Here’s a look at the policy positions of DA Steve Wolfson. [TNI]
Judge Joe Hardy heard argument about the gun buyer screening law that passed in 2016, but has yet to be implemented. [News3LV]
The DMV has made it easier to change gender on a a driver’s license. They are working on adding an option for those who don’t identify as male or female. [Las Vegas Sun]
Plea deal raises questions about ties between cops and pimps. [Nevada Current]
Wolfson has not taken the initiative on any of the things he lists. He "discusses" things, participates on committees initiated by other people. He says about Steese that the Pardons Board has information he doesn't. That is just not true. This guy needs to go.
Guest
Anonymous
June 7, 2018 5:26 pm
Legally Blonde 3 means there will be another wave of "lawyer hot" women entering law school instead of being Rodan & Fields consultants.
10:26 you need to relax. All of your political correctness won't prevent men from looking at women and making comments about appearances. Just deal with it!
Sad part is you can make wayyyyy more money being a Rodan consultant than an attorney.
Guest
Anonymous
June 7, 2018 5:34 pm
I did the ANW thing last year. It was super hot and the taping takes forever, plus they put the lesser known athletes up first, so it was pretty uneventful early on. I was not going to stay until 4 a.m. to see the super stars. But on the brighter side, all of the well-known athletes were hanging around and were all really cool about taking pictures with the kids and giving autographs. If you go, take a lot of water. They had some coolers where you could refill, but the water was warm and not always available.
This is good information – I was thinking about taking my two boys, but between the late, late taping and the heat, I'm gonna pass and DVR that sucker
Guest
Anonymous
June 7, 2018 7:30 pm
in other (non-surprising) news, SBN still looking for bar counsel. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ I should think the utter lack of interest in this position shows how off-putting OBC's actions of late have been to the community. Who would want to wade into that swamp?
Possible that Stan was trying to leave for a while. Initial posting was looking for crazy experience (10 years minimum). This one is looking for the same. Hopefully his departure was voluntary and not health related.
That kind of comment is not appropriate, and frankly, just dumb. Not even funny. There will always be a contingent who bitch about bar counsel no matter who it is.
1:02 and 2:59 has to be the same person, he/she cuts and pastes the same lame reference to a "cookie jar" in a knee-jerk response to any criticism of the Bar counsel. My friend, is it even possible in your mind that Stan (assuming you are not Stan) could have had ill intent in searching for trophy suspensions? Have you ever researched it or spoken to victims? I ask you that in all sincerity. Please know the world is not so simple as "everyone accused is guilty" at the Bar. Please take some time and try to help us clean up the Bar instead of just pouncing on those of us who are. Come join us instead.
The "Wolfson Policy Positons" appear to be of little aide to anyone because:
1. They are positons fashioned to aid him in a hotly contested Democratic primary–not necessarily the actual operating policies of his office during his tenure.
2. The material, although primarily meant for voter consumption on the eve of such primary, is too dense, compact and detailed. Voters don't care or understand any of this in any real detail. He needs to paint with a much broader brush. Perhaps not as broad as simply saying "Tough On Crime", but even that would resonate a lot more with the average voter than this statistic based discussion on concepts most voters will never understand.
I guess I find it rather touching and respectful in its sweet innocence that Wolfson and his handlers hold the average voter in such high esteem and believe they have such an insatiable intellectual curiosity about our criminal justice system.
However, on second thought, doing a complete 180 about face and hollering "Tough On Crime" is also highly questionable. After all, democratic primaries are dominated by the ultra liberal wing of the party.
So, I guess the approach should be, in the Democratic primary, to bemoan how harsh the system is, and in years where he needs to deal with a General Election, he can do an about about face and scream "Tough On Crime!"
Some of that policy statement, and statistics, is actually interesting. But if it is intended for the average voter, it needs to revamped and simplified.
As far as "Tough On Crime!", I've heard that slogan a million times. I assume I will die long before a candidate adopts the slogan "Soft On Crime!"
Guest
Anonymous
June 7, 2018 11:02 pm
In recent days there has been quite a bit of blogging bemoaning how these "best of" lists include many mediocre, and many less than mediocre, attorneys.
A couple decades ago, all we really had was Martindale Hubbell. Very flawed and limited, but of some constructive use.
But these days, attorney ratings are usually controlled by the following two dynamics:
1.Organizations and publications which release "best Of" lists which either purport to list the best in a given field of practice, or, much more generically, the best lawyers in town. The reason the results often include lawyers who are not very good and/or not very experienced, is because no one in these agencies or publications actually conducts competent studies or surveys in these matters. To be "best of" you usually need do no more than financially contribute to and support the business or publication.
2. There are also the on line ratings. Finances also come into the picture here, as does the techno.acumen and ability of the attorney and their supporters to monitor the cite, post positive reviews, etc.
I'd hate to be a consumer searching for an attorney these days.
As an FYI, most of the "lawyer lists" you can think of including, but not remotely limited to, Martindale Hubble, SuperLawyers, and now even Avvo, are owned by a company called Internet Brands. IB is the king of list-servers that have become cash-cows that require no maintenance, and that will get few (if any) updates/enhancements.
Guest
Anonymous
June 8, 2018 4:34 am
One of your Supreme Court candidates is advertising her party affiliation on her Facebook page.
