- Quickdraw McLaw
- 32 Comments
- 128 Views
- Early voting is open. Looks like record breaking turnout so far. Do you vote early or wait until election day just in case there is a last minute surprise? [Las Vegas Sun; Fox5Vegas]
- Here’s a few questions and answers for the Supreme Court Seat G candidates Stiglich and Harter. [Nevada Appeal]
- What did you think about the hearing on the proposed changes to the NRCP?
I voted early
Did everyone catch that Laxalt may not have disclosed on his bar application that he got arrested for assaulting a cop?
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/after-state-bar-official-says-laxalt-should-have-disclosed-juvenile-arrest-laxalt-tells-fox-news-he-disclosed-everything-he-needed-to
Generally juvenile records have their own set of rules and disclosure. It probably does not need to be disclosed or revealed because juvenile records are not accessible. Depends on the jurisdiction but you can't ask about it Nevada.
They are generally only accessible to law enforcement agencies if at all.
Whether they are accessible and whether Laxalt had a duty to disclose are different questions. Laxalt had a duty to tell the truth. The questions was if Laxalt had ever been “arrested, cited, indicted, tried or convicted of any criminal charges” and instructs them to “include all juvenile matters.” Laxalt probably is exonerated from attaching copies of sealed documents if he could truthfully state that he did not have, and could not get, those records. But he still had a duty to tell the truth.
It would be hilarious if he won the election and then had his law license pulled for lying to the state bar about being arrested for assaulting a cop. The governor doesn't need a law license, anyway, I guess.
9:28 here, ok so Laxalt says that he DID NOT disclose the arrest. It has been cited to a few times in other comments.
Regarding the thread on Laxalt's supposed juvy arrest, the first question we must ask is – what exactly is asked on the bar application. If they ask have you ever been arrested and your arrest is sealed or expunged in this state or elsewhere, you do not need to disclose it. You do not generally have to disclose juvenile arrests and convictions. Even if the bar asked this question, it would be impermissible. Juvenile records are sealed. Years ago, I had this issue go before the Discovery Commissioner. The plaintiff/witness disclosed his juvenile criminal history at a deposition. The parties were precluded from asking about and it was stricken from the deposition.
The Bar is an administrative agency. They can ask whatever they want, and can either deny admission or discipline someone for dishonesty. It is not a court proceeding. You do not have the same rights. License to practice law is a privilege. They would be understanding if the records were inaccessible, but they still ask the question, and lying is frowned upon.
9:45 AM–Nope, the bar can not do something illegal or impermissible. Asking about juvenile criminal history is prohibited. Plain and simple. The Admissions Director should not be speaking about this because bar proceedings are initially confidential. It is out of his realm. He is not bar counsel. He is showing bias. He should stay out of the public debate. Don't necessarily believe everything that is in the news story either.
At this point, with early voting underway, it is unfair to the voting public, and to the candidates, to deal with any " he may not have" situations.
This is not to say that such may not be a legitimate issue-providing in fact that it is an actual occurrence.
So, I may care a lot, if in fact he was arrested for assaulting a cop, and if in fact he failed to disclose it. So, if between now and election day, it is credibly established that such arrest occurred and he did not disclose it on his Bar application, then it is certainly fair game IMO.
But if we never get beyond "he may have not", then I don't think it should impact anyone's vote.
I'm not voting for him, but am voting for who I view to be the lesser of two underwhelming choices, and I am certainly not taking up for Laxalt. I am merely calling bullshit on reporting serious allegations, for the purpose of affecting elections at the eleventh hour, when we have no idea if something is true or not.
And this is nothing subjective with shades of gray. The arrest either happened or it didn't, and he either reported it or he didn't. Although there may be privacy restriction in operation, I assume he could authorize the public release of his application contents.
Now if it does turn out that these allegations against him are true, this is more reason why people should avoid early voting and wait till election day to vote. You never know what may crop up.
