The Rules for the NSC vacancy say that they will not release the names of the applicants until the close of the application period. So there could be many applicants. But we won't know until the 10th.
"Applicants’ names will not be released until the filing deadline has passed. By 3:00p.m. on October 10, 2022, a press release will be issued with the name, age, city of residence, and name of firm or business at which each applicant is employed. Each applicant’s public application and photo will be simultaneously released on the Commission’s applicant page."
True that the final list is not formally released to the media and public until the filing deadline passes.
However, among practicing attorneys(at least those attorneys who care about who may get appointed to a judicial vacancy) we are tuned into the scuttlebutt and are aware of the more well known applicants who are seeking an appointment.
10:09: "Just bored enough to read the rules." That is hitting the bottom of the barrel!
Guest
Anonymous
September 28, 2022 5:05 pm
SECOND! Woohoo!
Guest
Anonymous
September 28, 2022 5:32 pm
So this guy is either dead in the desert within five or ten miles of the prison, or he was halfway back to Nicaragua by the time they found out he was gone. The dummy in the bed thing is kind of an old trick (c.f. Anglin brothers Alcatraz escape) but the bigger question in my mind is how did he get out? Inside job? Let the speculation begin!
Count means you stand at the edge of the cell and are verified. Dummy in the bed does not work for a single count let alone multiple counts starting Friday and not getting discovered until Tuesday. Heads need to and will roll.
Latest local news report this morning says he weakened the bars of his cell using battery acid, and then escaped through the fence adjacent to a guard tower that hasn’t been manned since 2020, despite funds being appropriated for same. He’d obviously been working on this for months if not longer, so perhaps his plan after getting out involved something more than randomly running through the desert.
Counts are typically hours apart. If he was last seen at: e.g. the 10pm count on Friday night, he was missing by the theoretical 1am or 5am count. If you are buried in the covers, the counting CO must demand that you show skin. Your face, your leg, your arm, your movement.
If you don't comply, they will forcefully bang on the bars of your cell to wake you up and your neighbors will punish you the next day for having them woken up as well.
The Wage thing
The article states that greedy employers offer $11/hr with health instead of $12/hr to save the $1 that they would have to pay otherwise.
What a crock. Anybody who has an employee knowns that the employer's cost is not based on hourly wage but is a monthly premium per employee. The employer's cost is significantly, repeat significantly, higher than a $1 per hour differential under the present two tier system.
Business School: Year 1, Class 1, Day 1, Minute 1, professor's first breath: EVERY cost is passed on to consumers, it is amazing how many political arguments (from both sides) do not understand that
So the significatly higher costs of insurance vs pay raises are already being passed on to the consumer, got it. So the $1 bump will not be a significant cost to employers as it will passed on to the consumer, who is already paying the much, much more significant cost of insurance.
@11:17
You miss the point. The two tier minimum wage schema seems to be an attempt to incentivize employer provided health plans. The comment @10:45 goes to the lack of critical thinking exhibited in the Nevada Current article, depicting employers as somehow evil, and inexplicably claiming these employers are saving money, by paying $11 plus health insurance.
The employers are always saving money by screwing the employee – that's a given. To add to 10:53's comment – it is not just the consumer at the point of sale. Walmart is the perfect example. You can buy tons of cheap crap. They technically offer health insurance when required, but it is so expensive, none of the employees can afford it. And, because the employees are so underpaid, they qualify for medicaid. So, the consumer gets cheap crap, the employees get trash wages, the company stockholders make more money, and the tax payers (consumers) pay for medicaid. Remember this when politicians tell you we need to lower corporate taxes.
Also, this $11 vs $12 thing is stupid and nothing more than political theater. It's just dumb. Pay a living wage. A rising tide lifts all boats (or a client with a job can pay you!)
Fast food jobs and the like were never jobs that could provide a living. As far back as I can remember, these were always part time jobs for high school and others who wanted to make extra money.
Times change, and I understand that some people now need these jobs. Two points. Spewing a label like "living wage" is meaningless. Flipping burgers will always pay at the bottom of the scale.
But consider, we now have something like 2.75M illegals in the country. ALL of whom are going to be competing for low skill, low education required jobs. Laborer's Local and Culinary should be screaming. Expect scab and under the counter payments to skyrocket.
10:53-that is humorous and also quite true on many(and perhaps most) occasions.
But it is not categorically true, across the board, that all increased costs are passed on to the consumer–particularly within the realm of commercial manufacturing.
Often there is increased cost with manufacturing a certain product, and that matter could presumably be largely addressed by, let's say, passing it on to the consumer by raising the price from, let's say, $12 per unit to $14 per unit.
