Uploaded September 2026 | Updated September 2026, 43 minutes ago
Kim Blandino went from four charges to seven. Two of the charges carry up to fifteen years each. With his recent conviction of extortion of a judge pro tem and impersonating a public employee associated with judicial discipline, the feeling is that they are going to throw the book at him. I will cover the appellate opinion of these convictions, which were upheld. I think Kim is appealing that as well. He was sentenced from 1 to 10 years on the extortion charge, and 364 days for impersonation, running concurrently, and suspended with three years of probation. What that means is that if he stays out of trouble for three years, he won't do any more time. For due process, and given that it is close to what is being accused here (at least as to extortion it seems), the DA can't tell the jury about prior convictions of similar crimes. Instead, they can instead "sanitize" it with a generic agreement of a felony conviction. The impersonation charge could involve moral turpitude, and could come in but "sanitized."
He 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.
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.
Bail was set at $500K, which means he isn't likely to ever get out.
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
@TheRealAZUNFILTERED
@TrollMediaGroup
@FrauditorRoundup
@ncrnewsnetwork
@ReallyCoolNews
@drdavedebunker
@AttorneyMichaelEhline
@OurNevadaJudges
@ManiaReactsNow
Kim Blandino went from four charges to seven. Two of the charges carry up to fifteen years each. With his recent conviction of extortion of a judge pro tem and impersonating a public employee associated with judicial discipline, the feeling is that they are going to throw the book at him. I will cover the appellate opinion of these convictions, which were upheld. I think Kim is appealing that as well. He was sentenced from 1 to 10 years on the extortion charge, and 364 days for impersonation, running concurrently, and suspended with three years of probation. What that means is that if he stays out of trouble for three years, he won't do any more time. For due process, and given that it is close to what is being accused here (at least as to extortion it seems), the DA can't tell the jury about prior convictions of similar crimes. Instead, they can instead "sanitize" it with a generic agreement of a felony conviction. The impersonation charge could involve moral turpitude, and could come in but "sanitized."
He 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.
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.
Bail was set at $500K, which means he isn't likely to ever get out.
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
@TheRealAZUNFILTERED
@TrollMediaGroup
@FrauditorRoundup
@ncrnewsnetwork
@ReallyCoolNews
@drdavedebunker
@AttorneyMichaelEhline
@OurNevadaJudges
@ManiaReactsNow
