Richard Schonfeld representing Marshawn Lynch in a DUI pleaded not guilty on his behalf. [8NewsNow]
Justice of the Peace Harmony Letizia says she doesn’t have the power to compel her colleague Joe Bonaventure to make any rulngs regarding his recusal on the Ruggs case. [RJ]
Here’s that article on the son shooting an intruder in his deceased father’s home in Sun City Anthem that was discussed in the comments yesterday. [Fox5Vegas; RJ]
Me. Somehow, though my application to the Mormon Probate Mafia keeps getting misplaced.
Also, Yamashita is back with Chris Escobar. Make of that what you will.
Michaelson Law's Natalie Burns, Rachel Tygret, and Stacy Howlett are not just ethical and honest, they are great probate lawyers. Probate is one of the pillars on which that firm has been built, over many years now. https://michaelsonlaw.com/about/
I would not go near either Michaelson or Clear Counsel. LKP and Law Office of John Park are both very good.
Guest
Andrew Craner
March 7, 2023 7:05 pm
The Supreme Court of Nevada will conduct a public hearing on March 21, 2023 regarding proposed amendments to SCR 99-123 governing attorney discipline in Nevada. The proposed amendments are filed under ADKT 608. The Court is accepting written comments through March 14, 2023.
^^^Disregard. Hadn't scrolled down and read the comments below.
Guest
Anonymous
March 7, 2023 7:27 pm
WTF–What is this all about the Proposed Amendments governing discipline? Went to the State Bar Webiste and the attachment to the Exhibit does not link/work. This petition was filed in February by the State Bar but this is the first we have heard about it. With all the comments about discipline and OBC, we need to pay close attention. Any idea what this is all about???
Guest
Anonymous
March 7, 2023 7:45 pm
Summary of Proposed Changes:
1. Replacing Letter of Reprimand with a private Admonition, in which the disciplined lawyer's name and client's information are anonymized before getting published in the Nevada Lawyer. Admonition is evidence of prior discipline, unlike a Letter of Caution. Admonition would only be available at the screening stage. If you object and go to formal hearing, this private discipline isn't available any more. Bar Counsel complains about imagined "endless loop of dismissals" for repeated minor misconduct. That's BS, of course. And if they really thought that minor misconduct warranted something more than a panel's recommended dismissal, they could appeal. Dear OBC: I urge you to review SCR 105(4).
Interesting tidbit on this: OBC complains about dismissals, and says that half of the Letters of Caution went to repeat offenders. Hey, OBC, a LOC is a dismissal. There was no offense, thus no repeat offense. The rules say you can't use the existence of a LOC to justify additional discipline, but that's exactly what OBC is doing. They are saying that even though a panel dismissed the complaint, OJ was really guilty all along.
2. The Rat Provision. OBC thinks of themselves as prosecutors. They want to work with other prosecutors.
3. The "We know better" provision. Currently, attorneys can tender a Conditional Guilty Plea to the panel. Contrary to Bar Counsel's claims, the language isn't vague at all. "The tendered plea shall be filed with bar counsel’s office and approved, modified or rejected by a hearing panel." OBC wants the right to veto it. They already have the ability to refuse to continue or abate the proceedings based on the Conditional Guilty Plea, but that isn't enough for them.
4. The "Don't ask us" clause – prohibits Bar Counsel, the supposed experts on discipline, from issuing formal opinions during ethics calls. Makes the Ethics hotline even more useless than is currently is.
5. The Bob Bare Revenge clause – prevents attorneys from OBC from representing attorneys for 1 year after leaving the office.
6. Glenn Lerner – we still remember ye – the ABA uses 4 factors. NSC incorporated those 4 factors. OBC wants those 4 factors codified.
11:45 AM–Thank you. So comments are due next week. They are railroading this thing through with no time to review and have input. The
Board of Governors should have sought input from the members with this as proposed before springing it on everyone. Sounds like OBC wants more power. I say no and hope folks submit comments. This is an OBC wish list. OBC has enough power already. They don't need more.
12:14 – I don't see how. LOR is public form of discipline. The stated purpose of Admonitions is to avoid stigma for pissant little things (but without messing up OBC's Win-Loss Record, apparently). They point out the there are 2 essentially identical forms of punishment currently: Public Reprimand and Letter of Reprimand. Both get published in the NV Lawyer. Both carry with the $1500 fines. They suggest replacing LOR with Admonition. So at the screening stage, you might get dismissed, a private reprimand (Admonition), a Public Reprimand, Suspension, Disbarment (or diversion/probation programs as currently exist). At the formal hearing stage the options would be Dismissed, Public Reprimand, Suspension, Disbarment.
I think there used to be a caution letter. Not public, not discipline, just a "watch it buddy" letter. Seems like that would be useful to the membership.
This appears to be a response to what used to private reprimand vs. public reprimand. Hardesty's Hooligans came out and said reprimands are discipline, and we don't allow discipline to be private and thus all reprimands are public.
Another interesting passage is from the Eva Garcia-Mendoza case where Justice Springer stated that "[t]he 'private reprimand' appears to be the way in which the bar association disciplines its more favored members when they get in serious trouble. As an example, we recently had a case before us in which a lawyer betrayed his client by illegally profiting from his client's misfortune and covertly buying his client's property at a foreclosure sale, conduct that under any objective evaluation would have to be viewed as extremely serious. This egregious misconduct was met by the Bar with its customary sanction for the politically favored (in this case a member of the Bar's Board of Governors), a 'private reprimand.' By contrast, in another, recent fee-splitting case comparable to this one, the bar decided, in the case of a not-so-favored lawyer, upon the severe penalty of suspension from the practice of law rather than a mere 'private reprimand,' as was given in the present case. With this kind of disparity of treatment between lawyers facing similar charges, we are hesitant to give much meaning or credence to the 'private reprimand' sanction imposed by the bar in the present case."
In case you think OBC disparate treatment is a new thing.
What role does our elected BOG have in this?
Our elected officers, I think, are supposed to represent the membership. Has anyone been polled by an officer? Has any officer opined about the OBC's requested action?
Technically, the BOG is the one petitioning for the change. Paola's signature is on the petition. There was no mention of it in the 11/9/22 Minutes of the BOG or 8/31/22 Minutes.
12:42 – a Letter of Caution is still an available result. It's considered a dismissal, not a discipline, and can't be used as evidence of past discipline. But see 11:45's reference to the Bar Counsel whining about how these bad lawyers keep getting dismissed when clearly they're guilty.
Letter of Caution
Yes, cannot be used as evidence, but it stays on file for a year and can be used as notice or knowledge if there is a subsequent complaint.
Who advocates for the Members?
