- law dawg
- 38 Comments
- 1018 Views
- Complaints allege Judges Erika Mendoza and Tina Talim are in violation of campaign finance laws. [Nevada Current]
2024 Judicial Election #17
- 2024 Judicial Election
- Posted on 2 days ago
Most Voted Comments
Active Comment Threads
Recent Comments
Carnac the Magnificent says, re today’s title: “What is Hooge’s wet dream that he wishes he were in?”
Question for all: If a judicial candidate cannot conduct thorough legal research on how the law/regulation should be interpreted or followed, how are they having the business on being a Judge?
I think they should not.
#bringbackthecivilbench
Reading the article, sounds to me like they did exactly what they should have done. They got an opinion from the SOS. Four judges did the same thing. All relied on SOS.
But also, that paralegal just got her firm conflicted off from all their courtrooms.
and to be fair, the NV SOS office is already a bit of a sh*tshow. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they gave contradictory information.
Wow, Great legal minds: “Mendoza and Talim, both sitting judges, did not respond when asked to cite a law that allows candidates in a special election to exceed the $5,000 maximum contribution from an individual or entity. ”
The Secretary of State’s campaign guide, says in bold print: “It is important to note that this guide is for general information only. It does not have the force and effect of Nevada law, regulation, or rule.”
I looked at the law cited in the complaint, seems pretty clear to me that what they did was out of line. Both Talim and Mendoza seem to have a boatload of $$ on hand, why not give back the excess “in an abundance of caution” and call it a day?
What law? There isn’t a law on point about special elections. Hence, the clusterfuck. Not to mention seebock has, in writing, confirmation from the SoS office that special election is 10k. Literally in writing.
There is no law. Law says $5000 for the primaries and $5000 for the general. The law addresses general elections. This is why candidates sought guidance and were told 5+5. I am not voting for either Talim or Mendoza; however there are actual valid reasons to not vote them other than this.
what are the valid reasons?
We can say that about the law firms who contributed to their campaigns?
There’s a thing called first amendment and also, peremptory challenges.
Sounds like you’re an apologist and we know who you voted for judges lol.
1st amendment doesn’t protect you from getting fired from a private law firm. And What do peremptory challenges have to do with anything here?
Talim’s lack of conscientiousness to perform basic legal research beyond reliance on a candidate guide, shows her legal abilities are lacking: The Secretary of State’s campaign guide, says in bold print: “It is important to note that this guide is for general information only. It does not have the force and effect of Nevada law, regulation, or rule.” So in legal citations in briefs, it will be okay to rely on headnotes to summarize a case holding. Or, better yet, just cite Tom Letizia.
I am not supporting either of these candidates. However they got not only direct answers from the SoS but the SoS puts out an FAQ that is at best ambiguous and at worst supports their positions.
“Alan has certainly pretty much disqualified himself over the last 10 years with some really indefensible positions that he’s taken and certainly in interviews with the RJ that are now in print, he continues to take some really indefensible positions about society, about women, about people of color, it’s about people who are gay.” From Ralston.
Yes, lets trust the notorious lefty Ralston for his judicial recommendations.
🙄
Coffing and Lebfevre!
Yes, please!
Where is this written?
https://thenevadaindependent.com/elections/2024/races/judicial/8th-dc-dept-14
Thank you!
This was garbage writing from Ralston.
I like Jon and support the Indy. This recommendation was pure tripe with this thumb on the scale.
In the race for 27 the text was quotes from the panel the did the evaluations, not from Ralston. What was said about Mendoza by co-workers and the defense bar was scathing and if half is true, disqualifying.https://thenevadaindependent.com/elections/2024/races/judicial/8th-dc-dept-27
Has anyone else had a similar experience with Mendoza?
The panel is right about Mendoza. This is her well known reputation around the courthouse.
She’s holding it together for the 90 day election. Once she wins, just see how her temperament changes.
Or, you could just vote for Coffing and call it a day.
From your mouth to God’s Ear.
Just read the Indy article. I do not recall ever seeing such a blunt and scathing review as the one regarding Mendoza. I had no idea, but I also am not a DA or criminal attorney.
who is excited for some Ralston tears over the next 2 weeks
I say keep the hot judges.