What do you think about continuing to allow parties/counsel to appear in hearings via BlueJeans? Do you think the notice of appearance that is now required serves any legitimate purpose? Do you prefer being in person?
There is no reason why an in-person appearance should ever be require for status checks or uncontested matters. There are very few cases in which an appearance should be necessary for a contested matter. The notice of intent, while an extra layer of hassle, is probably justified in that it gives the court and other counsel an advance indication of whether you intend to appear in person or not.
"An extra layer of hassle" you nailed it on the head. It is unnecessary. The court should publish the links for all the hearings. If i show up in person or via bluejeans, it shouldn't matter (outside of a few hearings where in person attendance may be compelled. The great thing about having it available is it allows you to appear virtually in a pinch–like a last minute notice or family emergency or something where there is not time to give the required notice.
My view(which is pretty consistent with how things have proceeded) is most motion hearings, and most status hearings, can be conducted remotely, but that trials and evidentiary hearings should continue to be in person.
The consideration and submission of documentation, via video, still continues to be a challenge–the graphics of it, the mechanics of the process, etc.
And, far more importantly, evidentiary hearings and trials involve testimony, and the relative credibility thereof, being front and center of the conflict, and such testimony should be in person(except, perhaps for relatively minor witnesses who are not that important to the final disposition of matters)..
All hearings should be remote by default. If a judge wants an in-person hearing, it should be noted on the notice of hearing, thus allowing plenty of notice to the parties and counsel.
Guest
Anonymous
July 6, 2022 5:21 pm
Any recent developments on the Ponzi scheme? Sounds like all of the action is in the BK case at the moment.
I havent looked it up on Pacer. But, I assume that the BK case is in response to the SEC Enforcement Action attempting to freeze and seize assets. It happens alot in these fraud cases. The Trustees will seize and sell and attempt to get the people their money back.
I wonder why the FBI is dragging their feet and got scooped by Hindenberg. Where are the indictments?
The notices to appear by bluejeans are stupid IMO. Bluejeans should be the default for everything that isn't a trial or evidentiary hearing. Most attorneys I have dealt with have agreed to exchange exhibits electronically and then come to court with the printed copies. Saves having to send a runner with exhibit books, etc. And I don't ever want to have to wear a suit to sit in the hallway for an hour waiting to conduct a 15 minute status check again.
To follow up on the Doug Crawford post yesterday – I want to give a shout out to all the judges who kissed up to him while taking his donations. The first really contested case I had against him we were in chambers and he bragged to the judge about how much money he was bringing in. He eventually got off the case and his messages with his (female) client came to light. They were full of salacious comments and innuendo. That was 5+ years ago. Anyone who claims they did not know what he was up to or they're surprised by him is full of it. His behavior is and always has been disgusting. Judges were happy to look the other way while they cashed his checks.
My client is getting calls from DETR, asking if she is self employed two years after a claim was filed and approved, but then claims that there is a wage discrepancy. Wtf?
There is no reason why an in-person appearance should ever be require for status checks or uncontested matters. There are very few cases in which an appearance should be necessary for a contested matter. The notice of intent, while an extra layer of hassle, is probably justified in that it gives the court and other counsel an advance indication of whether you intend to appear in person or not.
Before COVID courts allowed CourtCall, so I do not understand why Bluejeans is such an issue for some judges now.
"An extra layer of hassle" you nailed it on the head. It is unnecessary. The court should publish the links for all the hearings. If i show up in person or via bluejeans, it shouldn't matter (outside of a few hearings where in person attendance may be compelled. The great thing about having it available is it allows you to appear virtually in a pinch–like a last minute notice or family emergency or something where there is not time to give the required notice.
My view(which is pretty consistent with how things have proceeded) is most motion hearings, and most status hearings, can be conducted remotely, but that trials and evidentiary hearings should continue to be in person.
The consideration and submission of documentation, via video, still continues to be a challenge–the graphics of it, the mechanics of the process, etc.
