The Vegas housing market is defying the experts. [Nevada Current]
A 5th Circuit panel rule that Texas lawyers can’t be required to join the state bar as currently constituted because it engages in ideological activities not germane to regulating the legal profession. [reason]
Most State Bars act without any consequences giving monies to their personal pet projects and the funding goes to an administration that does not have the best interests of the members in mind, the monies go to promote the idea that the public is protected and the small or solos be damned. Sorry, I love this ruling and I hope the 9th Circuit comes to a similar conclusion. Nothing would throw a cold bucket of water on the state bar faster than getting de-funded and having their reserves dry up when going after false complaints. And do not try to tell me that there is no other recourse. All legal fee agreements are in writing and are written contracts. Going to civil court makes all of these bogus complaints against practitioners go away. My opinion.
Agreed. So sick of seeing the state bar do nothing for us and then go on a stupid vacation every year on our dollar. No thanks. There's no reason we can't have a professional board like doctors and nurses and everyone else that has to have a professional license. There's no reason for us to be under the bar's thumb constantly.
Bogs. Oh bogs. Love me some Paola Armeni. Users and wannabes.
Guest
Anonymous
July 6, 2021 7:20 pm
The NSB goes after whomever it wants to pursue and ignores legitimate complaints against those they favor. It is a wholly subjective hunt in which the small fry get eliminated while the powerful get away with just about anything.
Same old complaints heard every year. The SBN doesn't listen or care as the employees want to keep working and SBN managers(like all bureaucracies) want to keep growing.
Next cycle, get behind a BOG candidate that represents your point of view.
No sane person wants to run for BOG. It's like running for judge. No sane person wants to do that either. That's why we end up with the current BOG and judges like Forsberg…it's all ego for them.
I did support a candidate who stated that he represented my point of view. Andrew Craner, I am still waiting for you to come to this Blog like you did before the election and explain how you have lived up to your campaign promises.
1:09–Why does Forsberg get perpetually battered on this blog?
Yes, she can get testy, and I am not taking up for her or arguing that she is one of the better ones.
But if you can't find anyone worse, in Family Court, to complain about, I'm not certain how much Family Law you practice.
There are 10 brand new ones, some of who have received some scathing reviews and very unflattering feedback. Have you appeared before all ten of them?
Again, I'm not taking up for this judge, or any judge, for that matter. Over the years, I have certainly had quite a few judges on my "Least Favorite" list.
But, I always wonder. When someone anonymously keeps barbecuing the same judge, is it truly that the attorney has a substantial point of refence after having appeared before the judge on several cases, or is it more a matter of being upset how an individual case, or even just an individual hearing, turned out?
Who knows, and that's why anonymous pot shots may not really amount to much by themselves as far as reliable evaluation of judicial performance is concerned(full disclosure: I've taken my share of anonymous pot shots at judges over the years).
So, I assume that clearly makes me a hypocrite o some level, and that I am not the right messenger for this message.
But aside from me not being the proper messenger, I am not wrong. And that is what is important–it is hard to evaluate judicial performance based on a few anonymous pot shots wherein an attorney's displeasure with the judge could be limiter to one case, or even to just one hearing.
Why is it every time someone comments about Forsberg there's a reply about singling her out or anonymous comments or its the same person leaving all the comments? Lots of commenters BBQed Pomrenze over the years and no one responded that way. Maybe Forsberg is genuinely not liked.
And for what's it's worth, she is incredibly arrogant so I can see where 1:09 is coming from.
@708 or maybe Pomranze was a "really terrible" person and a worse judge and that she was UNIVERSALLY hated. Rightfully so!
Forsberg is what she is. I haven't personally witnessed her being totally out of bounds, as yet and haven't been the target of any of her alleged ire. But, she was a pretty smart practitioner and having dealt with her on probably a dozen cases, I have no beef with her, as a person, a practitioner or a judge.
But, hey! Ya'll let loose, if you want. I am not mad at you.
@8:01 Consider yourself lucky. I know of at least one attorney who had a contentious case against her as a practitioner and once she was on the bench, she made sure he felt her ire. Totally agree with you on Pomrenze.
Guest
Anonymous
July 7, 2021 12:46 am
"No bail for man accused of execution killing in bar."
Sort of another example of no-news news.
What would have been newsworthy if Judge Zimmerman had actually agreed to the (seemingly) preposterous request of defense counsel–release him on $10,000 bond, with electronic monitoring.
The surveillance shows the defendant coming behind some random person, who the Defendant may not have even known, and blowing his brains out.
And, making matters worse is the attorney, when asking for the paltry $10,000 bond and a release with electronic monitoring, insists his client has no memory of the event.
So, the attorney argues that someone who is so mentally far gone that he already randomly killed someone, and has no memory of it, is a viable candidate to be free on bond, and presents no real risk to harm anyone else, and that this individual who is so completely divorced from reality will also be able and willing to fully comply with all the stringent requirements of electronic monitoring?
Now that all understood, I am not prepared to assume that the attorney's argument has necessarily been relayed completely or accurately. After all, often there is an emphasis to make articles concise, as well as attention-grabbing.
I didn't read it as the attorney made the argument that his/her client did not remember. I believe the article said that the police report stated that the defendant had no memory of it.
Just learned why the Nevada Supreme Court is so shitty. Blog is right.
Name the case or your comment is worthless.
Agree with 10:12, for real
Agree with 10:02, comments is not worthless. Nevada Supreme Court does suck.
Anything with Abbi Silver's Hancock is the real deal. That woman is all morals all the way.
Just like her dad.