Laxalt has acknowledged that these events occurred and described what happened. He also admits he didn't disclose this – arguing he didn't have to. The State Bar disagrees apparently.
https://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/19/nevada-state-bar-admissions-laxalt-shouldve-reported-assault-arrest/1676824002/
That news first came out October 1, several weeks before early voting started. And there's no question that he was arrested – it's a public record and he admitted it. There's also no question that he failed to disclose it – he admitted that he didn't disclose it. (The question is whether he was required to disclose it or not, but I think it's pretty clear that he was required to do so.)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/gop-gov-candidate-laxalt-arrested-assaulting-police-officer-teen-n915561
To: 10:14–I'm also voting for who I consider to be the lesser of two evils, and agree that "he may have not" should not impact anyone's vote, and that we should wait to see to see whether any of this alleged against him are true.
But problem is, we may never know. Whoever released the so-called info., may have done so knowing it is false or that there will not be time to determine if it is true or not. Many people will vote based on that they heard he was arrested for assaulting a cop and did not report it on his Bar application. They will forget the qualifying part that he may or may not have.
So, the well is already poisoned. Even if it is not conclusively established, before election day, whether or not it is true, a lot of damage may already be done.
that's just the world of politics as we know it.
See the article in the comment above – Laxalt admitted this happened.
I looked on-line for Steve Sisolak divorce and couldn't find anything. I read this
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/19/sisolak-ex-wife-prisoner-bruise/?fbclid=IwAR15BoCuSwgK9GcRynBf5Mm5uRYP0MFUvMy7rsWHSt0LgZC3CfBGrfAiWt0
Where is the divorce file on-line? Did democrats hide it?
Parties used to be able to just agree to seal a case, or one party could file a motion to seal, and it wouldn't even show up on the court docket. I'm guessing that's what they did back then on that case.
I don't care if someone was arrested for something (anything). My concern level rises some if the arrest was followed with actual filed charges. If a conviction results, then my concern ripens fully.
Anyone can be arrested for anything, even wrongfully. The fact that a police officer elects to arrest someone does not automatically mean that a crime was committed or that the officer is correct.
On the one hand, I agree with this analysis. But on the other hand, Laxalt's tenure as AG and his public rhetoric strongly disagrees with this. Remember when he voted not to pardon Fred Steese, even though he was blatantly wrongly convicted? So on a policy level, I still think this analysis compels a vote against Laxalt.
11:01, I would think your concern level would rise for an arrest plus a public admission as opposed to an arrest and a denial.
OK, looks like I'm gonna have to come back to the blog after election day. Blog is hijacked.
Justice Stiglich actually managed to say absolutely nothing in her answers to Nevada Appeal.
Judge Harter FTW!
The Eglet Prince Holiday Party invitations went out today. The get together will take place at the new Eglet Manor on December 8, 2018, and the attire is "Formal Victorian." Fortunately, I keep a replica of Prince Albert's morning suit in my closet just in case Tracy Eglet ever invites me over. Why would anyone ever accuse EP of being pretentious?
LOL
How many get fired so they can have their party this year?
Yes, check out the photos of their 2018 Fun Friday or their 2018 Firm Retreat in Seattle, on their Facebook Page. Then check back next year. About 25% of the employees, including associates, will be missing. They must have someone on staff whose primary responsibility is to airbrush their firm photos, especially the fake cocktail party.
Isn't Tracy from Buffalo?
Yes, and Robert Adams is a mechanic from North Las Vegas.
I guess too much white marble can go to one's head.
I plan to early vote. I don't care about Laxalt's arrest and failure to disclose it to the bar. He should never be governor for far more important reasons.
He's a rather dim puppet of the far right, a carpetbagger who doesn't give a shit about Nevada, and is in it 100% for political ambition and nothing else. He'll do whatever the GOP donors tell him to do, even if it directly contrary to what Nevadans actually want, and even if it screws all of Nevada, in exchange for their support in the next election. Or perhaps a plum federal appointment.
His best buddy is Bolton – actually, maybe the best thing for Nevada is for Trump to appoint Laxalt to some cushy ambassador job, and get him the fuck outta here.
9:15 — Right on, Brother or Sister! No pencil necks in the Governor's Mansion.
For a state with gaming, tourism, mining, and now marijuana, you have to ask, who are Sisolak's friends if his solution to increasing the government's coffers is to raise property taxes and eliminate the rate increase cap. Bizarre.