- Quickdraw McLaw
- 79 Comments
- 171 Views
With mail-in ballots already arriving and early voting starting Saturday, it’s time to talk about some of the contested judicial races featured on that ballot. We welcome your comments on the qualifications of the candidates as well as any information you can offer to help voters make an educated decision. Just remember to keep your comments appropriate and defamation-free.
Here are the justice court races appearing on the ballots of certain voters in Clark County:
Justice of the Peace, Las Vegas Township Dept. 6:
- Gonzalez, Bill
- Goodey, Jessica
Justice of the Peace, Las Vegas Township Dept. 7
- Berkley, Max
- Wilson, Amy
Justice of the Peace, Las Vegas Township Dept. 9:
- Bonaveture, Joe
- Chio, Danielle “Pieper”
Justice of the Peace, Las Vegas Township Dept. 10:
- DeMonte, Noreen
- Dotson, Cybill
Justice of the Peace, Las Vegas Township Dept. 13:
- Baucum, Suzan
- Saxe, Rebecca
There are three ballot questions on the ballot. You can read the questions and arguments for and against here. By way of summary:
Question 1 proposes to guarantee equal rights and will become law if passed.
Question 2 proposes to prospectively increase the required minimum wage paid to employees and becomes law if passed.
Question 3 proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to allow for open primaries and ranked-choice voting and will return to the ballot in 2024 if it passes.
What are your thoughts?
I rarely if ever vote yes on those ballot questions for a panoply of reasons, but for the first time in probably years I plan on voting yes on No. 3 although like all ballot questions i'm sure there will be a plethora of legal challenges if it passes.
Hard no on No. 3. There is already so much distrust of the voting system. Creating a system that is more confusing opens the door for more mistakes in tabulation. Look at San Francisco who established ranked voting in 2002. We don't have to be San Francisco. Read this article and then more importantly read the comments of people after the article. https://missionlocal.org/2020/10/jury-still-out-on-san-franciscos-ranked-choice-voting-ethnic-media-services/
Hard yes on 3.
We need voting reform. The two party system isn't working – ask anyone on either side.
The solution is more political parties that better represent voters and that need to form a coalition.
If the problem with ranked choice voting is that people who haven't done it before need to learn how to do it, then just teach them. Send better information. Public outreach. We need something to change.
Hard No on 3. Agreed that the two party system isn't working (ala uniparty). But RCV is NOT the answer. I might be alright with Open Primaries, but not when paired with RCV.
10:52,
Wait, so you're okay with the possibility of party raiding (swapping parties to try and get the poor candidate nominated) but not with the natural solution to that issue? I mean, my kids understand being asked "Where do you want to go to eat" and followed up with "We're not going to Taco Bell. Pick somewhere else." People have different preferences. It makes sense to have a voting system that allows those preferences to be expressed.
1052 here.
I am not convinced that open primaries will result in party switching much more than it is done now. But, it will allow me to change my reg to Independent and still vote in the primaries.
In the age of the DNC supporting MAGA candidates to invade the primaries, and Conservative PACs placing seemingly legit signs aligning Sisolak and Biden, all bets are off.
I am still convinced that the D/R Uniparty Candidates fight for themselves and not the people they are elected to represent. The Libertarian/Green Parties, etc. are not where they need to be to viably challenge the two (uni) party system. RCV does not solve this in its current iteration, even though its supposed to.
Hard NO.
I have a question. Anyone know what happens if you refuse to rank any candidate other then the one you wish to vote for?
You can certainly refuse to rank any other candidate; that's fine. If your candidate is dropped in the second round or later, your next-ranked candidate receives your vote. If you didn't select a next-ranked candidate, your vote isn't applied to anyone else. For an example of this, look at Alaska's 3-way race between Pertola, Palin and Begich. Palin and Begich got into personal attacks early, and their supporters pretty much refused to support the other. Pertola was in the lead in the beginning with 40%, Palin with 31%, Begich with 28.5%. Had every one of Begich's supporters been of the mind that "If I can't have this Republican, I want.. that one" then Palin's second round would have been a win. They didn't. Either they refused to vote for Palin at all, or they preferred Pertola. Pertola won.
