A group called “Save Floyd Lamb Park” has filed a complaint with AG Aaron Ford asking him to look into whether restoration efforts championed by Michelle Fiore violate state law. [News3LV]
Judge Miranda Du won’t rule on dismissing a lawsuit over mail-in balloting until July. [Las Vegas Sun]
US Attorney Nicholas Trutanich discusses the arrest of three extremists. [8NewsNow]
Commentary: Nevada leaders could reform policing and courts, if they wanted to. [Nevada Current]
The City of Las Vegas passes an ordinance prohibiting backpacks at protests, while the County postponed a vote on a similar provision. [KTNV]
Las Vegas is back in business after being closed for 78 days. [Las Vegas Sun]
New personal rule of practice – Don't take on clients who refuse to communicate via email.
Guest
Anonymous
June 4, 2020 6:21 pm
Email is,generally far preferable,in that it can effectively address the most common complaints that clients would make Pre-2000(and beyond, when they could get away with it):
1. My attorney never takes my calls(and this can be contradicted by producing all the email communications wherein the client's concerns are addresses).
2. My attorney advised me to do this or that(usually trying to pin it on the attorney when the client does something really reckless or improper).
In these instances, emails can be produced which reflect the actual advise.
So, 9:37, stick to your guns. We all hope we can believe our clients, but when push comes to shove, your client may not be your friend. Some clients would gladly ruin your career if it means they can escape a $100. responsibility for something.
If the client is troublesome, then I can quickly update them with an email as opposed to getting drawn into a 30 minute session of complaint/airing of grievances. I also would highly recommend getting a second cell number via an app such as GoDaddy Smartline. That way you have a second number that rings to your cell, but you can shut it on and off, establish business hours, let it go to voice mail, send and receive texts, etc. without having to give them your "real" cell number. At around ten bucks per month it is well worth it.
Guest
Anonymous
June 4, 2020 6:48 pm
11:39–but some attorneys feel it is far more productive to exchange documented questions and answers with a client, rather than hanging on the phone with someone for half and hour or more and then using email merely to retroactively confirm advice(which can sometimes red flag that we don't trust the client).
Guest
Anonymous
June 4, 2020 6:48 pm
Agree on both fronts. However when I did criminal, almost never email. Business litigation now? Always email.
Guest
Anonymous
June 4, 2020 6:51 pm
I know we had a debate on the Republican Club slates but this one was a bridge too far for me on Facebook. Asked the question that they all are asked which is Republican or Democrat:
"Jim Sweetin Hello Matt, judicial races are non-partisan. The idea is that a judge should always be unbiased and make his or her decisions by interpreting existing constitution, law and judicial precedent. That would be my goal as judge. However, that being said, the Nevada Republican Club endorses judicial candidates that most closely align with their views in each of the races. They have endorsed me in my race. Below I have posted a link so you may verify this for yourself. https://nevadarepublicanclub.com/…/Updated-Judicial…"
So I acknowledge the Rule. And now I am going to break it. That my friends is a 25 year Prosecutor in a nutshell.
Guest
Anonymous
June 4, 2020 6:58 pm
This is so bad….but why not? no one is going to enforce the rules
Guest
Anonymous
June 4, 2020 7:15 pm
Who gives a shit about the Republican Club? They are the Trumpers who protest the shutdown. Being endorsed by them is an embarrassment.
12:15. Whether it helps or not, all depends. But it usually does help. Both major political parties are usually fairly evenly matched in terms of registered voters. And each cycle the weaker party from the previous race usually mounts a real strong comeback–thus these "red waves" or "blue waves" that only last for a cycle or two till the worm turns yet again.
So, I agree that I personally also do not care about who the Republican Club endorses, as I am a Democrat.
But for all I know, the Republican base may come out stronger this time than the Democrats–and if not, it will still be roughly equal as to turnout. It always is. When one side has a mere 2% or 3% advantage in turn out, then we start hearing about these Republican or Democrat waves.
So, it almost always helps, at least to some degree, a non-partisan
candidate being able to relay they are Democrat or Republican. Usually these mailers, that list the judicial candidates at being a Republican is only mailed to Republican voters, and vice versa, of course, if the candidate is Democrat.
