Should trespassed gamblers be paid jackpots? Nevada regulators weigh in. [RJ]
Progressive pundit won’t appear on NV primary ballot after altering form from natural born to naturalized citizen. [TNI]
Parallel primary, caucus will demand aggressive outreach to combat confusion, NV SOS Cisco Aguilar says. [Nevada Current]
No gun, no car, no living witnesses against man charged in Tupac Shakur killing, defense attorney Ross Goodman says. [Fox5Vegas]
Not Vegas, but Quinn Emanuel is paying special fall bonuses. Any of your firms doing that this year? [ABA Journal]
Even after scaling down, SCOTUSblog will cost about $250K per year, co-founder says. (You don’t even want to know what this blog costs us…) [ABA Journal]
Jackpot payout should depend on the nature of the trespass. NRS 207.200 provides a landowner (casino) wide latitude in trespassing anyone "with intent to vex or annoy". That is a fairly subjective standard in most situations and can be used to remove "residentially challenged" individuals, people getting into fights, public urinators, panhandlers, etc. Lifting a trespass is up to the landowner too. Unless criminal misconduct or other violations of gaming regulations are the basis of the previous trespass by a casino, depriving someone of a jackpot that they gambled money to win (despite being previously trespassed) probably wouldn't be reasonable. But I suspect regulators & casinos will want a bright line restriction so they aren't flooded w/ claims for jackpots, and they can deter trespassed individuals from trying their luck based on narrow loopholes.
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2023 5:10 pm
Honestly, if they're required to pay jackpots to people that were previously trespassed, it incentivizes those people to continue to trespass. However, if they don't have to pay his jackpots, it disincentivizes the casinos from enforcing their trespass so that the person can come in to gamble, and eliminate the risk at the casino of them having to pay them a jackpot.
It's an interesting question and I hope the GCB/GC do a full regulatory process and think everything through because there's no obvious answer. I lean towards incentivizing the casinos to enforce the trespass – they have the resources to do so, and it's not like gambling is much of a "reward" for the trespasser. As we all know, the odds that the trespasser will come out ahead in the long run are long.
At the end of the day I think it has to be left to the casinos to police their own grounds for those they've trespassed. It's tough for a huge operation on the strip, but cutting the other way would likely create negative public perception for casinos.
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2023 5:26 pm
No witness, no gun, no car, no forensics. All true. But Goodman's client said – repeatedly – he was there, handed the gun to the shooter in the back seat, etc. So Davis' own statements get the case in front of a jury, and Davis is the only person who can refute his own statements. Is he gonna take the stand and say his prior statements were all made up just to make money? Will a jury believe him?
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2023 5:54 pm
Imagine how much money the blog could save if it open sourced content and stopped nonsense moderating to please fickle wokesters. Take some ads, too.
This suggestion has come up many times. Someone even tried to make a subreddit https://old.reddit.com/r/lasvegaslawblog/ that is not associated with the "bonerfarts" at this blog. I for one would love more conversations and topics, but most importantly I like having a central location where I know lawyers can communicate anonymously about current legal topics and issues. It is certainly a balancing act. Let us know if you find a better option.
I must have been living in a cave back then. Thank you for the case numbers. Interesting read.
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2023 8:21 pm
I think the thwacking is a bit overboard and it appears at least partially driven by the blog boss’s personal opinion, but I definitely don’t like ads and other such bullshit. So here we are. WWL was a beautiful time in Vegas legal history. IMO what Kutner did was lame. I suggest he read up on the Streisand effect.
I appreciate this blog; but it is a bit too buttoned down. WWL was appropriate in Las Vegas. Do you mean to say that but for Kutner's thin skin it would still be bumping?
I understand that position because I did not get sued over WWL and am not in danger of getting sued over this blog. There were days that I loved anarchy but I got older. Anarchy is a young man's folly, and this blog like me is no longer a young'un.
Def seems like the thwacking is driven by blog leader's personal opinion, not based on what could or would get him/her in hot water. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Some posts that attack attorneys/judges are let be, others are swiftly thwacked (even if based in fact). Some political posts are let be, others are swiftly thwacked. The censorship goes way too far.
But, I suspect its less censorship and more gatekeeping to protect the conversation from devolving into name calling and shit throwing.
I can't say that if I were at the helm, I wouldn't exercise the thwack hammer to moderate the contention and annoy the annoyers.
I miss the freewheeling days of the internet. Yes, it was messy, like walking around Broadway or Downtown Las Vegas, with all that entails, but it was exciting.
The blog owner is free to thwack posts in as reasonable or arbitrary a fashion as chosen. This is not a public forum, the First Amendment does not protect anyone here from the owner’s thwackhammer. If one does not like it, the writer is free to post elsewhere or start a new blog with different commenting priorities. There is no obligation of transparency or reasonableness here.
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2023 9:41 pm
It’s all fun and games until some mega douche/short king anonymously word f*cks you from behind his keyboard with his tiny man hands from his home office. Bring back the duel as a method of conflict resolution. There’s been whispers of such, but no one implementing.
@2:41 I too have heard whisperings of the return of the duel. Has anyone heard anything from the ADR commissioner? Fisticuffs on the stairs of the RJC at dawn!
Happy Friday you filthy animals!
Very entertaining pro se in probate court this morning.
Please say it was Blandino
Spit the tea . . . please. What happened?