Sorry for the multiple posts today, but I never before considered the relative roles of the SBN and OBC. So connecting the dots, bar members do not have anyone who advocates for us.
Picking up on something I saw posted last week, maybe its time for an end to mandatory bar membership in Nevada? Split out the regulatory and discipline issues to the NSC, let the members form an advocacy group/union.
1:34 PM–Don't think we want discipline decoupled from the State Bar because what would be there instead could be far worse. The Nevada Supreme Court would be far worse. We need to be able to recoup costs and fees for the lousy cases that bar counsel prosecutes. Anyone who has had a bar complaint with a hearing even for the "no good deed goes unpunished" realizes how bad the process is. Bar Counsel only goes after solos and now they are prosecuting picayune stuff. Andrew Craner deserves our support. He is a breath of fresh air and is does not drink the Cool-Aid.
Agree with 1:50 that we need to be able to recoup losses from the bad cases OBC persecutes. We have no representation via BoG. They definitely look out for their own and no one else. New people with small/solo experience need to run against them.
So 1:34
Who represents or advocates for you at the Bar or the NSC?
Is the answer "no one"?
Every other professional group in Nevada is regulated by an agency that can pursue discipline. These professions have advocacy membership in organizations that the professionals control.
I have no clue where all of the alleged kudos for Andrew Craner is coming from. Never alerted me about any of these changes. Frankly Andrew your "breath of fresh air" appears to have advocated for and changed nothing. But I see you smiling at lots of SBN events in the Nevada Lawyer magazine.
It's time for an overhaul of the Nevada Rules on the Administrative Docket.
Under NRAD 3.2, only "a judge, the director of the administrative office of the courts, or the board of governors of the state bar of Nevada" may file a petition to amend court rules. Perhaps something much more like the Administrative Procedures Act, with a much more clearly defined (and lengthy) notice and comment period. Or perhaps something more regimented like the federal rules committees under the federal rules enabling act. Or something like Washington State has under their General Rule 9.
Of course good luck getting a judge or the BOG to petition to amend the ADKT process.
Sure about the comments about Craner but this was proposed a month ago. ADKTs are discussed for months before being set forth in an ADKT. We are learning about this 7 days before the comment period ends. I have heard for weeks about a stupid self-aggrandizing bar convention that is not until the summer but the BoG cannot alert me as a member about a rule change for which the comment period is up in 7 days?
I agree with 1131 that the ADKT process is a joke and ends up with rules going through that no one had much notice of.
On second thought, the proposed rule changes with regard to Letters of Caution sounds like a good thing. It used to be that reprimands were not public. Don't remember the exact year but all disciplinary matters where OBC filed something became public. Previously the dockets were listed as "Attorney A" with no mention of any name. Perhaps because of all the negative comments about OBC we have misjudged these rules changes. When I read them they sounded pretty innocuous. With all the negative comments I went back and reread them. It is interesting that these rules changes are being submitted after Hardesty retired and left the building. He was the "hanging "Justice on attorney discipline. Discipline needs a softer approach. Perhaps this is it.
Hardesty never understood that increased severity didn't necessarily prevent/deter misconduct or serve the public. If the goal is to prevent/deter misconduct and to protect the public, discipline has to be flexible and multi faceted. A hammer is not always the best answer. There was a while when Stan Hunterton first came in that they were suspending attorneys for really minor stuff. Keep in mind that clients of a suspended attorney now have to get new counsel, who has to get up to speed on the case, etc. It's hard to know the personal dynamics from the outside, but for whatever reason, the other justices always went along with whatever Hardesty wanted, whether it was discipline or another issue. In the handful of times I have participated in oral argument before the NVSC, same thing happened. Once Hardesty opened his mouth, the other justices shut down. He was difficult in oral argument, not because he was some brilliant jurist, but because when he misapprehended thing it was challenging to help him understand the underlying facts or issues. This is not because of a lack of intelligence, but an extraordinary, swelling ego. He will not be missed.
It is no secret that Hardesty was a bully on the bench and that his colleagues allowed him to bully them. Pickering was intellectually independent but was not immune from letting Hardesty push even her around. It is not uncommon in group dynamics that when someone is the assertive anal crevice that people find it easier to just let them do their thing and avoid them to the extent possible. You can talk with justices and judges who had to deal with Hardesty; he is not missed. It is likewise no secret that offenses that were 18 month suspensions previously became 4 year suspensions without any real change or cause (even when there was no client impact). It is no secret that Hunterton was brought in so Hardesty could take a Project Strikeforce mentality to discipline. Hardesty set many parts of our judiciary and discipline system back decades and did immeasurable damage to the Bar in this state.
No argument with 1131.
It is common knowledge that the women on the NSCT were particularly cowed by Hardesty as Chief Justice and could not wait for him to retire.
Because the developer who owns the building stated that he wanted to name the courthouse for Hardesty while the developer had matters potentially pending to go to up to an NSC headed up by (you guess). Look up Parcel 13934303002 in case you thought that the Court owned the land and the building.
Guest
Anonymous
March 7, 2023 8:19 pm
Following up the comments from yesterday about the shooting, I look forward to more details being released by HPD because this looks like a bad situation in which the son used lethal force against a burglar. And to be fair, the decedent has been named and did have quite a few priors for property crimes. But if Gall was not armed and the son basically snuck into the house and shot the guy to stop him from stealing the sterling silver flatware, yeah he should be prosecuted.
4:37– Why don't you read the very authority that you cite? This was not the son's residence ("Presumption that person using deadly force against intruder in person’s residence, transient lodging or motor vehicle has reasonable fear of death or bodily injury"). The son lives somewhere else and went to the dad's former home to stop a property crime. The statute is not applicable.
You cite to NRS 200.120 so lets read it together. "Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of an occupied habitation, an occupied motor vehicle or a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a crime of violence, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein." So you need
(1) proof of (a) self-defense (no evidence shown to date) or (b) defense of an occupied habitation (which this house was not after dad died);
(2) proof that Gall intended to (a) commit a crime of violence or (b) entered an occupied habitation (which this was not) of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence (for which there is no evidence).
Find the case or statute that states that you can go into an unoccupied house and shoot a burglar absent evidence of a crime of violence. That is not "standing your ground" Mr. Rittenhouse.
; person who uses deadly force is immune from civil liability under certain circumstances; definitions.
1. For the purposes of NRS 41.085 and 41.130, any person who uses:
(a) While lawfully in his or her residence, in transient lodging or in a motor vehicle that is not his or her residence, force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to himself or herself or another person lawfully in the residence, transient lodging or motor vehicle if the force is used against a person who is committing burglary, invasion of the home or grand larceny of the motor vehicle with the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that burglary, invasion of the home or grand larceny of the motor vehicle with the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon was being committed. An action to recover damages for personal injuries to or the wrongful death of the person who committed burglary, invasion of the home or grand larceny of the motor vehicle with the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon may not be maintained against the person who used such force unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
(b) Force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury is immune from civil liability in an action to recover damages for personal injuries to or the wrongful death of a person against whom such force was used if the use of such force was justified under the applicable provisions of chapter 200 of NRS relating to the use of such force.
