Washoe County Judge Barry Breslow issued his ruling on DETR and PUA payments. [TNI]
In what promises to disrupt life in Vegas no matter which way they go, CCSD trusteees will decide today whether to follow staff recommendations for online-only classes for all students when school starts this fall. [TNI]
CCSD has not discussed a waiver for students returning to school. [Fox5Vegas]
The Culinary Union has dropped its suit against MGM, but is still going after Caesars for COVID-19 related issues. [RJ]
Civil domestic cases in Department L were randomly reassigned. [NVbar]
The Nevada bar exam is next week and may be taken online. Any tips for the takers? [NVbar]
WTF is going on in Dept L that required reassignment?
Guest
Anonymous
July 21, 2020 8:21 pm
Dept. L is Judge Gibson. Earlier this year he was transferred from the regular divorce/custody etc. cases to Juvenile Justice cases with Judge Voy. The divorce/custody cases were originally going to be heard by a senior judge, then they were redistributed to the other judges.
Guest
Anonymous
July 21, 2020 8:28 pm
Chewbacca has hairy balls.
Guest
Anonymous
July 21, 2020 8:31 pm
Barndt.
Guest
Anonymous
July 21, 2020 8:32 pm
1:11. What presumably occurred is as follows.Judge Gibson is in that department, which was a department assigned to general Domestic cases, but then it was decided that for the indefinite future Judge Gibson would only be assigned Juvenile cases.
So, to deal with Judge Gibson's remaining domestic cases(issues in divorce cases, custody and support matters, etc.)Senior Judge Gerald Hardcastle("Mr. Warmth")was assigned to adjudicate over these remaining Dept. L domestic cases, and once accomplished there would be no further domestic matters assigned to Dept.L(Gibson) as he would only be receiving Juvenile cases.
But then due to the pandemic and accompanying cost concerns, the Senior Judge budget froze or was no longer available, so Judge Hardcastle could not be maintained to resolve Judge Gibson's remaining domestic cases.
So,as a result, Judge Gibson's remaining domestic cases are split among the various judges who are still handling Domestic matters.
At least that's how it appears to me, but I don't practice Family Law or Juvenile Law. So,if I am wrong, I'm sure some Family Court practitioners will weigh in as to what actually occurred.
So, to deal with the existing caseload of dept.L(divorce cas eissues, custody matters, etc.) Senior judge Gerrald hardcastke("Mr. Warmth") was assigned to preside over Dept. l domesic caseload over the next few monthns
Guest
Anonymous
July 21, 2020 9:17 pm
1:32, thanks for the explanation.
Guest
Anonymous
July 21, 2020 9:48 pm
1:32–I haven't heard the nickname "Mr. Warmth" for Judge Hardcastle, but I do appreciate the irony. Acerbic, insulting comedian Don Rickles was also known as Mr. Warmth.
When attorneys are disenchanted with these no-nonsense type judges, I don't really view it as an indictment against such judge or their approach, but more a commentary on the shifting philosophical emphasis in Family Court. There has been an emphasis on moving to a more user friendly, warm and fuzzy judicial approach, which also has occurred simultaneously with the blurring of lines between Family Court and therapeutic social agencies.
In fact our Family Court seems to encourage this hybrid approach, where they are viewed as part court/part social agency.
Thus, when we encounter a judge like Hardcsatle, who correctly uderstands he
is 100% judge(rather then 50% judge and 50% therapist) this approach is not necessarily appreciated by Family Law attorneys and their clients.
@2:48 Gerald Hardcastle at least knows family law which is more than anyone could say about Kathy. Regardless, he's rude and mean. He routinely insults attorneys and berates litigants. He lacks the appropriate demeanor. The comments re: 50% judge and 50% therapist just demonstrate your ignorance of family court. I'm sure you're like the litigator of the year in whatever court it is that you practice and you paid good money for a plaque that says just that.
3:49–I'm more than a bit troubled by your vicious name-calling of me, which seems totally unnecessary and out of proportion.
