Two lawsuits are targeting CCSD’s student mask mandate. [RJ]
Lawyers for the family of Tony Hsieh (including Dara Goldsmith) paint a dark picture of his final years. [RJ; 8NewsNow]
Nevada regulators give would-be dispensaries additional time to wait out local moratoriums. [Nevada Current]
Somehow the story that Reno is cracking down on whips in public just now popped up on our radar. [Reason]
In the Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Wisconsin, prosecutors cannot call the people he shot “victims,” but the defense may be able to call those same people “arsonists” or “looters.” Thoughts? What do local judges do? [KNPR]
I don't do criminal work, but I don't think I have ever seen a trial where the victim of a crime could not be referred to as a victim regardless of their actions when the crime occurred. Seems like they are just teeing it up for an appeal after.
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2021 6:07 pm
Couple thoughts on the Rittenhouse:
– Defendant is entitled to a fair trial. Not the state.
– Regarding the "victim", until there's a "guilty" verdict rendered, we dont know if anyone has been murdered. Calling them a "victim" gives a nod as to what the final answer should be before we've even had the trial. Calling the deceased "a rioter" or "looter" doesn't infringe on the alleged victims rights, because their freedom doesn't turn on the outcome of the proceedings.
The term "victim" includes far more than the crime of murder, or even a criminal act at all. It would seem to include premature death from any cause other than natural causes. In the context of this incident, I haven't heard of any allegations that the deaths were natural causes, unless you are going to argue blood loss and/or lead poisoning are natural causes. If the judge wanted to preclude calling their death being a victim of crime that would be appropriate but they would still be a victim nonetheless.
The only "victim" was Rittenhouse. The prosecution has planted a wide array of fake stories with a sympathetic media in attempt to poison the jury pool against this poor kid who did nothing wrong.
I am a civil trial attorney but from what I have seen so far, the judge is trying mightily to give the kid a fair trial. The prosecutors not so much. But my criminal defense colleagues tell me that all prosecutors do that all the time, so no surprise.
Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a firearm to shoot people that he viewed as deserving of murder. The people who died at his hands are victims.
Is he legally guilty of murder? Not yet. But are those people he killed still victims? Absolutely.
Try to imagine your reaction if a black man from Chicago went to Washington D.C. on January 6th to shoot the white people trying to overthrow the government. You would absolutely be calling the insurrectionists "victims" in that circumstance.
1:41, you think he brought his gun specifically to kill people? Who are the people you say Rittenhouse thought deserved to die? Was it rioters, in general? Or are you making a racial argument?
I understand the "victim" part of the ruling. They are decedents. They are the wounded. But "victim" can be worked around as the ultimate issue for the jury.
However "arsonists" or "looters" are inappropriate. There is no evidence any of the people committed arson or looted, were shot for committing arson or looting or that even if shown that the 3 individuals had engaged in arson or looting that such acts would be relevant to Rittenhouse's decision to shoot them. I was slightly heartened that the article actually states that the trial judge left those terms open if foundation is laid for use of such terms (however I cannot imagine how sufficient foundation could be laid).
Not that this is going to change the outcome, however, even the prosecutors stated that he did not have the gun with him when he crossed state lines. It was stored at his friend's house in the state where the crime for which he was accused of was committed.
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2021 6:26 pm
Rittenhouse: Agree with 11:07. It's a trial to determine whether a victim exists, or simply a dead body. Also, the defense can't call the deceased rioters or looters until closing arguments, and then only if evidence has been introduced to make that inference.
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2021 6:27 pm
The case is in Kenosha. The legal rulings are consistent with the political climate in Kenosha. Judges are not free of the jurisdictions in which they preside.
So because the judge is a redneck jackass, the victims (you know…the people who are now dead) get to be called looters and rioters, but that squishy little prick gets encouraged by the cops and sent home to mommy? What an indictment of our judicial system.
Spot on 12:32. The disgusting arrogance and ignorance of the American left. Kenosha is hardly redneck. 11:27 sounds like the only uneducated redneck here.
My family lives an hour from Kenosha. Can confirm they are rednecks. A simple review of the google images for Rittenhouse confirms that he is indeed a "squishy little prick". I stand by my comments. Y'all can suck it you whiney little snowflakes.
And the "peaceful" protesters there were trying to squish the little prick's neck right before he started shooting.