2. As used in this section:
(a) “Deadly weapon” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 193.165.
(b) “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self-propelled.
(c) “Residence” means any house, room, apartment, tenement or other building, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer or boat designed or intended for occupancy as a residence.
Just common folkin it here, but the 61 year old son might be of the mental state that it was his property once his father died.
Interesting point of probate for his defense? – it was a week ago, no? How about if it would be his once it cleared probate but he did not know? What if it was in a trust? How much time must pass until he can justifiably kill an intruder if it can be proven he knew it would be his property once it cleared probate?
How much time must elapse once he enters and its his property in his mind until he can justifiably kill the intruder?
Should he just shoot first and let the jury decide his fate rather than someone who broke into his dead father's home? I think thats how I would do it.
Owning is not the issue. Residing in it would give him certain protective justifications.
I can't stroll into a house I don't live in and just start blastin', even if it's an intruder stealing Dad's old liquor bottles. Human life >> property, every time.
Title vests at death, but 10:46 PM is right. Ownership is not the issue, occupancy is. Castle doctrine applies to renters the same as home owners. In fact, I wonder what would happen if a squatter killed an intruder and attempted to invoke the castle doctrine. Thoughts?
5:08 PM–There is no reasonable likelihood of a conviction of the son. The son had the key to the father's home and a presumptive heir with or without a will. You left out NRS 41.095 which adds additional protection and immunity from civil liability. A occupant/passenger in a car has the same standing as the driver or owner. A relative to the owner has the same right of self defense as the owner. Case closed. Obviously you have not handled any criminal cases and are bringing California rules to Nevada. Just hide in your closet and don't shoot any burglars or home invaders.
8:49 a.m.–I am not 5:08 but 5:08 led off with NRS 41.095 "This was not the son's residence [NRS 41.095 deals with] "Presumption that person using deadly force against intruder in person’s residence, transient lodging or motor vehicle has reasonable fear of death or bodily injury"). The son lives somewhere else and went to the dad's former home to stop a property crime. [NRS 41.095] is not applicable."
"A relative to the owner has the same right of self defense as the owner. Case closed." Mmmmm not according to either one of the statutes that you cited. Both require the son to have been residing in Dad's house.
Secondarily there is no evidence of "self-defense" that has been presented. Appears that the son went to Dad's house to stop a property crime and hunted down the burglar.
9:43 AM–The son of the deceased owner has a right to be in the house. The burglar or home invader does not. Duh. What am I missing? Even if the son is a visitor he has a legal right to be in the home not the same with a felon burglar or home invader. End of story. Obviously HPD made the right call. Charges are not being submitted to the DA and the case is cleared or was cleared. The DA defers to these calls by law enforcement. Even if the case was submitted to the DA for prosecution, they would not prosecute. No jury would ever convict. No civil case would ever succeed by a burglar plaintiff. This case is distinguishable from someone drunk or disabled who ends up in someone's house, garage or yard. Even then there would be no prosecution for the trespasser. Go back to Cali or NY where they prosecute the use of deadly force to defend one's right to safety. Better yet move to San Francisco, Portland or Seattle where they don't respect private property rights.
10:00 a.m. What you are missing that there are laws that allow one to protect themselves from acts of violence in one's own home that do not apply in other locations. I cannot shoot a burglar in my office. I cannot shoot a burglar in your home if you ask me to keep an eye on your house while you are on vacation. The son was within his rights in checking on his deceased father's home; the son was not within in his rights going into the home and blasting the burglar to death to protect some furniture.
Time to boil this down for the gun culture warriors in the back.
Invasion of your residence = presumption that injury is likely = self-defense is warranted.
Invasion of not-your-residence, but something similar like a car you are living in, a tent, etc. = presumption that injury is likely = self-defense is warranted.
Invasion of empty property, warehouse, office building, etc. = no presumption that self-defense is warranted, but self defense may be warranted if there is an actual attack against a person.
Son goes to empty house and is surprised by invader = no presumption of injury to Son. If Invader attacks son, self-defense may be warranted.
Son goes to empty house and surprises an invader = no presumption of injury to Son. If Invader doesn't attack, but Son shoots anyway? Yeah, that's murder. However, survivors provide the narrative.
But left off when son is surprised by invader and has a reasonable fear that the invader poses a threat of serious injury/death. That's why everybody here is talking out of their asses. Nobody knows nearly enough details.
Says the gun culture warrior without any facts. Here is what we know from all of the news reports: son went to the home at 2 am armed and initiated contact due to suspicions of a property crime in progress. Son went there looking for an invader. If the invader was armed, then you are correct that it is a different case. However all of the facts as reported make it appear that the son went hunting for the burglar with a gun.
Obviously the posters here who argue that the son needs to be prosecuted lack the experience and knowledge of the system. There are several legal doctrines at play here–stand your ground, no duty to retreat, self defense, and modified Castle doctrine. This is what is known as a "perfect case of self defense". First question does the victim have a right to be where he was. Yes, the victim is the owner's son and went to check on a house that he has a right to. Second question, is the victim entitled to stand his ground. Unquestionably yes. Third question was the victim in fear for his life. Yes, by operation of law fear is presumed with the presence of a burglar or home invader. Fourth question, is this a justifiable homicide. The answer is yes. The HPD analyzed the case and so concluded. It seems like those who don't own guns and see no need for guns just don't understand the law and how it works. They don't like it and look at parts of the law to support their position but don't have the whole picture. A visitor has the same rights as an owner. The status of who owns what is irrelevant. The deceased perpetrator had absolutely no right to be inside the house. End of story done.
11:52 Conversely the posters here who continue to argue ad nauseam for "Castle Doctrine" (when the statute clearly requires it to be the shooter's residence which this was not), for "self-defense" (when there is not a single fact reported that the burglar had a weapon or initiated any form of act "for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein" for which there is no evidence adduced to date) or for "stand your ground" (which requires one not to be the original aggressor when we know the son went to the home in hopes of interdicting the burglary) lack any experience reading the very laws that they flout. If there is a self-defense justification that the son did not initiate the aggression with the burglar but was under attack from the burglar, was facing major bodily harm or death and a reasonable person in the non-aggressor’s shoes would also fear for their life and safety, then those facts should come forward. But the only facts reported to date do not fit any of the theories above.
