The phone alerts are part of a secret government plan. The frequency emitted will trigger a pathogen that was put into the bodies of everyone who got the covid mRNA vaccine. Turn off your phone.
Re the 9th Circuit – they're hearing arguments at the law school. The Ronaldo rape case did not happen at Boyd. You know, just in case people were slightly confused.
I was wondering why Ronaldo was raping people at the law school
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2023 5:47 pm
Why is Real Water being sued if it has shut down and reportedly ownership broke. Did they have insurance that would pay for negligent practices in the water preparation?
Kemp and Parker could ring the bell at trial and make news for getting a big verdict; but the worst case scenario for the carrier is they pay their policy limit and defense expenses – insurance limits are all that's really available. But hey, maybe the defense lawyers can pull a rabbit out of their hats; so why not take a whack at maybe paying less than limits, or maybe even nothing?
Or, get a judgment in excess of policy limits, have Real Water assign its bad-faith insurance claim to Plaintiffs, and then go after the insurance company for bonus money!
He's going to get to a million in fees pretty fast.
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2023 5:52 pm
Interesting argument Lombardo's attorneys offer: putting the merits and facts of the case aside for the moment, the commission lacks the authority to censure someone in the executive branch(in this case Governor Lombardo) on account that some commission members were appointed by the legislature. Therefore, the argument goes, the separation of powers clause is violated, by one branch of the three government branches improperly intruding into one of the other branches.
They should have raised this argument at the inception, but it is interesting. What is also interesting that there are major authorized situations, which would seem inconsistent with the separation of powers clause, but have always been in operation. For example, a state governor(clearly a representative of the executive branch, albeit on a state level) gets to appoint a federal legislative replacement to fill a vacancy(as we just saw in Cal. wherein the Governor gets to appoint a replacement for the late Senator Feinstein, to the national Senate).
So, separation of powers violations can be a lot more complex and trickier than they seem. It is never as simple as demonstrating that a representative of one branch seems to be participating in a function of one of the other branches.
For example, the whole controversy about "activist judges" seems to be based on an insistence that judges must simply apply, but not interpret, and never change or modify the law. Yet for well over 200 years, with main focus being on the federal judiciary, the courts are, on a virtual daily basis for those 200+ years, interpreting laws and declaring them inapplicable and even unconstitutional(also, on the state level, appellate courts declare laws violative of the state constitution).
So, there has always been a lot more bleed over between the branches than some people realize, and it can never be a hyper-technical "Gotcha!" exercise where all you need do is identify someone in one branch seemingly having some involvement in a function usually reserved for another branch.
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2023 6:32 pm
10:52-I understand the broader point you are trying to make, but sometimes you conflate very differing concepts to make your point-such as the concept of judges being accused of activism when they interpret laws rather than merely enforcing them; and also discussing the concept of a state governor appointing a replacement to the U.S. Senate.
But I really don't wish to go down the rabbit's hole of this separation of powers argument. I wish to comment on the merits.
I was not a Lombardo supporter in the election, but I think this harsh, and grossly disproportionate, public discipline is total b.s. He was absolutely the sheriff when he campaigned for Governor, so there is nothing wrong with wearing the uniform and badge in campaign material. Obviously, this did not mislead anyone as it was a totally accurate representation of his current position and role. And arguing it gave him an unfair advantage, is also ludicrous as the goal here is to win a highly competitive state-wide race, and thus one is expected to emphasize their most significant accomplishment(providing the representations are true, which they obviously were as he was in fact sheriff).
The purpose behind this rule is(by way of a hypothetical) we don't want someone running for District Court Judge, and strutting around in the robe in t.v. and printed material, and attempt to justify it by the fact they had, on a few occasions, served as a Short Stack Judge or Justice Court Pro Tem or Alternate Hearing Master, or whatever.
Something like THAT does reasonably mislead the public.
