PrAtlas - Nevada Supreme Court Faces Pivotal Decision in Probate Appeal Involving Alleged Judicial Misconduct and Fiduciary Fraud

Trending...

Starved in a secured facility against his willl.

Will Nevada's Highest Court Confront Corruption—Or Allow It to Continue?

LAS VEGAS - PrAtlas -- 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:

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 PrAtlas

"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 PrAtlas

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.