There is one other red herring that keeps getting bandied about without any evidence: "First question does the victim have a right to be where he was. Yes, the victim is the owner's son and went to check on a house that he has a right to." Says who? Who said that the son had a right to be in the house? Is he appointed as personal representative of the Estate? Is he a joint tenant on the title to the Subject Property? Is he an heir who has been awarded access to the Subject Property? There is literally not a single fact in any of these stories that states that the son had a legal right to be in that residence with a gun for purposes of using force to interrupt a property crime. None. Lots of offspring have no right to enter property owned by the estate of their parents.
Your supposition regarding responsible gun ownership is off. I own a gun and have a CCW. As noted above, it is not a license to hunt burglars. If there is a property crime in progress and I am not in my own home where I need to protect my family, I call the police because that is what the express language of the statutes (as opposed to some Rambo assumptions regarding the law) require.
1:26: Neither does the argument that people who actually read the statutes " lack the experience and knowledge of the system. . . . [and that] those who don't own guns and see no need for guns just don't understand the law and how it works." There are plenty of us gun owners who also know how to read the statutes, know responsible gun ownership is not taking the law into our own hand and know that you do not get to blast a thief in someone else's house. Advocacy for liberally shooting property criminals on other peoples' property (absent imminent threat of mortal harm) cannot be characterized as anything other than Rambo gone wrong.
This is where gun owners get a bad name and it imperils legal, logical and proper gun ownership. "Pro 2A" has come to mean not only unrestricted rights to own any guns for any reason by any person but (as this situation shows) the unrestricted USE of guns in any situation for any reason by any person. Meter reader is on your property? Blast them. Some on cut across your dad's lawn without permission? Blast them.
No I am a responsible gun owner who believes following the law and doing everything in my power to not have to discharge a firearm at a human being. The second amendment protects my right to have a gun; it does not give carte blanche to use a gun on other people.
But I still do not believe that you are a gun owner. Just a sanctimonious, judgmental troll who truly detests freedom and the Constitution and pretends to walk the reasonable line on these issues.
"Advocacy for liberally shooting property criminals on other peoples' property (absent imminent threat of mortal harm)." Literally nobody has advocated for that. That's what you're missing.
People saying the guy might have been justified in shooting if there are facts to support a reasonable fear that the invader poses a threat of serious injury/death is not advocating for liberally shooting people without justification.
9:34– Which part of the Constitution/Bill of Rights discusses freedom to shoot people who are stealing property in your dead father's house? No one is discussing the son's right to keep and bear arms; we are discussing the fact that there is no constitutional, statutory or common law right to shoot a thief in someone else's home. The "freedom" you are espousing is literally the freedom to kill another human who is caught stealing someone else's property. I will not get down into the mud with you to discuss your lack of reading comprehension regarding either the Constitution or Nevada Revised Statutes.
9:44– I appreciate your more reasonable response. However that is exactly what (others I presume) have advocated for above which is that this is a justifiable shooting based upon what we know. Because the only facts that we have from the news reports are that (1) son goes to dad's home at 2 am to check on property; (2) son finds burglar in guest bedroom of home; (3) son shoots burglar in guest bedroom and (4) burglar dies in dining room of home.
So I agree with you that if there are facts that meet the definition of self-defense that are not being reported, I have kept an open mind to that possibility. Will you at least keep an open mind enough that no such facts have yet been disclosed that meet (a) self-defense under NRS 200.200; (b) stand your ground under NRS 200.120; or (c) Castle Doctrine in this case?
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said NONE of those things and only a complete psycho would.
Guest
Anonymous
March 7, 2023 9:46 pm
Regarding the Ruggs case, the Review Journal article said: “Chesnoff said during Monday’s hearing that Chief Justice of the Peace Cynthia Cruz had refused to meet with them to negotiate which judge will oversee the case."
Since when do attorneys get to meet with the Chief Judge to negotiate case assignments? Is this a special privilege granted to certain highly influential attorneys?
All of this for a Preliminary Hearing in a murder case…. The odds of Ruggs not being bound over for trial are highly unlikely given the low threshold for probable cause.
Assignments, or re-assignments, of judicial departments is, and should remain, a random computer-generated matter. Only way that it could be justified in meeting with the Chief Judge is if a situation got so bad that all the judges in the given court recused, and the Chief was struggling with whether to bring in a Senior Judge, or a judge from elsewhere in Nevada, etc.
I suppose a really unique situation like that would somewhat justify keeping the attorneys in the loop as to the predicament the Chief is dealing with.
But that is not what is occurring here. Cruz is very smart to avoid this like the plague. An attorney may publicly complain of her refusal to meet(and apparently has already done so), but that is nothing compared to the fall out that would occur if she met with the attorneys. Meeting with the attorneys sends a message that an attorney who is so disposed can try to influence the Chief as to what judge to re-assign the case to.
Likewise with the Letizia situation, the less she does the better, and she also seems to be handling this situation as adroitly as Cruz. As to this issue of trying to suck her into the vortex about why Bonaventure ruled the ways he did, whether he had the authority to rule as he did, whether he should have recused, whether he provided sufficient findings on his recusal or whatever, she is wise when she refuses. If the attorneys can convince Bonaventure to further clarify these matters(unlikley as he is no longer on the case) they can take it directly to him. Good luck.
It appears that Cruz and Letizia refuse to take the bait, and no good would come of it if they did. They wisely are vigilant about avoiding building error into the record.
Generally agree with much of what 4:50 says, but problem is(as is usually the case when we rely on brief news reports of complex legal maneuverings) is that we are not really receiving much of the important info. we need to make a truly informed assessment of the situation..
4:50-It's not really that they want Bonaventure to further explain any rulings, or to provide further info. as to why he recused. They simply want the case returned to him.
But you are right that Cruz and Letizia are wise to tread lightly, which they have.
Are there any ethical/honest probate attorneys in Clark County who handle probate administration?
Brian Eagan @ Solomon Dwiggins
Me. Somehow, though my application to the Mormon Probate Mafia keeps getting misplaced.
Also, Yamashita is back with Chris Escobar. Make of that what you will.
Dan Goodsell @ Goodsell Law Group
Lane Rushforth or Mike Cahill.
Both solid and stand up gentlemen. I have personally referred to both and Lane even mentored me (many, many years ago) through a pro bono case.
There are a lot of them. Brian Eagan at SDFS. Kenny Lee at Lee Kiefer & Park. Corey Schmutz at Jeffrey Burr. Taylor Waite at Clear Counsel Law.
Agree on Kenny, have not had good experiences with Clear Counsel
Michaelson Law's Natalie Burns, Rachel Tygret, and Stacy Howlett are not just ethical and honest, they are great probate lawyers. Probate is one of the pillars on which that firm has been built, over many years now. https://michaelsonlaw.com/about/
I second Corey Schmutz at Burr's office.
