- Quickdraw McLaw
- 61 Comments
- 476 Views
- The Bundy trial is on hold. [RJ]
- AG Adam Laxalt has concerns about City of Reno doing its own suit against opioid manufacturers. [TNI]
- Clark County Commissioners decided to appeal a ruling that autopsy records are public records. [RJ]
- The fight over recall efforts against three state senators is headed to federal court. [TNI]
- Do not disturb policies on the Strip are changing. [Fox5Vegas]
So Laxalt is getting mad that he isn't getting credit for something.. how shocking
Adam "Carpetbagger and Koch Whore" Laxalt.
Governor Trump, I mean Laxalt.
Gubernator Trump, aka Laxalt, is hot.
The opioid law suit, and everything else pursued against the manufacturers, is stupid. I do understand that some cases cast such a broad net that manufactures are sometimes ruled liable as well, in addition to the health care providers and others. But that usually applies to faulty medical devices or packets of liquid medication that can lead to contamination if the remainder is not disposed of and then used on other patients, or similar situations.
But pursuing opioid manufactures makes even less sense than pursuing gun manufacturers when someone sicko shoots random people.
Narcotic based painkillers, when manufactured in a lab with proper quality control conditions(which is usually the case) provide an absolutely critical medical function for many millions of people.
So, forget that assanine useless grandstanding law suits which will do nothing to curb the problem. All that would accomplish, if successful, is that the medical manufactures will no longer produce the tablets for fear of liability, and they then will be produced illegally with no quality control, resulting in far more deaths.
So, if someone wants to have a valid dialogue about being harsher on people who obtain and use such tablets simply for the euphoric effect, or pursue physicians who prescribe irresponsibly(or, even dishonestly in some cases, with a clear profit motive) that is a very worthy, and even necessary, dialogue.
But the law suit is stupid beyond stupid. Not only should the AG express concerns, and not support the suit, because it is useless grandstanding which will accomplish nothing except a ludicrous drain of time and valuable resources, but his office should propose something aggressive that puts the focus where is always should be–users and prescribing physicians.
Just because a problem is growing, doesn't mean we can solve it by blaming different people who are ultimately not responsible for it, such as the manufacturers of critical, valuable medication. Instead, there should be more aggressive focus on the obvious causes the problems–mainly recreational users, and a handful of physicians who prescribe irresponsibly, and in some cases, for profit.
You mean Alt-Right Adam?
Some(Most) weeks, the appellate courts will issue no opinions.
Still early. Forthcoming Opinions generally not posted until around 12:30 pm.
Looks like 1 is coming out tomorrow. Criminal case.
Interesting. This case was submitted without oral argument. A Petition for Rehearing was filed and denied. Then an order was entered granting en banc reconsideration and submitting the case on the original briefs.
Geez are they schizophrenic (slow but schizophrenic) up there.
And the lone Forthcoming Opinion is now down and apparently not forthcoming. Nothing if not consistently inconsistent.
Correction: It was taken down but had not yet been put up as an Advance Opinion but it is out now.
Ugh. Stop trying to circumvent the recall effort. Yes, it's crappy and politically motivated. Yes, it's shady as all hell. But it's still legal. Nevada voters have repeatedly rejected removing the recall option from the state's constitution.
Is there any way to make the petitioners pay for the special election? I generally agree with you on your points, but it seems especially wrong for the government (our taxes) to have to pay for this political BS.
The voters have very few ways to exercise their power to supervise and control their employees (the elected officials). The process of initiating a recall is already very difficult (have to get a large number of signatures of voters that actually voted in the last election for that official in a very short period of time). I don't believe that there should be any further chilling efforts to allowing the employer (the voters) from conducting an interim performance review of their employee (the elected official). The more you remove the employer from having effective control over their employee, the greater a sense of entitlement and superiority the employee begins to feel and exhibit.
Keep the officeholders responsive and answerable to their voters rather than reversing the power and having the office holders in charge of their voters.
10:50,
In a Republic, voters don't "supervise" employees. This isn't a pure democracy and frankly, I'm glad it isn't. The problem with these recall efforts is that they are fueled by the most passionate partisans, people, who generally are so blinded by their emotions that they lack basic critical thinking skills. They are nutjobs and I certainly don't want our elected officials beholden to what is essentially tyranny of the nutty minority.
@ 10:50 – 10:07 here. You are absolutely correct-they are usually hyper partisan and are used to harass and remove elected politicians from the other party. But the voters have been asked to remove the recall provisions several times and have refused to each time. The recall option stands, and nothing should stop it other than failing to comply with the recall provisions.
We follow the constitution as it is written, not how we wish it was written.
What's particularly obscene, yet under-noticed, about this process is, given the sorry state of Nevada campaign finance reporting and disclosure law, the identity of the groups that are spending money on this will never be disclosed unless a recall election actually happens. Thus there's little way to tell whether this is being funded by Nevada voters from the district who are truly upset with their elected senator or out-of-state financiers who are trying to buy a different election result.
I have a big time problem with the current Lieutenant Governor, Mark Hutchinson being behind this effort. Michael Roberson is also behind this effort as well. These Dems were elected by the people of Nevada. These are elected officials. This is improper.
It's not improper. It may leave a bad taste in your mouth, but recall elections typically do. If you disagree with the right of the people to recall their representatives, work to repeal that law or increase the number of signatures required before a recall election can take place.
Am I reading it wrong, or is the theory of the case that although most people don't bother to vote in off-year elections (especially recalls), racial minorities ignore those elections at an even higher rate and are therefore having their right to vote in a normal election year impaired? Does this case really rely on the theory that voters are lazy on average but racial minorities are even lazier than average? Holy living crap!
