- law dawg
- 33 Comments
- 2834 Views
- Informal trials officially launch at family court. [Eighth JD Court]
- Trial begins in Kristin “Blaise” Lobato’s lawsuit alleging Metro officers framed her for 2001 murder. [RJ; 8NewsNow]
- Neighbors opposed to LDS temple call for compromise. [Fox5Vegas]
If the allegations in that woman’s lawsuit against Metro are right, wow. How can anyone put a price an all those prime years of someone’s life?
I vaguely remember when this happened. It seemed like a pretty weak case against her at the time, and the article backs that up. Was there some physical evidence that we don’t know about?
I mean she told people she murdered a dude and cut off his penis and then police found a murdered dude who had his penis cut off. It’s not nothing, though it might not be beyond a reasonable doubt. But that’s on the jury, no?
Informal trials at family court? Giant red flags in the article. There’s no direct or cross. The parties or the attorneys may ask the court to inquire into an area. No non-party witnesses other than experts unless the court says otherwise. I’ve had more than a few family court judges get annoyed and cut off questioning during trial. So now we have to depend on the judges themselves to ask the questions? Yeah, no. And no fact witnesses, but if you have money you can hire a grifter like the MFT who advertises herself as a high conflict specialist and was recently disciplined by her licensing board for her behavior? Again, no. Family court is an abusers playground and those judges allow it.
#FightTheCabal
Good luck with that!
The judges created it!
Sounds like a template from other jurisdictions and or a short trial format. Could stream line the process and facilitate cases moving and getting resolved.
Hahahah oh my sweet sweet child
There is already case law and discretion in NV family law that allows judges to streamline cases and refuse to hear cases that don’t meet the standard. Instead they grant abusers trials every time they file because they bow to pressure from the cabal and refuse to do their jobs. Abusers do not want to resolve their cases. Family court empowers them to keep bringing their victim back to court, year after year. It costs almost nothing for an abuser to file a pro se motion.
Bow to pressure from the cabal? Or the NV Supremes who want trials? See: Meyer v. Haskins.
Exactly. Read Myers closely. If the nonmovant demonstrates the movant’s allegations are false, the court has the discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing. Furthermore, the court can ignore allegations/facts that are irrelevant to the grounds to modify custody, that are cumulative, or that are impeaching. The court can also ignore allegations that would only permit inferences that establish grounds to modify and the court is not required to even consider general, vague, broad, or conclusory allegations. The court can also strike affidavits that are general conclusions or argument.
So, the next question is can we find a family court judge that can even define what that means? And the answer is no. I have had multiple family court judges tell me from the bench that Myers requires them to accept the pleadings as factual. That’s where they stop the analysis. I even had a very experienced judge look at the opposing party and tell them that the court did not find their offer of proof to be credible. And then that same judge said Myers required them to grant an evidentiary hearing.
Nothing is going to change without significant reform and educated, intelligent judges who are not afraid of making findings and putting a stop to the abuse. We don’t have that kind of bench in family court (or this state?) and the informal trial rules that rely on the exact same judges who cannot properly apply Myers to run the questioning and evidentiary presentation in a trial is a bad idea.
Jury out on Penney case. NYC chokehold case.
The fact he’s being prosecuted is disgusting.
Disgusting? Why? Because he should be allowed to strangle a mentally ill person? Yep, that’s right. You’re mental ill? Homeless? Fine. We’ll just let someone strangle you to death. WTF?
Please be a troll. Please tell me you don’t believe that horse crap. Even if deeply disturbed etc once he presents a threat – I’m sorry but people need to defend themselves.
The homeless person that was threatening multiple people. Multiple bystanders said they threatened their life. The defense expert testified that his death was due to multiple factors including drug use.
This case is defense of others – plain and simple. If you don’t see that, you aren’t being objective.
Yeah…the DEFENSE expert. There’s a video of him strangling the man to death. People typically pass out when they’re deprived of air. Go watch some martial arts videos on youtube. When he stopped resisting, the killer should have released him. He should not have kept strangling him. The medical examiner pretty clearly testified that had he been released when he went unconscious, he would likely still be alive. The self defense argument only works when you’re not the aggressor. Once the threat is neutralized (i.e. passes out) you no longer get to claim self defense or defense of others. But thank you for your keen legal analysis.
The prosecutors in this case are crazy. It is a clear case of self defense of others. The prosecutor prepped the case like an excessive police force case. The media left out that the crazy dirt bag had a knife. That is enough in most places but New York is a nutty jurisdiction. Daniel Penny’s only mistake was cooperating with the police. He was naive and they were trying to make a case against him. No good deed goes unpunished.
I have been a longtime practitioner of jiu jitsu. A TRAINED person would let go very quickly immediately when the opponent starts passing out. But in the spur of the moment, in face of danger, for the untrained, it’s probably reasonable to not know.
Couple with the fact that this is NOT a regular person on the street. Drugs, etc. mental instability makes it difficult to control the situation. In fact, on the video, you can see that Neely is resisting and fighting for multiple minutes, which gives credence to one of two theories; 1) the drugs he was on makes him more resistant to submission; and/or 2) that Penny was not trying to strangle him and was merely trying to restrain him. Anyway, the entire prosecution of Penny is an Alvin Braggs specticle, but this is NY jury, so lets see what they do.
2:52—It took a former Marine and two others to subdue him. He was thrashing and fighting tenaciously. The other two had to hold his hands and legs. Police would have been justified in shooting him and tasing him. Daniel Penny was a hero not a villain or criminal.
This is the epitome of armchair quaterback. You put yourself in that situation. Your really think you would know that exact moment to let go? Foolish.
Your observation is on point!
Mentally impaired individuals, under influence of synthetic marijuana and other opioids/narcotics, in the middle of a crisis where the individual becomes mentally and physically unstable and is a danger to himself and others is a different animal than someone simply sitting on a bench muttering to themselves.
US Dist. Ct., E. Dist. TX appears to have issued a nationwide injunction today against Corporate Transparency Act and its implementing regulations. Case 4:24-CV-478
Does anyone have an idea what the Trump administration’s position is on this law? Will they even try to defend it?
Hard to say. It ostensibly is in place to combat money laundering. Combatting money laundering is against everything Trump holds dear, so on the one hand, I might expect it to be DOA.
On the other hand, it was a judge appointed by Obama that ruled against the CTA. That by itself may be enough for Trump to proclaim his opposition to the ruling.
Which childish impulse will win out?
Trump vetoed the bill containing the Corporate Transparency Act, but Congress enacted it over his veto.
Yeah, Congress tends to do that when Presidents veto national defense bills because it didn’t give him the ability to ban social media that allow people to say mean things about him. He didn’t mention the CTA in the veto message.
True.
Decision here:
https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/doc1/175114264163
Jesus. Family Court needs more formality, not less. This has disaster written all over it.