@11:32 – Funny you should mention judges. Because that's potentially where Lombardo's attorneys got the idea for the separation of powers argument. The commission on ethics is not allowed to issue rulings on judges who wear their robes or use their position for reelection because the judicial branch has determined that it governs itself and created its own self-appointed commission on judicial ethics.
If I was a public figure I would be mortified to ever interact with anyone. Every interaction could lead to a lawyer letter, a payment and NDA, and then another lawsuit when the greedy extorter wants more $$$$. Very sad.
Reading this just confirms it was a pure shakedown:
Mayorga, a former teacher and model from the Las Vegas area, was 25 when she met Ronaldo at a nightclub in 2009 and went with him and other people to his hotel suite. She alleges in her lawsuit filed almost a decade later that the soccer star, then 24, sexually assaulted her in a bedroom.
Ronaldo, through his lawyers, maintained the sex was consensual. The two reached a confidentiality agreement in 2010 under which Stovall acknowledged that Mayorga received $375,000.
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2023 6:38 pm
11:32, I agree that the discipline was unwarranted. He was sheriff, so it should be fine to campaign in the uniform. Absolutely nothing misleading occurred.
It is likewise true that sometimes there can be a good reason for discipline in this realm-like when alternate hearing masters and Justice Court pro tems wear the robe in ads.
Except for the fact there is an unbroken line of ethics commission precedents saying cops can’t campaign in their uniforms or appear in uniform in campaign materials, he was advised of his, but he nevertheless persisted.
It's not a House Rule. It's a rule of the House Republican Conference.
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2023 6:56 pm
I, like 11:32, feel too tired and brain-dead at the moment to engage in any lengthy cerebral separation of powers debate.
I, too, simply wish to mainly focus on the merits. He was Sheriff when he campaigned for Governor, so what is it he misrepresented, and how could anyone have been deceived ?
Against that backdrop, this separation of powers concern is, IMO, probably not really about dealing with the general concept as to it being improper for the legislature to appoint commission members who then have power to discipline an executive officer-in this case a governor. The real issue, although not really stated overtly, is that the Lombardo camp may perceive that these appointees are anti-Lombardo and/or staunch democrat loyalists.
That presumably is what this is all about.
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2023 8:14 pm
The justification is not allowing campaigning in your sheriff's uniform is not misrepresentation. It's that using your uniform for personal gain is a violation of the public trust. It's like using a government car to take your family on vacation. It's for "official use only". Meaning it's for the furtherance of your duties and obligations of the office, not to assist you in achieving your other political ambitions.
@8:03 – They do, but judges have made themselves not subject to the commission on ethics because of separation of powers… hence Lombardo's attorneys' arguments.
How so? When the legislature enacted the Nevada Ethics in Government Law in 1975, it excluded the judiciary from its scope. See 1975 Nev. Stat., ch. 540, sec. 14, at 926. Did it do so because it felt constitutionally obligated to or because it acted in deference to the judiciary to govern its own affairs, consistent with (but not necessarily mandated by) separation of powers?
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2023 8:30 pm
1:14-I do think that justification the commission offered is a stretch, and I agree with the poster who indicate partisanship may be in operation.
You are correct in identifying the theory used, and it was that more than the "deceiving the public' theme that some posters alluded to.
But the commission's logic is badly flawed in my view. Simply wearing the uniform you wear everyday in the performance of your duties, cannot be reasonably equated with using your position to justify use of thousands of dollars of departmental goodies and benefits.
I doubt too many people are offended by him wearing his uniform. But they would rightfully be offended if, like you say, he used company vehicles, and Metro. gasoline allotments, to go on extended vacations, etc.
So, you are correct, while some other posters really were not, in identifying the accurate charging allegations and rules involved. But those posters were right in their conclusion that this discipline is wrong.
Simply driving the car you drive everyday in the performance of your duties cannot be reasonably equated with using your position to justify use of thousands of dollars of departmental goodies and benefits.