But we then realize many consumers will not be willing to pay the additional $2 per unit, and will instead purchase our competitor's similar product.
In cases like that, we learn we cannot pass the increased costs along to the consumers in general. So, instead, the employees within our company suffer cuts in salaries, hours, benefits, while some other employees are completely laid off due to consolidation of duties, or complete elimination
of positions due to advanced technological capabilities, etc.
Things are rarely as simple as the certainty presented by 10:53 AM, which is just dogma. Increased costs of production/operation can adversely affect some combination of labor, profits or consumer price. Sometimes, the market will not bear an increase in price, as 1:52 PM correctly notes. In those cases, some or all of the additional cost of doing business will be born by the owner in reduced profits or the workers in reduced wages. I believe this is called elasticity, which, to be fair, isn't covered until day 2 of business school (or so I'm told).
10:53 back – I love 1:52 and 1:57 – you are correct, (Cost Accounting and Economics), I wasn't going to go that deep into it but I love the fact that you're both bolder than I am (P.S. who knew my accounting undergrad would have any value in the field of law and here I am using it to post haha)
1:57 here. You are a good sport. If you earned anything above a C in intro to accounting, you are my superior in that field. LOL. I enjoyed economics classes, but it never became intuitive to me. Normally, when people start spouting off about business stuff in internet debates, they don't know jack. But you know more than you let on originally.
Guest
Anonymous
September 28, 2022 8:09 pm
"Telles back in court today as Clark County seeks his removal form office."
Pretty anti-climatic non-news. The guy is being prosecuted for a brutal murder. He already lost in the Primary Election and thus would already be leaving office in three months even if he were not being prosecuted for murder.
But, he and/or his immediate family might care a little in the real limited sense that even though he cannot of course affect any further policy within the office, an additional three months income may have helped bridge the financial gap a little in him going abruptly from decently-salaried pubic figure to unemployed Defendant.
And what are the chances of getting a final ruling on getting him out of office and off payroll in the next 3 or 4 months? We all know how quickly and efficiently government agencies work.
And if we do get Telles out, are we opening up a new avenue to "remove" poor performing government employees? Just wondering…
This effort is impractical and inefficient, and I'm sure everyone at the DA's office knows it. But the public is pissed that he is getting paid and DA Wolfson does not want to be accused of doing nothing to stop Telles from continuing to take checks while incarcerated. Now, Wolfson can join the mob in indignation and publicly crow about the absurdity of not immediately removing him as the matter is delayed for due process reasons. How did they get a calendar setting seven days after filing a complaint? That seems a little bit unusual.
1:09, 1:29 and 1:32 all suggest that we should be pragmatic, and just let him receive his final three months salary.
In theory(meaning in an ideal world) I would disagree with them and get up on my soap box and express moral indignation that someone in custody and being prosecuted for murder, and who already lost his re-election, should absolutely not continue to collect a generous tax-payer funded salary to not work his position as he is defending murder charges, and was already rejected by the voters for re-election.
But, in practice(meaning based on how he real world actually operates) I must agree with the posters. The procedure(to cease his salary as of about Oct. 1, as opposed to three months later on about Jan.1) has already cost far more, and will continue to cost far more, than simply letting him collect the final three months.
Yes, 2:02,how did they get a hearing, within 7 days of a complaint being filed, for this matter of completely useless public pandering and posturing, while legitimate motions(due to employee shortages and other logistics) are taking weeks at this point just to receive a court setting.
2:02 hits the nail squarely on the head, but to be picky I might debate just one point.
2:02 suggests that everyone in the D.A's office knows that this is a useless, absurd motion, purely motivated out of pollical/media concerns.
But I'm not sure that "they all know it. A few prosecutors(in any D.A. office in any larger city) take themselves so seriously that their public persona/employment position becomes far more dominant in their psyche than the private half of them-the half that is hopefully a discerning, analytical, intelligent private citizen who hopefully tempers moral indignation with a sense of proportion and pragmatism..
As a result a few of them losing the more private and discerning half of their personality to such public persona, they actually start viewing themselves as a righteous guardian of public morality.
Most are not like that, but a few are in any larger D.A. offices.
2:32.-most of the attorneys I've dealt with from that office over the years have been just fine.
But I do recall a couple examples of what you describe. I had a colleague some years back who practiced a lot of criminal defense, and was very reasonable and proportionate.
In fact he used to complain the Nevada statutes controlling drug offenses were too harsh. This was back when even a first time pot offense(until or unless negotiated down) was a felony charge.