I am not defending Judge H or other judges when they resort to disrespecting attorneys and litigants.
I'm merely trying to make a broader point, as to the significant and increased involvement and emphasis of therapeutic resources used in certain custody cases.
So, if it makes you feel good to call me an idiot, that is fine, but I think you will find my point difficult to totally ignore if you speak to other litigators other than yourself. Many Family Court specialists have been concerned that in certain custody cases the judge has relied heavily on reports from an outside therapist who never even testified in the case. If I told you my history and current involvement in Family Court, you would no doubt be shocked beyond belief based on how you very viciously marginalized and dismissed me, but I wont get into it as you would not believe me unless I identified myself, which I have no intention of doing in response to a post condemning me for even existing.
If you disagree with points made on the blog, then that's great as this blog can provide the forum for lively discussions, debates, and even disagreement. But I am admittedly troubled by what I sense to be an extremely hostile attitude, with no real justification.
Hopefully, you will reflect on the way you treat people. Forgive me, but if I were you I would be very ashamed of myself. Next time you disagree with something, even if you strongly disagree, please keep in mind the other person is a human being.
3:49, I was also a little put off by your post. Not to the points you make(which I agree with by the way. You are right as to your comments about the judge, etc.), but come on, lighten up.
6:11–plaque for nastiest, smallest-minded, most intolerant person who totally eviscerates anyone who doesn't agree with them on all issues 100% of the time.
Be honest. Judge Gibson is gone because he was Potter.2 Angry, capricious, and downright rude. The powers that be removed him from a domestic calendar to save his neck.
3:49 here. @4:29 I'm not ashamed and I did not call you an idiot. @6:29 that was not a total evisceration of anyone…calm down. @10:03 you're dead on 100% correct.
10:03. I practice in Family Court and no one I have spoken to has suggested he is that rude, and he does not seem to me in my estimation. That said there may well be instances I know nothing about.
But if he truly has a temperament problem and an ultra-aggressive demeanor, I'm not sure that moving him from divorce/custody cases to a court dealing with very sensitive issues involving juveniles is any sort of answer. That will just magnify and such problem and place it in high relief.
But the courts do make some real questionable judicial assignments and transfers from time to time, so who knows.
9:43 I also practice in family court. I've heard from numerous attorneys that his demeanor is out of control. I've heard him repeatedly referred to as the next Potter. Transferring him back to abuse/neglect/dependency cases gets him away from wealthier litigants who can afford attorneys and puts him with poor people who usually have appointed counsel (if any) who will cow to a judge they have to appear in front of all the time.
9:49, I'm not 2:48 but you were kind of rude. Also, let's be intellectual honest about things. You may not have called the poster an "idiot", but calling them "ignorant', along with other attacks, is pretty close.
Guest
Anonymous
July 21, 2020 9:52 pm
Will Ghislaine Maxwell's suddden death (natural causes of course) be before or after Aug 31, 2020?
If the Illumanti/Clinton's/Trump/British Monarchy/Etc. wanted to kill her, why would they wait to do it until she was in custody? Why not do it while she was off the grid in the middle of nowhere during the past year?
You really think the head of some worldwide powerful elite group is just going to sit around when Epstein first got arrested and wait for Maxwell to get arrested before doing anything? Hell no, he ain't waiting around, he's tying up loose ends and offing people immediately.
She has all of the Epstein videos of the rich and powerful having sex with minors.
Once the Three Gorges dam collapses 100 million chinamen will be killed. The world financial system will be destroyed. Israel will take this as cover to nuke Iran.
Civil War 2 will go hot in CONUS and the Maxwell videos will help weed out who will rise to leadership positions in the new world order.
Yeah 7:19 – whats the big deal? hundreds of angry, violent thugs knocking down the private gate to you private community, marching through your community, chanting slogans and threatening to destroy all that you worked hard for – you should just take it without a fight and accept that being woke means to redistribute everything you worked hard for to people who are undeserving and unwilling to work for it. Like duh!
