- Quickdraw McLaw
- 43 Comments
- 673 Views
District Court Department 22 also features a sitting judge and two challengers. The candidates are: Bruce L. Gale; Jacob Hafter; and, Judge Susan Johnson.
Will the construction defect practitioners be dealing with two new construction defect judges next year or will Judge Johnson be able to keep her place on the bench. Who is more likely to give her a run for her money in the fall election? Did you consider contributing to Hafter for a chance to win tickets to the Book of Mormon? (See his website by clicking his name above.) Is repeatedly running for judge until you get elected going to pay off for Bruce Gale? (Does he have a website?) Any reason people should not be considering one of these candidates?
Who should the people vote for in District Court Department 22?
I would love to be proven wrong, but I feel like this race might be a case of better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
Hafter gave away tickets to 'Book of Mormon' as a fundraiser for his campaign? In a city that's at least 10% LDS and a bar that is probably 1/4? Just lulz. I am LDS and I enjoy the play, but I know a lot of people who are really offended by it, and I can understand why. What was Hafter thinking?
Judge Johnson has a better grasp of procedural and local rules than most judges. For that reason alone, I would prefer to keep her.
Not that I care someone's religion, but how do you know bar is 25% LDS?
12:14,
8:39 here. In a word? Mo-Dar.
Are you kidding me? Hands down – keep Judge Johnson. Gale is just "out there," and Hafter is the worst possible judicial option that I can think of (aside from maybe Ben Childs).
I would prefer to not have a Judge – Hafter – that has already been found guilty by the Supreme Court of making false statements (i.e. lying) (see case 57298) and who has forced the State Bar to spend countless hours and dollars to defend multiple lawsuits by Hafter because he refuses to pay the costs/fees he agreed to pay as part of his public hearing that he requested and lost.
I completely agree. I have had Judge Johnson on a few cases and compared to the alternatives, this one is a no brainer to retain as the commenter above aptly stated as the "devil you know".
I think it is more apt to say better the devil you know who as the job than the devils you know are whack jobs.
There's a difference between lying and first amendment rights. Apparently you don't know how to read a case. I hope you don't practice law, but if you do, you may want to be upfront with your clients, that you're an idiot. At least they will know what they're in for. As for the State Bar, they've got more than enough resources to handle a few lawsuits. You make it sound like there's just 10 people at the State Bar and they have a back log of 1000 cases and that darn Hafter guy just keeps inundating them with more work. Pretty inaccurate if you ask me. Talk about making false statements. Maybe you should post your bar # so I can report you to the Bar.
I read the case and it is clear cut to me. Plus, I've dealt with the Board on many occasions on behalf of clients. The Board does control and operate their own hearings. They can manipulate the hearings to allow only the evidence that they want presented included in the hearing. In fact, that is what happened to Mr. Hafter, from what I can tell. The Board would not allow his numerous witnesses to provide their testimony on the issues at hand. The Board manipulates the cases just like Johnson manipulates her cases for her attorney friends that appear before her. The whole system is corrupt. I'm voting for Hafter because if you go with the devil you know, you're getting the devil. If you go with someone you don't know as well, you just may be surprised to find you got an Angel.
Ha ha. @ 10:05 is so obviously Jacob Hafter. It is funny that you don't think we can read a case, but yet the Supreme Court of Nevada did not agree with you, and what – the United States Supreme Court did not agree with you either (cert. denied biotch). Move on and get a life.
Hafter, it is self-serving, pious comments like yours above that make people not like you. As aptly stated below, "Johnson is a slam dunk! Hafter's own mother along with his neighbors are backing Johnson."
I find it funny how "Anonymous" at 10:22 and at 11:14 both think that "Anonymous" at 10:05 is Hafter, when it says "Anonymous". It's easy to hide behind the word "Anonymous" and then try to assume the identities of others and talk crap. How about unmasking yourself for this forum and then say things. I doubt you would though. You remind me of every bully in the world. All talk.
I don't think it's Hafter. I do agree with Anonymous at 1:04 p.m. Why don't you all publish your comments with who you really are.