Well, long story short, he eventually left private practice and accepted an offer from the D.A's Office.
Within a year he was acting like he had self-appointed himself as Nevada Drug Czar, and was always speaking at community gatherings about the scourge of drug usage, including pot, which he aggressively and defiantly(although without much originality or accuracy) condemned as a "gateway drug", etc.
In fact, when he once referred to the hysterical, frantic, absurd 1936 propaganda film "Reefer Madness" he grudgingly allowed that it was "somewhat dated", but then went on to insist that it is largely accurate in its portrayal of pot users.
2:51, I haven't seen that film in years, but it was hysterical. Is that the one where most of the pot users spend all day and all night giggling incessantly while listening to really fast, jazzy piano pieces?
I think I also remember that in the film some teenager takes one puff, immediately cackles insanely, and proceeds to promptly run over a pedestrian.
Knock it off, 305. That is a heartless and nonsensical as anything that has ever been TTHHWWWAAACCKKed. Repent.
Guest
Anonymous
September 28, 2022 8:18 pm
11:50, I actually agree with your post, along with your observation that 11:17 kind of missed the point.
Now I assume you were just interested in posting your view and that you did not seriously think you could change 11:17's mind.
After all, you can never change someone's mind when you start off with how wrong they are, how they misunderstand the issue and miss the point, etc.
The next time you are face to face with someone and trying to truly convince them, see how far you get by telling them that they miss the point.
In fact, let's inform all young or newer attorneys that a phrase like "you missed the point" should never be uttered in court if you are truly trying to persuade the trier of fact.
And yes, that rule should be observed even if the judge has totally missed the point. Less personally-focused methods of persuasion are then to be employed.
The Rules for the NSC vacancy say that they will not release the names of the applicants until the close of the application period. So there could be many applicants. But we won't know until the 10th.
"Applicants’ names will not be released until the filing deadline has passed. By 3:00p.m. on October 10, 2022, a press release will be issued with the name, age, city of residence, and name of firm or business at which each applicant is employed. Each applicant’s public application and photo will be simultaneously released on the Commission’s applicant page."
9:57 here. To clarify: I am not an applicant. Just bored enough to read the rules.
True that the final list is not formally released to the media and public until the filing deadline passes.
However, among practicing attorneys(at least those attorneys who care about who may get appointed to a judicial vacancy) we are tuned into the scuttlebutt and are aware of the more well known applicants who are seeking an appointment.
10:09: "Just bored enough to read the rules." That is hitting the bottom of the barrel!
SECOND! Woohoo!
So this guy is either dead in the desert within five or ten miles of the prison, or he was halfway back to Nicaragua by the time they found out he was gone. The dummy in the bed thing is kind of an old trick (c.f. Anglin brothers Alcatraz escape) but the bigger question in my mind is how did he get out? Inside job? Let the speculation begin!
Count means you stand at the edge of the cell and are verified. Dummy in the bed does not work for a single count let alone multiple counts starting Friday and not getting discovered until Tuesday. Heads need to and will roll.
Do we think someone did this on purpose so that their boss would get fired? Articles recently have covered allegations of hostile work conditions.
Latest local news report this morning says he weakened the bars of his cell using battery acid, and then escaped through the fence adjacent to a guard tower that hasn’t been manned since 2020, despite funds being appropriated for same. He’d obviously been working on this for months if not longer, so perhaps his plan after getting out involved something more than randomly running through the desert.
1:03 – do you have a link to the news report?
Report is on Twitter feed of Cristen Drummond of Channel 3.
He's on the beach in Zihuatanejo with Andy & Red by now.
Counts are typically hours apart. If he was last seen at: e.g. the 10pm count on Friday night, he was missing by the theoretical 1am or 5am count. If you are buried in the covers, the counting CO must demand that you show skin. Your face, your leg, your arm, your movement.
If you don't comply, they will forcefully bang on the bars of your cell to wake you up and your neighbors will punish you the next day for having them woken up as well.
1:45 here. Obviously I know nothing of procedure in the prison. That makes this all the worse.
Thank you 1:33.
I choose "Bureaucratic Failures of Gov't Employees for $400 Alex".
The Wage thing
The article states that greedy employers offer $11/hr with health instead of $12/hr to save the $1 that they would have to pay otherwise.
What a crock. Anybody who has an employee knowns that the employer's cost is not based on hourly wage but is a monthly premium per employee. The employer's cost is significantly, repeat significantly, higher than a $1 per hour differential under the present two tier system.