It is improper. I think it is a conflict of interest, but thanks, Hutchinson.
There is nothing to see here. Two state elected officials are trying to undo your votes for eleven elected officials. Hutchinson and Roberson, using Hutchinson and Steffen law firm.
I am at least glad to see Hutchinson is not running again. Make sure Roberson does not get elected. You guys are making Laxalt look good right about now.
What exactly is improper? Two politically elected officials are using the political process to explore legal options. They have complied with the law. They are a citizen legislator with a day job and the holder of a non-full time executive branch office who also has a day job. What interest do you feel is conflicted? You are welcome to start a recall petition against each of them if you wish.
12;21, if you see you don't see something wrong with Roberson and Hutchinson, taking an oath as elected officials of the State of Nevada, trying to undo eleven separate elections in this State, then I cannot help you.
12:51, that's ridiculous. That's the same as claiming that legislators aren't obeying their oath to defend the Constitution of Nevada if they follow the procedures for attempting to amend the Constitution of Nevada. The procedures are there. It's not illegal or unethical to follow the law.
12:51– Your argument is beyond specious. Where in the oath of office (for either office) does it say that a legislator or executive is required to support and not challenge any other elected official in the State of Nevada?
Here, I will help you.
NRS 282.020  Form of official oath.  Members of the Legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ……………………., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the Constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ……………., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.
Not that it matters, given the arguments above, but the recall efforts only target 3 legislators, not eleven.
News outlets are reporting it as eleven.
1:07, your cite supports 12:51's argument.
Can you gents hold my poker hand while I go take a dump?
Thanks!
3:25– Nothing in there states that legislators and executives will not pursue rights that are granted under the Nevada Constitution and Nevada law. Recall rights are both. If you do not like the fact that Nevada law provides for these rights, change the law. While they are part of the law, there is nothing contrary to political office in acting upon those rights.
3:25 is right.
3:25 is dead wrong and has no argument.
Okay, keep telling yourself that.
Strong argument there 9:20. Well-reasoned. Good legal analysis. Keep up the good work.
I agree with 4:08. I am troubled by what Roberson is doing, trying to undo multiple elections. All Dems, aren't they?
Troubled why? Because it is prohibited under Nevada law? Because it conflicts with the scope of his office? Because he is going after legislators who share your political preference? I think it is a terrible waste of money and government resources. But our state allows people to conduct recall elections. Whether it is smart or necessary is a different question than whether it is permissible and allowed.
Government funds should not be used for these recalls.
Hey, Bogs, since you want to discipline all attorneys, how about getting IOLTAs to the members that don't charge a monthly fee. Jesus, some places want to charge $12-$15 a month for IOLTA.
Or, if they want to do audits, they should be paid for from the IOLTA funds. I already don't get compensated for auditing and ensuring that it is correct and have to pay a monthly fee to the bank to have it, I shouldn't have to pay for an audit as well, which will only be used to justify more staff.
Bingo, all OBC cares about is about disciplining all lawyers, and hiring more staff for the State Bar.
As I understand it, there will be NO CHARGE to the audited attorneys for trust account audits
This random audit thing is the worst idea. I won't rehash all that others have said, but it is intrusive, expensive, will probably not catch the major crooks, but will subject a lot of people to potential discipline over picayune issues and/or human errors. I have no problem going after anyone who is dishonest, btw.
In this day and age of computerization and accounting software, there shouldn't be "minor" human errors. The computer program does all the math. All the human does is enter the information for issuing the check (name to be paid and amount) and hit print… Check is cut and amount deducted from balance. When reconciling, you tell the program the ending balance as reflected by the bank, any fees charged by the bank and the checks that have cleared… It does the accounting and checks that the register balance matches the banks balance. It's not rocket science here!
So true, Hunterton does want to to discipline all attorneys. He should discipline the judges who are assholes.
He should discipline the members of his own staff who violate the RPCs.
He should be fired.
Hardesty should be fired for being behind Hunterton getting selected.
Bring back Stephanie Barker. She was fun!
Stan is a Hardesty-creation. They both are proud of the mess that they have collectively made.
Please elaborate, 1:04
I am not 1:04 but was involved in the SBN through various panels and committees when change was made. It was well known that NSC was dissatisfied with the OBC under David Clark. The chief spearhead of the demand for change was Hardesty. Brian Kunzi was announced as being elevated from Deputy Bar Counsel to Bar Counsel. Then Kunzi was told that Stan was coming in and he would no longer be Bar Counsel because Stan was taking over. Now Kunzi heads up Admissions. If you have heard either one of them talk about lawyer discipline, both Hunterton and Hardesty have discussed proudly how draconian discipline matters are becoming.
Ethics question: can former counsel contact former client represented by new counsel directly when new counsel is objecting to former counsel's attorney's fees?
I'd argue they are effectively contacting a represented party.
I agree. Thin ice ethically.
Sure, they are represented, but are you contacting them about the subject of their representation? I don't think so.
Depends on the nature of the contact. Can you continue to send them bills? Yes. However if new counsel has indicated that it is handling a fee dispute, or litigating a retaining or charging lien issue, then any substantive discussions should proceed through counsel.
9:10– I disagree if "new counsel is objecting to former counsel's attorney's fees." That says to me that new counsel's scope of representation includes the dispute over fees.
Hmm… but if the dispute is over fees, doesn't that make former counsel and former client opposing parties? And, as parties, can't they talk to each other whenever they want?
Call the Ethics hotline and they will give you a straight answer. Sarcasm here yes.
They will give you an answer, then they will deny that they gave you that answer, then they will ask you to put your hands behind your back….