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2021 6:34 pm
I'm not necessarily opposed to judges doing what they can to level the playing field, but I don't think the logic really makes sense. "Victim" doesn't have to mean the victim of a crime. They could have been victims of a tragic accident. Or victims of fate. Or whatever. As far as I know, there is no dispute that these people were shot, so they were surely victims of something. Forcing the prosecutor to say "people who were shot" instead of "victim" isn't going to accomplish much.
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2021 7:29 pm
It makes perfect sense in the context of a criminal trial where you know damn well the "victim" means the "victim of a crime."
I believe 12:29 was responding to 11:34, who was trying to suggest that "victim" could mean all sorts of things that didn't automatically assume a perpetrator and his guilt. 11:34, of course, is being absurd, and it seems that 12:29 is of your same mind.
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2021 7:32 pm
This discussion reminds me of something which is admittedly off topic but still is connected to the issue of judicial demeanor and attitude which can create the appearance of favoring one side–which of course judges should endeavor to avoid until the final a evidence is submitted to the trier of fact(whether than be a jury or the judges if a bench trial).
Someone had posted the other day of a Family Court Judge who they believe openly played favorites, blatantly takes sides, and then verbally berates the non-favored side.
If that's an accurate assessment, it is obvious such approach should be avoided. And in Family Court emotions run particularly high, so that approach just makes litigants even more stressed and even more concerned about the level of integrity within the system.
With that being understood, I think on certain occasions, concerning certain specific issues, it's not necessarily always a bad thing if a Judge lets parties know, in no uncertain terms, when to drop and not pursue certain litigation approaches and theories.
I recall the late Judge Jack Lehman, who was one of the best we ever had.
That said, he could be real non-nonsense and quite demonstrative about his viewpoints at times. Occasionally, on motion calendar, he would make it real clear he was clearly in the camp of the one party as to some pre-trial legal or procedural point. And when this happened, and he was on your side, it was best to get out of his way and simply let him argue your side of it. And then when the other party kept trying to defend a position the judge found as untenable, that would raise his ire even more.
Now, that does not seem like an optimum approach, until I recall how things sometimes proceeded in other departments wherein one side just kept pursuing the same invalid issues over and over again via pre-trial proceedings. The judge would calmly rule against them on such particular issue, but they would then keep bringing the issue back up via subsequent motions and proceedings, arguing that the matter was not fully disposed of and the issue is now a little different than earlier presented, etc., etc.
But this approach rarely occurred before Judge Lehman. When he made it clear a theory or approach was not supportable, and he does not expect to see it back before him, he seldom would see the issue again as attorneys know he meant business.
So, I submit the question, for your approval, as to whether it is always a bad thing if a judge loses their cool and clearly appears to be favoring one side over another? I believe that if the matter is issue specific, and the judge does not create the appearance the at he/she favors one side over the other as to the entire case, that the approach is not always necessarily problematic.
I think there are very few instances in which a judge losing their cool is acceptable. Notice I did say very few…not never. Obviously there are times when it is justified and warranted and can actually help a case.
That said, there are ways to properly convey to attorneys and litigants without appearing biased or ill tempered. For example, in family court I'd say Duckworth is one of the best at cluing attorneys in on where the case is going. He doesn't make sweeping absolute statements and you're always free to put on your case and if you can change his mind with evidence, so be it. On the other hand, judges like Forsberg and a few others in family court come shot out of a cannon, making inappropriate comments and emboldening one party or the other very early on in the case. I've actually had a judge do that to me and then, just weeks later (after they actually read the papers and saw the exhibits) they did a complete 180. It's disconcerting to clients to see judges act so erratic.
Yesterday, Judge Forsberg had an intense hearing with a litigant. The litigant's drug test was positive for barbituates, cocaine, heroine, methamphetamine, marijuana and a couple other drugs. The litigant's response was I thought the drugs would be out of my system before the drug test. Judge Forsberg, raised her voice and stated that the litigant was lucky to be alive considering the plethora of drugs and the amount of drugs that were detected in the drug test. Someone needed to yell at this litigant. Judge Forsberg showed more compassion and concern for this person than this person showed for themselves. I was impressed with the way Judge Forsberg handled this situation. I wish the litigant the best and hope they can get sober for the sake of themselves and their children.
What a nice story. I saw her reduce child support for an admitted drug addict who claimed to be on disability, but also admitted to working off the books. Why hold drug addicts accountable? Let's give them stern talkings to and f* the parents who actually take care of the kids.
10:08–at least he admitted he was on all those drugs.
