TO: Chair Stefanie Humphrey, Vice-Chair John Krmpotic, and General Counsel and Executive Director Paul C. Deyhle:<\/b><\/p>\n
This is a renewed demand for immediate Commission review of alleged continuing judicial misconduct and campaign deception<\/u> by judge Jessica Peterson before the November 3, 2026 election.<\/strong> Commission Staff: Forward this entire correspondence and all five attached exhibits to the three named officials and confirm that transmission in writing<\/u>.<\/b><\/p>\n I am copying 98 media-related contacts<\/strong> on this correspondence. I also intend to keep the approximately 2,200 unique email addresses identified in my court filings<\/strong> informed, together with Governor Joe Lombardo\u2019s office and Nevada lawmakers<\/u><\/b>. My original complaint expressly notified the Commission that I intended public disclosure and sustained public accountability.<\/p>\n The five attached exhibits document the requests made, the answers received, the promised consolidation of evidence, the public-confidence concern, and the Commission\u2019s acknowledgment of Case No. 2026-265. Each is identified below so that recipients can examine the actual record.<\/strong><\/p>\n EXHIBIT 1 \u2014 October 9 request for expedited review and October 12 categorical refusal<\/strong><\/p>\n Exhibit 1 contains my October 9 email requesting immediate Commission review, special consideration under Procedural Rules 3.3 and 3.5, and consideration of protective suspension under Rule 9. It also contains the October 12 response:<\/p>\n \u201cThere is no way to expedite your complaint with The Commission on Judicial Discipline.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n My request expressly distinguished Commission disciplinary action from judicial reassignment. It recognized the required procedural protections and asked five specific questions about complaint review, consideration between regular meetings, special meetings, investigation before the next regular meeting, and available action concerning ongoing harm.<\/p>\n The response referred me to a general flow chart without substantively answering those questions.<\/p>\n Exhibit 1 establishes that I requested exercise of the Commission\u2019s own authority and that staff categorically rejected expedited consideration. It does not establish that the Chair or Commission members personally considered that request. I demand clarification of who made and authorized that decision.<\/strong><\/p>\n EXHIBIT 2 \u2014 Acknowledgments, consolidation promises, and the February 12, 2027 meeting date<\/strong><\/p>\n Exhibit 2 contains the October 5\u201312 correspondence documenting:<\/p>\n \u2022 Staff\u2019s October 5 acknowledgment of my correspondence supplying the Google Drive evidence link and its statement that the documents received would be attached to the complaint upon receipt.<\/p>\n \u2022 Staff\u2019s October 9 acknowledgment of my YouTube link and accompanying email, with a promise to consolidate them with the complaint.<\/p>\n \u2022 Staff\u2019s separate October 9 acknowledgment of the October 8 court-filed notice and another promise of consolidation.<\/p>\n \u2022 Staff\u2019s statement that the next Commission meeting was scheduled for February 12, 2027<\/strong>.<\/p>\n \u2022 My October 12 submission of the Facebook-campaign notice and staff\u2019s acknowledgment that the document and accompanying email would be consolidated with the complaint.<\/p>\n Exhibit 2 establishes receipt of identified correspondence and repeated promises of consolidation. I now demand confirmation that the promised consolidation actually occurred.<\/strong><\/p>\n EXHIBIT 3 \u2014 Pickup inquiries, request for an identified contact, and October 16 confidentiality response<\/strong><\/p>\n Exhibit 3 contains the October 13\u201316 correspondence concerning retrieval of the mailed complaint, my request for a complaint number and identified staff contact, and the October 16 response.<\/p>\n My October 16 email reported USPS confirmation of pickup on October 15 at 9:30 a.m. Staff subsequently confirmed receipt of the signed complaint on October 15 and supplied the acknowledgment letter.<\/p>\n However, staff responded to my requests concerning the assigned contact and investigation by asserting that confidentiality prohibited status updates or other complaint-related information until final disposition.<\/p>\n Exhibit 3 documents the questions actually asked and the answer actually given. Identify the authors and approving officials responsible for these responses.<\/strong><\/p>\n EXHIBIT 4 \u2014 Public Facebook group displaying approximately 1,500 members<\/strong><\/p>\n Exhibit 4 is the screenshot of the public group \u201cLousy Las Vegas Lawyers & Judges,\u201d<\/em><\/strong> displaying approximately 1,500 members<\/strong>. Its description states:<\/p>\n \u201cThis group is to report bad experiences with lousy lawyers & Judges of Las Vegas Nevada. The State Bar and Judicial Commission is impotent.<\/u> So we the people will be the judges juries and executioners of your folly.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n I concur with the criticism that the disciplinary system has been ineffective<\/u>. My demand is for lawful investigation, discipline where warranted, legislative oversight, and sustained public scrutiny.<\/strong><\/p>\n Exhibit 4 documents a publicly displayed expression of institutional distrust before a substantial audience.<\/u><\/b> It does not establish that every member endorses every word. It does show that the Commission faces an explicit public-confidence problem.<\/p>\n My wife and I previously filed multiple complaints without obtaining what we regard as effective accountability. The categorical refusal documented in Exhibit 1 and the unanswered questions documented in Exhibit 3 reinforce that concern.