What a weird discussion. Anonymous at 1:04 challenges everyone to come out from anonymity and reveal him/herself, but yet 1:04 still posts as "anonymous." Why not lead by example 1:04, like Susan did? Why chastise people for doing what you yourself do?
Susan, I think people don't reveal themselves because they still have to appear in front of you, Hafter, or whoever else gets elected. They do not want to have a comment, whether intentionally misguided or not, held against them by a person who may one day sit as a judge of that person and/or his/her clients. That's just my opinion though.
Anonymous at 1:28 – I don't have a profile from Google, WordPress, Aim, LiveJournal, Open ID, Name/URL (i.e. your website) to link to this. That's why I had to post as anonymous. It seems like most people in here are attorneys, so they should have a profile page at their firm but, as my daughter says all the time, Whatever!
That's a chicken shit response! You wanted everyone to know your name – just say your name. You don't have to have some lame profile to give everyone your name.
BTW, I don't care what your name is. I just think it was stupid of you to chastise everyone for posting anonymously when you do it too.
Anonymous 2:24 p.m. My name is Jessie Heisenberg. What's your name since you're being so high and mighty.
And, the new Troy Fox is … Jessie Heisenberg!
Hmmm, since I don't know who Troy Fox is, I'm not really insulted.
It drives me nuts how often she is not only wrong, but preaches to the attorneys in the most condescending way while being so wrong. Nonetheless, compared to the freakshow running against her, I guess retain.
This. Not just condescending, but outright rude.
Ouch. She has the worse error rate on my website (www.ournevadajudges.com) of all judges in the state of Nevada (excluding judges with less than 100 cases). But yeah, her challengers are pretty crappy.
She has great aspirations. She won't be around long if the Intermediate Appellate Court is created.
If by "rude" you mean that she isn't afraid to make a decision, then I'm fine with that. She is a very good judge.
I would guess her error rate likely has to do with the fact that she is willing to grant dispositive motions more so than other judges.
Also, Hafter would make Jessie Walsh look like Judge Learned Hand.
This is the problem with using reversals as an indicator of the quality of a judge. I just don't think it has any relevance.
"Also, Hafter would make Jessie Walsh look like Judge Learned Hand."
Yup.
Count another vote for Johnson. Hafter can't be trusted with anything, let alone the bench.
I guess nothing should surprise me any more, but why in the world did Johnson even draw a challenger? She is smart, she works hard, and she is decisive. We need more on the bench just like her.
Because she isn't equipped with a Staff of Justice? I like her, I think she should be retained, but that's the only reason I can think of why she drew 2 challengers when other, more vulnerable seats didn't draw any.
Agreed, she is pretty smart and she is decisive. She drew challengers because she is condescending to attorneys who appear before her. That's it in a nutshell. Nobody likes to be embarrassed in front of their clients, particularly when the attorney didn't screw something up. She missed the judicial temperment class at judge's school.
Johnson is a slam dunk! Hafter's own mother along with his neighbors are backing Johnson.
I just want those BOM tickets.
What are the other candidates offering for a vote?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh, I totally agree with you. It's actually a fact that if a women runs in las vegas, she automatically has a 5 point lead. For some reason, Las Vegans are more likely to vote for a chick than a dude.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
We hate to censor, but those types of comments provide absolutely no value to this discussion.
If you hate to censor, why do it? I'm all against censoring. We have enough censoring in this country as it is. Don't get me started on political correctness.
Because it's Law Dawg's house. Do you let people poop in your living room? No.
Probably because Law Dawg wants only views that skew towards his biases to be reflected on this forum.
I saw those comments before they were taken down and they were slanderous at best and added zero value to the conversation
Differences of opinion are one thing (I've never seen those comments taken down, and hell, its what the judicial primer series of posts asked for). Juicy gossip is another (generally welcomed). But those comments were the textbook definition of defamation, without any kind of hint of supporting evidence. Even if true, they added zero value to the discussion. Again – this is Law Dawg's house. He/She is a fairly laid-back host. But shitting in the parlor should not be something he/she is required to accept with equanimity.