Uploaded September 2026 | Updated September 2026, 1 hour ago
Kim Blandino posted a video that showed an incident with a prosecutor, John Giordani. We don't have all of it. I reviewed what I have so far in conjunction with this video, and it is not looking good for Kim. He faces two sets of "Intimidation" and "threat" charges, one involving a judge and her husband. The Judge who issued the vexatious litigant order is the wife of John Giordani. Kim is entitled to a presumption of innocence. But since Kim cannot meet bond, and will likely not have high-end lawyers to defend him, he faces a trial where he is his own lawyer, and that is something I would never recommend. You need highly trained lawyers. Putting up this video did not help Kim.
Now, the "theory." This order - if enforced - would be a severe limitation on Blandino's use of the court system to file motions, appeals, etc. The vexatious litigant order practically ends Kim's ability to file things before the courts, which I think gives him a lot of joy, as I think he likes being a lawyer. The order does include jail time if there are repeated violations, assuming they enforce it. Now, under the premise the would enforce it, and because Kim admits he likes investigating judges, the order "pushes" Kim into a different realm: the activist and investigator, which he then uses to go after the judges. Even this judge admitted he knows all of them, so he's pretty famous, and he's admitted appearing in their courts to observe them (but not to intimidate, according to Kim). The last point of this "theory": that it would only be a matter of time that Kim - cut off from filing court documents - would then push the envelope too far on his "investigations" and wind up in a real criminal case. I'll never be able to prove it, but it seems the order did its job. If you look at the order, you will see that the judge and Kim have a long feud, including a run-in with her husband. This feud predates the order, as it was used as evidence.
The judges know of his "investigation" of them, and perhaps they figured he'd go too far in response to the order, and that it would eventually lead to a criminal case, given his apparent exchange with a judge and her husband, which predates her being a judge and where Blandino encouraged her to run, called her "pretty" or words to that effect, and suggested she not be a judge but raise her kids, and where he said she had a heavy bias against him? Blandino tried to disqualify her in one case, and she issued the order declaring him vexatious.
I think he likes playing the role of a lawyer. In the civil realm, it really is about using up his time on a hobby he enjoys. In the criminal arena, there is much less paper, and much heavier consequences. These charges carry heavy time. He already stated he wants to be his own lawyer, so the judge gave him the typical questions to see if he can do so. This only naturally increases his chances at conviction. This is one time where Kim needs to step aside and let a lawyer handle it.
At the last hearing, bail was set at $500K, which means he isn't likely to ever get out. And this only makes his situation worse.
I mentioned the anti-SLAPP as a possibility. While these are criminal charges, it's use continues to evolve, as it is recognized for this purpose in Arizona. I saw that there was something about being able to use it for post-conviction relief, but I'll leave it to the lawyers in Nevada to sort this all out. Any criminal statute that can criminalize speech will implicate the first amendment. As a very experienced anti-SLAPP lawyer, you bring it anyway, even if procedurally there isn't a mechanism to do it. From there, you have set the matter up for an appeal where the law could be changed or its use now authorized.
None of this is legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed. I reserve all rights, including California's anti-SLAPP statute, and other privileges accorded to me over a public issue, all of which are reserved. Always consult a licensed professional in your state before taking any action that could impact your legal rights. Any errors you find in this video can be reported to me, and I will provide your response in the description of this video. Nothing by way of this video is an inference or expression that Kim has committed any crimes, or is guilty of anything at all.
@Direct_D
@frauditortroll
@FrauditorRoundup
@ManiaReactsNow
@drdavedebunker
@AttorneyMichaelEhline
@ReallyCoolNews
@OurNevadaJudges
@TheRealAZUNFILTERED
@
Kim Blandino posted a video that showed an incident with a prosecutor, John Giordani. We don't have all of it. I reviewed what I have so far in conjunction with this video, and it is not looking good for Kim. He faces two sets of "Intimidation" and "threat" charges, one involving a judge and her husband. The Judge who issued the vexatious litigant order is the wife of John Giordani. Kim is entitled to a presumption of innocence. But since Kim cannot meet bond, and will likely not have high-end lawyers to defend him, he faces a trial where he is his own lawyer, and that is something I would never recommend. You need highly trained lawyers. Putting up this video did not help Kim.
Now, the "theory." This order - if enforced - would be a severe limitation on Blandino's use of the court system to file motions, appeals, etc. The vexatious litigant order practically ends Kim's ability to file things before the courts, which I think gives him a lot of joy, as I think he likes being a lawyer. The order does include jail time if there are repeated violations, assuming they enforce it. Now, under the premise the would enforce it, and because Kim admits he likes investigating judges, the order "pushes" Kim into a different realm: the activist and investigator, which he then uses to go after the judges. Even this judge admitted he knows all of them, so he's pretty famous, and he's admitted appearing in their courts to observe them (but not to intimidate, according to Kim). The last point of this "theory": that it would only be a matter of time that Kim - cut off from filing court documents - would then push the envelope too far on his "investigations" and wind up in a real criminal case. I'll never be able to prove it, but it seems the order did its job. If you look at the order, you will see that the judge and Kim have a long feud, including a run-in with her husband. This feud predates the order, as it was used as evidence.
The judges know of his "investigation" of them, and perhaps they figured he'd go too far in response to the order, and that it would eventually lead to a criminal case, given his apparent exchange with a judge and her husband, which predates her being a judge and where Blandino encouraged her to run, called her "pretty" or words to that effect, and suggested she not be a judge but raise her kids, and where he said she had a heavy bias against him? Blandino tried to disqualify her in one case, and she issued the order declaring him vexatious.
I think he likes playing the role of a lawyer. In the civil realm, it really is about using up his time on a hobby he enjoys. In the criminal arena, there is much less paper, and much heavier consequences. These charges carry heavy time. He already stated he wants to be his own lawyer, so the judge gave him the typical questions to see if he can do so. This only naturally increases his chances at conviction. This is one time where Kim needs to step aside and let a lawyer handle it.
At the last hearing, bail was set at $500K, which means he isn't likely to ever get out. And this only makes his situation worse.
I mentioned the anti-SLAPP as a possibility. While these are criminal charges, it's use continues to evolve, as it is recognized for this purpose in Arizona. I saw that there was something about being able to use it for post-conviction relief, but I'll leave it to the lawyers in Nevada to sort this all out. Any criminal statute that can criminalize speech will implicate the first amendment. As a very experienced anti-SLAPP lawyer, you bring it anyway, even if procedurally there isn't a mechanism to do it. From there, you have set the matter up for an appeal where the law could be changed or its use now authorized.
None of this is legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed. I reserve all rights, including California's anti-SLAPP statute, and other privileges accorded to me over a public issue, all of which are reserved. Always consult a licensed professional in your state before taking any action that could impact your legal rights. Any errors you find in this video can be reported to me, and I will provide your response in the description of this video. Nothing by way of this video is an inference or expression that Kim has committed any crimes, or is guilty of anything at all.
@Direct_D
@frauditortroll
@FrauditorRoundup
@ManiaReactsNow
@drdavedebunker
@AttorneyMichaelEhline
@ReallyCoolNews
@OurNevadaJudges
@TheRealAZUNFILTERED
@
