- Quickdraw McLaw
- 26 Comments
- 142 Views
- It’s hard to believe that it has been already been 19 years since that fateful September morning. Check out the memorial here. Feel free to share your memories below. How has the passage of time changed your perspective on that day?
- According to DA Steve Wolfson, there is a backlog of 330 murder cases in Clark County–a number that was down to 270 before the pandemic hit. He hopes two courtrooms that are being renovated for social distancing and which should be done in a week to 10 days will help get jury trials happening again. [News3LV]
- Las Vegas shooting victims are closer to getting their $800 million settlement. [8NewsNow]
- Detailed local hospital COVID-19 numbers were accidentally released. [I-team]
- Were you curious what O’Melveny was going to get paid for their work for the Board of Regents (a $9,500 flat fee) or what is in their engagement letter? [TNI]
The way people die affects how we view those deaths. 2,977 innocent people died on 9/11. In response, we entered two protracted wars that lasted many years and burned up trillions of dollars in treasure.
In contrast, we seem to have collectively accepted 200,000 COVID deaths in 6 months as just part of life.
On 9/11, we were unified. Today, we are bitterly divided beyond the reach of facts.
Are you seriously attempting to conflate a deliberate act of terrorism by a hostile foreign terror cell to a global virus and/or death from things like cancer, diabetes, flu, etc. I hope you are my opposing counsel, so that I and the Judge can laugh at you behind your back… but something tells me you are not smart enough to be a trial lawyer anyway.
9/11 was a scary day, I still think about it. But it did bring us together as a nation. Remember when Rudy G was a leader and a hero instead of a buffoon?
Remember when the media missed the scoop that it was a joint CIA/Pentagon operation that recruited and trained the 29 Saudis that flew the planes on 9/11.
Since then its been endless wars and globalism all the way baby!
I've now learned the hard way that Commissioner Yamashita thinks that he can just make up his own law to follow. I know the guy has a heavy caseload, but that's no excuse. WT actual F with this guy? Has anyone else seen him do this? It seems fairly obvious that he just doesn't want (I suppose he would say "doesn't have time") to think much at all about the legal arguments before him. Does he only read the first two pages of each pleading? We need Sturman to just take the wheel from him on our matter otherwise we will have to bounce back and forth 10 more times on this. He just does not seem to give a flip about getting it right.
Completely disagree. I appear in front of Yamashita often. He is better than 95% of the judges when it comes to reading and understanding the cases. He usually goes the extra mile and combs through all of the exhibits and estate planning documents. Not only does Commissioner Yamashita read everything, his depth of knowledge is second-to-none. He practiced in trusts and estates for decades prior to becoming Commissioner.
Now, there are times I want certain cases in front of Judge Sturman and not Commissioner Yamashita, but those are case specific because I know how each of them tend to react to different situations. For example, if you are defending the rights of a surviving spouse, you want to be in front of Yamashita. If you're challenging, you want to be in front of Judge Sturman. There are many others, but there's no need to share them all here.
And Judge Sturman is very good too. She is always prepared and does a good job honing in on the major issues, even if they weren't fully or adequately briefed. She was phenomenal when she had a guardianship calendar, I'll never understand why they reassigned it. She was always so careful to abide the rights of the protected person.
So, 12:00 PM, maybe it's just you. Don't be surprised if things don't change in front of Judge Sturman.
Don't agree with either 12:00 or 12:53.
The Commissioner is far better than 12:00 gives him credit for, but is not as universally beloved and wonderful as 12:53 insists.
And both posters wear their bias on their sleeve. 12:53 is clearly a super supporter of the commissioner, almost to the point I suspect they are good acquaintances or even colleagues, as no objective outsider would ever declare him better than 95% of the judges.
And the bias of 12:00 is even more direct and much easier to pinpoint.
12:00 had an isolated, individual case before the Commissioner, and 12:00 lost the hearing, so that must mean(in 12:00's universe) that the judicial officer is horribly incompetent and irredeemably lazy.
Criticizing judicial performance is fine and must occur, but the approach of these two posters leave much to be desired.
12:00 apparently needs to grow up a little, gain greater maturity and personal responsibility, and begin to understand the layers of nuance involved in many cases, as there is seldom a case which is such a slam dunk that if a judge rules against us that he/she must be moronic and a true loafer.
And 12:53 needs to gain a better degree of objectivity, proportion and distance, as I bet no one, who has ever appeared before the Commissioner, except 12:53, thinks he is the greatest of all time.
Likewise no one who has ever appeared before the Commissioner, except 12:00, thinks he is the worst of all time and a real threat to destroy western jurisprudence.
What both posters have in common is a love of hyperbole and an apparent tendency to reduce complex, multi-layered matters to simplistic absolutes.
I agree that most attorneys, who appeared in front of him, would not view him from the diametric extremes that the above two have.
Yamashita is cordial. His staff, not so much. Better than the Nevada Court of Appeals wretches.
Although Yamashita is not God, he is damn good. I find him to be very knowledgeable, and a very hard worker. I have always found him to be very thorough and well prepared. Perfect, no. But very good. And as 3:04 notes, cordial.
Back when he was in practice, I referred several people to him, including family members whose work I could not handle. In fact, Wes prepared my in-laws' Living Trust and my wife's Will.
I like him better than the RJC judges. I do not get much probate work, but when I do, it is the weird stuff. I called his office, and they were helpful, which is more important to me than court side manner.
@12:53 I heard the shake up on the Guardianship docket was so that the new chief could move her friend onto the 10th floor at the RJC. I hope it isn't true but that's what people have said.
This Board of Regents thing is typical bureaucracy. Board president unilaterally paying a firm 10 grand looks totally above board. I'm sure it is a problem everywhere, but it seems like every level of government in Nevada has trouble understanding how to do their job in an acceptable manner.
And that is very pronounced in the judiciary as well.
I blame Sisolak for appointing a regent who attacks not only staff but other regents.
12:35–then why don't you run for judge, or at least attempt to persuade someone to run who you think would be an effective judge, and then support them with your time, effort, as well as a financial contribution?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. Almost everyone who complains about substandard judges just nothing more than that–complain.
There are quite a few substandard judges(I do agree with you on that). And many of them have been opposed in their re-election bids. Have you ever provided a financial contribution to any of those challengers, or even just posted one of their campaign yard sign in front of your office, or anything at all?
Please don't feel the need to take the time and effort to respond, as I am almost certain I know the answer.
Vote judicial candidates incumbents out
What a stupid thing to say. Obviously, you're a troll. Get the hell off of the real lawyers' site, you buffoon.
Calling people names is a sign of intellectual laziness and low intelligence. Do you work at the AG's office?
I agree with 6:40, except for Trevor Atkins and Sue Johnson, vote the judicial incumbents out. I guess I am a buffoon too.
Nah…Johnson should go too
Eric Johnson should absolutely be on the first train out. SHJ has actually rounded into a solid jurist. She gets a little full of herself but she generally gets it right. Eric is a train wreck on the civil side and a prosecutor with a robe on the criminal side.
WOW! What an outpouring of abject boneheaded-ness.
WOW, I agree. Get rid of the lacking in the judiciary. They would be 95% of them, excluding Atkins.
So do you really believe that all but two or three incumbents should be voted out? Have you looked at the people running against them and feel they are the better choice? The "all incumbents are bad" mentality indicates a lack of real effort to evaluate choices.
9:10 — You see what you just did there? Started out on the high road, and then fell right off the cliff.