We censoring comments now?
Clear Counsel. Taylor Waite or Jonathan Barlow.
I would not go near either Michaelson or Clear Counsel. LKP and Law Office of John Park are both very good.
The Supreme Court of Nevada will conduct a public hearing on March 21, 2023 regarding proposed amendments to SCR 99-123 governing attorney discipline in Nevada. The proposed amendments are filed under ADKT 608. The Court is accepting written comments through March 14, 2023.
Cant access the petition. "Unavailable".
Any idea what specifically, they are moving to amend?
^^^Disregard. Hadn't scrolled down and read the comments below.
WTF–What is this all about the Proposed Amendments governing discipline? Went to the State Bar Webiste and the attachment to the Exhibit does not link/work. This petition was filed in February by the State Bar but this is the first we have heard about it. With all the comments about discipline and OBC, we need to pay close attention. Any idea what this is all about???
Summary of Proposed Changes:
1. Replacing Letter of Reprimand with a private Admonition, in which the disciplined lawyer's name and client's information are anonymized before getting published in the Nevada Lawyer. Admonition is evidence of prior discipline, unlike a Letter of Caution. Admonition would only be available at the screening stage. If you object and go to formal hearing, this private discipline isn't available any more. Bar Counsel complains about imagined "endless loop of dismissals" for repeated minor misconduct. That's BS, of course. And if they really thought that minor misconduct warranted something more than a panel's recommended dismissal, they could appeal. Dear OBC: I urge you to review SCR 105(4).
Interesting tidbit on this: OBC complains about dismissals, and says that half of the Letters of Caution went to repeat offenders. Hey, OBC, a LOC is a dismissal. There was no offense, thus no repeat offense. The rules say you can't use the existence of a LOC to justify additional discipline, but that's exactly what OBC is doing. They are saying that even though a panel dismissed the complaint, OJ was really guilty all along.
2. The Rat Provision. OBC thinks of themselves as prosecutors. They want to work with other prosecutors.
3. The "We know better" provision. Currently, attorneys can tender a Conditional Guilty Plea to the panel. Contrary to Bar Counsel's claims, the language isn't vague at all. "The tendered plea shall be filed with bar counsel’s office and approved, modified or rejected by a hearing panel." OBC wants the right to veto it. They already have the ability to refuse to continue or abate the proceedings based on the Conditional Guilty Plea, but that isn't enough for them.
4. The "Don't ask us" clause – prohibits Bar Counsel, the supposed experts on discipline, from issuing formal opinions during ethics calls. Makes the Ethics hotline even more useless than is currently is.
5. The Bob Bare Revenge clause – prevents attorneys from OBC from representing attorneys for 1 year after leaving the office.
6. Glenn Lerner – we still remember ye – the ABA uses 4 factors. NSC incorporated those 4 factors. OBC wants those 4 factors codified.
I nominate 11:45 to be in charge of summarizing things for the blog from now on.
I second the nomination
11:45 AM–Thank you. So comments are due next week. They are railroading this thing through with no time to review and have input. The
Board of Governors should have sought input from the members with this as proposed before springing it on everyone. Sounds like OBC wants more power. I say no and hope folks submit comments. This is an OBC wish list. OBC has enough power already. They don't need more.
Will this be retroactive? Can a Letter of Reprimand be replaced with a private admonition if this passes?
12:14 – I don't see how. LOR is public form of discipline. The stated purpose of Admonitions is to avoid stigma for pissant little things (but without messing up OBC's Win-Loss Record, apparently). They point out the there are 2 essentially identical forms of punishment currently: Public Reprimand and Letter of Reprimand. Both get published in the NV Lawyer. Both carry with the $1500 fines. They suggest replacing LOR with Admonition. So at the screening stage, you might get dismissed, a private reprimand (Admonition), a Public Reprimand, Suspension, Disbarment (or diversion/probation programs as currently exist). At the formal hearing stage the options would be Dismissed, Public Reprimand, Suspension, Disbarment.
I think there used to be a caution letter. Not public, not discipline, just a "watch it buddy" letter. Seems like that would be useful to the membership.
This appears to be a response to what used to private reprimand vs. public reprimand. Hardesty's Hooligans came out and said reprimands are discipline, and we don't allow discipline to be private and thus all reprimands are public.
Another interesting passage is from the Eva Garcia-Mendoza case where Justice Springer stated that "[t]he 'private reprimand' appears to be the way in which the bar association disciplines its more favored members when they get in serious trouble. As an example, we recently had a case before us in which a lawyer betrayed his client by illegally profiting from his client's misfortune and covertly buying his client's property at a foreclosure sale, conduct that under any objective evaluation would have to be viewed as extremely serious. This egregious misconduct was met by the Bar with its customary sanction for the politically favored (in this case a member of the Bar's Board of Governors), a 'private reprimand.' By contrast, in another, recent fee-splitting case comparable to this one, the bar decided, in the case of a not-so-favored lawyer, upon the severe penalty of suspension from the practice of law rather than a mere 'private reprimand,' as was given in the present case. With this kind of disparity of treatment between lawyers facing similar charges, we are hesitant to give much meaning or credence to the 'private reprimand' sanction imposed by the bar in the present case."
In case you think OBC disparate treatment is a new thing.
@ 12:46, who did that?!?!
What role does our elected BOG have in this?
Our elected officers, I think, are supposed to represent the membership. Has anyone been polled by an officer? Has any officer opined about the OBC's requested action?
Technically, the BOG is the one petitioning for the change. Paola's signature is on the petition. There was no mention of it in the 11/9/22 Minutes of the BOG or 8/31/22 Minutes.
12:42 – a Letter of Caution is still an available result. It's considered a dismissal, not a discipline, and can't be used as evidence of past discipline. But see 11:45's reference to the Bar Counsel whining about how these bad lawyers keep getting dismissed when clearly they're guilty.
Let us at least acknowledge Andrew Craner alerting us to it. Thanks, Andrew.
Letter of Caution
Yes, cannot be used as evidence, but it stays on file for a year and can be used as notice or knowledge if there is a subsequent complaint.
Who advocates for the Members?
Sorry for the multiple posts today, but I never before considered the relative roles of the SBN and OBC. So connecting the dots, bar members do not have anyone who advocates for us.
Picking up on something I saw posted last week, maybe its time for an end to mandatory bar membership in Nevada? Split out the regulatory and discipline issues to the NSC, let the members form an advocacy group/union.