Simply using the office photocopier you use everyday in the performance of your duties cannot be reasonably equated with using your position to justify use of thousands of dollars of departmental goodies and benefits.
It’s all the same. Use of a uniform might not translate as neatly into misused public dollars and cents, but the uniform carried intangible value and implies official backing. Why else have cops dress in uniform and wearing a badge?
Here's the thing: its not Lombardo's uniform, it's Metro's uniform. By posing for campaign photos in that uniform he's utilizing an advantage (the prestige of appearing in the uniform of a senior police officer/public servant) which is not available to other candidates. There's no good reason for doing it other than for that advantage. Military members, for example, aren't even supposed to attend political events in uniform for fear that the prestige associated with it may be ascribed to a candidate. To allow the candidate himself to wear a uniform is much worse.
3:50-I hear what you're saying and the commission rulings, and rules involved, are totally consistent with what you say. So, this issue in particular, and these matters in general, have already been resolved in the manner you indicate. So, you of course are right.
Yet I have concerns about the rationale behind all of it. High profile, state-wide elections are almost psychotically competitive-they are almost like pitched battle warfare.
The whole purpose is to exploit advantages you may have that the other side does not. It seems like arbitrary, and quite unfair cherry-picking, to say these type of representations(photos appearing in police uniform) are not permissable, while a myriad of other matters are not so regulated. If I serve as an EMT, it seems I am permitted to include a photo., in my campaign brochure, of me loading the necessary emergency equipment into an ambulance. Or if I serve in Dive And Rescue, I cold presumably include a photo. strapping an oxygen tank to my back. Those jobs, as are police, are also positions of "public trust." If I am a manager of a a professional sports team, I can be seen my team uniform..well, there could be a gazzillion examples.
Kind of a tangential comment, but based on recent elections, and dramatically changing societal trends, touting law enforcement experience may not be the great advantage it used to be. In some elections in some areas, it can actually be quite a detriment. But perhaps the pendulum will sensibly swing back to somewhere to the middle.
5:28, even if you raise some points that could have arguable merit, as 3:50 stresses these are the preclusions and restrictions in place, and the Sheriff had to know that. As 2:45 points out, there is an unbroken chain of ethics decisions on this point.
So, yes I suppose you can reasonably argue, as you did, that why should police and military be restricted while those in other areas of arguable "public trust" are not. I get it. But until such time, if any, that the decisions shift course, it is concerning if candidates employed in law enforcement or military ignore those ethical restrictions.
Anyway, the whole situation was absurd, and had he been properly advised it would have easily been avoided. If there is candidate who is in law enforcement, but many voters do not know that fact, there is arguably an advantage in appearing in uniform. But virtually all voters knew he was Sheriff, and that is either a positive in their eyes or it is not. He gained no votes, and lost no votes, by wearing the uniform
5:45-I'm not so sure. Some voters up North in Washoe, and many voters scattered throughout the rurals, may not have known until they saw ads of him in uniform touting that fact. And that highest echelon law enforcement cred. tends to play very well with those voters who tend to be conservative, and very pro-law enforcement.
So, he definitely gained a real advantage in a relatively close race.
Law enforcement (excepting Sheriffs) and the military, we hope, are serving regardless of their politics. It is as much to ensure the public that, unlike some Sheriffs and all politicians, they will do their duty to serve and protect the public without a thought about politics.
"Anyway, the whole situation was absurd, and had he been properly advised it would have easily been avoided."
545, the evidence showed he *was* advised, yet after he was advised he doubled down and kept abusing the rules.
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2023 9:10 pm
Newbie Legal Question. I thought if the days for a deadline were 10 or more it was calendar days but if 9 or less it is business days. But NRCP 6 says if it is "days" then to count weekends. Am I even looking in the right place? Thanks ahead of time!
NRCP 6 is the right place. There used to be different counting methods for periods of 11 or more days vs. less than 11 days, but that was abandoned with the rules overhaul in March 2019.
