- Quickdraw McLaw
- 49 Comments
- 754 Views
- Some undocumented immigrants who were at the Route 91 festival are applying for U visas. [RJ]
- LACSN is helping victims of the October 1 tragedy. [RJ]
- Continuing this week’s theme on privacy, some transparency advocates are concerned about Nevada’s partnership with private prison. [TNI]
- One of the school board trustees has been banned from school district property. [Fox5Vegas]
- A group of 16 people will decide how to distribute donations for the shooting victims. [RJ]
- One of our readers sent in the following question about that distribution:
If there was ~$11.2M donated, and those who lost loved ones are weighted higher than those that were shot, who are weighted higher than those who were not shot but where there – does this money act as a setoff for recovery in a PI case for wrongful death or IIED? Is it fair that someone is awarded $X for wrongful death, to also receive funds from the victim’s fund as well? Is it unfair for them not to?
The NSC did release two forthcoming opinions today. The indolence continues.
Blog is repetitive.
Haters gonna hate.
People who find it ongoing issues repetitive are repetitive.
One of the two decisions has been in front of the Supreme Court for more than 3 years. Very simply, there is no justification for cases taking more than three years for the appellate process.
Did you actually look at the docket? Pro se, IFP appellant, extension after extension permitted. Opening Brief wasn't filed until 11 months into the appeal, 4 months later the Reply Brief was submitted. I'm not a big fan of the NSC, and I think they're slow as hell, but I don't think you can fairly pin that one on them.
@2:22 – I think it's a mixed bag if you're talking about 66398 – yes, it was pro se, yes, oral arguments were held about 19 months after the case was first filed.
But it took the Court about 19 months to issue an opinion, and absent a partial remand for factfinding or supplemental briefing, that's just too long.
The court should be getting opinions (not orders – opinions) out 4 months max after oral arguments absent partial remands or supplemental briefing.
They had to pause and ask the parties if they should dump it on the Shitwork Panel or not. The real obscenity is it taking 18 months from oral argument (4/13/2016) to decision.
Absolutely correct. 18-24 months from oral argument to get a decision out. Outrageous. Ridiculous. Unacceptable. Simply cannot understand how anyone can defend the shitshow going on in Carson City except that we have become too desensitized to believe that this is acceptable.
Outrageous, egregious, preposterous.
-Jackie Chiles.
Private donations do not offset a tortfeasor's liability.
Why is all the media stating "1 October" when doing a story on the tragedy? Who decided that we now all must say 1 October? Thank you Blog for stating it the right way when mentioning the story.
DD MMM YYYY (1 Oct 2017) is the way to go in pretty much everything. It is crystal clear without throwing in dashes or other symbols that clutter up the date. If you want to follow the ISO 8601 standard, you'd write it 2017-10-01. Sure, you could go the full American and write it Oct. 1, 2017, but if there's no actual reason for doing it other than "'Merica! Hell yeah!" why rock the boat?
Because "September 11th" was already taken.
Blog missed Fazzini's depo…
Meh. Over hyped, IMO.
Still note worthy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFIrB-fdkLA
Why would Dustin let that thing go forward. Good looking out……
Mad he only gets $1,500 an hour?
https://www.testifyingtraining.com/1500-per-hour-expert-witness-badass-case/
LOL! I love this exchange:
Q: Doctor, please state your name for the record
(long pause)
A: Bart Simpson!
I used to be Bart Simpson, now I'm Homer.
Can anyone tell me how the video depo was uploaded to YouTube? Is that illegal? Could one of the attorneys get in trouble for uploading it?
That's kind of what I was wondering. I think there's probably a HIPAA violation.
How? What PHI was disclosed? The fact that plaintiff filed a lawsuit is public record, and I imagine the Doc was disclosed as a witness, including a statement that he treated the plaintiff.
No private right of action for HIPAA anyway, so who would sue? the Plaintiff has already put his medical condition and records at issue in the public litigation.
Holy shit he's really drunk. That's not eye opener drunk, that's ridiculous.
WTH was that? Wow, just wow. I am going to guess counsel was so taken aback that they just tried to trudge through but holy cow was that ridiculous.
I'm not taking up for the Trustee, but it's too bad someone's reputation can be severely damaged, or even destroyed, through media coverage, with no specifics offered about what occurred. I have a few concerns/questions:
1. It's not clear if all the complaints were reduced to a formal written complaint consistent with protocol and procedure, or whether some were conveyed verbally. At any rate, seems unfair that the media is more than willing to report that some female teachers found the trustee weird or creepy, but no specifics were reported. Did the School District decide
to withhold the specifics, and only release to the media the subjective conclusions that the teachers found him weird or creepy? Did anyone specifically say he did or say anything objectionable, or just that he was weird and creepy?
2. Was there any internal investigation? Is one required before the superintendent takes such actions to severely restrict a Trustee from educational premises? The content of the letter was that the Super has such broad administrative discretion and authority that the Super can exclude the trustee based on the Super's own conclusions. It certainly does not appear any meaningful, organized investigation occurred.
3. If there was an investigation of some sort, it apparently did not include the trustee's right to question the witnesses against him. So, again, do the Super's powers run so deep that, without an investigation or any meaningful right to be heard, he can simply exclude someone in this fashion? Obviously, rules and protocols, as well as levels of constitutional protections, can be meaningfully different whether we are discussing court proceedings vs. the proceedings of administrative bodies. That all said, I really question whether a School trustee can be restricted from entering schools, with no meaningful investigation and no real right to be heard, merely because the Super says people have reported that the trustee makes them uncomfortable at times.