The message is clear: rioters will not be prosecuted but white homeowners protecting their homes will be prosecuted. Would the media demonize them if, say, they were two black attorneys holding off a mostly white mob? (From the video it does appear the mob was mostly white, but I can't tell for sure.)
History will condemn the yellow press for fostering yet more racial division and violence.
Protect yourself all you want. But "ooh, scary Negroes" is not a defense to brandishing a firearm. These folks were lawyers and firearm owners. They should have known better. Until there's actually a threat, you have no business pointing the boom end at a human.
9:32 brings up another important point. Even I, a lib non gun owner, knows they violated numerous gun safety principles: don't point the gun at anything you're not comfortable shooting, treat the gun like it's always loaded, don't put your finger on the trigger unless you're intending to fire. Not only were they pointing these guns at the protesters (who were not on their property), but they were pointing them at each other. They are a danger to themselves and others and should not be allowed near lethal weapons.
The mayor doxxed a bunch of people in a meeting. The protesters were marching past the house to the mayor's house to protest her. The white people freaked out and pulled guns on the protesters who were just walking by their house. They demonstrated a complete lack of trigger discipline and clearly had no idea what they were doing with those guns. It's just sheer luck that those two idiots didn't kill someone. They deserve to get prosecuted. Also, there is a case from NJ in which a couple (both black lawyers) were being harassed by the neighborhood Karen bc they were putting in a patio. The white female neighbors gathered together and defended the black couple and the next day there was a big march down the street in support of the couple and denouncing the Karen. @9:29 – that's what would happen if it was two black attorneys. They didn't pull a damn gun on anyone and their neighbors supported them.
I don't see an issue with the charges against the woman who actually pointed the gun at, and aimed the gun at, people walking by. I watched the video and I didn't see the man actually pointing a gun at anyone (I could have missed it but I didn't see it happen.) Displaying the existence of a firearm on one's property for deterrence when white protesters (in a twist of irony) threatened them directly while they were on their property. Of course, if the man also pointed his gun at protesters walking by then he should be charged as well. I know brandishing includes simply displaying a firearm in certain situations, but if he was open carrying his rifle in his hands (which is not prohibited by law in St. Louis.) She was aiming it at people threatening them though.
WTF is going on in Dept L that required reassignment?
Dept. L is Judge Gibson. Earlier this year he was transferred from the regular divorce/custody etc. cases to Juvenile Justice cases with Judge Voy. The divorce/custody cases were originally going to be heard by a senior judge, then they were redistributed to the other judges.
Chewbacca has hairy balls.
Barndt.
1:11. What presumably occurred is as follows.Judge Gibson is in that department, which was a department assigned to general Domestic cases, but then it was decided that for the indefinite future Judge Gibson would only be assigned Juvenile cases.
So, to deal with Judge Gibson's remaining domestic cases(issues in divorce cases, custody and support matters, etc.)Senior Judge Gerald Hardcastle("Mr. Warmth")was assigned to adjudicate over these remaining Dept. L domestic cases, and once accomplished there would be no further domestic matters assigned to Dept.L(Gibson) as he would only be receiving Juvenile cases.
But then due to the pandemic and accompanying cost concerns, the Senior Judge budget froze or was no longer available, so Judge Hardcastle could not be maintained to resolve Judge Gibson's remaining domestic cases.
So,as a result, Judge Gibson's remaining domestic cases are split among the various judges who are still handling Domestic matters.
At least that's how it appears to me, but I don't practice Family Law or Juvenile Law. So,if I am wrong, I'm sure some Family Court practitioners will weigh in as to what actually occurred.
So, to deal with the existing caseload of dept.L(divorce cas eissues, custody matters, etc.) Senior judge Gerrald hardcastke("Mr. Warmth") was assigned to preside over Dept. l domesic caseload over the next few monthns
1:32, thanks for the explanation.
1:32–I haven't heard the nickname "Mr. Warmth" for Judge Hardcastle, but I do appreciate the irony. Acerbic, insulting comedian Don Rickles was also known as Mr. Warmth.
