Strict deadlines on pretrial release hearing are latest big change in Nevada’s bail landscape. [TNI]
Luxor bombing retrial postponed after juror tests positive for Covid. [RJ]
AG Aaron Ford and his office warn against fake vaccine cards–violators can face federal penalties. [News3LV]
Metro detectives solved 92.6% of homicides in 2020. [Fox5Vegas]
What happens when an auto repair shop suddenly closes? [KTNV]
Antique dealers in Boulder City face new law requiring more complete records. [BCR]
With the Pfizer vaccine getting full FDA approval, expect to see more like this where NYC is mandating all teachers get the vaccine (with no option for weekly testing). [Las Vegas Sun]
Yeah! It's real important for taxpayers to lock up some guy who got a traffic warrant because he didn't pay his speeding ticket. Gotta get him off the street. Who cares what it costs to lock him up or that being locked up means he loses his job and then can't pay to support his family. Who cares about that! Lock'em all up!
Let's not reduce it to the ridiculous. We all know there are violent people being locked up every day to prevent more danger to victims and the rest of the community. We're not talking about traffic tickets. And even if we were, there's a world of difference between a traffic ticket and a man beating his wife to within an inch of her life, just to be arrested and sent right back home with his victim.
@11:12 is ill informed.
The offender had an opportunity to appear, but didn't. I think at least 3 notices are mailed, the offender ignored all three. A bench warrant is issued and notice mailed. The offender ignored this notice too. At any time the offender could walk into court and pay the warrant fee (1st time) and quash, and make payment arrangements for the ticket, but ignored this opportunity.
With all of the above, 11:12 wants to argue the system is too harsh? That the offender is actually a victim?
@11:12, more..
In the LV Justice Court, most arrestees for traffic matters are administratively released OR on the day of their arrest. No bail, just an OR release.
At 1:44 p.m., not saying that's not true, but does that mean that we should just let violent criminals out of custody every time they're arrested no matter how many crimes they commit? Not disagreeing with your statement but I don't think you can just say "poor brown people get locked up so let's just let everyone go."
@1:44 clearly missed the entire 2020 summer of love / peaceful protests where poor and brown people set fires to multiple cities, looted, committed battery, caused billions in damage and no one got in trouble for it.
@11:12 responding to 1:44
"Clearly", you did not read 12:03 or 12:09. Being black or brown does not excuse failing to be proactive. There are demonstrated multiple ways to avoid jail if only the offender would get off his/her butt and do something to help him/her self.
Seriously, 12:33. What you're advocating for is just a zero consequence policy. At a certain point, if you ignore a ticket, ignore a summons, don't show to court, and don't do anything about your own court-ordered bench warrant, the consequence is getting tossed in the clink for a day or two. Be an adult and pay your ticket.
Guest
Anonymous
August 23, 2021 8:03 pm
10:53, who is obviously not an attorney, offers an age-old variant of the sentiment "How can you attorneys keep putting the scum back on the street to keep re-victimizing people?!"
All attorneys, have, at one time or another, been challenged by people like 10:53 at social gatherings.
And they will pose questions or comments like this, even after learning, for example, that you may be an insurance defense attorney and have never defended a criminal case.
Now, "How can you keep putting the scum back on the street?" is apparently rhetorical in that the questioner does not really want or expect a sensible, informative response that they can hopefully learn from, but instead merely wish to act self-righteous and boldly principled.
But if any of these people, like 10:53, truly are so principled, and truly want a sensible response, then I'm sure there are posters who would be happy to explain the constitutional safeguards, occasional shoddy and biased police work, prosecutors who over-charge and may conceal critical evidence and be obstructive, etc.
But, chances are, even after you explain all that, people like 10:53 will probably respond "That is all well and good, but you haven't answered my question.Why do you guys keep putting the scum back on the street?"
By this point, an attorney should probably just respond by saying that we do it because it is fun, and quite profitable, to do so.
1:03, who is obviously not an attorney, offers an age-old variant of "I don't like your question, so get ready for a pompous ad hominem attack."
Attorneys operate in the grey areas. Is it fair to ask criminals to put some skin into the game (e.g. money) to make sure they'll actually appear for their next court date? Arguably yes. Should the money be tied to their income? Arguably yes.
