I feel like every few years trial court judge needs a slap down just to keep them all in line. There are some judges who try really hard to do a good job and then there are judges who are incorrigible bullies and have no business on the bench. They need reminding that fundamentally their job is about service, not ego.
Did you join in any campaign against any of the judges you dislike or contribute to their opponents in the last election? File a complaint with the judicial commission?
11:34, unlikely as attorneys are notorious for not getting involved in any judicial campaigns, and not contributing to any such campaigns, and then subsequently are very upset with the judicial performance of the winner of such races.
A group of three attorneys were bemoaning the losses of Bare and Atkins, and complaining that(in their view) the judges lost to lesser qualified and less experienced opponents.
I then asked if any of them had donated to those two judge's campaign. None of them had. Forgot precisely what the excuses were, by I think they mentioned covid.
A decade ago the excuses were more generic references to the economy. And almost a decade prior to that, the excuses were that 9-11 was still fresh(even though neither of the attorneys that referenced such tragedy appeared to have practices that would be even remotely affected by the destruction of the World Trade Center, and the tragic loss of so many lives).
Don't like it when people exploit tragedies(like 9-11 or covid) as an excuse for anything. Why not simply admit that the attorney does not like contributing to campaigns, but still likes to bitch about the election results. That' hardly a crime or some real moral short coming. But please don't reference other people's tragedy and suffering as an excuse not to donate a couple hundred bucks to a judicial campaign.
How is it a proper response to a complaint about bad judges to ask whether they've ran? Sorry, but being a judge sounds like a s@#$%y job, not to mention those most qualified are probably not interested in the pay cut.
Guest
Anonymous
June 11, 2021 5:52 pm
I am so shocked that Stavros lost. Shocked. I am sure he received a fair shake with the Nevada Supreme Court.
Guest
Anonymous
June 11, 2021 5:56 pm
10 year attorney here. I am on pace to make about $180k this year. I am confident that I provide more value than a doc reviewer with a JD in NYC.
No non competes for hourly employees? Looks like everyone is salaried now. I don't see how this is any better. I swear sometimes I think the people who write these laws have no idea what life is like in the real world.
Clearly you don't practice wage and hour/employment law. It doesn't work that way. At least, not unless the employer is in flagrant violation of wage and hour laws in which case the employer has bigger problems than a non-compete agreement.
Guest
Anonymous
June 11, 2021 6:10 pm
Question: How likely is it that the NSC decision, rejecting the election challenge, would have been different if it were Ross Miller who lost by 10 votes(out of over 150,000 cast) rather than Starvos Anthony losing by 10 votes?
12:23, 12:34,-I don't think 11:10, by switching around the parties, created some hypothetical that cannot be answered because the legal and administrative facts and issues have now been substantively changed.
I took it to mean what if everything is identical except the other one is the one who lost by ten votes.
I took it to be a political question and not a legal question, and not a technological question surrounding the propriety of the vote tabulation.
I took it merely to be a comment on which candidate has more political creed.
So, it's not some complex hypothetical. I simply took it to be one of those questions that are often posed, such as would what happened to me, or Person A, be the same if instead a really prominent person was at issue rather than me or Person A.
But perhaps I am the one who misunderstood, or misinterpreted the question.
12:58, yes, questions as to who has political juice, and what effect that had, can sometimes have validity, but I think 12:34 is right.
After all, with such precision these days with the technology, even if there are recounts, they are often identical down to the vote.
So, unless there is some tampering or fraud, county-wide recounts these days change nothing, despite how close an initial election might be.
Now, ordering a brand new election can change who won and who lost, but ordering a new election is inherently unfair to the winner of the election being challenged(as well as being disenfranchising to the voters) unless, again, some real fraud, tampering, or other highly compromising matters with the initial election have been clearly established.
1:04, but even if you assume there was tampering, fraud, etc. the opinion is correct that the remedy for that lies in the election contest statutes via the district court and not request for a new election via the BCC. That's where the opinion got it right.
I am sorry, I would like to get my lover back. I made a very stupid investment. Please forgive me.
Guest
Anonymous
June 11, 2021 6:11 pm
11:10—Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that.
But now that you mention it…
Guest
Anonymous
June 11, 2021 6:40 pm
As 10:52 suggests, we are shocked, simply shocked, that Starvos lost(before the NSC)to the same degree that we are shocked, simply shocked, to learn that gambling occurs on the premises of certain establishments in this town.
Guest
Anonymous
June 11, 2021 6:52 pm
Concerning the Arkansas judge, who got suspended without pay, for his treatment of public defenders, one of the incidents which lead to discipline is as follows:
During voir dire he called the DA and the PD to the bench for a side bar, at which time he inquired if the PD had any defenses to offer, and if not had she been offered any plea negotiations that are worthy of consideration.
