Clark County Commissioner Justin Jones, the Nevada Democrat who Federal court filings show is alleged to have bribed Nevada’s Governor Steve Sisolak with a quid pro quo, and destroying his electronic files which are evidence, is now accused of passing an ordinance to harm one of his midterm rivals.

Jones and the other Democrat commissioners passed a new ordinance to fire Republican Jenna Waltho, the only woman running against Jones. Imagine that, the Democrats who are so “woke” and pro-feminist took the embarrassing task of bullying a girl. Because they are afraid of her. 

The Las Vegas Review Journal outlined the situation, and the Commissioners attempted to play lip service to the narrative of firing the only woman in the race as if the situation were as ordinary as taking a breath. It is merely a coincidence the firing of Planning Commissioner Waltho greatly benefited Jones. A happy accident. In reality the commissioners are known to stick together because they each require the help of the others to pass the various projects in their districts. The ultra-leftist bloc of the Clark County Commission consists of Jones, Michael Naft, William McCurdy and Tick Segerblom. As the Commission is a body of seven members, the ultra-leftist bloc can essentially force the remaining members to go along with their edicts, because if they do not the remaining three Commissioners, Jim Gibson, Marilyn Kilpatrick, and Ross Miller, are unable to finish projects in their own districts. The other Commissioners appear to be accessories to the crime and could very well face their own criminal charges in the future. 

Such exasperating coincidences are a staple of the narrative Clark County attorneys have spun throughout litigation which began in April 2019.

As the Gateway Pundit previously reported, according to a recent court filing, Jones conspired with the governor prior to both of them taking office to harm a private company, Gypsum Resources, in exchange for a lawsuit being dropped against the county.

Many legal experts feel Clark County is on the brink of losing the litigation, and therefore being responsible to pay the Plaintiff Gypsum Resources, LLC over a billion dollars in damages due to Jones’ led commission and his reckless behavior. Jones has admitted no wrongdoing, but Jones does acknowledge a judgment could bankrupt the entire County government, “This latest legal filing is just more of the same vindictive personal attacks designed to bolster its efforts to bankrupt the county”, Jones said. 

If one examines the documents filed in the lawsuit where Jones is a central figure, it becomes clear his claims of “personal attacks” are fantasy. It appears that Jones brought this trouble on himself and every Nevada taxpayer through his deliberate and conniving actions for political gain. 

During his campaign in 2018 for a County Commission seat Jones was also representing an environmental group named “Save Red Rock” which involved a 2016 lawsuit with Clark County and famed Las Vegas real estate developer Jim Rhodes’ entity Gypsum Resources, LLC. Clark County had taken the bizarre step of initiating a lawsuit against both Gypsum Resources and Save Red Rock to have a judge settle a dispute between Gypsum Resources, who sought for many years to begin development of 15,000 homes atop 2,500 acres of mountain overlooking Las Vegas and Save Red Rock who sought to halt or hinder the progress of the development.

This lawsuit was designed to give the then Clark County Commissioners political cover to claim whatever the judge’s decision, it was not made by the Commission. This poorly planned legal strategy soon turned into a sprawling quagmire with Save Red Rock and Gypsum Resources each filing their own counter complaints. It was also where Jones decided if he were to become a commissioner that he alone could kill the development. 

Court filings show in October 2018 Jones sent an email to Sisolak’s top advisor Jim Ferrence weeks before the November Midterm. At this time Sisolak was the Chairman of the Clark County Commission and running for Governor. Jones offered to have his clients drop their lawsuit against Clark County if Sisolak agreed to delay a vote critical to the process of the development until after Jones would be sworn in. Jones also promised he and his clients would provide Sisolak with the support of votes from environmentalist voters, an area where Sisolak was trailing in the polls. Jones said if Sisolak refused his offer that moving forward the lawsuit would be “very uncomfortable” for Sisolak. 

That same day court filings show Sisolak accepted the offer made by Jones and Sisolak issued a press release announcing the vote critical to Gypsum Resources would be delayed until after the winners of the election could be sworn in. Jones seized on this moment and declared victory on social media against his self-described “arch nemesis” Jim Rhodes. Jones had announced to the world that his threat and bribe had been accepted and he was all too greedy to stay silent about the details. He wanted the credit and the world to know what he had done. Throughout this process it has become clear that the ego of Jones is his ultimate downfall. It is widely agreed Jones won the election because of the attention he received after Sisolak’s announcement was made. 

But after Jones won his seat it was obvious to all observers he was far too conflicted to participate as a commissioner on a vote that Sisolak had given him as part of the bribe. An editorial in the Review Journal stated, “Mr. Jones is hopelessly conflicted here and should recuse himself from any debate or vote on the issue. If he takes the less ethical course, Gypsum Resources has a very good chance of once again prevailing in court.” 