Note, however, that JCRCP still maintains this distinction, so the practice is different in district court vs. justice court.
There's not a distinction anymore. It's all calendar days, as the current NRCP reads, and in line with the FRCP. The actual number of days in the local rules were also adjusted to reflect that effective 1/1/2020, i.e. instead of a deadline being 10 days, it became 14. See ADKT 0545.
The amendments to the JCRCP have not gone into effect yet. The Supreme Court stayed implementation for 90 days (until October 11) to allow for additional proposed amendments.
I think that all of us that were associates during the two method of counting days have one or two horror stories about a deadline going awry because we counted wrong.
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2023 10:27 pm
Question: I have a case where the insurance company accepted liability prior to litigation and this acceptance was in written format. The case is now in litigation and the defense attorneys are now disputing liability. Is the acceptance of liability in pre-litigation binding? Thanks.
@4:07p – I don't do PI litigation, but damn – really? If an insurance adjuster says, in writing "I agree that our insured was at fault and we are responsible for insuring the damages he/she caused." Then you file a lawsuit and that's completely ignored and you have to have a judge or arbitrator (if lower value) make a specific finding of legal liability? What's the reason behind that? Is all pre-lit work deemed settlement negotiations that is inadmissible?
If its me, I am deposing the adjuster and getting the admission and then filing a MSJ on liability. Then if I lose, I am putting that mfkr on the stand and making him admit it again.
Meh, I'm a plaintiff guy but if they have an argument then why not dispute liability in litigation? And if you can prove liability don't waste it on MSJ, take it to the jury.
I have always found that a well drafted MSJ, even if not granted, historically has served to educate the judge as to the issues and puts us in a better position for trial.
Please see my comments from yesterday. An adjuster's statement accepting liability can be withdrawn and modified. The carrier is not the party to the case. Defense counsel can litigate liability on behalf of the defendant insured client. An adjuster's statement on accepting liability is an offer to compromise or an offer to settle and is inadmissible. NRS 48.105. Even a stipulation between the parties on liability can be withdrawn and modified. Many savy plaintiff's counsel won't even accept a stipulation on liability because they see it as a trick or trap. The comments here by others show they are not knowledgeable on this issue or have not litigated it.
@10:39 – 4:07 here. The adjuster has no authority to accept liability as a legal matter. An adjuster may, as part of adjusting the claim, consider his/her own opinion of liability (and maybe even state it to the claimant) but it's not binding on the defendant in subsequent litigation. First, its probably a statement made in furtherance of settlement. But also, settling a claim, which is what the adjuster DOES have authority to do, does not include determining liability. In fact, most settlements expressly state that liability is disputed. Once a complaint is filed the Plaintiff has the burden of proving each and every element of the claim with admissible evidence. Not only is an adjuster's "admission" of liability probably barred as settlement discussions, it is most certainly hearsay.
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2023 10:57 pm
3:27 PM-Interesting question. Nevada is not a direct action state against the carrier. The insured is the party client, the defendant. The carrier represents the insured who is the party-defendant. A party can always change their mind about liability unless it is a stipulation. But even then they can withdraw the stipulation. An argument can be made that the acceptance of liability was for settlement purposes and is inadmissible to pursue settlement negotiations.
The phone alerts are part of a secret government plan. The frequency emitted will trigger a pathogen that was put into the bodies of everyone who got the covid mRNA vaccine. Turn off your phone.
Why? If the tone offers sweet release from the slings n arrows of this existence, I’m all for it.
Don't tempt me with a good time
Re the 9th Circuit – they're hearing arguments at the law school. The Ronaldo rape case did not happen at Boyd. You know, just in case people were slightly confused.
I was wondering why Ronaldo was raping people at the law school
Why is Real Water being sued if it has shut down and reportedly ownership broke. Did they have insurance that would pay for negligent practices in the water preparation?
There must be insurance because Real Water filed BK, I believe.