This was viewed as the judge trying to coerce a settlement.
But judges often encourage settlements, and many times that is the right approach. Where do you draw the line between "encouraging" and "coercing"? What type of phraseology do you look for in determining if the judge has crossed such line?
I think more details are needed before we can conclude his conduct was wrong simply because his state's Judicial Discipline Commission dictated that he was wrong to inquire to settlement.
It appears, in the judge's estimation, to be the case where the State has the Defendant dead to right, and we are at the time of jury selection and the judge is still unaware of any defenses that the PD may seek to offer.
If that is the situation, and if it is compounded by the fact the judge is dealing with a relatively new and inexperienced Deputy Public Defender, is this type of side bar in and of itself unethical?
You yada yada'ed over the part where the PD's client was acquitted. You add all these supplemental theories: state had PD dead to rights, its an inexperienced PD, that the judge asked the PD is there were any plea negotiations that were worthy of consideration, that were not part of the record. The dude appears to not want to be in trial and he appears to be pressuring one side to end the trial, did he ask the DA if their offer should be that high, did he ask the DA what his theories of prosecution were? Apparently he did not. He simply used that black robe to suggest that the PD was screwed, and they weren't. At a minimum the judge is guilty of being lazy and that's bullshit. That's what pretrial conferences are for, its not something you do mid trial. With the jury being picked and sitting there while he pressures the PD.
Doug Smith, who I loved cause he was such a character, was the king of this. But he always did it right before trial and always outside the presence of the jury. It was definitely heavy handed, but I think the way he did it fell on the correct side of the line. This judge's actions did not.
12:29–you're right that 11:52 has assumed some facts which appear not to be accurate(and 12:09 pointed this out as well).
But, painting with broader strokes, are these types of conferences or side bars, in and of themselves, unethical, or do the facts matter?(like the facts you discussed).
I've actual been a part(as I assume you have) to somewhat similar sidebars or conferences, and neither me or the other attorney ever viewed such matters as having any ethical implications. And that is because the judges were sincerely trying to help and/or be filled in on some matters. It was not meant to be coercive by a judge who dreaded sitting through another trial.
But it appears the judge in question was heavy-handed and simply did not want to endure a trial.
You are quite right that as to the propriety of the conference in this matter, the proof may be in the pudding. If a PD actually earns a subsequent acquittal, unless such verdict is some bizarre outlier such acquittal makes it clear that the PD's defense was of arguable merit at the inception to the point that there was no excuse for a judge to conduct a side bar wherein the court acts like the defense in the matter is really frivolous,and inquires if there are actually any defenses, and that the PD better settle this case, etc.
Reading the article, it appears that this was a long simmering personality issue . Each of the three instances cited gave me the impression that it was the same individual PD in each instance. Deja Vu Justice of Peace Conrad Hafen.
Guest
Anonymous
June 11, 2021 7:09 pm
11:52–but you may have assumed a couple matters which may not necessarily be the case.
I don't think it was made clear that this was a new and inexperienced Deputy Public Defender.
Nor can it be assumed the judge was being calm and helpful, as opposed to being belittling and demeaning to the PD and their case.
If it were truly as you suggest–that it was a brand new and inexperienced defense attorney, and the judge was merely trying to be helpful to both sides by engaging in such side bar, then perhaps you could be right and that this charge is just a pile on to augment the other charges.
But it seems to be that it was not necessarily a new and inexperienced and clueless PD. And it appears the judge may have been a grumpmeister, who rather than trying to be helpful, was instead arrogantly sounding off as he did not want to sit through another jury trial, and wanted the matter settled at any cost.
But you are right that context matters, and the devil is in the details, as this type of side bar, in and of itself and without supporting context, does not appear to be a clear ethical violation.
At least that's how I see it but perhaps I am not too knowledgeable about judicial ethics. Other posters will set us straight on all this.
(Well, at the very least it's not ex parte, as both were called up to the bench, but perhaps there are some ethical problems with it depending how it was conducted, etc.)
Guest
Anonymous
June 11, 2021 7:12 pm
11:52,12:09–My two cents? Yes, you are right. It does not appear to be a clear ethical violation that such side bar occurred, but it depends how it was conducted and what was said, and what the true motivations were(trying to sincerely be helpful vs. merely trying to bully defense counsel so the judge need not endure another trial).
Guest
Anonymous
June 11, 2021 9:33 pm
As both a prosecutor and a defense attorney I have had judges flat out say to counsel, "Settle this case. Don't waste my time."
Guest
Anonymous
June 11, 2021 9:37 pm
Ken Long died this week after being in the hospital for a while with Covid.
Guest
Anonymous
June 12, 2021 3:02 am
He has a wife and four children. His wife has medical issues too. Please set up a Go Fund Me account.