But why did he assume he could take all those drugs and test clean within days? The answer is presumably because his brain was scrambled with all those drugs in the first place.
If he was on meth., coke, smack, barbituates and smoking weed. I'm amazed he was able to cogently participate in the hearing in the first place.
10:23 here…yes sarcasm. I've just seen too much from that judge to buy some glittery story about how she helped a drug addict recognize the error of their ways. Hearing after hearing, she cuts drug addicts and dead beat parents a break while slamming the parents who have actually cared for and been raising the children. She has a real issue controlling her emotions on the bench and presenting herself as a neutral.
2:09, when deciding to accept cases, or when preparing for an existing case the attorney already has, it can be very important to know who the judge is, their particular predilections, etc.
So, based on what you are saying, when considering prospective clients who have cases already assigned to that department, it sounds like it is prudent to avoid accepting responsible, hard-working parents as clients, but to instead accept as clients criminals and druggies of low moral fiber who victimize others and leech off the system, etc.
Fair enough. But problem is those types of clients usually can't pay the attorney.
Druggies have a way of mooching off family members, especially when there is a grandkid involved
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2021 7:46 pm
12:32-well, although I recognize you heavily qualified the matter, and indicted such approach must be limited to very specific and appropriate situations, it is still an approach that is often problematic.
Good luck trying to explain to a client that although the judge yelled at you and ridiculed your legal position, that as to the case as a whole the judge is totally neutral and not leaning either way.
So, maintaining a proper judicial demeanor, and providing each side reasonable time to argue, is really a must IMO. If an attorney files a motion that is clearly not supportable, a judge should just calmly explain why and then rule against the attorney.
But I guess, as you suggest, if the same damn issue keeps being raised, I can understand taking a much firmer approach. But rather than shouting or harranging an attorney, why not just calmly assess some attorney fees? That has far more of a freezing effect(as to preventing the attorney form continuously revving the issue) than the approach of yelling at them but not hitting them in the pocketbook.
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2021 7:51 pm
Hey,12:32, I can't agree that there are too many instances where judges losing their cool, and essentially arguing the one side's case on motion calendar, is something we can view too favorable. It is not.
Now I do agree that some attorneys keep pursuing the same invalid theories or arguments. And I think 12:46 has the solution for it. The judge should not yell at or vent at the offending party. Instead, assess attorney fees.
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2021 8:00 pm
12:40,why bother taking the time to post that you did not have the time to read something. I didn't read it either, but did skim it.
Probably took me less time to skim it than for you to post that you did not have the time to read it. And now that I think of it, since I now took the additional time to post about neither of us having the time to read the lengthy post, I could have actually read the entire post.
And I now think I will read it as judicial demeanor is a very important issue for me.
So, sometimes time management, and actually performing a task rather than complaining about it, makes more sense. For those who are married, which takes more time? Taking out the trash or arguing with your spouse about whose turn it is to take out the trash?
Yes, for the new world order to succeed, we must all make sacrifices. You are so brave. Look forward to hearing more of your story as we stand in line together to get the fourth booster. Obedience over innovation shall be our new motto.
Economy is good enough that you have the choice right now to take less cases, work less and make less. You have that right at any time. You can take a sabbatical or retire. The strong legal market makes these options viable.
Has anyone used the Traffic Division's new Plea Agreement Form? My understanding is you cannot get an attorney session right now and this form does not have an option for a plea bargain (i.e. plead guilty to illegal parking, pay fine).
are you talking about City or County? I've heard City having that, but not County
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2021 10:09 pm
I have. I was dealing with two tickets in the system. The phone operator made it seem like they were not allowing attorneys to confirm as counsel of record, not doing attorney sessions, etc. I ended up filing out the form and sending in a statement of mitigation asking for illegal parking and a fine. About a week later, I was told both tickets were converted to non-moving violations (0 points) and a fine of 55 and 75.
I don't do criminal work, but I don't think I have ever seen a trial where the victim of a crime could not be referred to as a victim regardless of their actions when the crime occurred. Seems like they are just teeing it up for an appeal after.
Couple thoughts on the Rittenhouse:
– Defendant is entitled to a fair trial. Not the state.
– Regarding the "victim", until there's a "guilty" verdict rendered, we dont know if anyone has been murdered. Calling them a "victim" gives a nod as to what the final answer should be before we've even had the trial. Calling the deceased "a rioter" or "looter" doesn't infringe on the alleged victims rights, because their freedom doesn't turn on the outcome of the proceedings.