And, far more importantly, evidentiary hearings and trials involve testimony, and the relative credibility thereof, being front and center of the conflict, and such testimony should be in person(except, perhaps for relatively minor witnesses who are not that important to the final disposition of matters)..
Concur with pretty much everyone here. Remote hearings should absolutely be here to stay. Way more efficient, costs clients less.
Dear Valiant and Beautiful Court Judges and Staff: please, please, please continue to offer BlueJeans for hearings. Pretty please.
Thank you for your service. Thank you for turning the wheels of justice. Thank you for all that you do! You are beautiful on the inside and outside.
Anyone have the citation to the notice-of-appearance admin order / rule change handy?
Who was the judge sanctioning parties for not filing a Notice of Intent?
10:57 – I don't know who, but I'm willing to venture an educated guess or two.
Administrative Order 22-07 is the one that says starting May 30, you have to follow the rules on providing notice (it can be a little blurb on caption about appearing by alternative means). http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/res/rules-and-orders/2022-05-02_09_45_58_administrative%20order%2022-07.pdf
The Disco Commissioners told our firm they intend to continue with remote appearances.
I have noticed Blue Jeans knocks years and pounds off participants. Another reason to keep using it. Everyone can be beautiful.
1:02 – you're beautiful even without bluejeans
All hearings should be remote by default. If a judge wants an in-person hearing, it should be noted on the notice of hearing, thus allowing plenty of notice to the parties and counsel.
Any recent developments on the Ponzi scheme? Sounds like all of the action is in the BK case at the moment.
I havent looked it up on Pacer. But, I assume that the BK case is in response to the SEC Enforcement Action attempting to freeze and seize assets. It happens alot in these fraud cases. The Trustees will seize and sell and attempt to get the people their money back.
I wonder why the FBI is dragging their feet and got scooped by Hindenberg. Where are the indictments?
TTHHWWWAAACCKK!!!
CnP guy strikes again.
#freebritneyg
#freebonniebulla
#freebritneys
You never disappoint!
Keep those hashtags coming, so funny!!! Even the 1423rd time!!!
251, they are funny. Buy a sense of humor
2:54 no, they are not funny or amusing.
I think they are funny.
I cant wait for CnP guy to start hashtagging.
The notices to appear by bluejeans are stupid IMO. Bluejeans should be the default for everything that isn't a trial or evidentiary hearing. Most attorneys I have dealt with have agreed to exchange exhibits electronically and then come to court with the printed copies. Saves having to send a runner with exhibit books, etc. And I don't ever want to have to wear a suit to sit in the hallway for an hour waiting to conduct a 15 minute status check again.
If I had a dollar for every time I waited more than an hour, for a hearing that then took under one minute, I'd have some dollars for sure.
I'd have hundreds of dollars in 20+ years.
To follow up on the Doug Crawford post yesterday – I want to give a shout out to all the judges who kissed up to him while taking his donations. The first really contested case I had against him we were in chambers and he bragged to the judge about how much money he was bringing in. He eventually got off the case and his messages with his (female) client came to light. They were full of salacious comments and innuendo. That was 5+ years ago. Anyone who claims they did not know what he was up to or they're surprised by him is full of it. His behavior is and always has been disgusting. Judges were happy to look the other way while they cashed his checks.
And, what did YOU do to bring his behavior to light after the episode in Chambers?
What was 2:37 supposed to do? What ethical rule is implicated by an attorney bragging about how much money they make?
Pipe down,457. What was 237 supposed to do? Ah,have you ever filed an ethics complaint against a judge in this state? Until you have,shut up
Doug Crawford has friends on Facebook from Steven Mack to Mormon Family Court candidate Lynn Hughes from Roberts Stoeffel Law. Gross.
I think the point is that those who piss and moan about nobody saying anything for so long … never said anything themselves.
And then of course there's Silver recusing. . . .
My client is getting calls from DETR, asking if she is self employed two years after a claim was filed and approved, but then claims that there is a wage discrepancy. Wtf?