- Quickdraw McLaw
- 33 Comments
- 188 Views
- The Nevada Supreme Court is being asked to protect the confidentiality of legal brothel audit records. [Nevada Appeal]
- Dominic Gentile is representing the ownership of the Alpine Motel Apartments. [RJ]
- That same ownership was cited for 16 fire code violations. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Allison Brasier is representing a family suing a dentist over a fire in their child’s mouth. [KTNV]
- More drama for the NSHE Regents. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Here’s a handy link to see who has filed for judicial office in Clark County.
Brasier is lawyer hot. Thanks for the link.
I hope the brothel records remain confidential. I will be so.. embarrassed.
They won't list the customers will they? Asking for a friend
I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts about the various candidates once these filings settle down. Lots of people I've never heard of (I'm civil, they are criminal) in these races. Some of the names I do recognize are not people I would think of as good candidates, either. I'm going to rely on you jerks (said with love) to help me decide who to support.
Really interesting to see the organization of the PDs in this and the uniform representation by Tom Letizia to run their campaign. I'm sure the obvious offshoot of daughter Harmony Letizia running for JP and being part of the PD office prior. But they have a very organized effort from what I can see and have been really hitting the pavement beforehand.
It really does come across as a slate of candidates running together. Not the strongest slate but a slate nonetheless. They are either going to win big or lose big together.
Are they all "emerge NV" trainees?
What are "emerge NV" trainees?
My understanding is that "Emerge NV" is a program designed to teach women how to campaign, run for, and hold office.
Is a Google search really so difficult? https://nv.emergeamerica.org/
Don't we have enough Cooley grads on the bench? We need more quality candidates please!
Scotti just filed. He's one of the few sitting judges to draw opponents so far. That one should get interesting.
As long as it is not perennial candidate, Craig Friedberg, I support his opponent.
What is bad about Scotti? I see him trashed on here a lot. I have never had a case in front of him, so I don't have much of an opinion. My entire experience with him is limited to a single settlement conference, which I thought he handled well enough, but he seems really disliked on here.
By some accounts, and in my opinion, he lacks judicial temperament.
He blew a key rule in one of my cases.
So Scotti just held a press conference and spoke in support of revealing all brothel records and delivered a 2 hour PowerPoint presentation on the effect of Cooley grads in Las Vegas. See it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
("Please be a Rickroll, please be a Rickroll…")
YES!
1:34 here. 1:39 you have a good sense of humor!!
It is interesting that, this time, Bita Yeager is adding "Marie" to her name. Hoping to ensure that female vote?
Latino vote appeal maybe? Or are people confused about Bita not being a female gendered name?
Probably trying to sound less foreign.
Does she go by Marie? I have always heard her called Bita.
Not that there is anything wrong with being called Bita. I have always heard good things about her and she is running against Bruce Gale, so there's that too.
Is this a joke? Is she really doing that?
Yes, adding "Maria" is probably intended to make it clear that she is a female, since when she ran as "Bita" last time, she lost her re-election bid by 20 points to another female candidate, even though Bita was already the incumbent, and was generally considered a decent judge.
So, many voters may not have realized she is female, and thus for the many voters who pretty much automatically vote for females in judicial races, those voters gave their vote to her opponent, who they knew was no doubt female.
And, also, as one poster suggested, in order not to repel more ethnocentric based voters(of which, unfortunately, there are still quite a few)she probably wanted to somewhat soften and de-emphasize the vaguely exotic sound of her full name.
you mean she is using her full name? GASP? HOW DARE SHE? There must be something nefarious here
Who cares? You want to change your name, go for it. I won't vote for her.
No. Nothing nefarious or improper was implied by 4;08, so don't understand the sarcasm(although yes,3:09 seems to, without elaboration, imply that there is something improper about all this, which of course there is not).
She is, no doubt, taking a different tack this time around as she is not merely just using her full and proper name but is adding a supposed nickname "Marie"(which, when placed in quotes on the ballot means a nickname, not just a middle name). No one I know has ever referred to her by Marie, nor did she on the last ballot. So, certainly nothing wrong with it, nor is there anything wrong with 4:08 speculating that such may be to make it clear she is a female candidate.Which is smart on her part.
Judge Scotti, in my view, isn't as bad a judge as his critics maintain he is. Worse judges continue to be elected and re-elected.
But I don't think it was prudent for him to sign up or re-election. He already has three or four opponents, and there are some dynamics(some of which have already been made quite public) that his opponents, as well as the media, will successfully exploit.
I cannot believe what people will do to get their name out there, cashing in on charities. The charity should be the ficus, not your law firm. Tacky!
How much personal money do you think a first-time judicial candidate spends on his/her campaign? $100,000?
For an open seat at RJC I would imagine they would have to spend at least that amount in hope of being one of the top two out of the primary, and then to win the general election probably another $150,000.
Although I think a race can be won within that range, many insist that a District Court seat at the RJC can take $500,000. to win–and that would certainly be true of seats which are not open seat, but instead consist of someone trying to unseat a solid incumbent.
I imagine $300,000 to $500,000 would pretty much win most open seats, but if there is an incumbent, even if someone spends $500,000 they may still lose because the incumbent probably at least matches the challenger's fund raising(unless it is a weak incumbent).
And, contrary to what people think, winning a seat in Family Court, if not quite as expensive as an RJC set, is getting really expensive as well, as the fund raising sources for such a seat are minimal compared to thee pot of money one can raise for an RJC seat. And even if someone has a huge amount to spend, family Court generates very little interest or media, so decent incumbents are usually totally safe no matter how much a challenger spends.
And the NSC is now north of a million bucks to win–hope Judge Herndon and Ozzie are budgeted for that as they are going to need it.