Wolfson has not taken the initiative on any of the things he lists. He "discusses" things, participates on committees initiated by other people. He says about Steese that the Pardons Board has information he doesn't. That is just not true. This guy needs to go.
Legally Blonde 3 means there will be another wave of "lawyer hot" women entering law school instead of being Rodan & Fields consultants.
This made me laugh.
@10:26 wins the blog! Classic.
@10:26 have you heard of #metoo?
10:26 you need to relax. All of your political correctness won't prevent men from looking at women and making comments about appearances. Just deal with it!
Women also look at men and discuss appearance.
1:06 and 1:56 — Right you both are!
Sad part is you can make wayyyyy more money being a Rodan consultant than an attorney.
I did the ANW thing last year. It was super hot and the taping takes forever, plus they put the lesser known athletes up first, so it was pretty uneventful early on. I was not going to stay until 4 a.m. to see the super stars. But on the brighter side, all of the well-known athletes were hanging around and were all really cool about taking pictures with the kids and giving autographs. If you go, take a lot of water. They had some coolers where you could refill, but the water was warm and not always available.
This is good information – I was thinking about taking my two boys, but between the late, late taping and the heat, I'm gonna pass and DVR that sucker
in other (non-surprising) news, SBN still looking for bar counsel. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ I should think the utter lack of interest in this position shows how off-putting OBC's actions of late have been to the community. Who would want to wade into that swamp?
Read the email again. They are looking for Bar Counsel. Don't like the policies, apply for the position and make a change.
12:30 would rather complain about the policies because he/she got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.
Possible that Stan was trying to leave for a while. Initial posting was looking for crazy experience (10 years minimum). This one is looking for the same. Hopefully his departure was voluntary and not health related.
I'd like to apply, if only I could get my fingers out of this cookie jar long enough to get to the keyboard.
Looking for bar counsel?
Visit any Happy Hour 🙂
2:47,
That kind of comment is not appropriate, and frankly, just dumb. Not even funny. There will always be a contingent who bitch about bar counsel no matter who it is.
Who it is doesn't even make the list of questions.
How well does he or she do the job? and
Who benefits from his/her performance?
1:02 and 2:59 has to be the same person, he/she cuts and pastes the same lame reference to a "cookie jar" in a knee-jerk response to any criticism of the Bar counsel. My friend, is it even possible in your mind that Stan (assuming you are not Stan) could have had ill intent in searching for trophy suspensions? Have you ever researched it or spoken to victims? I ask you that in all sincerity. Please know the world is not so simple as "everyone accused is guilty" at the Bar. Please take some time and try to help us clean up the Bar instead of just pouncing on those of us who are. Come join us instead.
I can't apply. These cookies are too good.
The "Wolfson Policy Positons" appear to be of little aide to anyone because:
1. They are positons fashioned to aid him in a hotly contested Democratic primary–not necessarily the actual operating policies of his office during his tenure.
2. The material, although primarily meant for voter consumption on the eve of such primary, is too dense, compact and detailed. Voters don't care or understand any of this in any real detail. He needs to paint with a much broader brush. Perhaps not as broad as simply saying "Tough On Crime", but even that would resonate a lot more with the average voter than this statistic based discussion on concepts most voters will never understand.
I guess I find it rather touching and respectful in its sweet innocence that Wolfson and his handlers hold the average voter in such high esteem and believe they have such an insatiable intellectual curiosity about our criminal justice system.
However, on second thought, doing a complete 180 about face and hollering "Tough On Crime" is also highly questionable. After all, democratic primaries are dominated by the ultra liberal wing of the party.
So, I guess the approach should be, in the Democratic primary, to bemoan how harsh the system is, and in years where he needs to deal with a General Election, he can do an about about face and scream "Tough On Crime!"
Some of that policy statement, and statistics, is actually interesting. But if it is intended for the average voter, it needs to revamped and simplified.
As far as "Tough On Crime!", I've heard that slogan a million times. I assume I will die long before a candidate adopts the slogan "Soft On Crime!"
In recent days there has been quite a bit of blogging bemoaning how these "best of" lists include many mediocre, and many less than mediocre, attorneys.
A couple decades ago, all we really had was Martindale Hubbell. Very flawed and limited, but of some constructive use.
But these days, attorney ratings are usually controlled by the following two dynamics:
1.Organizations and publications which release "best Of" lists which either purport to list the best in a given field of practice, or, much more generically, the best lawyers in town. The reason the results often include lawyers who are not very good and/or not very experienced, is because no one in these agencies or publications actually conducts competent studies or surveys in these matters. To be "best of" you usually need do no more than financially contribute to and support the business or publication.
2. There are also the on line ratings. Finances also come into the picture here, as does the techno.acumen and ability of the attorney and their supporters to monitor the cite, post positive reviews, etc.
I'd hate to be a consumer searching for an attorney these days.
"I'd hate to be a consumer searching for an attorney these days." Amen to that!
Even a tougher road: I'd hate to be a consumer searching for a good or very good attorney these days.
It's easy. Just find the Boyd '13 list and go from there.
Can you explain the Boyd '13 joke to me?
As an FYI, most of the "lawyer lists" you can think of including, but not remotely limited to, Martindale Hubble, SuperLawyers, and now even Avvo, are owned by a company called Internet Brands. IB is the king of list-servers that have become cash-cows that require no maintenance, and that will get few (if any) updates/enhancements.
One of your Supreme Court candidates is advertising her party affiliation on her Facebook page.