Nevada Lawmakers Must Address the Eighth Judicial District Court Accountability Failure

Nevada lawmakers:

I am 60 years old, an honorably discharged Air Force and Air National Guard veteran, and an Arkansas resident. My Nevada criminal case frame-up has become a case study in what happens when a litigant alleges serious judicial and prosecutorial misconduct yet cannot obtain timely review by a neutral judge.

This case concerns what I contend was an iatrogenic gadolinium injury to my medically fragile stepson after an MRI, later turned into a child-abuse prosecution despite medical evidence supporting the injury theory. I contend that the prosecution and court proceedings separated our family and pressured me into a package guilty plea this past December, which I am now seeking to withdraw.

My central concern is Judge Jessica Peterson’s continued role in deciding matters that directly challenge her own conduct. My September 11, 2026 motion to withdraw the coerced plea invokes the Fourteenth Amendment and argues that this is not merely disagreement with adverse rulings: the motion asks whether a judge may decide a claim that her own actions formed part of the alleged coercive chain that produced my plea.

The constitutional principle I placed before the court is direct. In re Murchison states: “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process,” and “no man can be a judge in his own case.” 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). My motion argues that the Fourteenth Amendment independently requires a neutral tribunal when the judge’s own challenged acts and explanations are materially implicated.

In her November 19, 2025 sworn affidavit responding to my disqualification motion, filed before my coerced plea, judge Peterson declared: “Affiant is not biased or prejudiced toward Defendant, nor has Affiant violated any constitutional rights of Defendant.” She also swore that she had “at all times” maintained an open mind and would continue to decide matters fairly and impartially.

I contend that those assurances do not resolve the current constitutional crisis. In plain English, judge Peterson cannot preside over the hearing on my motion to withdraw my coerced guilty plea when that motion challenges her own conduct as part of the alleged coercive chain. Basic constitutional due process requires that the motion be heard by a neutral judge. Her sworn denial cannot substitute for review by a neutral decision-maker.

I also contend that former Clark County prosecutor Dena Rinetti instigated a sequence of events in which judge Peterson’s actions enabled or reinforced the resulting harm. I have described this as a prosecutor-instigated, judge-complicit “tag team”: Rinetti allegedly initiated or advanced the challenged actions, while Peterson allegedly supplied judicial force, procedural accommodation, or failed corrective relief. The sequence in my filings includes the illegal September 8, 2025 warrants, the procedurally unlawful September 18, 2025 no-contact order, pressure against my family, and the December 3, 2025 package plea.

I have submitted criminal referrals alleging that Rinetti violated two Nevada criminal statutes and two Arkansas criminal statutes, and that Judge Peterson committed perjury in her sworn affidavit. These are allegations submitted for investigation, not adjudicated findings. The affidavit’s denial that she violated my constitutional rights is especially troubling because my motion expressly raises the Fourteenth Amendment and the rule that a judge cannot be the judge in her own case. This matter has gotten completely out of control.

The dispute has now reached the Nevada Supreme Court through my emergency writ and request for a stay. I contend this extraordinary burden should not have been necessary to seek a neutral judge and lawful process. After I filed the emergency writ, the Department 8 hearing was moved from October 5 to November 16, 2026.

I contend that the illegal change to November 16 compounded the emergency and had a concrete consequence: I submitted an additional criminal complaint to the Nevada Attorney General’s Public Integrity Office asking investigators to examine two suspected offenses arising from the rescheduling: oppression under color of office (NRS 197.200) and willful disobedience by a public officer (NRS 197.220). These are allegations for investigation, not findings of guilt.

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. A litigant should not have to pursue repeated filings, public notices, criminal referrals, and an emergency petition to the Nevada Supreme Court just to obtain a neutral decision-maker for a dispute involving the judge’s own challenged conduct. The Legislature should examine whether Nevada’s procedures provide a prompt, independent, and effective remedy in these circumstances.

I will continue building the public record. I DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY. Someone has to take responsibility for ensuring these concerns receive serious attention. Nevada’s 2027 regular session is scheduled to convene on February 1, 2027. I ask that a Nevada lawmaker contact me when the Legislature returns to session to discuss this case, review the record, and consider what legislative action is needed.

Respectfully,

Kimball Austin Sachs