Business School: Year 1, Class 1, Day 1, Minute 1, professor's first breath: EVERY cost is passed on to consumers, it is amazing how many political arguments (from both sides) do not understand that
So the significatly higher costs of insurance vs pay raises are already being passed on to the consumer, got it. So the $1 bump will not be a significant cost to employers as it will passed on to the consumer, who is already paying the much, much more significant cost of insurance.
@11:17
You miss the point. The two tier minimum wage schema seems to be an attempt to incentivize employer provided health plans. The comment @10:45 goes to the lack of critical thinking exhibited in the Nevada Current article, depicting employers as somehow evil, and inexplicably claiming these employers are saving money, by paying $11 plus health insurance.
The employers are always saving money by screwing the employee – that's a given. To add to 10:53's comment – it is not just the consumer at the point of sale. Walmart is the perfect example. You can buy tons of cheap crap. They technically offer health insurance when required, but it is so expensive, none of the employees can afford it. And, because the employees are so underpaid, they qualify for medicaid. So, the consumer gets cheap crap, the employees get trash wages, the company stockholders make more money, and the tax payers (consumers) pay for medicaid. Remember this when politicians tell you we need to lower corporate taxes.
Also, this $11 vs $12 thing is stupid and nothing more than political theater. It's just dumb. Pay a living wage. A rising tide lifts all boats (or a client with a job can pay you!)
No one working in fast food should be paid $12/hour. $6/hour at best. Don't like it, find another job.
As well as a cardboard box. $6 an hour is $1000 a month for full time employment. Median rent in Las Vegas hit $1900. The math does not work.
12:42 – if you're one of the poors, just work 3 full time jobs at $6/hr, then you can make $3000/month, problem solved!
Fast food jobs and the like were never jobs that could provide a living. As far back as I can remember, these were always part time jobs for high school and others who wanted to make extra money.
Times change, and I understand that some people now need these jobs. Two points. Spewing a label like "living wage" is meaningless. Flipping burgers will always pay at the bottom of the scale.
But consider, we now have something like 2.75M illegals in the country. ALL of whom are going to be competing for low skill, low education required jobs. Laborer's Local and Culinary should be screaming. Expect scab and under the counter payments to skyrocket.
10:53-that is humorous and also quite true on many(and perhaps most) occasions.
But it is not categorically true, across the board, that all increased costs are passed on to the consumer–particularly within the realm of commercial manufacturing.
Often there is increased cost with manufacturing a certain product, and that matter could presumably be largely addressed by, let's say, passing it on to the consumer by raising the price from, let's say, $12 per unit to $14 per unit.
But we then realize many consumers will not be willing to pay the additional $2 per unit, and will instead purchase our competitor's similar product.
In cases like that, we learn we cannot pass the increased costs along to the consumers in general. So, instead, the employees within our company suffer cuts in salaries, hours, benefits, while some other employees are completely laid off due to consolidation of duties, or complete elimination
of positions due to advanced technological capabilities, etc.
1:52 PM is right about 10:53 AM.
Things are rarely as simple as the certainty presented by 10:53 AM, which is just dogma. Increased costs of production/operation can adversely affect some combination of labor, profits or consumer price. Sometimes, the market will not bear an increase in price, as 1:52 PM correctly notes. In those cases, some or all of the additional cost of doing business will be born by the owner in reduced profits or the workers in reduced wages. I believe this is called elasticity, which, to be fair, isn't covered until day 2 of business school (or so I'm told).
10:53 back – I love 1:52 and 1:57 – you are correct, (Cost Accounting and Economics), I wasn't going to go that deep into it but I love the fact that you're both bolder than I am (P.S. who knew my accounting undergrad would have any value in the field of law and here I am using it to post haha)
10:53 AM,
1:57 here. You are a good sport. If you earned anything above a C in intro to accounting, you are my superior in that field. LOL. I enjoyed economics classes, but it never became intuitive to me. Normally, when people start spouting off about business stuff in internet debates, they don't know jack. But you know more than you let on originally.
"Telles back in court today as Clark County seeks his removal form office."
Pretty anti-climatic non-news. The guy is being prosecuted for a brutal murder. He already lost in the Primary Election and thus would already be leaving office in three months even if he were not being prosecuted for murder.
But, he and/or his immediate family might care a little in the real limited sense that even though he cannot of course affect any further policy within the office, an additional three months income may have helped bridge the financial gap a little in him going abruptly from decently-salaried pubic figure to unemployed Defendant.
So let's spend tax dollars for the DA and Judicial system to avoid paying him for 3 months. Wonder which const more?
