The polls are open and will be until 7 pm tonight. Make sure you vote! Vote Yes on #1 and vote for good judges! Good luck to all the candidates!
Attorneys for Leon Benzer in the HOA scandal are alleging prosecutorial misconduct after reports about negotiations with Benzer were unsealed and published in the RJ last week. [RJ]
As is bound to happen when a criminal defendant is running for District Attorney, one of the jurors in the trial of Raymond James “Jim” Duensing noticed his name in her sample ballot. [RJ]
Are “Classic Car” license plates a smog-check loophole being abused by people with late 80s Honda Accords? [8NewsNow]
The State of Nevada released its list of Green Rush winners–i.e. businesses approved for medical marijuana licenses. Shockingly, the identities of 37 of the 55 licenses issued are unknown thanks to state law. [Las Vegas Sun]
Vote "YES" on question 1. Really. This court is needed. That is all.
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2014 5:13 pm
I have gone and voted already and voted "Yes" on 1 and for Richard Scotti – Department 2, Joe Hardy, Jr. – Department 24, Susan Bush – Department 28 and Rena Hughes – Department J and for some other judges as well, however, I just wanted to get that out there.
I generally never vote for incumbents in Family Court unless I like them, or the opponent is a complete douche (Stoffel). I may not know much about the family law judges, but I know that I'm generally unimpressed and find most of them rude. That said, Ritchie, Moss, and Ochoa got my votes. Ritchie because he is awesome, and Moss and Ochoa because I like them as people.
Please allow this reply to serve as formal notice of your ignorance. Our Sups have one of the highest caseloads of any court in the country. In principle, it makes me smile to think of government employees being forced to work. Practically speaking, the lack of an appellate court allows a lot of really bad rulings by local judges to go unchallenged. This significantly increases the chance that you, John Doe, will get screwed by a system that places judges on the bench that were elected using money from select attorneys. An appeals court actually increases the chance that the general public will see justice in their case.
Will it make everything perfect? Of course not. But what it will do is increase the quality of review in our system and increase the chance that justice will be served.
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2014 6:49 pm
Dear 10:09,
I have worked at an appellate court, and this particular model, which as 9:55 eloquently states, makes the proposed appellate court the Supremes' bitches, is not an effective model for a state with a significant backlog, both in cases and in time of disposition. A more traditional model in which the bulk of cases that need review (family law, administrative appeals, criminal appeals) are immediately reviewed by an intermediate court, rather than the Supremes getting their sh*t together, and deciding which cases to "push down", would be much, much better. The Supremes' model just keeps their fricken' overcontrolling hands in every case, to the detriment of prompt justice. Wait and see.
I love how the RJ told him they would publish Sunday and then when it looked like it would be challenged, they went ahead and rushed it out so that bell couldn't be unrung–inserting themselves into the middle of the matter.
They didn't insert themselves into anything. But it definitely provides an excellent lesson – don't spend your client's money trying to stop the press from doing something it has the power and will to do immediately.
Defendant has no money any longer. He drives a cab now. It is your tax dollars knucklehead. Attorney is appointed.
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2014 10:31 pm
So when is the legislature going to do something about this whole "ineligible candidate remaining on the ballot" debacle. Come on, the ballots are electronic, you just press delete a few times!
Not as simple as that…when the candidate is ineligible in a partisan race, the party of the ineligible candidate has the right to propose a substitute. Once it gets past a certain time in the election year, the ballots can't be changed. Paper ballots must, by federal law, go to overseas and military voters no later than 45 days before an election, i.e., sometime in September. What these parties/ candidates need to do is get their act together and file earlier. In both of these cases, the allegations were that the candidates weren't residents back in MARCH! Even if you want to wait to see who makes it out of the primary, that happens in early June. There should be a sanction against filing a challenge that late in the game unless the facts occur late in the game, like Boggs-McDonald, who was taking out the trash, outside her district, in her fuzzy pink robe in September.
If a candidate is ineligible, then that party doesn't have anyone on the ticket for that race, right. So then why would that party get to propose a substitute. We vote for candidates, not parties.
Vote "YES" on question 1. Really. This court is needed. That is all.
I have gone and voted already and voted "Yes" on 1 and for Richard Scotti – Department 2, Joe Hardy, Jr. – Department 24, Susan Bush – Department 28 and Rena Hughes – Department J and for some other judges as well, however, I just wanted to get that out there.
I generally never vote for incumbents in Family Court unless I like them, or the opponent is a complete douche (Stoffel). I may not know much about the family law judges, but I know that I'm generally unimpressed and find most of them rude. That said, Ritchie, Moss, and Ochoa got my votes. Ritchie because he is awesome, and Moss and Ochoa because I like them as people.
Stoffel poster child for corruption in the courts
No on 1. They will just be elected law clerks for the Supremes. Ridiculous.
Not law clerks. The Supreme's bitches, maybe, forced to handle all the crap the Supremes don't want, but not their clerks.
Dear 9:20,
Please allow this reply to serve as formal notice of your ignorance. Our Sups have one of the highest caseloads of any court in the country. In principle, it makes me smile to think of government employees being forced to work. Practically speaking, the lack of an appellate court allows a lot of really bad rulings by local judges to go unchallenged. This significantly increases the chance that you, John Doe, will get screwed by a system that places judges on the bench that were elected using money from select attorneys. An appeals court actually increases the chance that the general public will see justice in their case.
Will it make everything perfect? Of course not. But what it will do is increase the quality of review in our system and increase the chance that justice will be served.
Dear 10:09,
I have worked at an appellate court, and this particular model, which as 9:55 eloquently states, makes the proposed appellate court the Supremes' bitches, is not an effective model for a state with a significant backlog, both in cases and in time of disposition. A more traditional model in which the bulk of cases that need review (family law, administrative appeals, criminal appeals) are immediately reviewed by an intermediate court, rather than the Supremes getting their sh*t together, and deciding which cases to "push down", would be much, much better. The Supremes' model just keeps their fricken' overcontrolling hands in every case, to the detriment of prompt justice. Wait and see.
The work will be the dregs of the legal system. Just you wait and see.
prison pro se appeals
Benzer's got a valid point.
I love how the RJ told him they would publish Sunday and then when it looked like it would be challenged, they went ahead and rushed it out so that bell couldn't be unrung–inserting themselves into the middle of the matter.
They didn't insert themselves into anything. But it definitely provides an excellent lesson – don't spend your client's money trying to stop the press from doing something it has the power and will to do immediately.
Defendant has no money any longer. He drives a cab now. It is your tax dollars knucklehead. Attorney is appointed.
So when is the legislature going to do something about this whole "ineligible candidate remaining on the ballot" debacle. Come on, the ballots are electronic, you just press delete a few times!
Not as simple as that…when the candidate is ineligible in a partisan race, the party of the ineligible candidate has the right to propose a substitute. Once it gets past a certain time in the election year, the ballots can't be changed. Paper ballots must, by federal law, go to overseas and military voters no later than 45 days before an election, i.e., sometime in September. What these parties/ candidates need to do is get their act together and file earlier. In both of these cases, the allegations were that the candidates weren't residents back in MARCH! Even if you want to wait to see who makes it out of the primary, that happens in early June. There should be a sanction against filing a challenge that late in the game unless the facts occur late in the game, like Boggs-McDonald, who was taking out the trash, outside her district, in her fuzzy pink robe in September.
If a candidate is ineligible, then that party doesn't have anyone on the ticket for that race, right. So then why would that party get to propose a substitute. We vote for candidates, not parties.
Thanks ma, no Friedberg…..