Kemp and Parker could ring the bell at trial and make news for getting a big verdict; but the worst case scenario for the carrier is they pay their policy limit and defense expenses – insurance limits are all that's really available. But hey, maybe the defense lawyers can pull a rabbit out of their hats; so why not take a whack at maybe paying less than limits, or maybe even nothing?
Or, get a judgment in excess of policy limits, have Real Water assign its bad-faith insurance claim to Plaintiffs, and then go after the insurance company for bonus money!
If company is dissolved and in BK, where is the bad faith?
Or there are other defendants like the manufacturer for the device testing the ph level. Will Kemp knows how to get paid and find deep pockets.
@6:04pm
You know nothing Jon Snow.
Douglas county is a mess and they get exactly what they deserve.
He's going to get to a million in fees pretty fast.
Interesting argument Lombardo's attorneys offer: putting the merits and facts of the case aside for the moment, the commission lacks the authority to censure someone in the executive branch(in this case Governor Lombardo) on account that some commission members were appointed by the legislature. Therefore, the argument goes, the separation of powers clause is violated, by one branch of the three government branches improperly intruding into one of the other branches.
They should have raised this argument at the inception, but it is interesting. What is also interesting that there are major authorized situations, which would seem inconsistent with the separation of powers clause, but have always been in operation. For example, a state governor(clearly a representative of the executive branch, albeit on a state level) gets to appoint a federal legislative replacement to fill a vacancy(as we just saw in Cal. wherein the Governor gets to appoint a replacement for the late Senator Feinstein, to the national Senate).
So, separation of powers violations can be a lot more complex and trickier than they seem. It is never as simple as demonstrating that a representative of one branch seems to be participating in a function of one of the other branches.
For example, the whole controversy about "activist judges" seems to be based on an insistence that judges must simply apply, but not interpret, and never change or modify the law. Yet for well over 200 years, with main focus being on the federal judiciary, the courts are, on a virtual daily basis for those 200+ years, interpreting laws and declaring them inapplicable and even unconstitutional(also, on the state level, appellate courts declare laws violative of the state constitution).
So, there has always been a lot more bleed over between the branches than some people realize, and it can never be a hyper-technical "Gotcha!" exercise where all you need do is identify someone in one branch seemingly having some involvement in a function usually reserved for another branch.
10:52-I understand the broader point you are trying to make, but sometimes you conflate very differing concepts to make your point-such as the concept of judges being accused of activism when they interpret laws rather than merely enforcing them; and also discussing the concept of a state governor appointing a replacement to the U.S. Senate.
But I really don't wish to go down the rabbit's hole of this separation of powers argument. I wish to comment on the merits.
I was not a Lombardo supporter in the election, but I think this harsh, and grossly disproportionate, public discipline is total b.s. He was absolutely the sheriff when he campaigned for Governor, so there is nothing wrong with wearing the uniform and badge in campaign material. Obviously, this did not mislead anyone as it was a totally accurate representation of his current position and role. And arguing it gave him an unfair advantage, is also ludicrous as the goal here is to win a highly competitive state-wide race, and thus one is expected to emphasize their most significant accomplishment(providing the representations are true, which they obviously were as he was in fact sheriff).
The purpose behind this rule is(by way of a hypothetical) we don't want someone running for District Court Judge, and strutting around in the robe in t.v. and printed material, and attempt to justify it by the fact they had, on a few occasions, served as a Short Stack Judge or Justice Court Pro Tem or Alternate Hearing Master, or whatever.
Something like THAT does reasonably mislead the public.
@11:32 – Funny you should mention judges. Because that's potentially where Lombardo's attorneys got the idea for the separation of powers argument. The commission on ethics is not allowed to issue rulings on judges who wear their robes or use their position for reelection because the judicial branch has determined that it governs itself and created its own self-appointed commission on judicial ethics.