Can we in good faith argue the premise of "people get locked up over traffic tickets, so people who rob elderly women at gunpoint shouldn't be locked up either?" No. Like I said, there's some grey here. Sometimes high cash bail prevents criminals from victimizing other people. "Innocent until proven guilty" is all well and good until someone commits robbery after robbery because the system suddenly decided that poor people should be immune from detention.
1:36, actually I agree with 1:03 that 10:53 kind of deserved that wise-ass response, and I tend to think that 1:03 probably is an attorney.
I can't know, and you may be right that 1:03 is not an attorney, but comparing the content and reasoning of each post, it appears likely 10:53 is not an attorney, but 1:03 absolutely seems to have legal training.
But regardless of who is an attorney and who isn't, I agree with 1:03 that it is annoying when people show so much disrespect for lawyers, and the legal profession, that they say things like that(e.g."why do you guys put all the scum back on the street to continue to rape and kill?") when they meet a lawyer at an event or social gathering.
Now, 1:36, since I safely assume you are an attorney, are you saying you have never experienced this?
It's all such a shame as most of us would never dream of disrespecting other people's professions, and making such ludicrous and inflammatory presumptions, upon first meting them.
So, since you are an attorney, and presumably understand the intricacies of these matters including critical constitutional underpinnings, can't you offer observations a little more cerebral than bemoaning why attorneys are committed to put the scum back on the street?
I think the takeaway should be different than you believe it should be.
According to you, the takeaway should be that since you are an attorney, an anonymous poster who suggested than you may not be, should "suck it."
Perhaps the takeaway should be that you need to work on how you express your ideas if those who are attorneys assume you are not.
No one will ever take an attorney seriously who accuses his/her colleagues of putting the scum back on the street.
4:28 and 2:39, I don't think 10:53's remark was intended to disparage attorneys, or was even directed at attorneys at all. The issue I'm seeing some people here keep dance around is that part of an officer's job is to take violent or dangerous people "off the streets" to keep innocent people safe.
We can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater on this issue. Is locking someone up for six months pending a trial on nothing more than possession of a crack pipe a good idea? No. But that doesn't mean that we should just ignore the real, present danger presented by a sizable majority of criminals. Some people have very dangerous pasts, some represent immediate threats to victims and the community at large.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a feel-good phrase. Let's remember that there are people in custody pending trial because a judge found probable cause that they committed a crime, and that they pose a risk to society if released.
I filed a Writ in a similar circumstance and the s.c. declined to hear the matter until after the evidentiary hearing. Of course, after the evidentiary hearing, the event already occurred.
Guest
Anonymous
August 23, 2021 8:04 pm
1:03-I was pretty much with you till the end.
But as to your last sentence–are you using that new thing known as sarcasm?
Guest
Anonymous
August 23, 2021 8:17 pm
Looking at the bashing of H&S's billing practices from Friday/this weekend has got me thinking — if you were the CEO of a large company here in town and had to choose one local firm (or a national firm with a Vegas office) to represent you in "bet-the-company" litigation, which firm or attorney are you going for representation? Money isn't a question, just looking for the best advocacy/litigators.
I tend to agree with 2:54 and 3:10, but giving a slight edge to Pisanelli. Jim is not someone you want to have as opposing counsel. (I also don't work with them and have never worked for them)
3:12, Jeff silver? umm… I don't think he was ever much of a litigator. If you are looking for a gaming license, sure.
Guest
Anonymous
August 23, 2021 8:35 pm
Question: I am not asking anyone to do my research, but could someone point me in the right direction to research whether I can appeal a Family Court order that was issued before trial? I am relatively new and do not plan on doing it myself (I am quite sure my firm would not allow that), but I want to have some knowledge before bringing it up to my boss in a mid-sized family law firm. It might be called "interlocutory" appeal nut even there I am not sure. Just a general pointing would be helpful. Thank you in advance.
Correct. We would need more information on the Order. Furthermore differentiate if you want to "appeal" or if you want interlocutory appellate review (by which I presume you mean that you want to run a writ).
OP here. Without outing myself to opposing counsel on this blog, trial set in many months, judge just made healthcare order my client believes will hurt child as we wait for trial, is there any way to ask appellate court to tell judge to reconsider? Thank you again
Oh thank god, now we can get the criminals off the streets and immediately release them back onto the streets.
Yeah! It's real important for taxpayers to lock up some guy who got a traffic warrant because he didn't pay his speeding ticket. Gotta get him off the street. Who cares what it costs to lock him up or that being locked up means he loses his job and then can't pay to support his family. Who cares about that! Lock'em all up!