4. If there were any specifics as to what he said or did, it appears the district didn't release that info., or if they did the media chose not to report it.
5. Female employees of course must be aggressively protected if the trustee did or said anything inappropriate or against policy. But, IMO, they cannot be guaranteed, at the cost of someone's career and reputation, that the District will take all assurances that such employee will be insulated from ever finding someone else to be weird. They can think he's weird, but if no specifics are pointed to, this seems like a big over-reaction. IMO they would have a much more compelling case to restrict him, if instead of emphasizing that he's weird, they instead argued that his frequent visits disrupt classes. That part was offered as a justification, but no specifics were offered as to the far more inflammatory issue which can ruin his reputation–that being that certain women find him weird or creepy.
6. I hope the Super extensively consulted with district counsel before he wrote the bold proclamation that he has the full power, and unilateral right, to 86 the trustee based on the incredibly vague concept of what in the school district's best interests, while apparently affording no meaningful hearing or right to question witnesses.
11:57,
Does a Trustee have an inviolable right to visit campuses? This isn't the first time the Super and this particular Trustee have disagreed on the appropriate level of access.
True they don't have such complete, unfettered right. That said, the district, IMO, would have been much better off just informing him that his constant visits are too distracting. But once they indicate the restrictions are largely undertaken because he is essentially sexually harassing teachers, and then the district broadly releases that to the media, is he entitled to the right to a hearing, or to question witnesses?
Apparently not, it appears.
I'm not necessarily that impressed with the individual in question, and am not personally surprised by some of these allegations.
That said, and even with the understanding that there is an administrative framework to all this with their own administrative rules and remedies, I do share some of the concerns expressed.
As to restricting him from the schools, his visits disrupting school operations was clearly secondary to the concern that he is a supposed creepazoid. Despite the separate administrative framework, which might differ form certain procedural and substantive protections afforded in court proceedings, I find all this quite disturbing.
They can restrict him based on him apparently sexually harassing teachers,release that to the media, but provide no specifics, no hearing where he can question witnesses, etc?
My concern is that he is an elected official whose elected position is to oversee schools. For Pat S to say you were elected by the taxpayers to oversee the schools but I am not going to allow you to oversee the schools seems violative. Child is a creepy dude but he is a creepy dude doing what he was elected to do. Imagine if Steve Grierson told Bill Kephart that he was not allowed in the Courthouse or the County Manager (Yolanda King) told Steve Sisolak that he was not allowed at any county properties. The hue and cry would be enormous. Sorry, I have huge issues with no due process and an administrator interfering with an elected official.
Well… no. He was not elected to oversee schools. He was elected to oversee the School District.
"if Steve Grierson told Bill Kephart that he was not allowed in the Courthouse…"
Remedy there is judicial discipline. Judicial discipline does not give a crap that Kephart was elected if his behavior is so unusual and dangerous that he must be barred from the courthouse. See In Re Elizabeth Halverson
Here, the CCSD Supernintendo has a duty to protect teachers and students. Child can still vote and direct school policy without interfering with school operations which is what he was doing.
I'm not really buying the due process/right to a hearing business. What legal entitlement is being deprived?
Absolutely, so Kephart would be given due process and a hearing and would be censured by a regulatory body overseeing his position, not by an administrator under his supervision.
"CCSD Supernintendo" FTW. Well played, 1:20.
He has post deprivation process much like Hindenberg did when she was bringing an unlicensed but armed "security guard" into the courthouse and the administrator broke into her office and out she went.
Hindenburg? Halverson?
Yeah, damn autocorrect!
why is Kephart in this? Don't get it.
Kephart was a random elected official being denied entry by an administrative employee. Could be Gonzalez. Could be Cadish.
so just a name? B/c he has nothing to do with Childs.
Illegal Aliens*
Is there a difference?
Concerning the trustee, would everyone have found his surprise visits so unwelcome if he had an uncanny resemblance to George Clooney or Brad Pitt?
Would he have been considered every bit as "creepy" or "weird",
as he is presently condemned as being?
Besides, what has he really done? I get the part about surprise visits disrupting class. Fair enough. But the major part was that certain teachers found him creepy or weird. Did he touch any of them, or say anything inappropriate such as direct or implied sexual remarks. If so, he gets whatever he deserves. But what if he is labeled as weird by someone because he was only droning on in nerd fashion about school policies and issues? If that was the case, does he deserve this very public shaming, without any specifics offered or the right to be heard?
So, I agree with the posters who emphasize that much more needs to be known before it can be determined if he is being treated fairly, or whether the county is over-stepping its boundaries.
When I typed in Las Vegas Law Blog look at what Bing found.
Las Vegas Shooting Lawsuit – Do You Qualify For Settlement?
Ad · vegas.lawsuitscout.com/las-vegas/shooting
Victims of the Las Vegas shooting may be eligible for financial compensation.
A lawyer will contact you within minutes for your free case review.
Limited Time To File · 100% Confidential · Check Claim Eligibility
Do I Have A Case?
Find out now if you may qualify
for financial compensation.
How To File A Claim
Free information about filing your
lawsuit claim.
Start Your Claim Now
Begin your claim for compensation
from the parties responsible.
Free Claim Review
100% free & confidential evaluation
of your claim.
Why are you using Bing?
The best part of today's law blog are the two unrelated but fantastic Simpsons references: (1) the CCSD Supernintendo and (2) Bart Simpson, DO, PhD. It's like the cosmos has aligned in the most beautiful, unanticipated way.