I feel like every few years trial court judge needs a slap down just to keep them all in line. There are some judges who try really hard to do a good job and then there are judges who are incorrigible bullies and have no business on the bench. They need reminding that fundamentally their job is about service, not ego.
Did you join in any campaign against any of the judges you dislike or contribute to their opponents in the last election? File a complaint with the judicial commission?
11:34, unlikely as attorneys are notorious for not getting involved in any judicial campaigns, and not contributing to any such campaigns, and then subsequently are very upset with the judicial performance of the winner of such races.
A group of three attorneys were bemoaning the losses of Bare and Atkins, and complaining that(in their view) the judges lost to lesser qualified and less experienced opponents.
I then asked if any of them had donated to those two judge's campaign. None of them had. Forgot precisely what the excuses were, by I think they mentioned covid.
A decade ago the excuses were more generic references to the economy. And almost a decade prior to that, the excuses were that 9-11 was still fresh(even though neither of the attorneys that referenced such tragedy appeared to have practices that would be even remotely affected by the destruction of the World Trade Center, and the tragic loss of so many lives).
Don't like it when people exploit tragedies(like 9-11 or covid) as an excuse for anything. Why not simply admit that the attorney does not like contributing to campaigns, but still likes to bitch about the election results. That' hardly a crime or some real moral short coming. But please don't reference other people's tragedy and suffering as an excuse not to donate a couple hundred bucks to a judicial campaign.
or vote in the RJ opinion survey?
How is it a proper response to a complaint about bad judges to ask whether they've ran? Sorry, but being a judge sounds like a s@#$%y job, not to mention those most qualified are probably not interested in the pay cut.
I am so shocked that Stavros lost. Shocked. I am sure he received a fair shake with the Nevada Supreme Court.
10 year attorney here. I am on pace to make about $180k this year. I am confident that I provide more value than a doc reviewer with a JD in NYC.
But is your suit as well tailored?
No non competes for hourly employees? Looks like everyone is salaried now. I don't see how this is any better. I swear sometimes I think the people who write these laws have no idea what life is like in the real world.
Clearly you don't practice wage and hour/employment law. It doesn't work that way. At least, not unless the employer is in flagrant violation of wage and hour laws in which case the employer has bigger problems than a non-compete agreement.
Question: How likely is it that the NSC decision, rejecting the election challenge, would have been different if it were Ross Miller who lost by 10 votes(out of over 150,000 cast) rather than Starvos Anthony losing by 10 votes?
Answer: Nobody can truthfully or accurately answer your hypothetical because it didn't happen that way. But thanks for playing.
The opinion seems solid to me. So I guess I'd say 0% likely.
12:23, 12:34,-I don't think 11:10, by switching around the parties, created some hypothetical that cannot be answered because the legal and administrative facts and issues have now been substantively changed.
I took it to mean what if everything is identical except the other one is the one who lost by ten votes.
I took it to be a political question and not a legal question, and not a technological question surrounding the propriety of the vote tabulation.
I took it merely to be a comment on which candidate has more political creed.
So, it's not some complex hypothetical. I simply took it to be one of those questions that are often posed, such as would what happened to me, or Person A, be the same if instead a really prominent person was at issue rather than me or Person A.
But perhaps I am the one who misunderstood, or misinterpreted the question.
12:58, yes, questions as to who has political juice, and what effect that had, can sometimes have validity, but I think 12:34 is right.
After all, with such precision these days with the technology, even if there are recounts, they are often identical down to the vote.
So, unless there is some tampering or fraud, county-wide recounts these days change nothing, despite how close an initial election might be.
Now, ordering a brand new election can change who won and who lost, but ordering a new election is inherently unfair to the winner of the election being challenged(as well as being disenfranchising to the voters) unless, again, some real fraud, tampering, or other highly compromising matters with the initial election have been clearly established.
All Nevada Supreme Court opinions are 100% solid.
1:04, but even if you assume there was tampering, fraud, etc. the opinion is correct that the remedy for that lies in the election contest statutes via the district court and not request for a new election via the BCC. That's where the opinion got it right.
I am sorry, I would like to get my lover back. I made a very stupid investment. Please forgive me.
11:10—Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that.
But now that you mention it…
As 10:52 suggests, we are shocked, simply shocked, that Starvos lost(before the NSC)to the same degree that we are shocked, simply shocked, to learn that gambling occurs on the premises of certain establishments in this town.
Concerning the Arkansas judge, who got suspended without pay, for his treatment of public defenders, one of the incidents which lead to discipline is as follows:
During voir dire he called the DA and the PD to the bench for a side bar, at which time he inquired if the PD had any defenses to offer, and if not had she been offered any plea negotiations that are worthy of consideration.
This was viewed as the judge trying to coerce a settlement.
But judges often encourage settlements, and many times that is the right approach. Where do you draw the line between "encouraging" and "coercing"? What type of phraseology do you look for in determining if the judge has crossed such line?
