By Janet Phelan

Cynthia Giuliani was voted onto the Clark County bench in November of 2008. She assumed office on January 5, 2009.

Before the year was over she and her attorney husband, Roger Giuliani, filed for Chapter Seven bankruptcy. Judge Cynthia Giuliani did not disclose this on her yearly financial disclosures, which every judge in Nevada must file with the Administrative Office of the Courts. She failed to disclose her creditors and she failed to disclose her Chapter Seven.

A bankrupt judge poses an interesting dilemma. According to the Nevada code of judicial conduct, “A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” Questions may be raised as to the fitness of a bankrupt judge to serve on the bench, and particularly to preside over money-intensive cases.

The fact that she homesteaded her house prior to the BK, listing its value at about $175,000 less than she paid for it when purchased in January of 2009, allowed her to retain her residence. In Nevada, a homesteaded property cannot be protected from creditors in excess of $550,000. Giuliani paid $701,000 for the property less than a year before she filed her Chapter Seven and declared its worth at $525,000.

Another property, located at 11104 Vasari Court, was retained by Giuliani, who declared in her bankruptcy documents that she and Roger were merely on the title of the property and that his parents made all the mortgage payments. This property is currently listed on the Clark County Assessor’s website as 60% owned by Cynthia and Roger Giuliani’s LLC, BAJ Properties and 40% by Giuliani’s parents.

Numerous liens against Judge Giuliani were also discharged during the BK. These liens were on investment properties that Giuliani owned, some under BAJ Properties. Interestingly, some of the liens were on trash pickup on some of the dozen or so properties in Guiliani’s name. One might well ask (and one did), if the properties were occupied during the bankruptcy proceedings and if so, why Giuliani did not report this income to the bankruptcy court.

These questions, however, are magnified by the fact that Giuliani allegedly filed false declarations on her financial disclosures.

But Giuliani isn’t answering any questions about her financial affairs nor questions about alleged misconduct on the bench. In a recent email, Giuliani only said:

The information in your email does not accurately reflect the facts. All of the information you appear to be seeking is public record, and can be found on those respective websites. The documents clearly show that all transactions were completed in accordance with state and federal laws. I can state with confidence that I conduct all of my financial matters in a responsible manner in compliance with all relevant laws.

Confronted with further questions, Giuliani declined any further comment.

Not only has Giuliani declined to comment on the alleged perjury in her financial declarations but so has her employer. The Clark County Court had “no comment” on her financial declarations. Neither did the Supreme Court of Nevada. The SC Public Information Officer Michael Sommermeyer suggested that the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline might have some input, but when contacted this reporter was told, incredibly, that the Commission had “no idea” if these declarations were made under penalty of perjury and suggested I contact the Secretary of State. “The Secretary of State,” I was told, ” is where the declarations are filed.”

Which happens to be untrue.

As it turns out, multiple complaints had already been filed with the Commission which referenced Giuliani’s bankruptcy. This reporter has reviewed Commission complaints referencing Giuliani’s BK and filed by Candice Bock, who was seared by Giuliani’s decisions in her money-intensive divorce proceedings. Bock was forced into trial on the divorce without counsel, after Giuliani denied attorney’s fees to her lawyer and then refused to grant Bock a continuance, falsely stating that the matter had previously been continued. Giuliani subsequently ignored evidence of false declarations made by Bock’s husband, resulting in financial computations which could be seen as robbing Candice, who is African American, of an appropriate divorce settlement from Tim Bock, who is white. At one point Giuliani had the temerity to state on the record that Candice had “wanted” to go pro per, a clear misstatement of the disadvantage the litigant was put in by Giuliani’s own actions.

The Commission repeatedly turned a blind eye. Neither Tim Bock nor his attorney, Curtis Rawlings, responded to requests for comment.