Frank & Stebbins Cases: Continued Again

 

On January 5, 2012, I reported that the criminal cases of Sun City Anthem residents Bob Frank and Tim Stebbins had once again been continued, this time to today, February 9.

Stebbins and Frank have been charged with filing a false police report alleging that former SCA directors Roz Berman and Roger Cooper committed fraud in the performance of their official duties. Berman and Cooper were exonerated after an exhaustive police investigation, after which Stebbins and Frank were arrested and charged.

The reason for this continuance was a request by Stebbins’s attorney, William Terry, that the judge, Nancy Oesterle, be removed from the case. Terry said he believed the judge has a conflict because her name is on a witness list in a criminal case in which Terry is representing a defendant.

Today’s rescheduled hearing was not held. Instead, Eighth District Court Judge Jennifer Togliatti heard the Stebbins petition, filed by Attorney Terry, on Monday, February 6.

As a result of that hearing, Judge Togliatti issued the following order (capitalized words are as they appear in the court order):

This Court hereby FINDS that there is no Henderson Municipal Court Judge available to rule upon this Petition and Motion and further that all Municipal Judges in the City of Henderson have a conflict and have recused from hearing this matter. This Court further NOTES that the parties herein have stipulated to this Court's administrative authority, as Chief District Judge in Clark County, to assign a Judge to hear the Petition and Motion herein, under NRS 1.235. Therefore, this Court ORDERS this matter assigned to District Court Department VI, Judge Elissa Cadish, for Judge Cadish to rule upon. It is for Judge Cadish to determine what, if any, additional briefing, or hearing on the matter she will entertain pursuant to her discretion under the EDCR's.

My reading of the court documents suggests that Judge Cadish will make a decision on the petition on February 14, and the next status check on the case in Henderson Court has been scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 1.

Reporter’s Note: The hearing referenced above relates only to a determination of whether the current judge in the case will be recused, and does not address the merits of the case itself.

Comments

[PersonaBuena]

Talk about kicking the can down the road. That's all people seem to know how to do these days. No one ever wants to deal with a situation anymore and get swift justice and closure. Perhaps we wait till all parties are so old they die of natural causes. It's ridiculous.

[RoseAnn Hill]

I disagree that this is ridiculous. Yes, it is being postponed, and it seems to go on an on. That is ridiculous, but it is ridiculous for good legal reasons.

I you were in the shoes of the defendants you too would believe our justice system offers unbiased review. These Municipal judges do not see themselves as unbiased based upon some connection to the various parties, or incidents, etc. These judges are being honest and offering the defendants justice. They are also ensuring a fair evaluation of the case, that will not go on to appeal, etc., costing us (you, me and every property tax paying citizen of Henderson) more money.

I won't go into why the case is of interest, or not. Or, why it even exists. That is history. We are all living with whatever mistakes by whatever individuals (our residents, the police, etc.) who were involved in this situation that have caused it to come to this state. That is where the real issue is, not the continued postponements.

Each time there is a postponement, it is costing you your tax dollars and those involved (on both sides) to spend money which should be spent on some more worthy efforts.

At least that's what I think.

[David Berman]

I hope you have noticed, RoseAnn, that I have stuck to just reporting the news and have not commented on how I think the cases will turn out.

Elsewhere, in the community, false information is reported on a regular basis. For one thing, elements of the community, most prominent on another forum where you have been posting, have suggested that a former director who was a judge pro tem had a hand in the arrests and charges against Frank and Stebbins. This is patently false, and they have produced no evidence other than their wild speculation. When Ann Small learned of the arrests, she was just as surprised as anyone.

Another falsehood is being spread by some who claim the police were provided with false or misleading information during the course of their investigation of Roz and Roger, when in fact the investigating sergeant told me he was given anything and everything he asked for, consisting of a mountain of documents. The accused did not drive the investigation, the police did.

There has also been interference in the case by a resident who, by virtue of the fact that he was once a police officer in California, claimed to know the facts of the case. The police regard him as a nuisance, and his interference has had no effect on the case whatsoever.

I have no knowledge or expectation as to how the case will turn out, and I don't really care. It is what it is, and I report each development because many are interested in the fact that these are the first two residents charged with a crime relating to accusations against SCA directors. If the two are found innocent, even that would not surprise me in view of the fact that they had to have spent countless amounts to retain the services of two of Nevada's elite criminal defense attorneys.

Whatever the outcome, it will have no bearing on the previous exoneration of Roz and Roger, who were charged by Stebbins and Frank with committing forgery/fraud in the course of their official duties, which required them to acknowledge in writing, as Board officers, actions taken by the entire Board except for Bob Frank.

Roz and Roger were found not to have committed the acts alleged by Frank and Stebbins, and a positive outcome for Frank and Stebbins in this case would ONLY relate to the question of whether they did or did not file a false report.