The cut off to comment on ADKT 0558 ("diploma privilege" for Class of 2020 grads instead of the bar exam) ends today at noon. So far, it looks like the only comments have come from 2020 grads/applicants and their family members. Please drop a note and make sure the profession is heard on this important matter. Send your comments to nvscclerk@nvcourts.nv.gov.
@9:58 and 10:01: If you have an opinion about the situation then put your name on the public comment. Don't be a p***y! Some of us have placed our names and reputation on the line opposing and voicing our concerns. It is pitiful that our country and community has become such p***ies and cowards.
@11:56 – you're not wrong, despite your less than favorable terminology. Toeing the line between stating my opinions and keeping my job & newly forming reputation is exhausting as a newer attorney. Besides, we know this is already pretty decided. The class of 2020 will no doubt get diploma privilege and become esquires, because we kowtow to hurt feelings now. I'm simultaneously amused and disappointed that I might be one of the last people to pass a bar in Nevada. I am sorry I didn't comment as this morning got away from me, hopefully those in charge read the great comments on this blog in addition to the class of 2020's biased commenting on how unfair it is to take a bar.
That had nothing to do with counsel. It was a shitty position the Republicans took. No attorney could have avoided Judge Sturman's righteous and patriotic wrath on that one.
To 10:17 a.m.: What is your opinion of the position the Republicons are taking in this one? And shitty position or no, counsel can either do as best can be done with a shitty position or counsel can make a shitty position even shittier.
Guest
Anonymous
August 5, 2020 6:08 pm
What federal judge was assigned to the Trump case?
Honestly not a great draw but I am not certain right now who would be a great draw for this lawsuit. Mahan? Certainly not Dorsey, Gordon, Boulware, Du. It is just a bad case.
It's a great case but Dawson is old school Henderson club. The final decision will be in the 9th circuit or maybe even SCOTUS. If SCOTUS, Roberts will stab Trump (and thereby the country) in the back.
Dawson could make the most well articulated decision in the history of USDC judges and it will not be the final decision. NInth Circuit for sure but I feel USSC is most likely.
Dawson recused himself. It's to Mahan now. Case# 2:20-cv-01445-JCM-VCF
Guest
Anonymous
August 5, 2020 6:15 pm
Mail-in voting in Florida, currently kind of a red state, is apparently all well and good, and is encouraged by Twitler. Mail-in voting in Nevada, a purplish to red state, is apparently bad.
They've been using widespread mail-in voting with ongoing modifications in Florida for 20 years, ever since the 2000 election. Night and day versus this last-minute chaos in NV. Don't be a hater at the expense of truth.
Mitt Romney had a good point. If you're worried about voter fraud then mail in votes are great because you can tie a paper ballot with a specific voter. You also don't have hacking threat issues that you have with voting machines. I personally think we need to go entirely back to paper ballots just because our IT systems will always be vulnerable to foreign hacks.
11:27 – hater or not, most, if not all, od this lawsuit is going nowhere fast. States change election laws in the year of the election, and even a few months before, all the time. And unless they can show that one group is disproportionately impacted (which is tough when EVERYONE gets a mail ballot) this case is toast. "It's too late to do this!" and "It will be expensive" are losing arguments when everyone is impacted. The one possible exception maybe the polling places in rural and city areas. But even that is pushing it.
States set the election laws, and when a law is legislatively enacted, vs. by executive order, the courts have been VERY hands off–particularly the USSC.
As for the "three day mailing" thing for unclear postmarks, that's not a "new" law, it's just an expansion of it. That rule was already in place for absentee ballots and has been for decades. So if that rule goes here, it's dead for absentee ballots too. Plus, we'll just get another special session to fix it if need be. But the NV legislature isn't exactly the most original group–I'm guessing most states have something similar since these are so often model legislative concepts. So if this somehow goes, it could have far reaching impact if the US SC knocks it down.
11:37: You do realize tying a ballot to a specific voter is terrifying, right? I don't want anyone to be able to figure out how I voted. If Trump loses, it will be open season for those who supported Trump. I could lose my job and my status in the community.
You do realize employees of the SOS and probably county registrar have access to the voting records, right? Think about that little printed reading of your votes that is printed behind the plexiglass once you finalize your votes in the machine. What would be different? I'm not saying records should be made public. I'm saying the appropriate people administering the election (and conducting a recount if necessary) can easily ensure votes are tied to registered voters.
I actually don't know if county/sos employees can tie a specific vote to a specific person under the old system. But if everyone's so concerned about fraud, and I'm sure there will be allegations of fraud because Trump has set it up that way, then the one vote for one voter verification makes absolute sense.
And 1:13, you really think people would go through voter rolls after a Biden win to look for "dissenters" who voted for Trump? No, nobody other than Trump is that petty. If anything Trump has shown it would be the other way around. AhemLtColVindman.