The term "victim" includes far more than the crime of murder, or even a criminal act at all. It would seem to include premature death from any cause other than natural causes. In the context of this incident, I haven't heard of any allegations that the deaths were natural causes, unless you are going to argue blood loss and/or lead poisoning are natural causes. If the judge wanted to preclude calling their death being a victim of crime that would be appropriate but they would still be a victim nonetheless.
Counterpoint – you break into my house, armed, and I shoot you. I plead self-defense. You're definitely not a "victim" in that sense.
(That said, I hope he gets convicted and a nice long prison sentence)
The only "victim" was Rittenhouse. The prosecution has planted a wide array of fake stories with a sympathetic media in attempt to poison the jury pool against this poor kid who did nothing wrong.
I am a civil trial attorney but from what I have seen so far, the judge is trying mightily to give the kid a fair trial. The prosecutors not so much. But my criminal defense colleagues tell me that all prosecutors do that all the time, so no surprise.
Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a firearm to shoot people that he viewed as deserving of murder. The people who died at his hands are victims.
Is he legally guilty of murder? Not yet. But are those people he killed still victims? Absolutely.
Try to imagine your reaction if a black man from Chicago went to Washington D.C. on January 6th to shoot the white people trying to overthrow the government. You would absolutely be calling the insurrectionists "victims" in that circumstance.
1:41, you think he brought his gun specifically to kill people? Who are the people you say Rittenhouse thought deserved to die? Was it rioters, in general? Or are you making a racial argument?
I understand the "victim" part of the ruling. They are decedents. They are the wounded. But "victim" can be worked around as the ultimate issue for the jury.
However "arsonists" or "looters" are inappropriate. There is no evidence any of the people committed arson or looted, were shot for committing arson or looting or that even if shown that the 3 individuals had engaged in arson or looting that such acts would be relevant to Rittenhouse's decision to shoot them. I was slightly heartened that the article actually states that the trial judge left those terms open if foundation is laid for use of such terms (however I cannot imagine how sufficient foundation could be laid).
Crazy story:
It was 2015 and a merging of two black holes emitted 3.6 septillion yottawatts of power,
That is 3,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 yottawatts.
This is greater than the combined power of all light radiated by every star in the observable universe.
In one action.
https://twitter.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1453186747710382083
But what's in it for black folks?
5:39, I think there is video of the guys looting and setting fires. You know, just protesting peacefully.
Not that this is going to change the outcome, however, even the prosecutors stated that he did not have the gun with him when he crossed state lines. It was stored at his friend's house in the state where the crime for which he was accused of was committed.
Rittenhouse: Agree with 11:07. It's a trial to determine whether a victim exists, or simply a dead body. Also, the defense can't call the deceased rioters or looters until closing arguments, and then only if evidence has been introduced to make that inference.
The case is in Kenosha. The legal rulings are consistent with the political climate in Kenosha. Judges are not free of the jurisdictions in which they preside.
So because the judge is a redneck jackass, the victims (you know…the people who are now dead) get to be called looters and rioters, but that squishy little prick gets encouraged by the cops and sent home to mommy? What an indictment of our judicial system.
11:31 – Do you think your comment is influenced, at all, by your radical political leanings? "squishy little prick" "redneck jackass"? Just wondering…
Spot on 12:32. The disgusting arrogance and ignorance of the American left. Kenosha is hardly redneck. 11:27 sounds like the only uneducated redneck here.
My family lives an hour from Kenosha. Can confirm they are rednecks. A simple review of the google images for Rittenhouse confirms that he is indeed a "squishy little prick". I stand by my comments. Y'all can suck it you whiney little snowflakes.
Isn't most of Wisconsin rednecks?
Isn't most of the country rednecks?
And the "peaceful" protesters there were trying to squish the little prick's neck right before he started shooting.
I'm not necessarily opposed to judges doing what they can to level the playing field, but I don't think the logic really makes sense. "Victim" doesn't have to mean the victim of a crime. They could have been victims of a tragic accident. Or victims of fate. Or whatever. As far as I know, there is no dispute that these people were shot, so they were surely victims of something. Forcing the prosecutor to say "people who were shot" instead of "victim" isn't going to accomplish much.
It makes perfect sense in the context of a criminal trial where you know damn well the "victim" means the "victim of a crime."
How is it a crime if someone isn't convicted of it yet?
I just hope poor Kylie does not end up like one of Fauci's Beagles.