Here's how that actually shook out: Pertola had 75k votes, Palin had 59k, & Bertich had 53k in the first ballot. In the second ballot, Pertola received 15k of Bertich's votes, Palin got 27k. 11k votes were "lost" because they didn't indicate a second rank. Alaska put significant resources into education, but Palin spoke out against it, so her supporters were less likely to rank a second candidate. The people who were okay with one type of Republican, but much preferred a Democrat over a distasteful R, were the ones that swung the race to Pertola.
No. 3. Voting "NO!" This is a ridiculous effort to make Nevada like California. If you are independent you don't get to vote in party primaries. This will botch things up big time. So if you have two top "D" candidates the "R" or Independent Candidate will not emerge on the ballot. This is so bad and so transparent what they are trying to do. Maybe we need a third party which has not worked since Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Perot in modern times. We don't need to squeeze out candidates from the two parties.
10:29 – You're incorrect, the top FIVE candidates move on to the general, not the top two.
https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Question_3,_Top-Five_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative_(2022)
10:29 – Please review the actual ballot question: https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showpublisheddocument/10820/637968581844670000
As 10:38 points out, this is a top 5, not top 2. It is top 5 exactly so that there is a better chance of independent, minor parties, or different "flavors" of major party candidates can get on the general election ballot.
Also, people can already switch parties easily to vote in the "other" party's primary, so Question 3 really won't change much in that respect.
10:29 is scared that the Democrats will run 5 candidates, split the vote, and that all 5 of the candidate will beat out the highest R or independent. I guess 10:29 thinks that RCV will be the reason why the R or Independent never had a choice in that race, and not the fact that the R or Independent didn't have the votes to even come in 5th.
My view is open primaries are not primaries but an early general election. You don't have to vote in primaries. But the party voters get to decide who shall be their candidate and not independent voters–5, 3 or 2 it does not matter. The problem in Nevada is that there are more registered Ds than Rs or Independents. Lumping them together does nothing except to screw up things..
11:00 – that would require a level of strategy, planning, and execution that the Democratic Party could never pull off
(Registered Democrat here)
Q3 empowers the establishment uniparty. Hard NO.
It's a hard YES for me on 3. there are so many non-partisans in Nevada that not having open primary results in candidates who would likely not get to the top of the ballot otherwise.
How does it "empower the establishment uniparty"? It sends the top 5 vote-getters to the general election. Not the top 2, or even the top 3. Top 5. Are you claiming that a third party can't break into the top 5 when exposed to the other candidates? If so, how is even having a third party anything but an illusion of choice?
It's kind of a truism in electoral politics that the fringe are the most active in primaries. So what you have now is people catering to the lunatic edges of society in primary season, staking out positions that are more and more out of step with the majority of folks, in order to serve up "red meat" to "their base." In theory, they move more the center for the general election, knowing that the positions they've taken sound like nonsense to the general public (because they are!). But more and more often, the "move" never comes. RCV, on the other hand, forces candidates to realize from the very beginning that their "base" and their constituents they need to be elected are going to come from both sides of the aisle, so to speak. Their positions become less extreme.
If your candidate wants to rant against "both parties," Question 3 gives them the best opportunity for the people to hear them and vote for them.
What it does is allow Dems to vote in Repub primaries to rig the vote for the candidate they want, and Repubs to vote in Dems to vote for the candidate they want, and then the worst candidates run against each other and the worst of the worst wins. It's a lose lose for everyone.
Let's assume everything you said is true. People will intentionally vote for terrible candidates, assuming their actually-preferred candidate will sail through because enough other people will vote for them. Well, since the top 5 go through, shouldn't the "better" candidates outperform the "supported-by-opposition-and-therefore-terrible candidates?" So then at the general election, when the opposition's support of the awful candidate falls away.. you're left with the candidates that are actually preferred?
Honestly, it sounds like you're saying that candidates that can't make the top 5 when everyone has the chance to vote for them are secretly the "best" and "most-preferred" candidate. Because it's nearly Halloween, does that mean that if I give trick-or-treaters their choice of candy, they'd really rather have the Smarties even though every one of them went through the bowl and selected the full-size Snickers?
12:40 – Actually, what you describe is allowed under the current system. Since now we have same day registration, you can change your party affiliation to vote in the "other" party's primary, and then change it right back (aka party raiding).