@ 12:04 p.m. ~ If a ballot is mailed on Nov. 4th and does not get postmarked (which it likely won't since it's pre-paid), should the vote count? The answer is no. This law, as written, allows such a ballot to be counted. That violates Federal voting law. I don't care how old the law is – it is now being challenged, it is a valid challenge, and that part of the law could very likely be struck down, but it's severable, so the entire thing won't be tossed. And the reality is that both parties will then just encourage people to turn in their mail-in ballots as early as possible. Dems in particular will be pushing for people to vote as early as humanly possible so the votes get in before Biden takes the debate stage. FACT.
Be not afraid. The software (that is tested both before and after voting) does not tie a voter to a specific printout. A voter is not even tied to a particular machine–only a location.
On the mail in, the purpose of the "privacy screen" is so that a voter's ballot is not viewed while the signature is being inspected. Once the signature is verified, the sleeve and its ballot is separated from the envelope by a bipartisan team and sent on its way to the tabulation labyrinth.
Divide and conquer works well. I am losing friends over the Covid shutdown and masks. Even hard core political opposites who have accepted my views are absolutely inflexible on masks and the shutdown. No room for debate, looking at conflicting studies, doing a cost/benefit analysis, etc.
Guest
Anonymous
August 5, 2020 6:30 pm
Understand Lowry's decision, but he did some quality content.
Guest
Anonymous
August 5, 2020 7:35 pm
I will be so happy for my husband, Eric, that the Nevada Supreme Court will allow him to be admitted to the Nevada Bar without taking the exam. I especially want to thank Justicss Stiglich and Elissa Cadish for being strong supporters of allowing him to waive in.
Stupid move if the Nevada Supreme Court allows this to happen. Postpone the exam. You are screwing over the public and other attorneys by allowing this to happen. More reason to vote Bonnie Bulla and her cronies out of office when up for re-election.
Mitchell Bisson dooms that lawsuit to abject failure. It is a reasonably good claim that has a terrible lawyer behind it. Maybe Mitch can get some of those multiple ethical violations that Matt keeps swinging around behind him. But keep on keeping on.
I have litigated against Mitchell Bisson a few times and don't think I could categorize any of his work as "terrible." Is that really true? Dealing with Matt is definitely a hassle, but Mitch has always been pretty good to work with. Whats the tea on Matt and ethical violations?
I just saw on the news two weeks ago that the Callister firm got Metro to agree to the biggest payout they’ve ever agreed to involving the Tashi Farmer case. They must be doing SOMETHING right it seems.
Guest
Anonymous
August 5, 2020 9:05 pm
Social media whiners today complaining about cover of Nevada Lawyer Magazine Women in the Law issue. What is their outrage de jour? The editors used a stock photo of diverse women on the cover instead of breaking quarantine to ask diverse Nevada women to show up for a photo that ignores masks and social distancing. No, I am not lying.
Hey whiners: GET OVER YOUR FAUX OUTRAGE. Re-focus your outrage on politicians who do not give a shit that people (especially in Nevada) are facing the most difficult economic times ever to face the citizens of our great country. Your friends and neighbors are within pennies of homelessness, starvation, etc. Donate time or money to a food bank. Take a pro bono case. Spend 20 minutes a day emailing or calling our NV representatives. Do something that matters. Try to solve real problems instead of creating issues out of nothing.
I read the article and it seems to cover everything except the Sisolak stadium. I agree that history will not remember Governor Sisolak favorably. He's an intemperate jerk without a clue how to lead. We are in for miles and miles of bumpy road.
I read the article and it had some interesting omissions in the tables created by the author. How many people died from Covid-19 during the initial lock down in Nevada before the lock down was lifted and the Casinos reopened? Also, for sure the number of cases have risen, but why? Hasn't the mortality rate gone down in Nevada? Finally, it appears the author of the article proposes a complete shut down of the economy. For how long and how do we recover from a complete shut down?
Guest
Anonymous
August 6, 2020 4:12 pm
No diploma privilege and the bar exam goes ahead as scheduled
The cut off to comment on ADKT 0558 ("diploma privilege" for Class of 2020 grads instead of the bar exam) ends today at noon. So far, it looks like the only comments have come from 2020 grads/applicants and their family members. Please drop a note and make sure the profession is heard on this important matter. Send your comments to nvscclerk@nvcourts.nv.gov.
REMEMBER NOON IS THE CUT OFF!
Can you do it anonymously?
Yes. There are several anonymous comments already, including from "Concerned Bar Applicant 2020," and "Future Peacemaker."
@9:58 and 10:01: If you have an opinion about the situation then put your name on the public comment. Don't be a p***y! Some of us have placed our names and reputation on the line opposing and voicing our concerns. It is pitiful that our country and community has become such p***ies and cowards.