Last week the Probate Commissioner referred a pro se to the District Attorney's Office for forgery
@10:43a – what's the case # on that?
Jackpot payout should depend on the nature of the trespass. NRS 207.200 provides a landowner (casino) wide latitude in trespassing anyone "with intent to vex or annoy". That is a fairly subjective standard in most situations and can be used to remove "residentially challenged" individuals, people getting into fights, public urinators, panhandlers, etc. Lifting a trespass is up to the landowner too. Unless criminal misconduct or other violations of gaming regulations are the basis of the previous trespass by a casino, depriving someone of a jackpot that they gambled money to win (despite being previously trespassed) probably wouldn't be reasonable. But I suspect regulators & casinos will want a bright line restriction so they aren't flooded w/ claims for jackpots, and they can deter trespassed individuals from trying their luck based on narrow loopholes.
Honestly, if they're required to pay jackpots to people that were previously trespassed, it incentivizes those people to continue to trespass. However, if they don't have to pay his jackpots, it disincentivizes the casinos from enforcing their trespass so that the person can come in to gamble, and eliminate the risk at the casino of them having to pay them a jackpot.
It's an interesting question and I hope the GCB/GC do a full regulatory process and think everything through because there's no obvious answer. I lean towards incentivizing the casinos to enforce the trespass – they have the resources to do so, and it's not like gambling is much of a "reward" for the trespasser. As we all know, the odds that the trespasser will come out ahead in the long run are long.
At the end of the day I think it has to be left to the casinos to police their own grounds for those they've trespassed. It's tough for a huge operation on the strip, but cutting the other way would likely create negative public perception for casinos.
No witness, no gun, no car, no forensics. All true. But Goodman's client said – repeatedly – he was there, handed the gun to the shooter in the back seat, etc. So Davis' own statements get the case in front of a jury, and Davis is the only person who can refute his own statements. Is he gonna take the stand and say his prior statements were all made up just to make money? Will a jury believe him?
Imagine how much money the blog could save if it open sourced content and stopped nonsense moderating to please fickle wokesters. Take some ads, too.
Its called reddit.
"What if we made the blog significantly worse because content moderation hurts my feelings."
This suggestion has come up many times. Someone even tried to make a subreddit https://old.reddit.com/r/lasvegaslawblog/ that is not associated with the "bonerfarts" at this blog. I for one would love more conversations and topics, but most importantly I like having a central location where I know lawyers can communicate anonymously about current legal topics and issues. It is certainly a balancing act. Let us know if you find a better option.
Wild Wild Law was great.
And it shut down because it got too wild (and the lawsuits). then a couple other people made blogs. This is the one that happened to survive.
For those who know how to work the Way Back Machine, it is archived there if you want some entertaining reads
@11:33a – I remember the fun Kutner drama around that WWL blog. It was around when I first got licensed and it was an entertaining read back then.
Less fun – Legal Eagle's attorneys fees for the Queen of Speech, Maggie McLetchie, in A-13-688898-C and A-15-720137-C.
I must have been living in a cave back then. Thank you for the case numbers. Interesting read.
I think the thwacking is a bit overboard and it appears at least partially driven by the blog boss’s personal opinion, but I definitely don’t like ads and other such bullshit. So here we are. WWL was a beautiful time in Vegas legal history. IMO what Kutner did was lame. I suggest he read up on the Streisand effect.
I appreciate this blog; but it is a bit too buttoned down. WWL was appropriate in Las Vegas. Do you mean to say that but for Kutner's thin skin it would still be bumping?
I understand that position because I did not get sued over WWL and am not in danger of getting sued over this blog. There were days that I loved anarchy but I got older. Anarchy is a young man's folly, and this blog like me is no longer a young'un.
Anarchy rules at any age. Although I stand at the edge of the literal moshpit, with my sons and sons in law, I am still at the effing show.
Def seems like the thwacking is driven by blog leader's personal opinion, not based on what could or would get him/her in hot water. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Some posts that attack attorneys/judges are let be, others are swiftly thwacked (even if based in fact). Some political posts are let be, others are swiftly thwacked. The censorship goes way too far.
Perhaps.
But, I suspect its less censorship and more gatekeeping to protect the conversation from devolving into name calling and shit throwing.
I can't say that if I were at the helm, I wouldn't exercise the thwack hammer to moderate the contention and annoy the annoyers.
I miss the freewheeling days of the internet. Yes, it was messy, like walking around Broadway or Downtown Las Vegas, with all that entails, but it was exciting.
The blog owner is free to thwack posts in as reasonable or arbitrary a fashion as chosen. This is not a public forum, the First Amendment does not protect anyone here from the owner’s thwackhammer. If one does not like it, the writer is free to post elsewhere or start a new blog with different commenting priorities. There is no obligation of transparency or reasonableness here.
It’s all fun and games until some mega douche/short king anonymously word f*cks you from behind his keyboard with his tiny man hands from his home office. Bring back the duel as a method of conflict resolution. There’s been whispers of such, but no one implementing.
I don't disagree. Per se. Except that the MD/SK often gets thwacked.
So I will simply point out, the following:
No one, including you, sir.
@2:41 I too have heard whisperings of the return of the duel. Has anyone heard anything from the ADR commissioner? Fisticuffs on the stairs of the RJC at dawn!
Let's hope he/she goes Aaron Burr on that ass.