A one-time legal assistant to ousted District Judge Elizabeth Halverson won a $50,000 judgment Tuesday in the defamation case she filed against Halverson in 2007.District Judge David Wall on Tuesday ordered Halverson to pay the money and to return files to the assistant, Ileen Spoor. However, Wall denied Spoor’s claim for $100,000 in punitive damages.
Halverson did not attend the proceedings. Unless an appeal is filed, the order effectively ended the civil lawsuit against her.
Spoor alleged in her lawsuit that she was defamed and placed in a false light, contending the judge lied about her to the media by saying Spoor illegally fixed tickets.
Spoor also said Halverson took her Rolodex and files.
Halverson was found liable in September after she failed to show up for several court appearances.
She has been representing herself since January, after two law firms hired by her were allowed to withdraw as counsel because she wasn’t paying them.
Spoor said she is relieved the case is over.
“I feel good about this,” she said.
Halverson took the bench in early 2007. Soon after she began serving, she was accused of harassing staff and mishandling trials, among other allegations.
The Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission removed her from the bench in November 2008 and permanently barred her from serving as a judge.
Full Article and Source:
Ex-Judge Halverson Ordered to Pay Former Assitant $50,000
ex judge halverson is quite a piece of work. I'm glad she has to pay.
ReplyDeleteBad judges intimidate their clerks and sometimes even set them up.
ReplyDeleteGood for you, Ileen Spoor!
ReplyDeleteGood news!
ReplyDeleteThe former judge should also be relieved of her law license if she is also a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteSpoor should feel good about it - it's a rare win. Celebrate!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chuck: Halverson should be relieved of her law license as well.
ReplyDeleteAll judges are card-carrying lawyers!
It's too bad Spoor won because the Judge was too ill to attend the hearings due to alost being murdered a year ago. The court knew this and refused to put the case on hold until the judge was able to present her case. There is NO victory here. Ilene Spoor is a lying, unethical law clerk. Stright up. She did "fix" tickets so that friends and family of her and Supreme Court Judge Michael Cherry did not have to pay the costs assocaited with the ticket. She referred these tickets for these special people to attorney's who did not charge one cent for their services as a favor to Judge Cherry. In exachange he got Super Bowl tickets, dinners, invites to speical High ticket events. Spoor also took it upon herself to dismiss jury duty for casinos execs that were "too busy" to attend. Emails showed that Casino exec's sent Spoor an email saying to get them out of jury duty and 15 min later they were off. Last I looked only a Judge can dismiss Jury duty. Spoor lied under oath and said she never did this. Yet their are emails to prove otherwise.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your money Spoor. You only got it as a techinciality as the Judge Halverson is stil recovering from ther close to death injuries.
But those of us at the court house know exactly who you are and exactly what you have done. You are not clean in this what-so-over. Just lucky that the courts decided to not give Judge Halverson a chance to present her case. But you are still the slime ball everyone knows you to be.
Next time you are at Temple you need to pray for forgiveness.
Now National Assoc. for Guardian Abuse... let's see if your willing to print the real truth. Doubtful.
Anon 4, were you at the hearing? If not, how do you know Spoor won simply because Halverson wasn't present?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that if Halverson was too ill, she would have asked for a continuance. And with all that money on the line, it's not likely the presiding judge would have just gone on without giving Halverson the continuance -- especially with the circumstances of her recent attack being public knowledge.
Please explain.
I'm not buying your story, Anonymous. If Spoor did these things, there would be plenty of evidence. Where's the evidence? Or are you only speaking allegations?
ReplyDelete