@11:56 – you're not wrong, despite your less than favorable terminology. Toeing the line between stating my opinions and keeping my job & newly forming reputation is exhausting as a newer attorney. Besides, we know this is already pretty decided. The class of 2020 will no doubt get diploma privilege and become esquires, because we kowtow to hurt feelings now. I'm simultaneously amused and disappointed that I might be one of the last people to pass a bar in Nevada. I am sorry I didn't comment as this morning got away from me, hopefully those in charge read the great comments on this blog in addition to the class of 2020's biased commenting on how unfair it is to take a bar.
Can we read the comments? When I tried to, it said 'not available.' thanks
The richness of 11:56 anonymously telling people to put their names on comments is just too much for me to handle.
So Trump and the GOP didn't choose to have MAC as local counsel this time? After they did so well in front Judge Sturman last time around?
That had nothing to do with counsel. It was a shitty position the Republicans took. No attorney could have avoided Judge Sturman's righteous and patriotic wrath on that one.
To 10:17 a.m.: What is your opinion of the position the Republicons are taking in this one? And shitty position or no, counsel can either do as best can be done with a shitty position or counsel can make a shitty position even shittier.
What federal judge was assigned to the Trump case?
Judge Dawson
Honestly not a great draw but I am not certain right now who would be a great draw for this lawsuit. Mahan? Certainly not Dorsey, Gordon, Boulware, Du. It is just a bad case.
It's a great case but Dawson is old school Henderson club. The final decision will be in the 9th circuit or maybe even SCOTUS. If SCOTUS, Roberts will stab Trump (and thereby the country) in the back.
Dawson could make the most well articulated decision in the history of USDC judges and it will not be the final decision. NInth Circuit for sure but I feel USSC is most likely.
Dawson recused himself. It's to Mahan now. Case# 2:20-cv-01445-JCM-VCF
Mail-in voting in Florida, currently kind of a red state, is apparently all well and good, and is encouraged by Twitler. Mail-in voting in Nevada, a purplish to red state, is apparently bad.
They've been using widespread mail-in voting with ongoing modifications in Florida for 20 years, ever since the 2000 election. Night and day versus this last-minute chaos in NV. Don't be a hater at the expense of truth.
Mitt Romney had a good point. If you're worried about voter fraud then mail in votes are great because you can tie a paper ballot with a specific voter. You also don't have hacking threat issues that you have with voting machines. I personally think we need to go entirely back to paper ballots just because our IT systems will always be vulnerable to foreign hacks.
11:27 – hater or not, most, if not all, od this lawsuit is going nowhere fast. States change election laws in the year of the election, and even a few months before, all the time. And unless they can show that one group is disproportionately impacted (which is tough when EVERYONE gets a mail ballot) this case is toast. "It's too late to do this!" and "It will be expensive" are losing arguments when everyone is impacted. The one possible exception maybe the polling places in rural and city areas. But even that is pushing it.
States set the election laws, and when a law is legislatively enacted, vs. by executive order, the courts have been VERY hands off–particularly the USSC.
As for the "three day mailing" thing for unclear postmarks, that's not a "new" law, it's just an expansion of it. That rule was already in place for absentee ballots and has been for decades. So if that rule goes here, it's dead for absentee ballots too. Plus, we'll just get another special session to fix it if need be. But the NV legislature isn't exactly the most original group–I'm guessing most states have something similar since these are so often model legislative concepts. So if this somehow goes, it could have far reaching impact if the US SC knocks it down.
11:37: You do realize tying a ballot to a specific voter is terrifying, right? I don't want anyone to be able to figure out how I voted. If Trump loses, it will be open season for those who supported Trump. I could lose my job and my status in the community.
You do realize employees of the SOS and probably county registrar have access to the voting records, right? Think about that little printed reading of your votes that is printed behind the plexiglass once you finalize your votes in the machine. What would be different? I'm not saying records should be made public. I'm saying the appropriate people administering the election (and conducting a recount if necessary) can easily ensure votes are tied to registered voters.
Is that right? Terrifying.
Deservedly so, 1:13.
I actually don't know if county/sos employees can tie a specific vote to a specific person under the old system. But if everyone's so concerned about fraud, and I'm sure there will be allegations of fraud because Trump has set it up that way, then the one vote for one voter verification makes absolute sense.
And 1:13, you really think people would go through voter rolls after a Biden win to look for "dissenters" who voted for Trump? No, nobody other than Trump is that petty. If anything Trump has shown it would be the other way around. AhemLtColVindman.