The people of Nevada created the Commission on Judicial Discipline when they amended the Nevada Constitution in 1976. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html#Art6Sec21
If I was a public figure I would be mortified to ever interact with anyone. Every interaction could lead to a lawyer letter, a payment and NDA, and then another lawsuit when the greedy extorter wants more $$$$. Very sad.
Reading this just confirms it was a pure shakedown:
Mayorga, a former teacher and model from the Las Vegas area, was 25 when she met Ronaldo at a nightclub in 2009 and went with him and other people to his hotel suite. She alleges in her lawsuit filed almost a decade later that the soccer star, then 24, sexually assaulted her in a bedroom.
Ronaldo, through his lawyers, maintained the sex was consensual. The two reached a confidentiality agreement in 2010 under which Stovall acknowledged that Mayorga received $375,000.
11:32, I agree that the discipline was unwarranted. He was sheriff, so it should be fine to campaign in the uniform. Absolutely nothing misleading occurred.
It is likewise true that sometimes there can be a good reason for discipline in this realm-like when alternate hearing masters and Justice Court pro tems wear the robe in ads.
Except for the fact there is an unbroken line of ethics commission precedents saying cops can’t campaign in their uniforms or appear in uniform in campaign materials, he was advised of his, but he nevertheless persisted.
Trump for Speaker of the House!
Purely for the chaos
Fkn-A Right.
Bring me the popcorn.
Yes!!
🤝🤝
Based
I believe there is a House Rule that says if you are under criminal indictment, you must resign.
What about Santos? perhaps the rule only applies to leadership?
Its a "rule", not a law. If they had the votes to name Trump Speaker (they very likely do not), then they have the votes to eliminate the rule.
Either way,
“The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."
–Captain Hector Barbossa
It's not a House Rule. It's a rule of the House Republican Conference.
I, like 11:32, feel too tired and brain-dead at the moment to engage in any lengthy cerebral separation of powers debate.
I, too, simply wish to mainly focus on the merits. He was Sheriff when he campaigned for Governor, so what is it he misrepresented, and how could anyone have been deceived ?
Against that backdrop, this separation of powers concern is, IMO, probably not really about dealing with the general concept as to it being improper for the legislature to appoint commission members who then have power to discipline an executive officer-in this case a governor. The real issue, although not really stated overtly, is that the Lombardo camp may perceive that these appointees are anti-Lombardo and/or staunch democrat loyalists.
That presumably is what this is all about.
The justification is not allowing campaigning in your sheriff's uniform is not misrepresentation. It's that using your uniform for personal gain is a violation of the public trust. It's like using a government car to take your family on vacation. It's for "official use only". Meaning it's for the furtherance of your duties and obligations of the office, not to assist you in achieving your other political ambitions.
So, according to you, does a judge who campaigns as an incumbent while dressed in a robe also use the position for personal gain?
@8:03 – They do, but judges have made themselves not subject to the commission on ethics because of separation of powers… hence Lombardo's attorneys' arguments.
How so? When the legislature enacted the Nevada Ethics in Government Law in 1975, it excluded the judiciary from its scope. See 1975 Nev. Stat., ch. 540, sec. 14, at 926. Did it do so because it felt constitutionally obligated to or because it acted in deference to the judiciary to govern its own affairs, consistent with (but not necessarily mandated by) separation of powers?
1:14-I do think that justification the commission offered is a stretch, and I agree with the poster who indicate partisanship may be in operation.
You are correct in identifying the theory used, and it was that more than the "deceiving the public' theme that some posters alluded to.
But the commission's logic is badly flawed in my view. Simply wearing the uniform you wear everyday in the performance of your duties, cannot be reasonably equated with using your position to justify use of thousands of dollars of departmental goodies and benefits.
I doubt too many people are offended by him wearing his uniform. But they would rightfully be offended if, like you say, he used company vehicles, and Metro. gasoline allotments, to go on extended vacations, etc.
So, you are correct, while some other posters really were not, in identifying the accurate charging allegations and rules involved. But those posters were right in their conclusion that this discipline is wrong.