Let's not reduce it to the ridiculous. We all know there are violent people being locked up every day to prevent more danger to victims and the rest of the community. We're not talking about traffic tickets. And even if we were, there's a world of difference between a traffic ticket and a man beating his wife to within an inch of her life, just to be arrested and sent right back home with his victim.
@11:12 is ill informed.
The offender had an opportunity to appear, but didn't. I think at least 3 notices are mailed, the offender ignored all three. A bench warrant is issued and notice mailed. The offender ignored this notice too. At any time the offender could walk into court and pay the warrant fee (1st time) and quash, and make payment arrangements for the ticket, but ignored this opportunity.
With all of the above, 11:12 wants to argue the system is too harsh? That the offender is actually a victim?
@11:12, more..
In the LV Justice Court, most arrestees for traffic matters are administratively released OR on the day of their arrest. No bail, just an OR release.
11:12 here – y'all clearly have never been poor or brown because poor brown people get locked up for BS all the time.
At 1:44 p.m., not saying that's not true, but does that mean that we should just let violent criminals out of custody every time they're arrested no matter how many crimes they commit? Not disagreeing with your statement but I don't think you can just say "poor brown people get locked up so let's just let everyone go."
@1:44 clearly missed the entire 2020 summer of love / peaceful protests where poor and brown people set fires to multiple cities, looted, committed battery, caused billions in damage and no one got in trouble for it.
@11:12 responding to 1:44
"Clearly", you did not read 12:03 or 12:09. Being black or brown does not excuse failing to be proactive. There are demonstrated multiple ways to avoid jail if only the offender would get off his/her butt and do something to help him/her self.
North Las Vegas is jailing people every day for traffic warrants.
YES, Because they IGNORED the ticket, FAILED to appear and IGNORED the notices. Take some responsibility for their own conduct.
Seriously, 12:33. What you're advocating for is just a zero consequence policy. At a certain point, if you ignore a ticket, ignore a summons, don't show to court, and don't do anything about your own court-ordered bench warrant, the consequence is getting tossed in the clink for a day or two. Be an adult and pay your ticket.
10:53, who is obviously not an attorney, offers an age-old variant of the sentiment "How can you attorneys keep putting the scum back on the street to keep re-victimizing people?!"
All attorneys, have, at one time or another, been challenged by people like 10:53 at social gatherings.
And they will pose questions or comments like this, even after learning, for example, that you may be an insurance defense attorney and have never defended a criminal case.
Now, "How can you keep putting the scum back on the street?" is apparently rhetorical in that the questioner does not really want or expect a sensible, informative response that they can hopefully learn from, but instead merely wish to act self-righteous and boldly principled.
But if any of these people, like 10:53, truly are so principled, and truly want a sensible response, then I'm sure there are posters who would be happy to explain the constitutional safeguards, occasional shoddy and biased police work, prosecutors who over-charge and may conceal critical evidence and be obstructive, etc.
But, chances are, even after you explain all that, people like 10:53 will probably respond "That is all well and good, but you haven't answered my question.Why do you guys keep putting the scum back on the street?"
By this point, an attorney should probably just respond by saying that we do it because it is fun, and quite profitable, to do so.
1:03, who is obviously not an attorney, offers an age-old variant of "I don't like your question, so get ready for a pompous ad hominem attack."
Attorneys operate in the grey areas. Is it fair to ask criminals to put some skin into the game (e.g. money) to make sure they'll actually appear for their next court date? Arguably yes. Should the money be tied to their income? Arguably yes.
Can we in good faith argue the premise of "people get locked up over traffic tickets, so people who rob elderly women at gunpoint shouldn't be locked up either?" No. Like I said, there's some grey here. Sometimes high cash bail prevents criminals from victimizing other people. "Innocent until proven guilty" is all well and good until someone commits robbery after robbery because the system suddenly decided that poor people should be immune from detention.
All studies show that there is no connection between posting a money bond and likelihood of appearance.
Actually all studies show there is a connection.
1:36, actually I agree with 1:03 that 10:53 kind of deserved that wise-ass response, and I tend to think that 1:03 probably is an attorney.
I can't know, and you may be right that 1:03 is not an attorney, but comparing the content and reasoning of each post, it appears likely 10:53 is not an attorney, but 1:03 absolutely seems to have legal training.