1:34 PM–Don't think we want discipline decoupled from the State Bar because what would be there instead could be far worse. The Nevada Supreme Court would be far worse. We need to be able to recoup costs and fees for the lousy cases that bar counsel prosecutes. Anyone who has had a bar complaint with a hearing even for the "no good deed goes unpunished" realizes how bad the process is. Bar Counsel only goes after solos and now they are prosecuting picayune stuff. Andrew Craner deserves our support. He is a breath of fresh air and is does not drink the Cool-Aid.
Agree with 1:50 that we need to be able to recoup losses from the bad cases OBC persecutes. We have no representation via BoG. They definitely look out for their own and no one else. New people with small/solo experience need to run against them.
So 1:34
Who represents or advocates for you at the Bar or the NSC?
Is the answer "no one"?
Every other professional group in Nevada is regulated by an agency that can pursue discipline. These professions have advocacy membership in organizations that the professionals control.
I have no clue where all of the alleged kudos for Andrew Craner is coming from. Never alerted me about any of these changes. Frankly Andrew your "breath of fresh air" appears to have advocated for and changed nothing. But I see you smiling at lots of SBN events in the Nevada Lawyer magazine.
Let me mansplain, but look above at 11:05 and you'll see Craner is the one who posted the comment that got us all talking abou this.
It's time for an overhaul of the Nevada Rules on the Administrative Docket.
Under NRAD 3.2, only "a judge, the director of the administrative office of the courts, or the board of governors of the state bar of Nevada" may file a petition to amend court rules. Perhaps something much more like the Administrative Procedures Act, with a much more clearly defined (and lengthy) notice and comment period. Or perhaps something more regimented like the federal rules committees under the federal rules enabling act. Or something like Washington State has under their General Rule 9.
Of course good luck getting a judge or the BOG to petition to amend the ADKT process.
Sure about the comments about Craner but this was proposed a month ago. ADKTs are discussed for months before being set forth in an ADKT. We are learning about this 7 days before the comment period ends. I have heard for weeks about a stupid self-aggrandizing bar convention that is not until the summer but the BoG cannot alert me as a member about a rule change for which the comment period is up in 7 days?
I agree with 1131 that the ADKT process is a joke and ends up with rules going through that no one had much notice of.
On second thought, the proposed rule changes with regard to Letters of Caution sounds like a good thing. It used to be that reprimands were not public. Don't remember the exact year but all disciplinary matters where OBC filed something became public. Previously the dockets were listed as "Attorney A" with no mention of any name. Perhaps because of all the negative comments about OBC we have misjudged these rules changes. When I read them they sounded pretty innocuous. With all the negative comments I went back and reread them. It is interesting that these rules changes are being submitted after Hardesty retired and left the building. He was the "hanging "Justice on attorney discipline. Discipline needs a softer approach. Perhaps this is it.
Hardesty never understood that increased severity didn't necessarily prevent/deter misconduct or serve the public. If the goal is to prevent/deter misconduct and to protect the public, discipline has to be flexible and multi faceted. A hammer is not always the best answer. There was a while when Stan Hunterton first came in that they were suspending attorneys for really minor stuff. Keep in mind that clients of a suspended attorney now have to get new counsel, who has to get up to speed on the case, etc. It's hard to know the personal dynamics from the outside, but for whatever reason, the other justices always went along with whatever Hardesty wanted, whether it was discipline or another issue. In the handful of times I have participated in oral argument before the NVSC, same thing happened. Once Hardesty opened his mouth, the other justices shut down. He was difficult in oral argument, not because he was some brilliant jurist, but because when he misapprehended thing it was challenging to help him understand the underlying facts or issues. This is not because of a lack of intelligence, but an extraordinary, swelling ego. He will not be missed.
It is no secret that Hardesty was a bully on the bench and that his colleagues allowed him to bully them. Pickering was intellectually independent but was not immune from letting Hardesty push even her around. It is not uncommon in group dynamics that when someone is the assertive anal crevice that people find it easier to just let them do their thing and avoid them to the extent possible. You can talk with justices and judges who had to deal with Hardesty; he is not missed. It is likewise no secret that offenses that were 18 month suspensions previously became 4 year suspensions without any real change or cause (even when there was no client impact). It is no secret that Hunterton was brought in so Hardesty could take a Project Strikeforce mentality to discipline. Hardesty set many parts of our judiciary and discipline system back decades and did immeasurable damage to the Bar in this state.
No argument with 1131.
It is common knowledge that the women on the NSCT were particularly cowed by Hardesty as Chief Justice and could not wait for him to retire.
Watch for big changes this year.
If Hardesty isn't missed by his colleagues, why is the Crunchwrap Supreme Courthouse named after him?????
Because the developer who owns the building stated that he wanted to name the courthouse for Hardesty while the developer had matters potentially pending to go to up to an NSC headed up by (you guess). Look up Parcel 13934303002 in case you thought that the Court owned the land and the building.
Following up the comments from yesterday about the shooting, I look forward to more details being released by HPD because this looks like a bad situation in which the son used lethal force against a burglar. And to be fair, the decedent has been named and did have quite a few priors for property crimes. But if Gall was not armed and the son basically snuck into the house and shot the guy to stop him from stealing the sterling silver flatware, yeah he should be prosecuted.
12:19 PM-The son has legal authority to be there. The felon burglar does not. Read the law before making such an outrageous asinine comment.
Generally speaking if someone is in your home under Nevada's modified "Castle doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" you would be authorized to shoot to defend yourself. NRS 41.095. See also NRS 200.120 (2) along with State v. Runion.
https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevadaLawyer_June2022_Stand-Your-Ground.pdf
4:37– Why don't you read the very authority that you cite? This was not the son's residence ("Presumption that person using deadly force against intruder in person’s residence, transient lodging or motor vehicle has reasonable fear of death or bodily injury"). The son lives somewhere else and went to the dad's former home to stop a property crime. The statute is not applicable.
You cite to NRS 200.120 so lets read it together. "Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of an occupied habitation, an occupied motor vehicle or a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a crime of violence, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein." So you need
(1) proof of (a) self-defense (no evidence shown to date) or (b) defense of an occupied habitation (which this house was not after dad died);
(2) proof that Gall intended to (a) commit a crime of violence or (b) entered an occupied habitation (which this was not) of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence (for which there is no evidence).
Find the case or statute that states that you can go into an unoccupied house and shoot a burglar absent evidence of a crime of violence. That is not "standing your ground" Mr. Rittenhouse.
; person who uses deadly force is immune from civil liability under certain circumstances; definitions.
