Three prosecutors, including DA Steve Wolfson, are calling on the Governor and AG to enforce the gun background check law approved by voters last year. [RJ]
The Supreme Court of Nevada ruled that a psychologist’s records were privileged even though the government paid for the court-ordered treatment. [Nevada Appeal]
Speaking of the Supreme Court, expect a special announcement about the future plans of the court approximately 15 minutes prior to their en banc argument next Monday. It is expected that they’ll announce the next chief justice as Justice Douglas and likely confirm that Justices Cherry and Douglas are not running for reelection next year.
That means it is time to start thinking about throwing your hat in the ring to challenge expected candidates Elissa Cadish and Abbi Silver. If you want to see what is required to run for a seat on the high court, are interested in challenging one of the recent appointees for a 2-year term, or want to run for Justice Court, go here to see the requirements and openings. Also, today is the last day to apply for appointment in Justice Court Department 1. Anyone know who else is applying besides the James Dean Leavitt (who already announced he is running for that position)?
I'm a supporter of any meaningful firearm restrictions that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people bent on harming others.
But I would rather the government do nothing at this time, until they can implement a policy which will actually help to a significant extent.
If the people in favor of meaningful restrictions are thrown a bone like this one, that will empower the opposing side, in the future, to say slow down we already gave you a few things. We are not willing to restrict usage further. We already compromised.
But what they are offering is next to useless. They have the intelligence and strategic analysis to know that, but the side blindly clamoring for any restrictions, and willing to grab whatever morsel is offered, don't have the intelligence to know they are being offered nothing.
It is far better to hold out for real reform and reject meaningless overtures, then accept such meaningless overtures which then justify the other side, in the future, to say we already gave you this, and gave you that.
In other words,the pro-gun coalition is effectively playing and manipulating the gun-control advocates, and masterfully so.
Beefing up back ground checks is next to useless. First, the overwhelming majority of the time these mass shooters are using a firearm registered to someone else. Secondly, in the few cases where they used their own firarm, can anyone point to one case where the current method of approving firearm purchases would not have caught the fact a dangerous psychopath is attempting to purchase a gun, but this supposed new and enhanced method would supposedly have detected it?
So, let the AG enforce what the voters approved. When juxtaposing such back ground checks with the current(admittedly looser) standard of approving gun sales, it is difficult to find a mass shooting case where background checks, or enhanced background checks, would have prevented anything.
If, again, for starters, more than 95% of the time someone else's gun is being used, and the gun is not registered to the shooter, these enhanced methods of inquiry amount to absolutely nothing.
As to our own tragedy on Oct.1, that was one of the relatively few cases where the shooter was, I believe, using weapons validly registered to him.
At least some of the firearms he brought to the room were registered to him, and validly obtained. Perhaps they all were, I don't recall.
But, to the point raised above, even in this case, which is in the clear minority of such cases as the firearms(at least some of them) were registered to the shooter, any sort of enhanced back ground checks would have been next to worthless. If I recall, he has no felony convictions, and no serious, diagnosed psychological illness. So, either under the current method, or the method just approved by the voters, he presumably still would have been able to obtain weapons.
Guest
Anonymous
November 30, 2017 5:58 pm
Are Cadish and Silver running again st each other?
Cadish has indicated that her intention is to steer clear of Silver (probably smart). The sad thing is that the Court will arguably to losing 2 of its more compassionate members and will leave Hardesty to run amok.
I would be fine with Cadish on the Court; Silver will be a nightmare. However anyone running against Silver is wasting their money. Reminds me of Saitta v. Becker. Nancy Becker was the better jurist; Nancy Saitta was the better candidate.
To: 10:02. If Cadish intends to steer clear of Silver, she would never directly indicate that. She is too smart. I realize she won't ally herself directly with Silver, but if she, while maintaining proper distance and boundaries, has a cordial campaign relationship with Silver's camp, that can both directly and indirectly benefit her. After all, Silver is a fund raising and endorsement generating machine.
11:36– Perhaps I should have been more artful in my language. By "steer clear" I only meant that Cadish has told those friendly to her after being passed over for Stiglich that she would determine going forward which seat Silver was seeking and steer clear of ever trying to run for the same seat as Silver.
My wife won't let me throw my hat in the ring for the NSC race. I informed her I was interested. She asked about cost. I told her that if I spent one million dollars that I could garner as much as 42% of the vote–only losing to Silver or Cadish by 16 points. I told her that for 1.5 million I can reach 45%, and for two million I could reach 48%.
I then cheerfully announced to her that if I spent 2.5 million I am confident I could squeak by my opponent and be elected.