Question 3 would create an open primary where anyone can vote for any candidate. You cast your ballot for one candidate in the primary. The ranked-choice part doesn't occur until the general election.
I don't see how it would make sense to vote in the primary for a "weak" candidate of the other party. Even if that puts the "weak" candidate over the line to make the general, since it is top 5, it's virtually guaranteed that the "strong" candidate also makes the general. Both major parties will likely have two candidates that make it to the general, and one might have three. Since the general election is ranked-choice, there's really not a problem with vote splitting between the strong and weak candidates.
There is a very real possibility Question 3 will improve candidate quality. Right now, 90% of the candidates on the ballot are shysters with crazy pasts who have zero shame. The people with the character and skills to actually perform well as public servants don't want to wallow in the campaign mud with the Michele Fiore and Victoria Seaman's of the world.
90%, huh? What else can you pull out of your ass?
That is clearly the most ridiculous political hypothesis I have heard in a long time (and I just the read the article about Lara Logan so that is saying something).
90% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Our current primary system has produced an election denier running for Secretary of State and Sigal "hang 'em from a crane" Chattah running for Attorney General.
"If the rule you followed brought you to this, what use was the rule?"
–Anton Chigurth
Yes on 3.
Link for today's Business Court Bench Bar isn't working, and the court website says "Video unavailable" when you try to stream. Anyone else having any luck?
Is the link coming from the court? I can't download either of today's new Nevada Supreme Court opinions so the judiciary might be having tech issues.
http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/stream/
It worked with past meetings, but is not live. No other link from the Court. Guess no CLE for those who didn't go in person today…
Apparently there was a Court tech issue so it did not stream.
It started streaming about 20 minutes in.
I'm curious what the law is regarding which portion of Telles' assets German's estate can recover money from in a wrongful death suit. Will German's estate only be able to collect on 50% of Telles' assets or can they go after everything Telles and his wife own? Sounds like Telles has a lot of money and property based on the below article.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/investigations/telles-has-thousands-in-assets-but-taxpayers-pay-for-two-attorneys-2661026/
When you are married the assets accumulated since the start of the marriage are joint and therefore subject to seizure by German's estate. So, yes, German can likely seize the Telles family home if it was bought after the marriage and seize money earned after the marriage.
There is no way German's estate will obtain the primary residence. Mrs. Telles can claim it as a homestead. As to the remaining assets, assuming they are community property, German's estate will be able to execute on Robert Telles' half of the community, but not the entire community.
What if the primary residence is in trust?
3:39 reminds me of how many older attorneys I know who can't retire because of divorce(s). Marry once. Stay married.
The homestead exemption doesn't disappear if its conveyed to a trust. See NRS 115.020(5).
Gonzalez/Goodey race and Bonaventure/Chio race, should be very close races and could go either way. I call it Gonzalez and Bonaventure by slim margins.
As for Wilson/Berkley race that one should be relatively close but Wilson will probably take it by several percentage points.
As for incumbents Dotson and Baucum, they don't have much to worry about. Baucum, in fact, should completely dominate in her race. I don't think it will be remotely close.
So, fellow posters, am I wrong about all these races?
That's an easy no on Rebecca Paddock Saxe
On the races with male vs. female-will we see the same trend from 2020 with women winning out?
Isn't this the only jp race where an incumbent (Baucum) was not endorsed by the RJ? Think so.
? Dotson-DeMonte may be closer than you believe. DeMonte has been a DA forever and likely has law enforcement support. And 1:45 is right, Saxe got the Review-Journal endorsement.
2:25–Point is the incumbents have the money, the name-recognition, etc.
So, 12:54 is probably essentially correct that those two incumbents are safe, but you are right that the races may be closer than they may appear to 12:54.
You mention something that helps each challenger. DeMonte will benefit by any law enforcement support and endorsements she may have, and that will add a few percentage points to her total, but she probably will still not make it a close race.
But certainly any law enforcement support she receives helps her a lot more than Baucum's opponent is helped by the RJ endorsement. Such endorsements can have an impact in some political races, but seldom have an impact in judicial races. People assume that judicial election endorsements in local news outlets help a lot more than they actually do.
If you were to poll 100 random voters you would be lucky if just one person out of that 100 could identify who received the endorsement in all these judicial races.