1. For the purposes of NRS 41.085 and 41.130, any person who uses:
(a) While lawfully in his or her residence, in transient lodging or in a motor vehicle that is not his or her residence, force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to himself or herself or another person lawfully in the residence, transient lodging or motor vehicle if the force is used against a person who is committing burglary, invasion of the home or grand larceny of the motor vehicle with the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that burglary, invasion of the home or grand larceny of the motor vehicle with the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon was being committed. An action to recover damages for personal injuries to or the wrongful death of the person who committed burglary, invasion of the home or grand larceny of the motor vehicle with the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon may not be maintained against the person who used such force unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
(b) Force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury is immune from civil liability in an action to recover damages for personal injuries to or the wrongful death of a person against whom such force was used if the use of such force was justified under the applicable provisions of chapter 200 of NRS relating to the use of such force.
2. As used in this section:
(a) “Deadly weapon” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 193.165.
(b) “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self-propelled.
(c) “Residence” means any house, room, apartment, tenement or other building, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer or boat designed or intended for occupancy as a residence.
(Added to NRS by 1989, 1798; A 2015, 1784)
Just common folkin it here, but the 61 year old son might be of the mental state that it was his property once his father died.
Interesting point of probate for his defense? – it was a week ago, no? How about if it would be his once it cleared probate but he did not know? What if it was in a trust? How much time must pass until he can justifiably kill an intruder if it can be proven he knew it would be his property once it cleared probate?
How much time must elapse once he enters and its his property in his mind until he can justifiably kill the intruder?
Should he just shoot first and let the jury decide his fate rather than someone who broke into his dead father's home? I think thats how I would do it.
Owning is not the issue. Residing in it would give him certain protective justifications.
I can't stroll into a house I don't live in and just start blastin', even if it's an intruder stealing Dad's old liquor bottles. Human life >> property, every time.
Title vests at death, but 10:46 PM is right. Ownership is not the issue, occupancy is. Castle doctrine applies to renters the same as home owners. In fact, I wonder what would happen if a squatter killed an intruder and attempted to invoke the castle doctrine. Thoughts?
5:08 PM–There is no reasonable likelihood of a conviction of the son. The son had the key to the father's home and a presumptive heir with or without a will. You left out NRS 41.095 which adds additional protection and immunity from civil liability. A occupant/passenger in a car has the same standing as the driver or owner. A relative to the owner has the same right of self defense as the owner. Case closed. Obviously you have not handled any criminal cases and are bringing California rules to Nevada. Just hide in your closet and don't shoot any burglars or home invaders.
Another point of interest, what do we know about the altercation? Was there a need for self-defense?
8:49 a.m.–I am not 5:08 but 5:08 led off with NRS 41.095 "This was not the son's residence [NRS 41.095 deals with] "Presumption that person using deadly force against intruder in person’s residence, transient lodging or motor vehicle has reasonable fear of death or bodily injury"). The son lives somewhere else and went to the dad's former home to stop a property crime. [NRS 41.095] is not applicable."
"A relative to the owner has the same right of self defense as the owner. Case closed." Mmmmm not according to either one of the statutes that you cited. Both require the son to have been residing in Dad's house.
Secondarily there is no evidence of "self-defense" that has been presented. Appears that the son went to Dad's house to stop a property crime and hunted down the burglar.
9:43 AM–The son of the deceased owner has a right to be in the house. The burglar or home invader does not. Duh. What am I missing? Even if the son is a visitor he has a legal right to be in the home not the same with a felon burglar or home invader. End of story. Obviously HPD made the right call. Charges are not being submitted to the DA and the case is cleared or was cleared. The DA defers to these calls by law enforcement. Even if the case was submitted to the DA for prosecution, they would not prosecute. No jury would ever convict. No civil case would ever succeed by a burglar plaintiff. This case is distinguishable from someone drunk or disabled who ends up in someone's house, garage or yard. Even then there would be no prosecution for the trespasser. Go back to Cali or NY where they prosecute the use of deadly force to defend one's right to safety. Better yet move to San Francisco, Portland or Seattle where they don't respect private property rights.
10:00 a.m. What you are missing that there are laws that allow one to protect themselves from acts of violence in one's own home that do not apply in other locations. I cannot shoot a burglar in my office. I cannot shoot a burglar in your home if you ask me to keep an eye on your house while you are on vacation. The son was within his rights in checking on his deceased father's home; the son was not within in his rights going into the home and blasting the burglar to death to protect some furniture.
@10:00am – am I missing something in the "castle doctrine" statute? Doesn't it require the property to be one's "residence" not simply one's property?
Time to boil this down for the gun culture warriors in the back.
Invasion of your residence = presumption that injury is likely = self-defense is warranted.
Invasion of not-your-residence, but something similar like a car you are living in, a tent, etc. = presumption that injury is likely = self-defense is warranted.
Invasion of empty property, warehouse, office building, etc. = no presumption that self-defense is warranted, but self defense may be warranted if there is an actual attack against a person.
Son goes to empty house and is surprised by invader = no presumption of injury to Son. If Invader attacks son, self-defense may be warranted.
Son goes to empty house and surprises an invader = no presumption of injury to Son. If Invader doesn't attack, but Son shoots anyway? Yeah, that's murder. However, survivors provide the narrative.
10:27– You have stated it succinctly and accurately.
But left off when son is surprised by invader and has a reasonable fear that the invader poses a threat of serious injury/death. That's why everybody here is talking out of their asses. Nobody knows nearly enough details.
Says the gun culture warrior without any facts. Here is what we know from all of the news reports: son went to the home at 2 am armed and initiated contact due to suspicions of a property crime in progress. Son went there looking for an invader. If the invader was armed, then you are correct that it is a different case. However all of the facts as reported make it appear that the son went hunting for the burglar with a gun.
10:48. I don't even own A gun, let alone many guns which would necessitate an entire rack.
Meant "10:48 here."
Obviously the posters here who argue that the son needs to be prosecuted lack the experience and knowledge of the system. There are several legal doctrines at play here–stand your ground, no duty to retreat, self defense, and modified Castle doctrine. This is what is known as a "perfect case of self defense". First question does the victim have a right to be where he was. Yes, the victim is the owner's son and went to check on a house that he has a right to. Second question, is the victim entitled to stand his ground. Unquestionably yes. Third question was the victim in fear for his life. Yes, by operation of law fear is presumed with the presence of a burglar or home invader. Fourth question, is this a justifiable homicide. The answer is yes. The HPD analyzed the case and so concluded. It seems like those who don't own guns and see no need for guns just don't understand the law and how it works. They don't like it and look at parts of the law to support their position but don't have the whole picture. A visitor has the same rights as an owner. The status of who owns what is irrelevant. The deceased perpetrator had absolutely no right to be inside the house. End of story done.