I think more details are needed before we can conclude his conduct was wrong simply because his state's Judicial Discipline Commission dictated that he was wrong to inquire to settlement.
It appears, in the judge's estimation, to be the case where the State has the Defendant dead to right, and we are at the time of jury selection and the judge is still unaware of any defenses that the PD may seek to offer.
If that is the situation, and if it is compounded by the fact the judge is dealing with a relatively new and inexperienced Deputy Public Defender, is this type of side bar in and of itself unethical?
Does not the context matter?
You yada yada'ed over the part where the PD's client was acquitted. You add all these supplemental theories: state had PD dead to rights, its an inexperienced PD, that the judge asked the PD is there were any plea negotiations that were worthy of consideration, that were not part of the record. The dude appears to not want to be in trial and he appears to be pressuring one side to end the trial, did he ask the DA if their offer should be that high, did he ask the DA what his theories of prosecution were? Apparently he did not. He simply used that black robe to suggest that the PD was screwed, and they weren't. At a minimum the judge is guilty of being lazy and that's bullshit. That's what pretrial conferences are for, its not something you do mid trial. With the jury being picked and sitting there while he pressures the PD.
Doug Smith, who I loved cause he was such a character, was the king of this. But he always did it right before trial and always outside the presence of the jury. It was definitely heavy handed, but I think the way he did it fell on the correct side of the line. This judge's actions did not.
12:29–you're right that 11:52 has assumed some facts which appear not to be accurate(and 12:09 pointed this out as well).
But, painting with broader strokes, are these types of conferences or side bars, in and of themselves, unethical, or do the facts matter?(like the facts you discussed).
I've actual been a part(as I assume you have) to somewhat similar sidebars or conferences, and neither me or the other attorney ever viewed such matters as having any ethical implications. And that is because the judges were sincerely trying to help and/or be filled in on some matters. It was not meant to be coercive by a judge who dreaded sitting through another trial.
But it appears the judge in question was heavy-handed and simply did not want to endure a trial.
You are quite right that as to the propriety of the conference in this matter, the proof may be in the pudding. If a PD actually earns a subsequent acquittal, unless such verdict is some bizarre outlier such acquittal makes it clear that the PD's defense was of arguable merit at the inception to the point that there was no excuse for a judge to conduct a side bar wherein the court acts like the defense in the matter is really frivolous,and inquires if there are actually any defenses, and that the PD better settle this case, etc.
Reading the article, it appears that this was a long simmering personality issue . Each of the three instances cited gave me the impression that it was the same individual PD in each instance. Deja Vu Justice of Peace Conrad Hafen.
11:52–but you may have assumed a couple matters which may not necessarily be the case.
I don't think it was made clear that this was a new and inexperienced Deputy Public Defender.
Nor can it be assumed the judge was being calm and helpful, as opposed to being belittling and demeaning to the PD and their case.
If it were truly as you suggest–that it was a brand new and inexperienced defense attorney, and the judge was merely trying to be helpful to both sides by engaging in such side bar, then perhaps you could be right and that this charge is just a pile on to augment the other charges.
But it seems to be that it was not necessarily a new and inexperienced and clueless PD. And it appears the judge may have been a grumpmeister, who rather than trying to be helpful, was instead arrogantly sounding off as he did not want to sit through another jury trial, and wanted the matter settled at any cost.
But you are right that context matters, and the devil is in the details, as this type of side bar, in and of itself and without supporting context, does not appear to be a clear ethical violation.
At least that's how I see it but perhaps I am not too knowledgeable about judicial ethics. Other posters will set us straight on all this.
(Well, at the very least it's not ex parte, as both were called up to the bench, but perhaps there are some ethical problems with it depending how it was conducted, etc.)
11:52,12:09–My two cents? Yes, you are right. It does not appear to be a clear ethical violation that such side bar occurred, but it depends how it was conducted and what was said, and what the true motivations were(trying to sincerely be helpful vs. merely trying to bully defense counsel so the judge need not endure another trial).
As both a prosecutor and a defense attorney I have had judges flat out say to counsel, "Settle this case. Don't waste my time."
Ken Long died this week after being in the hospital for a while with Covid.
He has a wife and four children. His wife has medical issues too. Please set up a Go Fund Me account.
Sierra Halseth. The face of evil
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/aaron-guerrero-sierra-halseth-video-b1863495.html
Day three after "murdering somebody"
That "somebody" was her father. Stabbed to death, dismembered with a saw, stuffed in a sleeping bag and burned.
We live in an irredeemably sick, decaying civilization.
It is hard to believe the video is real – it seems like a horror movie about pathological teenage killers
Yes we do. Dealing with some in the legal community now.
#freemelania
#freebonnebulla
#freeharryreid