I think Goodey wins over Gonzalez. Bonaventure v. Chio will be close, but I think he wins. Berkely and Wilson will also be close, but I think she pulls it out. I also think Dotson and Baucum win pretty easily. All that being said, Bonaventure, Gonzalez and DeMonte seem to not really be campaigning very heavily. Based on 2020, it's unclear if that will matter much though.
12:54-Those are not bad predictions but many think Chio takes that race.
Does the Bonaventure name still carry close to the same heft and recognition that it did some years ago? We will see.
For those of us who have lied here since the 1970s, we remember when the Bonaventure name was powerful, there are probably many reading this who don't even know the name. In fact, what is really strange, is that there was a time when a "name" could be powerful, we have been corporatized, etc.
Hard no on Baucum. Even the RJ wouldn’t endorse.
Agreed. Years ago I had a minor issue in front of her and despite overwhelming evidence, she ruled against me. I never did understand why. The client didn't care and didn't want to appeal so it was what it was, but I've never gotten over it. Ha! Maybe that says more about me than her.
Media outlets in this town used to post complete copies of relevant orders, briefs, indictments, complaints, etc. with their stories. I wish they would still do this. The actual filings contain more information than the story. Plus, sometimes a reporter misapprehends some point of law or procedure so it's nice to just read the filing itself.
The Independent just published a voter guide and they include a case citation and quote so you can look it up.
Apparently Judge Baucum had a policy that if a defendant took a deal, she did not impose jail time for being found guilty. But if a defendant lost at trial, she imposed jail time. Higher court found it unconstitutional punishment for exercising the right to trial.
Great post 3:56. Often reporters, untrained in the law, either don't notice what the true point of a procedure or ruling is, and/or they simply wish to ignore the real significance and simply emphasize some aspect that makes the story more interesting, or even inflammatory.
Looking at 12:54's analysis, that is not how I want some of these races to wind up, but I've essentially had the same view, as to the eventual outcome of these races, as 12:54 does.
My heart has a couple of these races coming out quite different than 12:54 predicts, but my head is pretty well in line with what 12:54 says. My only small quibble, and another poster mentioned this as well, is that yes the Bonaventure race is close, but probably Chio pulls it out rather than the incumbent.
So, I ask, what does Mr. Ben Nadig think? But I clarify the point to ask not who does Mr. Nadig think is the better choice in each race, but who does he think will actually prevail in each race. He always has interesting observation about judicial races, and even more so, judicial performance.
I tend to think most of his observations are spot on. My only minor quibble is that a couple times I thought he was a little too praise-worthy as to the performance of a couple new judges. But I realize he is only sharing his opinions and experiences, and that others may not always agree with all those opinions
Off topic: Curious if anyone has successfully gotten out of the practice of law? Or know someone who has? If so, what do you/they do now, and is it any better?
I am a youngish associate (3 years). I absolutely get zero fulfillment from this job, and I feel like I am terrible at it. I do it because it pays well, I worked so hard to get through law school and pass the bar, and I come from a family where practically everyone is a doctor, attorney, or something similar.
I am starting to seriously consider another line of work. I just sit here all day working frantically on motions, discovery stuff, random research projects, whatever else. Frantically trying to get everything done, not make any mistakes, and bill bill bill. But I always mess stuff up (or at least I feel like at a higher rate than my peers).
Anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a week millennial snow flake that can't hand with the big law bois?
I suspect you are working for a defense mill. If you are not on the partnership track, get out, try another area. Find something that gives you more decision-making authority, even if it involves a cut in pay. I have 30+ years in practice and still like my job. Wish you well.
I think 7:35 sounds spot on. There are some excellent defense firms to work for, but there is a lot of really bad soul destroying ones as well. I personally went from a terrible mill,, to a normal place and then to government for a while where i really re-discovered (or i suppose discovered) an enjoyment of the practice. Looking back i didn't really know better. Even within the same firm maybe a partner/department switch may provide some relief. Switching firms/jobs doesn't hold the stigma it used to so perhaps at least try something new within law before gettnig out because leaving to another industry (which you may be awful at or not like) and then trying to get back in could prove very difficult.