6:30,
I believe 12:29 was responding to 11:34, who was trying to suggest that "victim" could mean all sorts of things that didn't automatically assume a perpetrator and his guilt. 11:34, of course, is being absurd, and it seems that 12:29 is of your same mind.
This discussion reminds me of something which is admittedly off topic but still is connected to the issue of judicial demeanor and attitude which can create the appearance of favoring one side–which of course judges should endeavor to avoid until the final a evidence is submitted to the trier of fact(whether than be a jury or the judges if a bench trial).
Someone had posted the other day of a Family Court Judge who they believe openly played favorites, blatantly takes sides, and then verbally berates the non-favored side.
If that's an accurate assessment, it is obvious such approach should be avoided. And in Family Court emotions run particularly high, so that approach just makes litigants even more stressed and even more concerned about the level of integrity within the system.
With that being understood, I think on certain occasions, concerning certain specific issues, it's not necessarily always a bad thing if a Judge lets parties know, in no uncertain terms, when to drop and not pursue certain litigation approaches and theories.
I recall the late Judge Jack Lehman, who was one of the best we ever had.
That said, he could be real non-nonsense and quite demonstrative about his viewpoints at times. Occasionally, on motion calendar, he would make it real clear he was clearly in the camp of the one party as to some pre-trial legal or procedural point. And when this happened, and he was on your side, it was best to get out of his way and simply let him argue your side of it. And then when the other party kept trying to defend a position the judge found as untenable, that would raise his ire even more.
Now, that does not seem like an optimum approach, until I recall how things sometimes proceeded in other departments wherein one side just kept pursuing the same invalid issues over and over again via pre-trial proceedings. The judge would calmly rule against them on such particular issue, but they would then keep bringing the issue back up via subsequent motions and proceedings, arguing that the matter was not fully disposed of and the issue is now a little different than earlier presented, etc., etc.
But this approach rarely occurred before Judge Lehman. When he made it clear a theory or approach was not supportable, and he does not expect to see it back before him, he seldom would see the issue again as attorneys know he meant business.
So, I submit the question, for your approval, as to whether it is always a bad thing if a judge loses their cool and clearly appears to be favoring one side over another? I believe that if the matter is issue specific, and the judge does not create the appearance the at he/she favors one side over the other as to the entire case, that the approach is not always necessarily problematic.
tl;dr
I think there are very few instances in which a judge losing their cool is acceptable. Notice I did say very few…not never. Obviously there are times when it is justified and warranted and can actually help a case.
That said, there are ways to properly convey to attorneys and litigants without appearing biased or ill tempered. For example, in family court I'd say Duckworth is one of the best at cluing attorneys in on where the case is going. He doesn't make sweeping absolute statements and you're always free to put on your case and if you can change his mind with evidence, so be it. On the other hand, judges like Forsberg and a few others in family court come shot out of a cannon, making inappropriate comments and emboldening one party or the other very early on in the case. I've actually had a judge do that to me and then, just weeks later (after they actually read the papers and saw the exhibits) they did a complete 180. It's disconcerting to clients to see judges act so erratic.
Yesterday, Judge Forsberg had an intense hearing with a litigant. The litigant's drug test was positive for barbituates, cocaine, heroine, methamphetamine, marijuana and a couple other drugs. The litigant's response was I thought the drugs would be out of my system before the drug test. Judge Forsberg, raised her voice and stated that the litigant was lucky to be alive considering the plethora of drugs and the amount of drugs that were detected in the drug test. Someone needed to yell at this litigant. Judge Forsberg showed more compassion and concern for this person than this person showed for themselves. I was impressed with the way Judge Forsberg handled this situation. I wish the litigant the best and hope they can get sober for the sake of themselves and their children.
What a nice story. I saw her reduce child support for an admitted drug addict who claimed to be on disability, but also admitted to working off the books. Why hold drug addicts accountable? Let's give them stern talkings to and f* the parents who actually take care of the kids.
10:08–at least he admitted he was on all those drugs.
But why did he assume he could take all those drugs and test clean within days? The answer is presumably because his brain was scrambled with all those drugs in the first place.
If he was on meth., coke, smack, barbituates and smoking weed. I'm amazed he was able to cogently participate in the hearing in the first place.
10:23–uh, are you using that new thing known as sarcasm?
At any rate, you're right, although there are some cases where admitted drug addicts may merit a break
10:23 here…yes sarcasm. I've just seen too much from that judge to buy some glittery story about how she helped a drug addict recognize the error of their ways. Hearing after hearing, she cuts drug addicts and dead beat parents a break while slamming the parents who have actually cared for and been raising the children. She has a real issue controlling her emotions on the bench and presenting herself as a neutral.