Jones knew he was conflicted and should not vote. After all he is a lawyer with a couple decades of experience, but he could not help himself and he sought to continue to game the system to allow him to take his victory lap. In doing so Jones obtained an opinion from the Nevada Ethics Commission that he was not ethically prohibited from voting during the hearing. Jones pulled the wool over the eyes of the public at large with the opinion of the Ethics Commission and after further scrutiny it is clear the opinion issued by the Ethics Commission was a sham. And the members of the Ethics Commission knew their opinion was a sham when they issued it to Jones. They telegraphed this feeling January 22, 2019 in the following paragraph of opinion 19-003A:

“For the purposes of the conclusions offered in this opinion, the Commission’s findings of fact set forth below are accepted as true. Facts and circumstances that differ from those presented to and relied upon by the Commission may result in different findings and conclusions than those expressed in this opinion.” 

With his manufactured ethics opinion in hand Jones went forth to motion for a denial of a critical waiver requested by Gypsum Resources and the Commissioners voted unanimously with Jones. In doing so, Jones unilaterally halted the entire development process by Gypsum Resources. This denial caused Gypsum Resources to file for bankruptcy and thus began the lawsuit which now threatens to bankrupt Clark County with a $2.2 billion judgment. That figure is merely the number as been reviewed in Federal court documents. It will likely balloon to be much larger when calculations including various types of interest are taken to account. The figure will likely top $3-4 billion in the final calculations. Clark County has had to struggle to fulfill payments on various loans, which were famously humiliating regarding the new Raiders stadium. It is simply a mathematical impossibility for Clark County to be capable of fulfilling the balance of a multi-billion dollar judgment. The public at large were outraged at the thought of the county being unable to pay for the stadium. That figure is small potatoes compared to the balance which will inevitably be owed to Gypsum Resources. 

Throughout the litigation lawyers for Clark County repeatedly cited the Ethics Opinion obtained by Jones as justification that his conduct leading up to the vote, and the vote itself, were acceptable and legal behavior. One must wonder how it is possible Clark County’s lawyers did not already know Jones voting was against their interests. Many believe Jones sought the counsel and advice of the county’s legal team prior to seeking the opinion from the Ethics Commission and only after being told to stand down by the county did Jones move forward with his plan to solicit the opinion of the Ethics Commission. 

It went largely unnoticed at the time when Jones paraded around the commission’s opinion, but their opinion was based solely on information Jones gave to the commission. No other sources of information were permitted or considered. Furthermore the opinion of the Ethics Commission did not include what information Jones had provided to them. Before an opinion is released by the Ethics Commission the individual who requested the opinion is given the option to choose if the opinion is to be made public. And if the documents and information provided to the Ethics Commission are made public. Jones elected only to authorize the release of the opinion. Which meant the documents and information that lead to the opinion were and remain confidential. 

Jones refused to disclose the information which was the basis of the ethics opinion. Clark County’s legal team requested the court place a protective order over the documents, as they surely knew if the information were to come to light it would show just how little information Jones had offered to the Ethics Commission. In total the battle to have the entirety of the documents released from the Ethics Commission lasted for six months when the judge issued his ruling denying the protective order. The Judge was not persuaded by Clark County both citing the opinion as a defense and then claiming the opposing side could not review the information that led to the opinion as confidential. 

The court rejected Defendants’ assertion that information from the Nevada Ethics Commission that may be confidential under NRS 281A.685(1) is also privileged from disclosure through discovery. See Prior Protective Order at 11:9 to 12:13. Moreover, the court also concluded that the Defendants had waived any privilege concerning the January 22, 2019 Advisory Opinion because Defendants had placed the matter at issue in their Counterclaim and their affirmative defenses to the SAC

As suspected, Clark County had good reason to fight to the last moment to keep the information submitted by Jones to the Ethics Commission. As outlined in a court filing, Jones blatantly and shamelessly represented to the Ethics Commission “he had no prior involvement in opposing Gypsum’s applications so that he was not conflicted and should be allowed to vote upon them.” Why else would Clark County have spent millions of dollars to hide information which would have made them appear so pathetically hypocritical? 

Jones had spent years of his life opposing the applications of Gypsum Resources. He had built his entire political persona around denying Rhodes the ability to develop his property. Jones opposed Gypsum’s applications so much he threatened Sisolak and offered him a bribe to delay the vote on Gypsum’s application. Had the vote occurred prior to Jones assuming office, and had the applications been approved, the value of the land owned by Rhodes would have increased by $150,000,000. This is a figure Jones himself has stated on the record. 

Months later after the facts of the deception Jones perpetrated on the Ethics Commission had come to light he was questioned in a deposition why he declined to release the information he had submitted to the Ethics Commission to the public. Jones replied, “I didn’t think they needed to know.” 

One has to wonder what else Clark County Commissioner Jones believes the public does not need to know? It would seem all but inevitable that Waltho would file a lawsuit against Jones and Clark County for the obviously underhanded process which has occurred to her in her pursuit to seek higher office. A roadmap has been previously laid out in the ongoing litigation involving Jones to present Waltho a roadmap of how to attack Clark County’s legal weaknesses. But will she have the muster to see this fight to the end?

The Gateway Pundit reached out to Jones and every other commissioner for comment. None were provided.

The post Scandal-Plagued Democrat Clark County Commissioner Accused of Passing Ordinance to Harm Republican Midterm Rival appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: