Trending...
- Turnstone Creative Welcomes Giovanni Amodei as Manager of Strategic Growth
- American Garden Rose Selections™ Announces 2027 Winners
- Crossroads4Hope Launches Blood Cancer Resource Hub
Will Nevada's Highest Court Confront Corruption—Or Allow It to Continue?
LAS VEGAS - PennZone -- 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 The PennZone
"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 The PennZone
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 The PennZone
- Holiday Gambling Spending Expected to Rise 12% in December
- RAS AP Consulting Issues National Compliance Alert and Launches Q4 2026 AP Readiness Program Ahead of IRS FIRE → IRIS Cutover
- Free Senior Housing Webinar Helps Families Plan for Aging Before a Crisis Forces Difficult Decisions
- Claude Zdanow named Managing Director in Miami, Florida
- YWCA Hanover Celebrates Opening of New Children's Learning Academy
"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 The PennZone
- Pregis Launches Sharp InfinX: On-Demand Rightsized Mailing System Delivering a Precision-Sized Mailer for Every Order
- netElastic Announces vBNG And CGNAT 2.0 General Availability
- Postmortem Pathology Highlights Private Autopsy Options for Las Vegas Families During Summer Months
- Postmortem Pathology Offers Sacramento Families Independent Answers on a Short Timeline
- Philly ECM Programming Announces Mobile Module Programming for Philadelphia Repair Shops
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 The PennZone
- Dutch Mill Bulbs Launches Pink Ribbon Tulip Fundraise ~ National Breast Cancer Foundation, Inc.®
- SecureMaine 2026 is Here -- Thursday October 8th!
- Bluestone Laundromat Makes a Difference in the Archbald Community
- HW Foundation Opens Nominations for Inaugural 50 Under 50 in AI; Deadline Oct. 16
- Pavillon 30 Years of Addiction Recovery in Western North Carolina, Earns National Accreditation
- ResC4EU Final Event at KOMPOZYT-EXPO 2026 – Building Resilient European Supply Chains
- BJJ App mmaGPT Expands Academy Program to Support Jiu-Jitsu Instructors with AI Technique Coaching
- Ten Ten Ten Announces Maximizing Clinical Operations
- Turnstone Creative Welcomes Giovanni Amodei as Manager of Strategic Growth
- CardsNearby Launches Free Nationwide Directory of Card Shows and Local Card Shops for Collectors
- American Garden Rose Selections™ Announces 2027 Winners
- Crossroads4Hope Launches Blood Cancer Resource Hub
- Wilson Venture Capital to Launch News Organization; Will Name Trevor Wilson CEO
- NIL Club Data Shows Brands Are Looking Beyond Follower Counts in College Sports
- Georgia's Magical Nights of Lights Bigger and Brighter for 2026
- Bicentennial Occult Outing Alternative History Video Series Launches for Spooky Season
- Harvard Educated Board Certified Endodontist Joins Pearlfection Dentistry
- NYC Banners Delivers High-Stakes UN General Assembly Backdrop for the US Department of State Event
- OneVizion Appoints Energy Infrastructure Executive Walt Farrell to Board of Directors
- Tampa Bay Reporter Launches with a Mission to Deliver Local News with National Reach