@ 12:04 p.m. ~ If a ballot is mailed on Nov. 4th and does not get postmarked (which it likely won't since it's pre-paid), should the vote count? The answer is no. This law, as written, allows such a ballot to be counted. That violates Federal voting law. I don't care how old the law is – it is now being challenged, it is a valid challenge, and that part of the law could very likely be struck down, but it's severable, so the entire thing won't be tossed. And the reality is that both parties will then just encourage people to turn in their mail-in ballots as early as possible. Dems in particular will be pushing for people to vote as early as humanly possible so the votes get in before Biden takes the debate stage. FACT.
Be not afraid. The software (that is tested both before and after voting) does not tie a voter to a specific printout. A voter is not even tied to a particular machine–only a location.
On the mail in, the purpose of the "privacy screen" is so that a voter's ballot is not viewed while the signature is being inspected. Once the signature is verified, the sleeve and its ballot is separated from the envelope by a bipartisan team and sent on its way to the tabulation labyrinth.
I'm surprised that Don Campbell would sign on to this pig of a case. Maybe he's hard up for work or something.
I rest my case: "Deservedly so, 1:13."
Divide and conquer works well. I am losing friends over the Covid shutdown and masks. Even hard core political opposites who have accepted my views are absolutely inflexible on masks and the shutdown. No room for debate, looking at conflicting studies, doing a cost/benefit analysis, etc.
Understand Lowry's decision, but he did some quality content.
I will be so happy for my husband, Eric, that the Nevada Supreme Court will allow him to be admitted to the Nevada Bar without taking the exam. I especially want to thank Justicss Stiglich and Elissa Cadish for being strong supporters of allowing him to waive in.
"Eric" is not millennial enough for me. Was hoping to see an Erric, Erick, Eryk, or perhaps A'ric. Regardless, all the best to you and yours.
Ys and Ks. They're so hot right now.
Yes, lets law students in without an exam. That is fair to the rest of us. Please flood the market. Akerman is always hiring.
Allow
Stupid move if the Nevada Supreme Court allows this to happen. Postpone the exam. You are screwing over the public and other attorneys by allowing this to happen. More reason to vote Bonnie Bulla and her cronies out of office when up for re-election.
5:57 — Hey, moron, do you not realize that Bulla is not on the Supreme Court?
5:34 is an insult bandit, like Bonnie Bulla. Nothing wrong with the above comment.
1:28 — "Insult bandit"? I like it. I'm sure Court of Appeals Judge Bulla will be happy to hear she's been elevated to the Supreme Court by 5:57. Fool.
Bulla is the cool fool.
11:22 — Ha, ha, ha, ha . . .
Mitchell Bisson dooms that lawsuit to abject failure. It is a reasonably good claim that has a terrible lawyer behind it. Maybe Mitch can get some of those multiple ethical violations that Matt keeps swinging around behind him. But keep on keeping on.
I have litigated against Mitchell Bisson a few times and don't think I could categorize any of his work as "terrible." Is that really true? Dealing with Matt is definitely a hassle, but Mitch has always been pretty good to work with. Whats the tea on Matt and ethical violations?
I just saw on the news two weeks ago that the Callister firm got Metro to agree to the biggest payout they’ve ever agreed to involving the Tashi Farmer case. They must be doing SOMETHING right it seems.
Social media whiners today complaining about cover of Nevada Lawyer Magazine Women in the Law issue. What is their outrage de jour? The editors used a stock photo of diverse women on the cover instead of breaking quarantine to ask diverse Nevada women to show up for a photo that ignores masks and social distancing. No, I am not lying.
Hey whiners: GET OVER YOUR FAUX OUTRAGE. Re-focus your outrage on politicians who do not give a shit that people (especially in Nevada) are facing the most difficult economic times ever to face the citizens of our great country. Your friends and neighbors are within pennies of homelessness, starvation, etc. Donate time or money to a food bank. Take a pro bono case. Spend 20 minutes a day emailing or calling our NV representatives. Do something that matters. Try to solve real problems instead of creating issues out of nothing.
Imagine the outrage because the "right" kind of diverse women did not get an invitation to the photo shoot!
Very thorough historical account: https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/08/05/sos-las-vegas-and-the-deteriorating-state-of-nevad.aspx
History will not be kind to Steve Sisolak.
I read the article and it seems to cover everything except the Sisolak stadium. I agree that history will not remember Governor Sisolak favorably. He's an intemperate jerk without a clue how to lead. We are in for miles and miles of bumpy road.
I read the article and it had some interesting omissions in the tables created by the author. How many people died from Covid-19 during the initial lock down in Nevada before the lock down was lifted and the Casinos reopened? Also, for sure the number of cases have risen, but why? Hasn't the mortality rate gone down in Nevada? Finally, it appears the author of the article proposes a complete shut down of the economy. For how long and how do we recover from a complete shut down?
No diploma privilege and the bar exam goes ahead as scheduled