Simply driving the car you drive everyday in the performance of your duties cannot be reasonably equated with using your position to justify use of thousands of dollars of departmental goodies and benefits.
Simply using the office photocopier you use everyday in the performance of your duties cannot be reasonably equated with using your position to justify use of thousands of dollars of departmental goodies and benefits.
It’s all the same. Use of a uniform might not translate as neatly into misused public dollars and cents, but the uniform carried intangible value and implies official backing. Why else have cops dress in uniform and wearing a badge?
Here's the thing: its not Lombardo's uniform, it's Metro's uniform. By posing for campaign photos in that uniform he's utilizing an advantage (the prestige of appearing in the uniform of a senior police officer/public servant) which is not available to other candidates. There's no good reason for doing it other than for that advantage. Military members, for example, aren't even supposed to attend political events in uniform for fear that the prestige associated with it may be ascribed to a candidate. To allow the candidate himself to wear a uniform is much worse.
3:50-I hear what you're saying and the commission rulings, and rules involved, are totally consistent with what you say. So, this issue in particular, and these matters in general, have already been resolved in the manner you indicate. So, you of course are right.
Yet I have concerns about the rationale behind all of it. High profile, state-wide elections are almost psychotically competitive-they are almost like pitched battle warfare.
The whole purpose is to exploit advantages you may have that the other side does not. It seems like arbitrary, and quite unfair cherry-picking, to say these type of representations(photos appearing in police uniform) are not permissable, while a myriad of other matters are not so regulated. If I serve as an EMT, it seems I am permitted to include a photo., in my campaign brochure, of me loading the necessary emergency equipment into an ambulance. Or if I serve in Dive And Rescue, I cold presumably include a photo. strapping an oxygen tank to my back. Those jobs, as are police, are also positions of "public trust." If I am a manager of a a professional sports team, I can be seen my team uniform..well, there could be a gazzillion examples.
Kind of a tangential comment, but based on recent elections, and dramatically changing societal trends, touting law enforcement experience may not be the great advantage it used to be. In some elections in some areas, it can actually be quite a detriment. But perhaps the pendulum will sensibly swing back to somewhere to the middle.
5:28, even if you raise some points that could have arguable merit, as 3:50 stresses these are the preclusions and restrictions in place, and the Sheriff had to know that. As 2:45 points out, there is an unbroken chain of ethics decisions on this point.
So, yes I suppose you can reasonably argue, as you did, that why should police and military be restricted while those in other areas of arguable "public trust" are not. I get it. But until such time, if any, that the decisions shift course, it is concerning if candidates employed in law enforcement or military ignore those ethical restrictions.
Anyway, the whole situation was absurd, and had he been properly advised it would have easily been avoided. If there is candidate who is in law enforcement, but many voters do not know that fact, there is arguably an advantage in appearing in uniform. But virtually all voters knew he was Sheriff, and that is either a positive in their eyes or it is not. He gained no votes, and lost no votes, by wearing the uniform
5:45-I'm not so sure. Some voters up North in Washoe, and many voters scattered throughout the rurals, may not have known until they saw ads of him in uniform touting that fact. And that highest echelon law enforcement cred. tends to play very well with those voters who tend to be conservative, and very pro-law enforcement.
So, he definitely gained a real advantage in a relatively close race.
Law enforcement (excepting Sheriffs) and the military, we hope, are serving regardless of their politics. It is as much to ensure the public that, unlike some Sheriffs and all politicians, they will do their duty to serve and protect the public without a thought about politics.
Punishment in the form of a fine is simply permission with a fee.
"Anyway, the whole situation was absurd, and had he been properly advised it would have easily been avoided."
545, the evidence showed he *was* advised, yet after he was advised he doubled down and kept abusing the rules.
Newbie Legal Question. I thought if the days for a deadline were 10 or more it was calendar days but if 9 or less it is business days. But NRCP 6 says if it is "days" then to count weekends. Am I even looking in the right place? Thanks ahead of time!