Guest
Anonymous
June 4, 2020 7:48 pm
I could never identify as being part of any group that is ideologically opposed to James Mattis.
Mattis the lowlife who screwed up in the Middle East and defied direct orders from the lawfully elected Commander in Chief? That Mattis? Beats me why he isn't in the brig. The smug elitism of our nation's establishment makes me so hot, I feel like bringing justice my local Target.
Guest
Anonymous
June 4, 2020 8:50 pm
11:51–that's why there are huge holes in the rules.
This candidate can't announce(without being directly asked) "I am a Republican", but it appears he is permitted to list Republican groups that have endorsed him.
But it is quite off-putting(as relayed by 11:51) that the candidate climbs up on this soap box, and professes such nobility, honor and impartiality and lectures us that due to the separation of powers, and the sanctified impartiality of the judiciary being insulated from political concerns, that he cannot compromise himself and dirty his hands by discussing partisan political identification.
But then when we have been properly and pompously admonished on how improper it was for someone to ask, or for him to respond to, questions as to his political identification, he then pretty much lets us know that he is a Republican(based on the groups that endorsed him).
And worse yet, he essentially tells us they have endorsed him because his philosophies are directly in line with the political beliefs of the Republican party–which is everything he got through telling us we must be insulated from.
The other problem here is that he seems to totally ignore the spirit and intent behind the rule. He seems to take the approach that he will be clever in trying to find some hyper-technical manner in which to get around and avoid the mandates of such rule. So, I assume he succeeded in conveying his political affiliation without directly violating the rule. But shouldn't he be trying to satisfy a somewhat higher standard(considering he is a quarter-century prosecutor)–such as honoring the spirit of the rule rather than finding clever ways to convey his political party affiliation without running directly afoul of the rule's codified mandates.
At least that's how I feel–that is assuming 11:51 has provided a full and accurate accounting of the communication, which does appear to be a verbatim quote.
But there will be no repercussions(as he was reasonably clever with how he handled this), and he will probably get elected.
Whether election or appointment,prosecutors have a huge advantage over defense attorneys.
Guest
Anonymous
June 4, 2020 8:57 pm
1:50, but it looks possible that someone may have directly asked him about party affiliation.
But, yes, the rile is ineffectual if it says you can't convey party affiliation unless "this or that happens". If one of those "this or that" exceptions is "unless you are asked", candidates can always make certain someone asks them(e.g. someone planted at the candidate forum to ask the question, or a supporter or friend sending the candidate electronic questions where he can now universally disseminate his answers, etc.).
New personal rule of practice – Don't take on clients who refuse to communicate via email.
Email is,generally far preferable,in that it can effectively address the most common complaints that clients would make Pre-2000(and beyond, when they could get away with it):
1. My attorney never takes my calls(and this can be contradicted by producing all the email communications wherein the client's concerns are addresses).
2. My attorney advised me to do this or that(usually trying to pin it on the attorney when the client does something really reckless or improper).
In these instances, emails can be produced which reflect the actual advise.
So, 9:37, stick to your guns. We all hope we can believe our clients, but when push comes to shove, your client may not be your friend. Some clients would gladly ruin your career if it means they can escape a $100. responsibility for something.
I agree that Email is an effective tool. But I think email is best to confirm an actual conversation, not replace one.
If the client is troublesome, then I can quickly update them with an email as opposed to getting drawn into a 30 minute session of complaint/airing of grievances. I also would highly recommend getting a second cell number via an app such as GoDaddy Smartline. That way you have a second number that rings to your cell, but you can shut it on and off, establish business hours, let it go to voice mail, send and receive texts, etc. without having to give them your "real" cell number. At around ten bucks per month it is well worth it.
11:39–but some attorneys feel it is far more productive to exchange documented questions and answers with a client, rather than hanging on the phone with someone for half and hour or more and then using email merely to retroactively confirm advice(which can sometimes red flag that we don't trust the client).
Agree on both fronts. However when I did criminal, almost never email. Business litigation now? Always email.