Switching firms / jobs has never held any stigma in Las Vegas as far as I've seen. There's a LOT of addiction, schizoid personalities, drunks, degenerate gamblers, and drug addicts who are attorneys and are still functioning on some level. It's certainly not limited to defense mills. The bar doesn't give a shit about mental health and certainly doesn't have enough resources as far as I'm concerned for mental health as an ongoing medical concern.
Move on if you can, or keep your eyes open for clients who seem to be successful in their business and then research that business to see what the startup costs are, capitalization requirements, the feasibility of switching to that business, how cash flow works in that business, etc. I literally have a list of 20-30 types of business that I know would be successful, from what I've seen.
I have a friend from law school who got married to her husband right out of law school back in the 1990's; she graduated a year after me from our law school. A week after her 20th wedding anniversary with 2 kids who were young adults, her husband dropped dead of a heart attack. She REALLY reevaluated her life at that point, and decided to get her CDL. She drove clean for 6 months working for mom and pop and small carriers, and then was poached away by Estes Trucking which doubled her salary. She told me now (about 4 years ago) her trucking salary made as much as net salary from her law firm (she was solo), she worked 4 1/2 days a week, and since she was working regional trucking with a base in the Midwest (not just local, not over the road), she was home at night maybe 1/2 the time during the week, maybe on the road 1/2 the time during the week, but always at home on weekends. I'm guessing she made 80k to 90k at Estes and didn't have to worry about the whole "Schedule C" thing because she was an employee and not an independent trucker.
@5:23 – I've been licensed for about 10 years now. I spent the first several years at defense firms (mostly insurance defense). It's soul-draining. It's anxiety-inducing. And it's not fulfilling. You're absolutely not alone feeling that way.
Like others have said – go find somewhere else! There's very minimal stigma (if at all) for moving jobs a lot, especially if you can articulate a decent reason. FWIW, I had a couple short stints at places, but in interviews I could say "this place hired me and it was nothing like they promised" and "that place, I liked the work but management… wasn't a good fit" (side note – "not a good fit" is the best way to say "that place was terrible and/or boss was an uberjerk).
Now I'm in-house at a great company that actually cares about its employees. I get to do some litigation, but I don't have the constant stress and deadlines like I did before. It's great. There's something out there for you too, just have to find it. Maybe it's government, or in-house, or transactional, etc. You can do it too!
If I had successfully gotten out, would I still be here commenting and care?
@5:23 – I am 11 years out now and the only advice I can offer is that you need to find something that is fulfilling for you on a personal and professional basis, regardless of whether that involves the practice of law or doing something completely unrelated. You live this life once and doing so unhappily for 40 years is not realistic and will inevitably have your fears of not making a mistake come true, because all humans are fallible, particularly at tasks they have no interest in.
I know several folks that have left the practice of law for other careers, and two of the biggest hurdles seemed to be their own egos and fear of the stigma of being perceived by peers to be "giving up" on the practice of law. I will tell you the same thing I told them, screw everyone else and their opinion. It's your life and you need to be happy in it. Obviously you have to consider your financial situation, but make sure you are not letting these other things affect your decision.
As for advice on actually leaving the practice of law, unless you have an undergraduate degree in something that qualifies you for a non-legal career (business, marketing, engineering, etc.), consider getting an advanced degree in a field that interests you. I know several folks that kept working and got an advanced degree in a particular field and then left once they landed a job in that field.
I'd recommend that you try something else – the AG's office is always hiring. It will no doubt be a pay cut, but if you can afford it, you might try it. You could end up in the consumer protection division, or representing an agency in a field you are interested in (conservation & natural resources, water, gaming, mental health, etc.), or something else you find fulfilling.
Start your own firm! I resisted for a long time because I was afraid that I wouldn't have any work, but it turns out that there's plenty of work out there for anyone who is remotely competent — and probably even those who aren't!
Yes. Some of the most financially successful attorneys I know are below Boyd grade incompetent. Chutzpah and drive are all you need.
"Question 1 proposes to guarantee equal rights and will become law if passed."
Can you be more specific about what this so-called "equal rights" will entail? It means that gender identity will become a protected class. It means, among a whole host of issues, that biological men who claim to be transgendered will be allowed to piss on the rights of women by competing in women's sports. Women will have no recourse. That's not equality. But wrap up Question 1 in flowery language to make it sound benign when the result is evil to its core.
