“Coverage paid. Rights denied. Lives shattered. Now the truth is yours.”
“Coverage paid. Rights denied. Lives shattered. Now the truth is yours.”
“Coverage paid. Rights denied. Lives shattered. Now the truth is yours.”
“Coverage paid. Rights denied. Lives shattered. Now the truth is yours.”
“Coverage paid. Rights denied. Lives shattered. Now the truth is yours.”
“Coverage paid. Rights denied. Lives shattered. Now the truth is yours.”
Whistleblowers Tip Line, We Never Reveal A Source
Discover ProjectBlackPhoenix.com
Explore the world of Mass Media with us. Our website offers a wide range of articles, videos, and podcasts on various topics. Let's dive in!
COMING SOON — Third Eye Report by Ronan Ashcroft
by Ronan Ashcroft
I watch courtrooms because that’s where ordinary life meets extraordinary power. They turn hospital bills into page numbers, broken lives into entries, grief into docket lines. Paper flattens people. Paper becomes dates. Dates become dockets. Dockets become decisions.
Here’s what you can see for yourself: a plaintiff files a case. Two days later, the judge assigned to hear that case shows up — in public records we captured — as a named party in a related filing. That assignment was visible on the docket snapshot we preserved on June 27, 2025. Today that same judge’s name no longer appears on the public page. That fact is part of the record too — and both of those facts matter.
I’m not here to litigate in public or to hand you legal advice. I’m here to point the flashlight at the paper trail and drop the documents on the table. Look. Read the filings. Follow the dates. Judge it for yourself.
This is Joshua Markle’s story in one line: he was the passenger, he got hit by a semi, he did nothing wrong — he paid for coverage, he expected to be made whole. Instead he found himself fighting the system that was supposed to protect him and his family.
Ask these blunt questions when you read the records:
- Who was assigned the case, and on what exact date?
- What do the docket entries show the week before and the week after assignment?
- Does the judge’s name appear asa party, filer, or otherwise connected entry in any related matter? If so, when?
- Do the assignment orders or minute entries overlap the central facts of the claim?
- If the records line up the way they appear to, who benefits?
Where to look right now
Clark County District Court Public Access — search by Case A-25-19-1-2-0-X-7, by party name, or by judge/department. Pull the Register of Actions and compare filing and assignment dates side-by-side. That register is the paper trail. That’s where the truth, for now, lives.
What we’ll publish next
- The raw timeline: filings and assignment orders side-by-side so anyone can verify the sequence.
- The documents: complaints, assignment orders, docket screenshots and PDFs — plainly labeled and downloadable.
- A short factual Q&A with Joshua — focused on the records he preserved.
Why this matters
This isn’t just one man’s fight. It’s a test of whether public systems stay public. When a paper trail looks wrong, the remedy starts with the record itself. That’s why you should go look: if something looks off, you now know enough to demand answers. That’s how change starts — by citizens who pay attention and insist on fairness.
We want our life back. So do millions of others who trusted the promise of a fair system. If the record shows a problem, the remedy is the record. We’ll publish it. You read it. You decide.
— Ronan Ashcroft, Third Eye ReportOver the next installment, I’ll lay out everything we have in plain sight: the assignment orders, the case dockets, the filings and the correspondence that link these matters together. I’ll show you the timeline so you can read it yourself — no journalistspeak, no spin. If the facts are what they appear to be, they demand answers. And if the answers aren’t forthcoming, they demand remedies.
What you’ll get in the full report
- A clear, documented timeline showing dates of filing and judicial assignment.
- Scanned filings and docket images placed side-by-side with explanatory notes so readers can follow the chain themselves.
- An interview where I ask the simple, hard questions: why was this assignment made, who disclosed what, and what reasonable person would view this as impartial?
- A plain-language guide to the legal procedures available in Nevada for disqualification and disclosure — how they work and what they require from both plaintiffs and judges.
- A concluding section on accountability: if the system’s safeguards aren’t doing their job, what are the practical next steps for a litigant seeking fairness?
Why this matters beyond one case
This is not just about one courtroom or one plaintiff. The legitimacy of courts relies on the public’s belief that judges will recuse where reasonable doubt exists. When that belief erodes, so does the rule of law. Insurers, litigants, and everyday people who put faith in adjudication all deserve a system that is demonstrably fair.
A note on method (and on restraint)
We publish only what we can place before you in the form of records and filings. We do not speculate. We will not print unverified gossip. This series is built on public documents, docket entries and the chain of custody for the filings themselves — everything you see will link back to the source so you can verify it for yourself.
A brief legal caution (plain English)
Publishing allegations about a sitting or former judge is serious. We are presenting documented facts and public filings. Still, for readers and for our own team: have counsel review procedural filings and public disclosures before distributing the full packet widely. The remedies we’ll discuss — motions to disqualify, disciplinary complaints, and procedural appeals — are real, but they must be run through the correct legal channels. We’ll provide the how-to; you should talk to counsel before you file anything that could affect your case.
— Ronan Ashcroft, Third Eye Report