Available for viewing are a total of
The State of Nevada vs Kim Blandino, Part 2
Apr 18, 2024, 1 hour, 10 minutes, 18 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Joseph Sciscento, Las Vegas Justice Court, Department 2, presiding over a bench trial. Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Dickerson appearing on behalf of the State. Defense Attorney Joe Gersten appearing on behalf of Mr. Blandino. Case No. 22-CR-041030. The Defense rests. State calls Kenneth Mead on rebuttal. Parties present closing arguments. The Court convicts Mr. Blandino and imposes fines and suspended sentence. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
A.F., a Mother vs J.F., a Father
Apr 18, 2024, 1 minute, 28 seconds
Presiding
For the Mother
The Honorable Mari Parlade, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department A, Family Division, presiding over a hearing on order to show cause. Attorney Lisa Szyc appeared on behalf of the Mother. The Court instructs on submission of proposed order. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
The State of Nevada vs Kim Blandino, Part 1
Apr 18, 2024, 1 hour, 24 minutes, 2 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Joseph Sciscento, Las Vegas Justice Court, Department 2, presiding over a bench trial. Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Dickerson appearing on behalf of the State. Defense Attorney Joe Gersten appearing on behalf of Mr. Blandino. Case No. 22-CR-041030. Mr. Blandino takes the stand. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
The State of Nevada vs Bradley Bellisario
Apr 18, 2024, 2 minutes, 1 second
Presiding
The Honorable Crystal Eller, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 19, presiding over a status check. Deputy District Attorney Colleen Baharav for the State. Deputy Public Defender Marisa Border for Bradley Bellisario. Case No. C-21-354165-1. The Court schedules briefing. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Christopher Wren vs Real Water
Apr 16, 2024, 13 minutes, 10 seconds
Special Master Floyd Hale, Eighth Judicial District Court, presiding over a discovery hearing. Attorneys Will Kemp and Eric Pepperman on behalf of Plaintiffs. Attorney Joel Odou on behalf on Real Water. Attorneys Laureen Frister and Caitlin Zaph on behalf of KeHe Distributors. Attorney Chad Fears on behalf of Scientific Instruments. Case No. A-21-831169-B. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Peter Arambula vs Real Water
Apr 17, 2024, 2 minutes, 26 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Crystal Eller, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 19, presiding over a status check. Attorney Joel Odou for Real Water. Case No. A-21-831557-C. The Court takes no action. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Christopher Wren vs Real Water
Apr 16, 2024, 12 minutes, 55 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Joe Hardy, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 15, presiding over a pretrial conference. Attorneys Will Kemp and Eric Pepperman for Plaintiffs. Attorney Kevin Rising appeared on behalf of Costco. Attorney Colt Dodrill appeared on behalf of Nevada Beverage. Case No. A-21-831169-B. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Debra Adimey vs Station Casinos
Apr 16, 2024, 17 minutes, 18 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Bita Yeager, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 1, presiding over a hearing on motions to dismiss. Appearing for the Plaintiffs is Sarah Grossman. Appearing for the Defendants is Scott Mahoney. Case No. A-22-850394-C. Motions denied in part and granted in part. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
The State of Nevada vs Shawn Ashdown
Apr 16, 2024, 8 minutes, 36 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Stephen Bishop, Ely Justice Court, presiding over an initial appearance. Deputy District Attorney Melissa Brown appeared on behalf of the State of Nevada. The Defendant requested appointment of a public defender. 24-CR-00026-7K. The Court scheduled a preliminary hearing. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
S.A., a Father vs L.B., a Mother
Apr 15, 2024, 3 minutes, 36 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Gary Fairman, Seventh Judicial District Court, Department 2, presiding over a status check. The mother failed to appear. The father represented himself. The Court continues. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Ehline: Cop & Lawyer React
Apr 10, 2024, 1 hour, 40 minutes, 4 seconds
