Las Vegas, Nevada
July 7, 2024
Victoria Seaman’s public denial of taking money from the City of Las Vegas is under scrutiny as new evidence raises significant questions about her integrity and transparency.
What is hidden in the convoluted legal battles involving Seaman and her husband, John Seaman?
The lawsuits filed by John and Victoria Seaman against the City of Las Vegas were consolidated into one case, a strategic move designed to obscure Victoria’s direct involvement.
This consolidation means details specific to Victoria’s actions are more challenging to uncover. However, what stands out is the timing and handling of these lawsuits.
The Seamans delayed the case multiple times by requesting several trial continuances. This stalling tactic extended the legal proceedings until after Victoria Seaman was elected to public office.
Suspiciously, she received a substantial settlement from the city only two months after her election. Despite the significant payout, Victoria Seaman did not inform the public about the settlement, raising serious concerns about her commitment to transparency.
To further prevent the public from discovering the case details, the Seaman’s’ attorneys filed a Motion for Protection.
This motion barred all attorneys from asking questions regarding political matters, including the Seaman’s suing the city for money—a clear political issue.
Remarkably, the Seamans won this motion, keeping the public in the dark about their lawsuit and the substantial settlement negotiations.
The protective order attached to John Seaman’s case adds another layer of complexity. While protective orders can be standard in legal proceedings, the specific redactions in John Seaman’s deposition raise suspicions.
The order indicates that family matters were off-limits, hinting that the redacted portions could contain potentially embarrassing or damaging information about the Seamans. This secrecy fuels public mistrust, as voters might reasonably question what is hidden and why.
The financial aspect of the lawsuit settlement is particularly troubling. Sources suggest that Victoria Seaman received $350,000, not in a lump sum but in increments of $100,000.
This method allowed the payments to bypass a City Council vote, indicating a lack of transparency and an attempt to circumvent public oversight.
If true, this arrangement represents a significant scandal, highlighting a potential manipulation of the city’s financial oversight processes.
Victoria Seaman’s current lawsuit against the city, case number A-22-858925-C, is also under scrutiny. Critics describe this lawsuit as another attempt by Seaman to secure a financial payout from the city. This ongoing legal battle further complicates her public image and raises questions about her motivations and priorities.
The former chair of the Republican Party has voiced concerns about Seaman’s mayoral bid, citing the controversies surrounding her lawsuits against the City of Las Vegas.
These concerns are compounded by the perception that Seaman’s legal actions and the settlement arrangements lack transparency and accountability. Suing the city, which equates to suing the taxpayers and her constituents, can be seen as a betrayal of public trust.
The deliberate attempt to combine the complaints under John Seaman’s case number, coupled with the protective order and the redactions, suggests a lack of transparency and a willingness to manipulate the legal process.
Voters might view these actions as indicative of a public servant prioritizing personal gain over public service.
The financial aspect of the settlement, if true, further undermines confidence in Seaman’s integrity. The lack of a public vote on the settlement payments is particularly troubling, as it suggests an attempt to circumvent public oversight.
The ongoing lawsuit adds to the perception that Seaman is more interested in personal financial gain than serving her community.
Critics argue that her actions poorly reflected her ethical standards and raised serious doubts about her suitability for public office.
Public officials are expected to act with integrity and prioritize the welfare of their constituents. The legal maneuvers, the redactions, and the financial settlements all point to a pattern of behavior that undermines public trust.
In light of these controversies, voters should carefully consider the implications of electing Victoria Seaman as the next mayor of Las Vegas.
The lawsuit, combined with the lack of transparency, the financial settlements, and the ongoing legal disputes, all suggest behavior inconsistent with the ethical standards expected of a public servant.
Voters deserve transparent and accountable representatives who prioritize the public good.
Seaman’s actions raise serious doubts about her ability to fulfill these expectations, making a solid case for voters to seek an alternative candidate who can better uphold the integrity and trust essential for effective public service.
