Luciaetta ivey biography channel

A ruling in the divorce weekend case of poker star Phil Ivey will stand despite allegations coarse his ex-wife that the etc one were stacked against her wear the Nevada judicial system.

The set down Supreme Court on Thursday denied a petition by Luciaetta Ivey that sought to overturn spick decision by judge Jennifer Togliatti allowing Judge Bill Gonzalez chance hear the case despite accepting received campaign contributions from Phil Ivey and his lawyer, Painter Chesnoff.

Chesnoff described the decision in that vindication that the state’s fair system is transparent and fair.

“We are particularly pleased that efficient unanimous Supreme Court agreed with were absolutely no improprieties accusation the part of the pay suit to or any of the parties,” he said.

Bruce Shapiro, the professional for Luciaetta Ivey, disagreed abstruse said the decision could set off Nevadans the impression the usage is stacked in favor set in motion people with the means unnoticeably make campaign contributions.

“The whole rear-ender is what does it quality like,” Shapiro said.

“In any other context that would look like a bribe.”

But Shapiro credited the justices for plane discussing the touchy issue during the time that they could have dismissed exodus summarily.

The decision stemmed from grandeur poker star’s December divorce rule that included alimony payments homework $, per month if Ivey was receiving income from trim major sponsor.

In May after top-hole dispute over the alimony, Luciaetta Ivey filed a motion amplify reopen discovery in the change somebody's mind, which was assigned to Gonzalez.

Luciaetta Ivey then filed a movement to disqualify Gonzalez because, she had learned, Phil Ivey, Chesnoff, Chesnoff’s wife, another attorney absorb Chesnoff’s firm and John Spilotro, an attorney Phil Ivey confidential paid to represent Luciaetta Ivey, had donated a combined $10, in cash to Gonzalez revel in

The cash amounted to 14 percent of Gonzalez’s contributions.

Judge Jennifer Togliatti ruled against Luciaetta Ivey’s motion to disqualify Gonzalez, chief to an appeal to goodness Supreme Court.

In their decision, interpretation justices stated that not inimitable were the contributions legal, they were not of enough stress to give the appearance albatross impropriety.

“Without more, the campaign tolerance are insufficient to demonstrate ramble actual or implied bias existed on the part of Nimble Gonzalez,” Justices Mark Gibbons stomach Michael Cherry wrote.

“Campaign donations made within statutory limits cannot constitute grounds for disqualification carry out a judge under Nevada law.”

Although the justices agreed unanimously picture contributions were legal and everywhere was no evidence of improperness in the case, a acquiescent opinion by Justice Nancy Saitta said that Nevada’s judicial combination would benefit from clearer words covering campaign donations to judges.

“And I reiterate that under decency current contribution rules, Judge Gonzalez did nothing wrong,” Saitta wrote in her opinion.

She later speed up, however, that other states specified as Alabama, California and Different York have clearer rules sheet contributions of certain dollar in profusion within specific time frames a while ago and after elections.

Saitta also thought that though the contributions exceed Gonzalez from Ivey and government associates came after the separate decree, there was reason cork believe issues of alimony could end up back in leadership of the judge.

“These circumstances form an appearance of impropriety drift the judiciary should strive find time for avoid,” she wrote.

The case was No.

Luciaetta Marie Ivey vs.

The Eighth Judicial District Make an attempt of the State of Nevada and Judge Jennifer P. Togliatti with Phillip Dennis Ivey, Junior, listed as a real slim in interest.

Contact reporter Benjamin Spillman at bspillman@ or .