Lawyer Reaction/Cop Reaction - Retired Patriot Cop Breaks Down His View of DeltaHawk Arrest Video - Good Cops hate Bad Cops Series. Welcome back to our 'Good Cops hate Bad Cops' series, where today, we have a unique treat; a video titled "Lawyer Reaction/Cop Reaction - Retired Cop Breaks Down His View of DeleteLawz Arrest Video." In this engaging discussion, we delve deep into a retired cop's perspective on the arresting practices shown in a DeleteLawz video. Check out our Guest: https://www.youtube.com/@UCDwowvFDAGLJoDkFwIfYkFA Check out DeleteLawz: @deletelawz1984 Check out Angry Texan: @angrytexan25 As always, in this series, we aim to foster understanding and promote transparency in law enforcement, utilizing the good old banter between retired cops and lawyers. Your interactions, your likes 👍, comments 💬, and shares 🔄, help keep this important dialogue alive. So don't forget to engage with us! "Only through open discussions can we strive for a better system." Stick around till the end, as we have some thought-provoking points to cover: The legality of arrest procedures featured in DeleteLawz videos 📹. The retired cop's take on it 👮♂️. The role and impact of such videos on society's perception of law enforcement 👥. Remember, you play an integral part in this conversation. We look forward to hearing your thoughts and insights. Enjoy the video 🎥, spread the word 📣, and let's work towards well-informed advocacy together. Tags: #LawyerReaction #CopReaction #GoodCopBadCop #DeleteLawz #ArrestVideo #RetiredCop #LawEnforcement #chilledecastro #judgezimmerman #personalinjuryattorney #accidentlawyer #heresthedeal #bzwatchdog #civilrights #2aaudits #firstamendmentaudits #federallaw #cops #lasvegaspolice #police #falsearrest #21footrule #ehline #audits #auditor #lawyerobservtion #torturecuffs #filmingpolice
Pat: Will It Reverse?
14 minutes, 44 seconds
The recent decision of Willson v. 1st Judicial District (2024), created a substantial revision to the “Obstruction” charge that Jose “Chille” DeCastro was convicted of. This law was passed in 1911, and has no legislative history or appellate history. I criticized heavily this statute as overbroad and unconstitutional. The Appellate Court tried to rework the statute because it is that bad, and made it a “specific intent” crime (e.g., you had the intent to do it), and it only applies to “physical conduct” and “fighting words.” However, the Appellate Court stated that conduct that impedes, even if not physical, can still be deemed “obstruction.” We will review the bodycam, and Chille’s video and trial testimony, to see if there is enough evidence to conclude that Chille still violated the statute, as amended. The Appellate Court admits that the statute needed major revisions to prevent it from being unconstitutional. While it states that protected speech is not subject to this statute, it still leaves areas in dispute. I went through the evidence, and there looks to be sufficient grounds to uphold the conviction. The District Court will likely uphold the conviction, and it’s possible the Appellate Court for the Eighth District will revisit it and see if it can be clarified or changed further, and even so, at this stage, absent some good case authority, I see the conviction still standing. Appellate Courts look for errors in the case. They don't weigh witness credibility. They look for mistakes that affected the trial, such as overruling an objection in error, or admitting incompetent evidence, etc. In the video that Chille took, he made several statements that could be interpreted as specific intent. I will go over those statements. The cop told Chille to come over to his car, and Chille twice say "No." That would be specific intent. Specific intent can be inferred or based upon Chille saying that the cop gave him "unlawful commands." Saying the commands were "unlawful" could make it look like he really intended to disobey them, which is willful. This bodycam coverage wasn't what was admitted at trial. It gave a better audio of what Chille was saying. The new changes in the law allow for insults and irritating the cop. The statute prohibits "fighting words" - those that never get constitutional protection and which tend to incite. However, in the right context, even protected speech can be obstructionist. The Appellate Court admitted that "physical conduct" could include passive aggressive acts, such as impeding an officer by "going limp." The Appellate Court admits that it cannot draft a statute that fits all situations. They are on a short briefing schedule, which actually hurts Chille, as he has fewer pages to make his case, less time, and the same level of research. My prediction is that the District Court will uphold the conviction for obstruction. From there, Chille would need to file a writ and seek further appellate review. From my vantage point, and unless there is better authority out there that favors him, the conviction looks very difficult to overturn. Shout out to Caphalea for putting together this great combination of videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtA7-eFsGW8&t=373s
©2026 Our Nevada Judges, Inc.
Terms & ConditionsVersion: 5.0.1Privacy Policy
An NRS Chapter 82 non-profit corporation. Recognized by the IRS as a Section 501(c)(3) organization.
