Trending...
- Philadelphia's Own Reverend Jamie Knight Returns with "Award-Winning Love
- Sara Abbas Receives "Eniochos" Charioteer Award at 2026 Who is Who International Awards
- Only One Flight Stands Between Los Angeles Youth Leaders and a Life-Saving Mission in South Africa
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
- Grace Montessori School Receives $30,000 from Payne Foundation and $12,000 from Trexler Trust to Sup
- Qscription Technologies Appoints Radiology Industry Veteran Elliot Silverman to Advisory Board
- Search Is Broken. Curated Discovery Is the Future
- 20 Ways to Save Money Running a Van
- How Fortress Law Group Turned a DUI Arrest in Ohio Into a Full Acquittal at Trial
"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
- Breaking the Silence: Tour Sparks National Conversation on Men's Mental Health and Domestic Abuse
- Mr. Hospital Bed Helps Home Care Buyers Find the Right Hospital Bed
- New School Announces Student Enrollment
- Able Rooter Expands Services to Offer Premium Water Heater Installation Across St. Louis
- Director Sean McNamara Reunites with Award-Winning Cinematographer Shawn Seifert for Upcoming Feature Home
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
- How Sacramento Families Are Using Private Autopsies to Protect Inheritances, Resolve Insurance Claims, and Find Closure
- Los Angeles' Best Food: Food Journal Magazine Examines the Trends Shaping the City's Dining Scene
- Landmark Construction Expands Glass, Glazing, and Commercial Remodeling Services Across Los Angeles County and Surrounding Areas
- Imagen Golf Announces Strategic Partnership with The Back Nine of Yardley to Deliver World-Class Indoor Golf Instruction
- Jazzin' On Ridge Returns for Its 6th Annual Celebration of Music, Culture, and Community
- ENTOUCH Named Top 100 Inspiring Workplaces in North America for Third Consecutive Year
- Rebecca L. Francis Receives Pennsylvania's Most Influential Leaders Award
- Pulse Wave is where moments become movements
- Michigan's Plane Crash Data Points Away from Big Airports
- 2iG Solutions Launches MGA Insight, Bringing AI-Powered Business Intelligence to Managing General Agents
- A Better Way to Find a Real Estate Agent Is Coming Soon
- Talentica Software Earns a Place Among India's Top 100 Great Mid-size Workplaces 2026
- 4-Week Search for 2 True "Philly Girls" Starts July 8th 2026
- Socialhose Launches TikTok Investigator, a Platform for Investigating TikTok Live
- David Pedrol named Managing Director in Indonesia
- AutomationIQ Launches to Bring Enterprise-Grade AI Automation to Local and Mid-Market Businesses
- Texas Hospitals & Their Patients Describe Two Very Different Healthcare Systems, New Social Knowing
- DEPIN Studios Sees Surge in Demand After AI Gaming Launch
- Discard Junk Removal Named #1 Junk Removal Company in Sacramento Out of 189 Businesses Evaluated
- J&J Exterminating Mourns the Passing of Founder Bobby John Sr