"cost"
And what are the chances of getting a final ruling on getting him out of office and off payroll in the next 3 or 4 months? We all know how quickly and efficiently government agencies work.
And if we do get Telles out, are we opening up a new avenue to "remove" poor performing government employees? Just wondering…
This effort is impractical and inefficient, and I'm sure everyone at the DA's office knows it. But the public is pissed that he is getting paid and DA Wolfson does not want to be accused of doing nothing to stop Telles from continuing to take checks while incarcerated. Now, Wolfson can join the mob in indignation and publicly crow about the absurdity of not immediately removing him as the matter is delayed for due process reasons. How did they get a calendar setting seven days after filing a complaint? That seems a little bit unusual.
1:09, 1:29 and 1:32 all suggest that we should be pragmatic, and just let him receive his final three months salary.
In theory(meaning in an ideal world) I would disagree with them and get up on my soap box and express moral indignation that someone in custody and being prosecuted for murder, and who already lost his re-election, should absolutely not continue to collect a generous tax-payer funded salary to not work his position as he is defending murder charges, and was already rejected by the voters for re-election.
But, in practice(meaning based on how he real world actually operates) I must agree with the posters. The procedure(to cease his salary as of about Oct. 1, as opposed to three months later on about Jan.1) has already cost far more, and will continue to cost far more, than simply letting him collect the final three months.
Yes, 2:02,how did they get a hearing, within 7 days of a complaint being filed, for this matter of completely useless public pandering and posturing, while legitimate motions(due to employee shortages and other logistics) are taking weeks at this point just to receive a court setting.
2:02 hits the nail squarely on the head, but to be picky I might debate just one point.
2:02 suggests that everyone in the D.A's office knows that this is a useless, absurd motion, purely motivated out of pollical/media concerns.
But I'm not sure that "they all know it. A few prosecutors(in any D.A. office in any larger city) take themselves so seriously that their public persona/employment position becomes far more dominant in their psyche than the private half of them-the half that is hopefully a discerning, analytical, intelligent private citizen who hopefully tempers moral indignation with a sense of proportion and pragmatism..
As a result a few of them losing the more private and discerning half of their personality to such public persona, they actually start viewing themselves as a righteous guardian of public morality.
Most are not like that, but a few are in any larger D.A. offices.
The short hearing time is statutory. A hearing was required within 5-10 days of the Petition being filed.
I haven't actually read the complaint, but I presume it is being brought under NRS 283.440, which provides for an expedited timeline and procedure.
2:32.-most of the attorneys I've dealt with from that office over the years have been just fine.
But I do recall a couple examples of what you describe. I had a colleague some years back who practiced a lot of criminal defense, and was very reasonable and proportionate.
In fact he used to complain the Nevada statutes controlling drug offenses were too harsh. This was back when even a first time pot offense(until or unless negotiated down) was a felony charge.
Well, long story short, he eventually left private practice and accepted an offer from the D.A's Office.
Within a year he was acting like he had self-appointed himself as Nevada Drug Czar, and was always speaking at community gatherings about the scourge of drug usage, including pot, which he aggressively and defiantly(although without much originality or accuracy) condemned as a "gateway drug", etc.
In fact, when he once referred to the hysterical, frantic, absurd 1936 propaganda film "Reefer Madness" he grudgingly allowed that it was "somewhat dated", but then went on to insist that it is largely accurate in its portrayal of pot users.
2:51, I haven't seen that film in years, but it was hysterical. Is that the one where most of the pot users spend all day and all night giggling incessantly while listening to really fast, jazzy piano pieces?
I think I also remember that in the film some teenager takes one puff, immediately cackles insanely, and proceeds to promptly run over a pedestrian.
I saw that in "High" school in 1968. Still looking for the gateway!
Knock it off, 305. That is a heartless and nonsensical as anything that has ever been TTHHWWWAAACCKKed. Repent.
11:50, I actually agree with your post, along with your observation that 11:17 kind of missed the point.
Now I assume you were just interested in posting your view and that you did not seriously think you could change 11:17's mind.
After all, you can never change someone's mind when you start off with how wrong they are, how they misunderstand the issue and miss the point, etc.
The next time you are face to face with someone and trying to truly convince them, see how far you get by telling them that they miss the point.
In fact, let's inform all young or newer attorneys that a phrase like "you missed the point" should never be uttered in court if you are truly trying to persuade the trier of fact.
And yes, that rule should be observed even if the judge has totally missed the point. Less personally-focused methods of persuasion are then to be employed.
I vote 10:53 for the WIN. Best post of the day!
Where’s Jackie?