<\/p>\n EXHIBIT 5 \u2014 October 15 acknowledgment letter assigning Case No. 2026-265<\/strong><\/p>\n Exhibit 5 confirms that my complaint was received and filed and assigned Case No. 2026-265<\/strong>. Its letterhead identifies Stefanie Humphrey as Chair, John Krmpotic as Vice-Chair, and Paul C. Deyhle as General Counsel and Executive Director<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The letter states that staff will obtain relevant court documents, briefs, and recordings, as warranted, and submit them with the complaint for consideration at a subsequently scheduled meeting. It explains the initial examination, possible authorization of investigation, subsequent review, and possible formal charges.<\/p>\n The acknowledgment confirms filing. It does not state that an investigation has begun or identify when initial consideration will occur.<\/strong><\/p>\n The letter also repeats the confidentiality position and describes the reconsideration procedure following dismissal. My immediate request concerns initial examination and expedited protective consideration of alleged ongoing conduct. A description of reconsideration after dismissal does not answer that request.<\/p>\n The alleged misconduct of judge Jessica Peterson is continuing during an election campaign. This requires immediate consideration.<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n My allegation is direct: judge Jessica Peterson has repeatedly lied about her judicial performance<\/u>, and my court-filed notices identify specific statements and contrary record supporting that allegation.<\/strong> I stand by those allegations and demand examination under NCJC Rule 4.1(A)(11), including its prohibition against knowingly or recklessly false or misleading campaign statements.<\/p>\n Review after the election cannot inform voters before they cast their ballots or address continued dissemination during the remaining campaign. The February meeting date documented in Exhibit 2 does not answer this urgency.<\/p>\n I allege that judge Jessica Peterson postponed my hearing to protect her chances of reelection.<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Hours after I filed my September 28 emergency writ seeking Nevada Supreme Court intervention, Department 8 issued its notice moving the October 5 hearing on my motion to withdraw the coerced plea six weeks to November 16, thirteen days after the November 3 election. I contend that this postponement lacked lawful authority and deliberately prevented neutral adjudication before voters decided whether to retain judge Jessica Peterson.<\/u><\/b><\/p>\n My position is explicit: judge Jessica Peterson was required<\/u><\/b> to recuse herself because my September 11 motion requires examination of her own conduct in causing the plea I allege was coerced. Had judge Jessica Peterson complied when required, the motion could have proceeded before a neutral judge on October 5.<\/p>\n If that neutral judge had granted withdrawal on the grounds presented, the message before election day would have been unmistakable: Sachs\u2019s plea was set aside following examination of the alleged role of judge Jessica Peterson in its coercion, and the prosecution was restored to a posture in which Sachs could contest the charges at trial.<\/strong> That would have been profoundly damaging to the reelection campaign of judge Jessica Peterson.<\/p>\n I allege that protecting herself from that electoral consequence was the purpose of moving the hearing beyond November 3.<\/strong> I submit the timing and surrounding record as prima facie evidence warranting immediate investigation of that allegation. Obtain the scheduling communications, authorization records, drafts, calendar records, and electronic audit trail to determine who directed the change and why.<\/p>\n My disciplinary submissions identify successive allegations of dishonesty.<\/strong><\/p>\n On October 4<\/strong>, I publicly filed notice of my detailed judicial-misconduct complaint concerning judge Jessica Peterson, with the complaint attached.<\/p>\n On October 8<\/strong>, I filed notice of an addendum addressing allegedly false or misleading representations in the YouTube campaign video of judge Jessica Peterson. Exhibit 2 documents staff\u2019s acknowledgment of that submission.<\/p>\n On October 12<\/strong>, I filed a further notice addressing allegedly false or misleading Facebook campaign Reels and requesting expedited protective consideration. Exhibit 2 documents staff\u2019s acknowledgment of that submission as well.<\/p>\n On October 14<\/strong>, I filed another supplement identifying additional campaign statements and contrary portions of the record. Separately confirm its receipt and association with this complaint.<\/p>\n Before those campaign notices, my September 22 notice<\/strong> identified criminal referrals to the Nevada Attorney General, including my allegation of perjury.<\/p>\n I truthfully allege under penalty of perjury that judge Jessica Peterson made a materially false sworn representation<\/u> in paragraph 6 of her November 19, 2025 affidavit.<\/strong> In that affidavit, judge Jessica Peterson stated that a no-contact order concerning my stepson had been issued with the September 25, 2019 indictment summons and had never expired.<\/p>\n I allege that statement was false and constituted perjury.<\/u><\/strong> The summons contains a handwritten no-contact notation. The docket does not identify the separate contemporaneous no-contact order that I contend the affidavit represented had been issued. My complaint identifies the summons, docket, September hearing records, and later September 18, 2025 written order for direct comparison.<\/p>\n Examine those records in Eighth Judicial District Court Case No. C-19-343540-2<\/strong>. My criminal referrals have already gone to the Nevada Attorney General. Investigate the sworn representation, the underlying instruments, and the evidence bearing on knowledge and intent.<\/p>\n My filings also identify the Las Vegas Review-Journal\u2019s reported 54.2 percent attorney retention recommendation for judge Jessica Peterson, compared with a 72.93 percent district-court average<\/strong>. I regard that as a failing assessment by the attorneys who appear before judge Jessica Peterson.<\/p>\n I also call your attention to the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial I have identified as endorsing Austin Beaumont and stating:<\/p>\n