When attorneys are disenchanted with these no-nonsense type judges, I don't really view it as an indictment against such judge or their approach, but more a commentary on the shifting philosophical emphasis in Family Court. There has been an emphasis on moving to a more user friendly, warm and fuzzy judicial approach, which also has occurred simultaneously with the blurring of lines between Family Court and therapeutic social agencies.
In fact our Family Court seems to encourage this hybrid approach, where they are viewed as part court/part social agency.
Thus, when we encounter a judge like Hardcsatle, who correctly uderstands he
is 100% judge(rather then 50% judge and 50% therapist) this approach is not necessarily appreciated by Family Law attorneys and their clients.
@2:48 Gerald Hardcastle at least knows family law which is more than anyone could say about Kathy. Regardless, he's rude and mean. He routinely insults attorneys and berates litigants. He lacks the appropriate demeanor. The comments re: 50% judge and 50% therapist just demonstrate your ignorance of family court. I'm sure you're like the litigator of the year in whatever court it is that you practice and you paid good money for a plaque that says just that.
3:49–I'm more than a bit troubled by your vicious name-calling of me, which seems totally unnecessary and out of proportion.
I am not defending Judge H or other judges when they resort to disrespecting attorneys and litigants.
I'm merely trying to make a broader point, as to the significant and increased involvement and emphasis of therapeutic resources used in certain custody cases.
So, if it makes you feel good to call me an idiot, that is fine, but I think you will find my point difficult to totally ignore if you speak to other litigators other than yourself. Many Family Court specialists have been concerned that in certain custody cases the judge has relied heavily on reports from an outside therapist who never even testified in the case. If I told you my history and current involvement in Family Court, you would no doubt be shocked beyond belief based on how you very viciously marginalized and dismissed me, but I wont get into it as you would not believe me unless I identified myself, which I have no intention of doing in response to a post condemning me for even existing.
If you disagree with points made on the blog, then that's great as this blog can provide the forum for lively discussions, debates, and even disagreement. But I am admittedly troubled by what I sense to be an extremely hostile attitude, with no real justification.
Hopefully, you will reflect on the way you treat people. Forgive me, but if I were you I would be very ashamed of myself. Next time you disagree with something, even if you strongly disagree, please keep in mind the other person is a human being.
3:49, I was also a little put off by your post. Not to the points you make(which I agree with by the way. You are right as to your comments about the judge, etc.), but come on, lighten up.
I'm taking 3:49 and 4:29 to the principal's office. They need to stop fighting.
4:29 which plaque is on your wall?
6:11–plaque for nastiest, smallest-minded, most intolerant person who totally eviscerates anyone who doesn't agree with them on all issues 100% of the time.
Be honest. Judge Gibson is gone because he was Potter.2 Angry, capricious, and downright rude. The powers that be removed him from a domestic calendar to save his neck.
3:49 here. @4:29 I'm not ashamed and I did not call you an idiot. @6:29 that was not a total evisceration of anyone…calm down. @10:03 you're dead on 100% correct.
10:03. I practice in Family Court and no one I have spoken to has suggested he is that rude, and he does not seem to me in my estimation. That said there may well be instances I know nothing about.
But if he truly has a temperament problem and an ultra-aggressive demeanor, I'm not sure that moving him from divorce/custody cases to a court dealing with very sensitive issues involving juveniles is any sort of answer. That will just magnify and such problem and place it in high relief.
But the courts do make some real questionable judicial assignments and transfers from time to time, so who knows.
9:43 I also practice in family court. I've heard from numerous attorneys that his demeanor is out of control. I've heard him repeatedly referred to as the next Potter. Transferring him back to abuse/neglect/dependency cases gets him away from wealthier litigants who can afford attorneys and puts him with poor people who usually have appointed counsel (if any) who will cow to a judge they have to appear in front of all the time.
9:49, I'm not 2:48 but you were kind of rude. Also, let's be intellectual honest about things. You may not have called the poster an "idiot", but calling them "ignorant', along with other attacks, is pretty close.