But regardless of who is an attorney and who isn't, I agree with 1:03 that it is annoying when people show so much disrespect for lawyers, and the legal profession, that they say things like that(e.g."why do you guys put all the scum back on the street to continue to rape and kill?") when they meet a lawyer at an event or social gathering.
Now, 1:36, since I safely assume you are an attorney, are you saying you have never experienced this?
It's all such a shame as most of us would never dream of disrespecting other people's professions, and making such ludicrous and inflammatory presumptions, upon first meting them.
10:53 here – the fucking license on my wall says I'm an attorney so suck it
10:53, okay, fair enough.
So, since you are an attorney, and presumably understand the intricacies of these matters including critical constitutional underpinnings, can't you offer observations a little more cerebral than bemoaning why attorneys are committed to put the scum back on the street?
I think the takeaway should be different than you believe it should be.
According to you, the takeaway should be that since you are an attorney, an anonymous poster who suggested than you may not be, should "suck it."
Perhaps the takeaway should be that you need to work on how you express your ideas if those who are attorneys assume you are not.
No one will ever take an attorney seriously who accuses his/her colleagues of putting the scum back on the street.
4:28 and 2:39, I don't think 10:53's remark was intended to disparage attorneys, or was even directed at attorneys at all. The issue I'm seeing some people here keep dance around is that part of an officer's job is to take violent or dangerous people "off the streets" to keep innocent people safe.
We can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater on this issue. Is locking someone up for six months pending a trial on nothing more than possession of a crack pipe a good idea? No. But that doesn't mean that we should just ignore the real, present danger presented by a sizable majority of criminals. Some people have very dangerous pasts, some represent immediate threats to victims and the community at large.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a feel-good phrase. Let's remember that there are people in custody pending trial because a judge found probable cause that they committed a crime, and that they pose a risk to society if released.
I filed a Writ in a similar circumstance and the s.c. declined to hear the matter until after the evidentiary hearing. Of course, after the evidentiary hearing, the event already occurred.
1:03-I was pretty much with you till the end.
But as to your last sentence–are you using that new thing known as sarcasm?
Looking at the bashing of H&S's billing practices from Friday/this weekend has got me thinking — if you were the CEO of a large company here in town and had to choose one local firm (or a national firm with a Vegas office) to represent you in "bet-the-company" litigation, which firm or attorney are you going for representation? Money isn't a question, just looking for the best advocacy/litigators.
TAC from MAC.
Also long been a fan of Jeff Albrechts.
Both well above average commercial litigators.
Pisanelli Bice (no I dont work with them and never have worked for them)
Campbell & Williams.
Phil Aurbach of MAC
Dennis Prince
Jeff Silver
I tend to agree with 2:54 and 3:10, but giving a slight edge to Pisanelli. Jim is not someone you want to have as opposing counsel. (I also don't work with them and have never worked for them)
@3:12…. strange choices. 2:54/3:10 have it right. (I frequently work against them)
None of the above. Lewis and Roca.
3:12, Jeff silver? umm… I don't think he was ever much of a litigator. If you are looking for a gaming license, sure.
Question: I am not asking anyone to do my research, but could someone point me in the right direction to research whether I can appeal a Family Court order that was issued before trial? I am relatively new and do not plan on doing it myself (I am quite sure my firm would not allow that), but I want to have some knowledge before bringing it up to my boss in a mid-sized family law firm. It might be called "interlocutory" appeal nut even there I am not sure. Just a general pointing would be helpful. Thank you in advance.
We would need more information about the order you want to appeal.
Correct. We would need more information on the Order. Furthermore differentiate if you want to "appeal" or if you want interlocutory appellate review (by which I presume you mean that you want to run a writ).
Also, is there a final judgment in place?
OP here. Without outing myself to opposing counsel on this blog, trial set in many months, judge just made healthcare order my client believes will hurt child as we wait for trial, is there any way to ask appellate court to tell judge to reconsider? Thank you again
Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition I won two of them re family court matters.
A little dated but this PDF is a good overview: https://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevadaLawyer_March2016_WritPractice.pdf
@1:35 Nice try, Gerald! We know it is you. I hope you don't bill for this "research"
OP here. Nope, not Gerald. But damnnnn, hope not a lot of Judges are making bad health decisions.
Gerald who?