11:52 Conversely the posters here who continue to argue ad nauseam for "Castle Doctrine" (when the statute clearly requires it to be the shooter's residence which this was not), for "self-defense" (when there is not a single fact reported that the burglar had a weapon or initiated any form of act "for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein" for which there is no evidence adduced to date) or for "stand your ground" (which requires one not to be the original aggressor when we know the son went to the home in hopes of interdicting the burglary) lack any experience reading the very laws that they flout. If there is a self-defense justification that the son did not initiate the aggression with the burglar but was under attack from the burglar, was facing major bodily harm or death and a reasonable person in the non-aggressor’s shoes would also fear for their life and safety, then those facts should come forward. But the only facts reported to date do not fit any of the theories above.
There is one other red herring that keeps getting bandied about without any evidence: "First question does the victim have a right to be where he was. Yes, the victim is the owner's son and went to check on a house that he has a right to." Says who? Who said that the son had a right to be in the house? Is he appointed as personal representative of the Estate? Is he a joint tenant on the title to the Subject Property? Is he an heir who has been awarded access to the Subject Property? There is literally not a single fact in any of these stories that states that the son had a legal right to be in that residence with a gun for purposes of using force to interrupt a property crime. None. Lots of offspring have no right to enter property owned by the estate of their parents.
Your supposition regarding responsible gun ownership is off. I own a gun and have a CCW. As noted above, it is not a license to hunt burglars. If there is a property crime in progress and I am not in my own home where I need to protect my family, I call the police because that is what the express language of the statutes (as opposed to some Rambo assumptions regarding the law) require.
Calling people who are pointing out holes in your legal conclusions Rambo or gun culture warriors does not make you more persuasive.
1:26: Neither does the argument that people who actually read the statutes " lack the experience and knowledge of the system. . . . [and that] those who don't own guns and see no need for guns just don't understand the law and how it works." There are plenty of us gun owners who also know how to read the statutes, know responsible gun ownership is not taking the law into our own hand and know that you do not get to blast a thief in someone else's house. Advocacy for liberally shooting property criminals on other peoples' property (absent imminent threat of mortal harm) cannot be characterized as anything other than Rambo gone wrong.
^^^Said no gun owner ever. I do not believe for a second that you are in any fashion, Pro-2A.
This is where gun owners get a bad name and it imperils legal, logical and proper gun ownership. "Pro 2A" has come to mean not only unrestricted rights to own any guns for any reason by any person but (as this situation shows) the unrestricted USE of guns in any situation for any reason by any person. Meter reader is on your property? Blast them. Some on cut across your dad's lawn without permission? Blast them.
No I am a responsible gun owner who believes following the law and doing everything in my power to not have to discharge a firearm at a human being. The second amendment protects my right to have a gun; it does not give carte blanche to use a gun on other people.
Well, thanks professor.
But I still do not believe that you are a gun owner. Just a sanctimonious, judgmental troll who truly detests freedom and the Constitution and pretends to walk the reasonable line on these issues.
"Advocacy for liberally shooting property criminals on other peoples' property (absent imminent threat of mortal harm)." Literally nobody has advocated for that. That's what you're missing.
People saying the guy might have been justified in shooting if there are facts to support a reasonable fear that the invader poses a threat of serious injury/death is not advocating for liberally shooting people without justification.
Exactly my point. Thank you.
9:34– Which part of the Constitution/Bill of Rights discusses freedom to shoot people who are stealing property in your dead father's house? No one is discussing the son's right to keep and bear arms; we are discussing the fact that there is no constitutional, statutory or common law right to shoot a thief in someone else's home. The "freedom" you are espousing is literally the freedom to kill another human who is caught stealing someone else's property. I will not get down into the mud with you to discuss your lack of reading comprehension regarding either the Constitution or Nevada Revised Statutes.
9:44– I appreciate your more reasonable response. However that is exactly what (others I presume) have advocated for above which is that this is a justifiable shooting based upon what we know. Because the only facts that we have from the news reports are that (1) son goes to dad's home at 2 am to check on property; (2) son finds burglar in guest bedroom of home; (3) son shoots burglar in guest bedroom and (4) burglar dies in dining room of home.
So I agree with you that if there are facts that meet the definition of self-defense that are not being reported, I have kept an open mind to that possibility. Will you at least keep an open mind enough that no such facts have yet been disclosed that meet (a) self-defense under NRS 200.200; (b) stand your ground under NRS 200.120; or (c) Castle Doctrine in this case?
Thanks professor.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said NONE of those things and only a complete psycho would.
Regarding the Ruggs case, the Review Journal article said: “Chesnoff said during Monday’s hearing that Chief Justice of the Peace Cynthia Cruz had refused to meet with them to negotiate which judge will oversee the case."
Since when do attorneys get to meet with the Chief Judge to negotiate case assignments? Is this a special privilege granted to certain highly influential attorneys?
Apparently not given that the Chief refused to do so.
Complete gamesmanship by Chesnoff but its keeping their client at liberty in an utterly ugly case.
All of this for a Preliminary Hearing in a murder case…. The odds of Ruggs not being bound over for trial are highly unlikely given the low threshold for probable cause.
Agree with 1:46.
Assignments, or re-assignments, of judicial departments is, and should remain, a random computer-generated matter. Only way that it could be justified in meeting with the Chief Judge is if a situation got so bad that all the judges in the given court recused, and the Chief was struggling with whether to bring in a Senior Judge, or a judge from elsewhere in Nevada, etc.
I suppose a really unique situation like that would somewhat justify keeping the attorneys in the loop as to the predicament the Chief is dealing with.
But that is not what is occurring here. Cruz is very smart to avoid this like the plague. An attorney may publicly complain of her refusal to meet(and apparently has already done so), but that is nothing compared to the fall out that would occur if she met with the attorneys. Meeting with the attorneys sends a message that an attorney who is so disposed can try to influence the Chief as to what judge to re-assign the case to.
Likewise with the Letizia situation, the less she does the better, and she also seems to be handling this situation as adroitly as Cruz. As to this issue of trying to suck her into the vortex about why Bonaventure ruled the ways he did, whether he had the authority to rule as he did, whether he should have recused, whether he provided sufficient findings on his recusal or whatever, she is wise when she refuses. If the attorneys can convince Bonaventure to further clarify these matters(unlikley as he is no longer on the case) they can take it directly to him. Good luck.
It appears that Cruz and Letizia refuse to take the bait, and no good would come of it if they did. They wisely are vigilant about avoiding building error into the record.
Generally agree with much of what 4:50 says, but problem is(as is usually the case when we rely on brief news reports of complex legal maneuverings) is that we are not really receiving much of the important info. we need to make a truly informed assessment of the situation..
4:50-It's not really that they want Bonaventure to further explain any rulings, or to provide further info. as to why he recused. They simply want the case returned to him.
But you are right that Cruz and Letizia are wise to tread lightly, which they have.