Hard pass on Question 1.
#freesaxe
#freebonniebulla
#freesex
Couple of weeks back someone posted about the Nadin Cutter case (A-22-852463-C). Since I supported her opponent Jason Stoffel in the last election, I have kept an eye on the case and it has gotten crazy. So Cutter hires Jimmerson and does not deny in her Opposition that she settled a case without client approval and then kept her clients' monies for 3 years after she settled the case (2019-2022).
She says that she will pay the monies now and attaches some checks from her firm's general account. Why does she still have a firm general account (or client trust account) 2 years after she took the bench and why are there client monies in her firm's general account? Jason would have been such a better choice.
Welcome to family court. For every slightly decent judge we have on the bench, we have several slightly incompetent judges on the bench. Cutter has always had ethical issues. Her record with the state bar was public and she still won the election. That aside, the general consensus seems to be she's doing an ok job on the bench.
Jimmerson representing someone dealing with trust account issues is ironic.
I have no idea where the consensus is that she is doing an OK job on the bench. I have known Nadin since her days when she was wreaking havoc as Judge Johnson's clerk at the same time that I was clerking. She has no business being on the bench.
@11:09 I haven't been in front of her a whole lot…I've just heard some comments from other family law attorneys. I haven't heard a lot of negative comments about her on the bench. I have heard a lot of negative comments about her time in practice.
11:16– That is probably fair and I probably came across as harsh so you have my anonymous apology. My experience with her on the bench has been unprepared and largely ineffectual. My experience with her when clerking and in practice was frightening.
11:16 here. My experience with her in practice was also frightening. No apology needed. It's an anonymous blog. We're just sharing thoughts.
I clerked with Nadin. There were many of us so she will not know who I am. My observations without revealing anything confidential. She is very driven from a social perspective. She is smart but not overly intellectual. She is a realist. Although a very nice person (I truly believe if another clerk had a flat tire she would drive over and help fix it), she also has a weird dichotomy in that she will push the envelope on what is true. When we later practiced together I noticed she would almost lie to the Court about her cases – not maybe overtly but to the level I never would. I never did reconcile the person with the practice. Maybe she simply took the zealous representation too far. I have never appeared in front of her so I have no idea how she is as a Judge. Just my thoughts.
12:49-I think that's a spot on analysis, as well as very fair-minded, and nuanced.
I know that some posters are simply condemning her and throwing her to the wolves, but your approach, recognizing the yin and yang factors within the same person, recognizes the complexity of the human situation.
We've all known people who some describe as mean,petty and selfish, while others describe the same person as kind, generous and giving.
I think the nuance is fine. However the OP indicates that she has been on the bench for 2 years and appears in that case that she admits that she is holding client monies that should have been disbursed 3 years ago. Please tell me that we can agree that this very nice person has very clearly violated the rules of professional conduct?
My opposition to her as a jurist is based upon my experience with her as a practitioner. She lies. Plain and simple. Over and over again and then blames OC, the judge and even her client. I will never support her and will throw money to anyone that opposes her. Until then, she get preempted.
Every
Single
Time.
Until she gets removed. State Bar sanctioned her last summer from her time as an attorney. Now this case mentioned above where she kept client monies. Sorry but if Paul Deyhle cannot get involved on this case then what is the point of having a Commission?
Sanctions for copying brief? https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/lawyer-is-sanctioned-for-lifting-passages-from-opponents-motion-copying-was-neither-slight-nor-subtle?utm_medium=email&utm_source=salesforce_590578&sc_sid=01090667&utm_campaign=weekly_email&promo=&utm_content=&additional4=&additional5=&sfmc_j=590578&sfmc_s=59395768&sfmc_l=1527&sfmc_jb=13&sfmc_mid=100027443&sfmc_u=17331276
1) copying is totally fine, if done right.
2) copying but not adapting it to your case (e.g. not changing parties' names!) is a disservice to your client and the court.
3) if you're copying your opponent's argument, you should start with something like, "even plaintiff concedes 'XYZ.'" And if you opposed that argument w/r/t the other motion, you should probably be sanctioned for talking out of both sides of your mouth.
I have actually done this. Of course, I fixed the typos. The judge missed it and OC thought it was hilarious. OH! how I miss the 90s in this town.