2:09, when deciding to accept cases, or when preparing for an existing case the attorney already has, it can be very important to know who the judge is, their particular predilections, etc.
So, based on what you are saying, when considering prospective clients who have cases already assigned to that department, it sounds like it is prudent to avoid accepting responsible, hard-working parents as clients, but to instead accept as clients criminals and druggies of low moral fiber who victimize others and leech off the system, etc.
Fair enough. But problem is those types of clients usually can't pay the attorney.
Druggies have a way of mooching off family members, especially when there is a grandkid involved
12:32-well, although I recognize you heavily qualified the matter, and indicted such approach must be limited to very specific and appropriate situations, it is still an approach that is often problematic.
Good luck trying to explain to a client that although the judge yelled at you and ridiculed your legal position, that as to the case as a whole the judge is totally neutral and not leaning either way.
So, maintaining a proper judicial demeanor, and providing each side reasonable time to argue, is really a must IMO. If an attorney files a motion that is clearly not supportable, a judge should just calmly explain why and then rule against the attorney.
But I guess, as you suggest, if the same damn issue keeps being raised, I can understand taking a much firmer approach. But rather than shouting or harranging an attorney, why not just calmly assess some attorney fees? That has far more of a freezing effect(as to preventing the attorney form continuously revving the issue) than the approach of yelling at them but not hitting them in the pocketbook.
Hey,12:32, I can't agree that there are too many instances where judges losing their cool, and essentially arguing the one side's case on motion calendar, is something we can view too favorable. It is not.
Now I do agree that some attorneys keep pursuing the same invalid theories or arguments. And I think 12:46 has the solution for it. The judge should not yell at or vent at the offending party. Instead, assess attorney fees.
12:40,why bother taking the time to post that you did not have the time to read something. I didn't read it either, but did skim it.
Probably took me less time to skim it than for you to post that you did not have the time to read it. And now that I think of it, since I now took the additional time to post about neither of us having the time to read the lengthy post, I could have actually read the entire post.
And I now think I will read it as judicial demeanor is a very important issue for me.
So, sometimes time management, and actually performing a task rather than complaining about it, makes more sense. For those who are married, which takes more time? Taking out the trash or arguing with your spouse about whose turn it is to take out the trash?
Have a great day y'all.
This is so meta.
It cute that you believe taking out the trash is a shared responsibility between spouses.
My hands will never touch a grody garbage can.
Why a zero sum game? Make the kids do it!
12:12 is spot on!
I know this is going to sound weird, but I am ready for the economy to cool off, work less and make less if necessary.
Can you not understand the difference between a job and the economy? The economy is pretty "cool" right now. That inflation is super trendy.
Yes, for the new world order to succeed, we must all make sacrifices. You are so brave. Look forward to hearing more of your story as we stand in line together to get the fourth booster. Obedience over innovation shall be our new motto.
Economy is good enough that you have the choice right now to take less cases, work less and make less. You have that right at any time. You can take a sabbatical or retire. The strong legal market makes these options viable.
Work less, make less. Also caused by a recession.
2:54 – I bet that 2:00 is such a sheeple he or she even wears a seatbelt.
Judge John McGroarty, RIP.
Funeral details. I am devastated.
Always had pretty law clerks. Rest In Peace
I hired one of his law clerks. Worst hire I ever made. Train wreck who continues to erroneously think can succeed as a solo practitioner.
Judge McGroarty just died, and this is the shit you assholes post. Scumbags!
This judge predates my time, but I concur with 9:11 PM.
Judge McGroarty was such a good man.
Take it easy 9:11. No one is speaking ill of the dearly departed.
Trolls are back.
Has anyone used the Traffic Division's new Plea Agreement Form? My understanding is you cannot get an attorney session right now and this form does not have an option for a plea bargain (i.e. plead guilty to illegal parking, pay fine).
are you talking about City or County? I've heard City having that, but not County
I have. I was dealing with two tickets in the system. The phone operator made it seem like they were not allowing attorneys to confirm as counsel of record, not doing attorney sessions, etc. I ended up filing out the form and sending in a statement of mitigation asking for illegal parking and a fine. About a week later, I was told both tickets were converted to non-moving violations (0 points) and a fine of 55 and 75.
Which option did you select on the form?
option 2