I know we had a debate on the Republican Club slates but this one was a bridge too far for me on Facebook. Asked the question that they all are asked which is Republican or Democrat:
"Jim Sweetin Hello Matt, judicial races are non-partisan. The idea is that a judge should always be unbiased and make his or her decisions by interpreting existing constitution, law and judicial precedent. That would be my goal as judge. However, that being said, the Nevada Republican Club endorses judicial candidates that most closely align with their views in each of the races. They have endorsed me in my race. Below I have posted a link so you may verify this for yourself. https://nevadarepublicanclub.com/…/Updated-Judicial…"
So I acknowledge the Rule. And now I am going to break it. That my friends is a 25 year Prosecutor in a nutshell.
This is so bad….but why not? no one is going to enforce the rules
Who gives a shit about the Republican Club? They are the Trumpers who protest the shutdown. Being endorsed by them is an embarrassment.
12:15. Whether it helps or not, all depends. But it usually does help. Both major political parties are usually fairly evenly matched in terms of registered voters. And each cycle the weaker party from the previous race usually mounts a real strong comeback–thus these "red waves" or "blue waves" that only last for a cycle or two till the worm turns yet again.
So, I agree that I personally also do not care about who the Republican Club endorses, as I am a Democrat.
But for all I know, the Republican base may come out stronger this time than the Democrats–and if not, it will still be roughly equal as to turnout. It always is. When one side has a mere 2% or 3% advantage in turn out, then we start hearing about these Republican or Democrat waves.
So, it almost always helps, at least to some degree, a non-partisan
candidate being able to relay they are Democrat or Republican. Usually these mailers, that list the judicial candidates at being a Republican is only mailed to Republican voters, and vice versa, of course, if the candidate is Democrat.
I could never identify as being part of any group that is ideologically opposed to James Mattis.
Mattis the lowlife who screwed up in the Middle East and defied direct orders from the lawfully elected Commander in Chief? That Mattis? Beats me why he isn't in the brig. The smug elitism of our nation's establishment makes me so hot, I feel like bringing justice my local Target.
11:51–that's why there are huge holes in the rules.
This candidate can't announce(without being directly asked) "I am a Republican", but it appears he is permitted to list Republican groups that have endorsed him.
But it is quite off-putting(as relayed by 11:51) that the candidate climbs up on this soap box, and professes such nobility, honor and impartiality and lectures us that due to the separation of powers, and the sanctified impartiality of the judiciary being insulated from political concerns, that he cannot compromise himself and dirty his hands by discussing partisan political identification.
But then when we have been properly and pompously admonished on how improper it was for someone to ask, or for him to respond to, questions as to his political identification, he then pretty much lets us know that he is a Republican(based on the groups that endorsed him).
And worse yet, he essentially tells us they have endorsed him because his philosophies are directly in line with the political beliefs of the Republican party–which is everything he got through telling us we must be insulated from.
The other problem here is that he seems to totally ignore the spirit and intent behind the rule. He seems to take the approach that he will be clever in trying to find some hyper-technical manner in which to get around and avoid the mandates of such rule. So, I assume he succeeded in conveying his political affiliation without directly violating the rule. But shouldn't he be trying to satisfy a somewhat higher standard(considering he is a quarter-century prosecutor)–such as honoring the spirit of the rule rather than finding clever ways to convey his political party affiliation without running directly afoul of the rule's codified mandates.
At least that's how I feel–that is assuming 11:51 has provided a full and accurate accounting of the communication, which does appear to be a verbatim quote.
But there will be no repercussions(as he was reasonably clever with how he handled this), and he will probably get elected.
Whether election or appointment,prosecutors have a huge advantage over defense attorneys.
1:50, but it looks possible that someone may have directly asked him about party affiliation.
But, yes, the rile is ineffectual if it says you can't convey party affiliation unless "this or that happens". If one of those "this or that" exceptions is "unless you are asked", candidates can always make certain someone asks them(e.g. someone planted at the candidate forum to ask the question, or a supporter or friend sending the candidate electronic questions where he can now universally disseminate his answers, etc.).
"rule", not "rile"