- Quickdraw McLaw
- 29 Comments
- 670 Views
- Congratulations to the Aces on being back-to-back WNBA champions! [KTNV; 8NewsNow]
- Telles get his requested delay and discloses Gary Modafferi will be his “co-counsel” for a Franks hearing. [RJ]
- Las Vegas to require microchips for dogs, cats. [RJ]
- Nevada among handful of states funding strangulation exams for domestic violence victims. [Nevada Current]
It's almost noon and no comments? And it's not even the first of the month so I know you're not all busy trying to input all your time for the last month.
Go Aces!!
Slow news day
Cry harder.
The Golden Knights didn't beg for public money for their stadium. Bringing losing pro teams to Vegas at the public expense should be the scandal of the decade.
I love the people that keep reminding legislators of just that every time they post about the Aces.
I would really like to discuss current world events here, but fear it will just devolve into a thhhwwwack fest.
Dude…go talk to your friends. It’s too tense and way too easy for misunderstandings and way too complex for an anonymous blog.
I agree with 12:04, the middle east issues are far too intense, too divisive and polarizing for a civilized discussion (and it is clearly not law related)
I won't discuss the War in Israel with anyone except my spouse. It's too volatile a topic. I am well read and I believe my position is thoughtfully constructed and measured. People get so worked up about it, I don't want to contribute to that conflict or anxiety. I also don't want to be labeled as politically incorrect, which is where many of those conversations tend to go. I would never, ever discuss this with a professional colleague. When I have been forced to listen to someone share their opinion, I just use good body language to communicate that I'm listening and understand what they are saying and leave it at that.
12:24 Not OP and I appreciate your thoughtful post but there are a multitude of legal issues involved from the legislative process of funding to international law to local harassment statutes re all people. I wish we as lawyers would open our eyes to larger issues and not get caught up in “well it’s not family court so it’s not law related.”
Not everyone haaas friends, @12:04 🙂
Don't hate the Thwack.
Embrace the Thwack.
Love the Thwack.
12:04 wins the blog of the day.
And other matters which are far too polarizing for an anonymous blog(and more to the point, no one can ever change the other person's mind to any extent) abortion; gun control issues; Trump or Biden; Climate Change; and(back in '20 and '21) to vaccinate or not to vaccinate; and several others which don't immediately come to mind.
2:40–1:56 here. True enough. I had both vaccinations, plus that final booster in late '21 I believe, so three in all.
And since then I tend to include, in my legal briefs, as well as oral arguments, a lot of "…and other controlling case authority and precedent which escapes me at this time."
So, there could be a real connection. We will await the results of further studies.
We are having dinner tonight with my Muslim brother-in-law, who loves to try to bait me to get a reaction. This will be my first interaction with him since Oct 7. Not making any Middle-East comments here on this blog is easy in comparison to not letting any comments escape me tonight at dinner!
1:56/4:03– I am sorry that my response got THWACKED since it was not political in the slightest and took no position on vaxxing. Instead my point was that it merely depends which side of the issues one is as to whether symptoms are attributed to the presence or lack of vax. But I appreciate the cordial response.
"Modafferi said he will not be representing Telles in court, but that he is advising Telles 'on the constitutional issues he is raising.'"
Hahaha. Modafferi went Jada Pincket Smith on Telles.
Also hilarious that Telles referred to Modafferi as "co-counsel." Bruh. You are pro se and your license is suspended.
Clearly no attorney/client relationship, but do ineffectiveness claims ever extend to standby counsel or "co-counsel?"
Hopefully he is advising him when his defenses are groundless.
Has anyone heard the 8th jd is getting rid of bluejeans? I was on a calendar call this morning and the judge said the court wasn't renewing its contract and unless the court found a new service, it would revert back to everything in person.
Bluejeans is getting rid of Bluejeans.
https://www.bluejeans.com/blog/bluejeans-being-sunset
Thanks!
They should look at Zoom.gov.
I don't want to make personal appearances in front of Judge Perry, Throne, or Forsberg at family Court. They are all just different degrees of crazy in my opinion. What's with this with judges showing up at 9:30 for a 9 in the morning hearing for many judges at family Court? Judges should be on time for at least the first hearing of the day.
If Bluejeans is going away, I very much hope the EJDC has a new vendor lined up to take over for them. Obviously not every hearing can be remote, but the client savings and efficiencies generated by allowing parties to appear remotely speak for themselves.
Court used to have CourtCall at $50 a crack. There is no reason to go back to CourtCall in this day and age. Technology has moved.
I moved to Las Vegas from another state, and am still getting to know the local judges, courtroom personnel and attorneys. For me, making in-person appearances is part of my learning experience so I don't do remote appearances much in Las Vegas. However, for appearances back in AZ, I love appearing remotely, so I appreciate how bad this Bluejean's announcement might be for others.
I think the the remote appearances(which of course very quickly and dramatically became the required method due to Covid during 2020-2021), is a great option, but I believe it has been abused as many attorneys rely on it exclusively.
If one has multiple hearings in a morning, or otherwise just too jammed up to come in person, I get it. Or even if the attorney is not super busy at that time, I understand using the remote hearing option if it's a scheduling type hearing, or otherwise simply a hearing of no great import. I attend quite a bit more remotely than I appear in person, truth be told.
But many attorneys are now relying exclusively on remote hearings, have become more complacent as a result, and appear to have lost their judgment skills as to the fact there are hearings where they had better be there in person, even if the court may not have thought to specifically require so beforehand. Thus, the fact that something be "only a motion", rather than an evidentiary hearing or trial, may not be sufficient justification to not appear in person. In some motions, an incredible amount, and/or critical issues, are at stake. Thus, it looks bad if our client sees everyone there at the hearing except us, and the audio may be bad and a lot of what we say may not be too audible.