11 or more
NRCP 6 is the right place. There used to be different counting methods for periods of 11 or more days vs. less than 11 days, but that was abandoned with the rules overhaul in March 2019.
Note, however, that JCRCP still maintains this distinction, so the practice is different in district court vs. justice court.
There's not a distinction anymore. It's all calendar days, as the current NRCP reads, and in line with the FRCP. The actual number of days in the local rules were also adjusted to reflect that effective 1/1/2020, i.e. instead of a deadline being 10 days, it became 14. See ADKT 0545.
Correction, almost forgot about ADKT 607. JCRCP now conforms to NRCP. LCB’s Court Rules website is out of date. https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=65764&csIID=65764&deLinkID=900569&onBaseDocumentNumber=23-15030
Wow! Op back thanks!!
The amendments to the JCRCP have not gone into effect yet. The Supreme Court stayed implementation for 90 days (until October 11) to allow for additional proposed amendments.
So convenient having to check three different places to know which rule is in effect. Ugh.
The order extending the effective date was entered July 11. Ninety days from then is October 9, not October 11.
I think that all of us that were associates during the two method of counting days have one or two horror stories about a deadline going awry because we counted wrong.
Question: I have a case where the insurance company accepted liability prior to litigation and this acceptance was in written format. The case is now in litigation and the defense attorneys are now disputing liability. Is the acceptance of liability in pre-litigation binding? Thanks.
No.
@4:07p – I don't do PI litigation, but damn – really? If an insurance adjuster says, in writing "I agree that our insured was at fault and we are responsible for insuring the damages he/she caused." Then you file a lawsuit and that's completely ignored and you have to have a judge or arbitrator (if lower value) make a specific finding of legal liability? What's the reason behind that? Is all pre-lit work deemed settlement negotiations that is inadmissible?
@10:39p here – that's what I get for not reading further down the line. @3:57p answered the question.
If its me, I am deposing the adjuster and getting the admission and then filing a MSJ on liability. Then if I lose, I am putting that mfkr on the stand and making him admit it again.
Meh, I'm a plaintiff guy but if they have an argument then why not dispute liability in litigation? And if you can prove liability don't waste it on MSJ, take it to the jury.
I have always found that a well drafted MSJ, even if not granted, historically has served to educate the judge as to the issues and puts us in a better position for trial.
Please see my comments from yesterday. An adjuster's statement accepting liability can be withdrawn and modified. The carrier is not the party to the case. Defense counsel can litigate liability on behalf of the defendant insured client. An adjuster's statement on accepting liability is an offer to compromise or an offer to settle and is inadmissible. NRS 48.105. Even a stipulation between the parties on liability can be withdrawn and modified. Many savy plaintiff's counsel won't even accept a stipulation on liability because they see it as a trick or trap. The comments here by others show they are not knowledgeable on this issue or have not litigated it.
@10:39 – 4:07 here. The adjuster has no authority to accept liability as a legal matter. An adjuster may, as part of adjusting the claim, consider his/her own opinion of liability (and maybe even state it to the claimant) but it's not binding on the defendant in subsequent litigation. First, its probably a statement made in furtherance of settlement. But also, settling a claim, which is what the adjuster DOES have authority to do, does not include determining liability. In fact, most settlements expressly state that liability is disputed. Once a complaint is filed the Plaintiff has the burden of proving each and every element of the claim with admissible evidence. Not only is an adjuster's "admission" of liability probably barred as settlement discussions, it is most certainly hearsay.
3:27 PM-Interesting question. Nevada is not a direct action state against the carrier. The insured is the party client, the defendant. The carrier represents the insured who is the party-defendant. A party can always change their mind about liability unless it is a stipulation. But even then they can withdraw the stipulation. An argument can be made that the acceptance of liability was for settlement purposes and is inadmissible to pursue settlement negotiations.