I am glad Elissa Cadish returned to Las Vegas full time while her seat is in Carson City.
Heyy – I disagree with 10:13 for realer (maybe OP doesn't want to out himself as a lawyer on the case)
Heyy – 10:14 you are a genius
Re: 5th Cir.: Considering our State Bar is a wholly owned subsidiary of the NDP, I wonder how such litigation would fare here?
tinfoil hat time
again
Hey, 1:45, was that you pulling up in the truck with ballots at 3 a.m.?
NDP?
WTF is NDP?
Nevada Democratic Party (NDP)
Most State Bars act without any consequences giving monies to their personal pet projects and the funding goes to an administration that does not have the best interests of the members in mind, the monies go to promote the idea that the public is protected and the small or solos be damned. Sorry, I love this ruling and I hope the 9th Circuit comes to a similar conclusion. Nothing would throw a cold bucket of water on the state bar faster than getting de-funded and having their reserves dry up when going after false complaints. And do not try to tell me that there is no other recourse. All legal fee agreements are in writing and are written contracts. Going to civil court makes all of these bogus complaints against practitioners go away. My opinion.
Agreed. So sick of seeing the state bar do nothing for us and then go on a stupid vacation every year on our dollar. No thanks. There's no reason we can't have a professional board like doctors and nurses and everyone else that has to have a professional license. There's no reason for us to be under the bar's thumb constantly.
Bogs. Oh bogs. Love me some Paola Armeni. Users and wannabes.
The NSB goes after whomever it wants to pursue and ignores legitimate complaints against those they favor. It is a wholly subjective hunt in which the small fry get eliminated while the powerful get away with just about anything.
Same old complaints heard every year. The SBN doesn't listen or care as the employees want to keep working and SBN managers(like all bureaucracies) want to keep growing.
Next cycle, get behind a BOG candidate that represents your point of view.
No sane person wants to run for BOG. It's like running for judge. No sane person wants to do that either. That's why we end up with the current BOG and judges like Forsberg…it's all ego for them.
I did support a candidate who stated that he represented my point of view. Andrew Craner, I am still waiting for you to come to this Blog like you did before the election and explain how you have lived up to your campaign promises.
1:09–Why does Forsberg get perpetually battered on this blog?
Yes, she can get testy, and I am not taking up for her or arguing that she is one of the better ones.
But if you can't find anyone worse, in Family Court, to complain about, I'm not certain how much Family Law you practice.
There are 10 brand new ones, some of who have received some scathing reviews and very unflattering feedback. Have you appeared before all ten of them?
Again, I'm not taking up for this judge, or any judge, for that matter. Over the years, I have certainly had quite a few judges on my "Least Favorite" list.
But, I always wonder. When someone anonymously keeps barbecuing the same judge, is it truly that the attorney has a substantial point of refence after having appeared before the judge on several cases, or is it more a matter of being upset how an individual case, or even just an individual hearing, turned out?
Who knows, and that's why anonymous pot shots may not really amount to much by themselves as far as reliable evaluation of judicial performance is concerned(full disclosure: I've taken my share of anonymous pot shots at judges over the years).
So, I assume that clearly makes me a hypocrite o some level, and that I am not the right messenger for this message.
But aside from me not being the proper messenger, I am not wrong. And that is what is important–it is hard to evaluate judicial performance based on a few anonymous pot shots wherein an attorney's displeasure with the judge could be limiter to one case, or even to just one hearing.
Why is it every time someone comments about Forsberg there's a reply about singling her out or anonymous comments or its the same person leaving all the comments? Lots of commenters BBQed Pomrenze over the years and no one responded that way. Maybe Forsberg is genuinely not liked.
And for what's it's worth, she is incredibly arrogant so I can see where 1:09 is coming from.
Still silence from Andrew Craner about what he is doing over than shoving free blimpies in his face and going on free vacations.
@708 or maybe Pomranze was a "really terrible" person and a worse judge and that she was UNIVERSALLY hated. Rightfully so!
Forsberg is what she is. I haven't personally witnessed her being totally out of bounds, as yet and haven't been the target of any of her alleged ire. But, she was a pretty smart practitioner and having dealt with her on probably a dozen cases, I have no beef with her, as a person, a practitioner or a judge.
But, hey! Ya'll let loose, if you want. I am not mad at you.
@8:01 Consider yourself lucky. I know of at least one attorney who had a contentious case against her as a practitioner and once she was on the bench, she made sure he felt her ire. Totally agree with you on Pomrenze.
"No bail for man accused of execution killing in bar."
Sort of another example of no-news news.
What would have been newsworthy if Judge Zimmerman had actually agreed to the (seemingly) preposterous request of defense counsel–release him on $10,000 bond, with electronic monitoring.
The surveillance shows the defendant coming behind some random person, who the Defendant may not have even known, and blowing his brains out.
And, making matters worse is the attorney, when asking for the paltry $10,000 bond and a release with electronic monitoring, insists his client has no memory of the event.
So, the attorney argues that someone who is so mentally far gone that he already randomly killed someone, and has no memory of it, is a viable candidate to be free on bond, and presents no real risk to harm anyone else, and that this individual who is so completely divorced from reality will also be able and willing to fully comply with all the stringent requirements of electronic monitoring?
Now that all understood, I am not prepared to assume that the attorney's argument has necessarily been relayed completely or accurately. After all, often there is an emphasis to make articles concise, as well as attention-grabbing.
I didn't read it as the attorney made the argument that his/her client did not remember. I believe the article said that the police report stated that the defendant had no memory of it.