Will Ghislaine Maxwell's suddden death (natural causes of course) be before or after Aug 31, 2020?
Help me with this logic.
If the Illumanti/Clinton's/Trump/British Monarchy/Etc. wanted to kill her, why would they wait to do it until she was in custody? Why not do it while she was off the grid in the middle of nowhere during the past year?
You really think the head of some worldwide powerful elite group is just going to sit around when Epstein first got arrested and wait for Maxwell to get arrested before doing anything? Hell no, he ain't waiting around, he's tying up loose ends and offing people immediately.
Its fairly simple; Maxwell is Mossad/CIA.
She has all of the Epstein videos of the rich and powerful having sex with minors.
Once the Three Gorges dam collapses 100 million chinamen will be killed. The world financial system will be destroyed. Israel will take this as cover to nuke Iran.
Civil War 2 will go hot in CONUS and the Maxwell videos will help weed out who will rise to leadership positions in the new world order.
Who said the 2020 fun was finished?
4:03 100%! Bravo!
Any other offices having people test positive for the virus?
After reading how people were given Covid-positive results without having a test, do you think we are even going to a doctor?
One of my opposing Counsel had an associate test,, fairly small firm so I understand it really disrupted operations to undertake the quarantine.
My heart aches for this innocent family facing felony charges for exercising the most basic human right — protecting self.
Oh, yeah. Minorities walking through the neighborhood. Real scary. /s
Scary AF!
Yeah 7:19 – whats the big deal? hundreds of angry, violent thugs knocking down the private gate to you private community, marching through your community, chanting slogans and threatening to destroy all that you worked hard for – you should just take it without a fight and accept that being woke means to redistribute everything you worked hard for to people who are undeserving and unwilling to work for it. Like duh!
The message is clear: rioters will not be prosecuted but white homeowners protecting their homes will be prosecuted. Would the media demonize them if, say, they were two black attorneys holding off a mostly white mob? (From the video it does appear the mob was mostly white, but I can't tell for sure.)
History will condemn the yellow press for fostering yet more racial division and violence.
7:42,
Protect yourself all you want. But "ooh, scary Negroes" is not a defense to brandishing a firearm. These folks were lawyers and firearm owners. They should have known better. Until there's actually a threat, you have no business pointing the boom end at a human.
Also, her trigger discipline sucked.
9:32 brings up another important point. Even I, a lib non gun owner, knows they violated numerous gun safety principles: don't point the gun at anything you're not comfortable shooting, treat the gun like it's always loaded, don't put your finger on the trigger unless you're intending to fire. Not only were they pointing these guns at the protesters (who were not on their property), but they were pointing them at each other. They are a danger to themselves and others and should not be allowed near lethal weapons.
The mayor doxxed a bunch of people in a meeting. The protesters were marching past the house to the mayor's house to protest her. The white people freaked out and pulled guns on the protesters who were just walking by their house. They demonstrated a complete lack of trigger discipline and clearly had no idea what they were doing with those guns. It's just sheer luck that those two idiots didn't kill someone. They deserve to get prosecuted. Also, there is a case from NJ in which a couple (both black lawyers) were being harassed by the neighborhood Karen bc they were putting in a patio. The white female neighbors gathered together and defended the black couple and the next day there was a big march down the street in support of the couple and denouncing the Karen. @9:29 – that's what would happen if it was two black attorneys. They didn't pull a damn gun on anyone and their neighbors supported them.
I don't see an issue with the charges against the woman who actually pointed the gun at, and aimed the gun at, people walking by. I watched the video and I didn't see the man actually pointing a gun at anyone (I could have missed it but I didn't see it happen.) Displaying the existence of a firearm on one's property for deterrence when white protesters (in a twist of irony) threatened them directly while they were on their property. Of course, if the man also pointed his gun at protesters walking by then he should be charged as well. I know brandishing includes simply displaying a firearm in certain situations, but if he was open carrying his rifle in his hands (which is not prohibited by law in St. Louis.) She was aiming it at people threatening them though.