfer, retain jurisdiction, and summarily rule in her favor under NRAP 31(d), citing the complete absence of an answering brief and any disputed facts in the record. She further urges the Court to grant en banc review, hold responsible parties accountable, and issue a published decision that restores public trust by acknowledging and correcting the serious legal errors committed in the lower court.
More on Marylandian
- Artist Séfora Camazano Honored with Prestigious Prize "The New Great Masters in New York"
- MoMojo Records announces posthumous album from Kip London
- Guests Can Save 20 Percent on a Florida Keys Vacation Home Rental with KeysCaribbean's 'Last-Minute Booking Discount'
- All-Woman Trial Team Wins Major Verdict in Major Case
- Iohexol Injection of Beilu Pharmaceutical Receives MA in the EU
As Nevada watches, the decision in The Matter of Steven J. Singer Trust & Estate - Singer v. Boekankamp could set a precedent for how the state's highest court handles self-represented litigants, judicial accountability, and the integrity of trust and estate proceedings.
Source: The Verity Project
0 Comments
Latest on Marylandian
- American Mensa Welcomes 7-Year-Old Savannah Boy
- Portland Hosts Mensa's 2025 Mind Games®
- T&S and US Conec Ink Global Licensing Deal on MDC Technology to Advance High-Density Optical Interconnects
- Goosechase Rolls Out Unlockable Missions, Its Most Anticipated Feature Yet
- Couples Too Broke to Break Up – Divorce Expert Warns of Hidden Separation Crisis Amid Cost of Living Squeeze
- Entertainment Industry Professionals Speak at the 26th Baltimore 'ULMII' Conference
- Coming Up on "Financial Freedom with Tom Hegna" Retirement Authority Daniel Rondberg from Nation's First Financial
- The Ten News Wins 2025 Ambie Award for Best News Podcast
- ServiceAgent.ai Brings 24/7 AI Call Answering to America's Home Services
- Jed the Fish, The Rapscallion of Los Angeles KROQ's Airwaves and Provocateur, Has Signed Off at 69
- Spirit of '75 Tour Rocks the Weinberg Center This June Feat. Zebra, Angel & Starz
- New Website Uses A.I. To Help Readers Think All Of Your Books Into Existence
- The Centers for Advanced Orthopaedics Opens New Summit Orthopedics Location in Bethesda
- Aries Industries Earns USA Today Top Workplaces Award, Honoring Company as Great Place to Work
- Intellor Unveils Bspoke Legal Suite: Tailored Communication Solutions for Law Firms
- The most Googled celebrity divorces in the UK
- HR Tech Awards Program Celebrates 6th Year: Showcases Top Hiring, Talent, and HR Technologies
- Strike School Unveils Bold New Rebrand with Innovative Educational Solutions for the 2025-2026 School Year
- The World's No.1 Superstar Champions the NO FAKES Act – Secures Global Identity and Cultural Legacy
- Robinson earns fourth straight supplier award from Rolls-Royce