Duke/McCarthy Redress, Inc.

REDRESS

August 22, 2000

Editor [Las Vegas Review Journal]:

It is a bit disturbing that there has not been a flood of letters protesting or expressing outrage at the treatment that Anya Duke received from District Court Judge Nancy Saitta (Department 18) on the latter's questionable handling of Mrs. Duke's case of 31 July, August 3, and again on August 9, when Judge Saitta completed the kangaroo-like court proceedings by her summary dismissal of the case. Two excellent articles by Review Journal columnist Vin Suprynowicz, one before and one subsequent to the "trial" provided eye opening insights on the system of injustice that awaits he or she who is not affluent or well connected in this state - as has been demonstrated in some other states as well, like in California, for instance.

On July 31, Judge Saitta arbitrarily ruled that Mrs. Duke could not mention that she was now legally blind, or that she was ill and disabled, or why she was representing herself, or why she felt she had been mis-diagnosed and mistreated by Dr. Roger Simon and Dr. Jeffrey Parker (both of Retina Consultants of Nevada), or not use the term "Ultra Sound", or to give a history or summary of the case from 1994 to date, or why her expert witness was not in court (ill in Colorado), or why she needed a document magnifier at her table, or that she was not allowed a reader, etc. Obviously, these stringent and less than fair caveats effectively reduced the essence of Mrs. Duke's case.

Although originally told that her opening statement could and should be "a road map for the jury", Mrs. Duke was barely into the second page of her opening statement when the defending lawyer, David Mortensen (of Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen, Nelson and Sanders), objected and moved for dismissal on the grounds that Mrs. Duke's opening statement did not contain evidence as required under Nevada statutes. With that cue, Judge Saitta dismissed the case... and the jurors. The dismissal declaration by Judge Saitta further insulated the defendants at the expense of Mrs. Duke... but is there such a statute in Nevada, and even if so, can it be applied before the opening statement is completed? Hard to believe. And interestingly, Mrs. Duke's motion before the Nevada Supreme Court" ... to revisit the invalid judgment of Dr. Parker" (partner of Dr. Simon) was rejected the same day of Judge Saitta's dismissal of the case.

As an addendum, it should be noted that Mrs. Duke's effort to enlist the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada was equally unsuccessful. That office simply did not return calls after the Dukes had completed and hand carried the requisite forms to it.

Roger E. McCarthy

8 October, 2000

Letters to the Editor, Las Vegas Sun

Dear Sir:

Attached is a Letter to the Editor that earlier I sent to the Review Journal. Although I was contacted by a person from the Review Journal to confirm that I had sent such a letter, it was not printed.

Subsequently, I learned that the decision had been made at a higher level at that paper not to publish my letter because "... enough had already been written about Anya Duke." This, sadly, misses the main point I was trying to make of the terrible injustice of the so called system in action in our local courts as evidenced by the outrageous rulings of Judge Saitta in Mrs. Duke's attempt to have her case heard before a jury of her peers. That the controlling authority at the Review Journal chose to ignore what Judge Saitta had done in this case certainly does not bring credit on that paper. Investigative reporters have found much wrong with the handling and treatment of Mrs. Duke's case, but so far this largely remains well hidden from the public.

Hopefully you will print my letter, and perhaps do further investigating on your own.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Roger E. McCarthy

WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS