- Quickdraw McLaw
- 40 Comments
- 100 Views
The primary election is a little under two months away on June 12, but today is as good as any to start talking about the two candidates in the race for district attorney.
INCUMBENT– Steve Wolfson. (Did you know he did an AMA on Reddit last year in conjunction with his tv show?)
CHALLENGER– Robert Langford.
Both have a long history in the community, have been in the national limelight related to their cases, and both have even gone head to head on cases before. What do you think is important to consider in this race? Does the recent story about Wolfon’s assistant and the campaign funds spell doom for this campaign? Or is he a shoo in? What does the public need to know about these two candidates?
My vote is for Langford. Yes, the election funds are a big issue. He is a crappy DA. The 160 neglected poms left in a moving van has not been prosecuted. I can think of many other cases by him not handled well. I also do not care that he is affiliated with Dave Thomas.
I do not like that he is buddies with Dave Thomas, I meant to say.
Wolfson's best friend is Tom Letizia. Wolfson's is represented by Dave Thomas. I think if you are represented by people who are dirty (or play dirty), it reflects on how you will behave in office. I think, politics as awful as it has gotten, we need less of this and more people who will adhere to the canons and law required by their respective office. It may be the wrong approach. I just won't vote for any candidate associated with those two campaign reps for that reason. I don't know very much about Langford except that he has been a long-time defense attorney as was Wolfson. But Langford will get my vote and recommendation if I am asked.
Elissa Cadish is affiliated with these two as well. She is also close with Wolfson. You don't have my vote or others, either of you. So agree with the two above posts.
Letiza represents James Dean Leavitt, Melissa De La Garza, Mary K. Holthus, Cara Campbell, Cynthia Leung and Cedric Kerns.
Thomas represents Elana Graham and, formerly, Susan Roger, Harmony Letezia as well as a boatload of former candidates and current judges.
Both Letizia and Thomas represent Cadish
Tao broke with long-time representative Thomas and changed his political affiliation to non-partisan. I appreciate this as judges should be non-partisan and he will definitely have my support.
Thank you for the info. I will be voting accordingly. I am an attorney and family and friends ask who to vote for.
I don't know why this Cadish woman got the AFL CIO endorsement but she screwed over my brother who is part of the union. She is pro bank. My brother lost his house because of her.
I'm not taking up for Cadish,but when someone can no longer pay a mortgage, due to illness and/or financial downturns, it is pointless to blame some judge.
The laws have always been very strong in favor of the mortgage holder, and like most other creditors, they are not required to have basic human compassion or give a shit, or make any allowances for illness, unemployment, etc.
Very little has changed in this regard. Therefore judges cannot ignore the contracts and laws involved and simply "do the right and humane thing."
I believe the foreclosure mediation program is no more(and was,for the most part, not all that successful for those homeowners who sought relief). And the beefing up of some laws in this area during the last administration were mainly geared to clearly established cases of predatory lending(people getting approved who never should have been approved. Also, buried in the contract conditions such as he monthly payments tripling in amount within 18 months of purchase).
So, if your brother's situation was a more standard one of someone having a serious reduction in income due to illness and/or losing employment, what precisely, under the very pro-creditor laws that control this arena, could have this judge done?
Sleep well.
I am cooking for Eli'ssa Cadish and her huband for any campaign party they want. Good people. Chef.
Do you make meatballs? What the hell?
Judge Cadish is not responsible for her own rulings.
I agree with 11:51. Whatever shortcomings this judge may have, she is not responsible that some guy lost his house to foreclosure because he could not/would not maintain the payments.
If a judge could prevent mortgage foreclosures merely by making a ruling of "hardship" based on financial down turns in someone's life, no bank or institution would ever grant a mortgage because they know that someone could avoid foreclosure merely by proving(or merely asserting) that they are now earning less than they were.
Eep, bank lawyer, eep.
I know, 9:13. It's crazy that anybody who loans someone hundreds of thousands of dollars so they can buy something they don't have the cash to afford at the time would want protections to be able to take the house back if they don't make the payments that they said they would under contract. Anyone who defends that must be compromised.
11:04, enjoy your latte. It is crazy to hold the banks accountable for fraud.
8:51 here. I'm not a bank lawyer, nor am I a fan of them.
Now if there is actual fraud or predatory lending or something of that nature, I certainly agree the purchaser should receive significant relief and the lenders should face dire consequences.
But if it's a more standard situation wherein someone loses a job or otherwise can no longer approximate their past income, that is very common and cannot be used as a basis to prevent foreclosure.
If it were a basis, no one would sell a home on time any more. Is that what you guys want? A system where everyone has to purchase a home free and clear?
I want a bank with a slow hand….I want a bank with an easy touch…
I just spit out my latte, laughing.
Not 8:51. Not a bank lawyer. Not judging whether Cadish should have saved some guy's house, regardless of whether he is a member of the AFL-CIO or not.
Let's all compromise on this issue. Can we agree to the following?
1. There are cases where the scummy lenders should be accountable for predatory and fraudulent practices.
2. There are a greater number of cases that do not involve such nefarious conduct by the lenders, but simply involve someone who will not or can not continue to pay the monthly mortgage. With certain exceptions(I don't process to be able to define such exceptions), the banks should be able to foreclose.
Elissa is pro bank.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Until/unless we get some legitimate confirmation of this rumor, I’m not going to allow comments on this topic out of respect for the subject and the family.
LVRJ is reporting Hafter's death.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/suspended-las-vegas-lawyer-jacob-hafter-dies-at-age-42/
That is understandable law.dawg. FWIW I checked his Facebook page and friends there are posting condolences.
Only registered Democrats will be voting on the next DA
Nope….they will both be going to the general, so as long as we show up, we all get to vote.
how do you figure? they are both democrats. they have to win the primary.
Good, Langford.
Yes they are both Democrats, which means they appear on the Democratic primary only. Then the winner of that will go to the general against no one. So, practically speaking, yes, only registered Democrats will decide who wins the DA race.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What did I miss?
I just checked his wikipedia, and guess where Michael Cohen went to law school?
COOLEY.
You just can't make this stuff up!
Remember Tom Letizia and Dave Thomas are in bed with Robert Eglet.
This comment has been removed by the author.