She asked how much of this I could raise from outside sources, and I said less than 1%. So, she then quickly and ruthlessly annihilated my dreams and pronounced that I am not running.
She is really not fully supportive of my professional endeavors. She believes some of my decisions are half-baked at best, as well as being impulsive and irresponsible.
So, looks like you guys will have to elect Silver and Cadish without opposition, as I have to sit this one out.
And even if you all profess to dislike one or both of them, you guys would not have donated to my campaign anyway.
Makes you wonder if we end up with a disproportionate percentage of justices from the North because people down south do not know how atrocious they are.
If 1:55 were Mr.Eglet, as 1:59 humorously suggests it is, there would be no problem raising the money. In fact it, and a great deal more, is sitting there in the bank.
Also 1:55 is self-effacing, self-deprecating, and, with humor and irony, seems to recognize his significant limitations.
Does that remotely sound to you the way Mr. Eglet would describe himself? I think not.
The Nevada Supreme Court is so slow as it is. Putting Delaney on the court would mean having decisions issued in the 2030's.
Herndon is a great trial judge but has not shown any type of appellate acumen. Plus I think the Fred Steese issue may end up meaning that Herndon should be happy if he can keep his current seat without fallout.
Denton is the wildcard. He has Supreme Court aspirations.
Primo Denton, First Justice of the Race,
Your devotees are on their knees to implore you!
Can you stay out when they're shouting your name?
Think of how they all adore you!
Primo Denton, Opinions will resume
Think of the Writs
While Silver sits
In the NCA!
Can you deny us the triumph in store?
Run, Primo Denton, Once More!
Thought Cadish was a Democrat as I recall when appointed by Gov. Gibbons. She was the third name to advance with two others who had been previously rejected by the Governor. This is what was so amazing about her appointment. Did she change parties.
Not quite sure of the point of the +1 day. In the criminal world I understand the difference between 1 year and 1 year + 1 day, but in this context what is the difference between 5 years and 5 years + 1 day? Other than being able to say his suspension was in excess of 5 years, I don't get it.
Suspensions of 5 years are the cutoff for those who must retake the Bar Exam under SCR 116(5). Odds are this was a tip of the cap to the Justices who wanted disbarment that it was more than 5 years.
5.  Decision on reinstatement; conditions.  If the attorney does not meet the burden of proof to justify reinstatement, the petition shall be dismissed by the hearing panel. If the attorney meets the burden of proof, the hearing panel’s recommendation for reinstatement shall be entered. Reinstatement shall be conditioned upon the attorney’s payment of the costs of the proceeding, restitution to parties injured by the petitioner’s misconduct, including the Clients’ Security Fund, any further conditions deemed appropriate by the panel, and such proof of competency as may be required by the supreme court, which proof may include certification by the bar examiners of the successful completion of an examination for admission to practice subsequent to the date of suspension or disbarment. If an attorney has been continuously suspended for 5 years or more at the time a petition for reinstatement is filed, irrespective of the term of suspension initially imposed, successful completion of the examination for admission to practice shall be a mandatory condition of reinstatement.
Guest
Anonymous
November 30, 2017 7:28 pm
Having reviewed the Discipline Decisions over the past 6 months, the Nevada Supreme Court has sent a clear message: mitigation and cooperation with the State Bar does not matter and will not help you. If you have a glitch in your Trust Account or make a mistake, do not go to the Bar and do not cooperate with any inquiry OBC send to you because it will not matter when the Supreme Court does its de novo review.
Furthermore the Supreme Court is going to punish the most serious offense without regard for how many offenses there are; so if you commit one offense, commit as many more as you can. 8 violations of 5 different RPCs gets punished the same as one violation of one RPC. Pretty chilling stuff that is going to set the stage for relationships with the OBC being exclusively adversarial. Be careful and hire Bill Terry early.
Here is one other thing to consider in Discipline cases (before you cooperate with the State Bar). Suspensions over 6 months require petitioning for reinstatement. Petitioning for Reinstatement is averaging between 9 to 14 months from filing to decision. Therefore a 6 month, 1 day suspension will really keep you out of the practice for 15-20 months. There is no middle ground.
But the Disciplinary Panel's findings are reviewed de novo which means that the Supreme Court (which is reading a cold record on the few occasions when they actually read the record) chooses the punishment and can (and often does) pick a random punishment out of the air.
If you think I am kidding about the Court not reading the record, look at the Nelson Cohen decision from today. Cohen ordered to pay $214,325 in restitution to Bremer Whyte's insurance carrier but if Cohen negotiates a compromise sum, then Cohen is to pay the balance to the Client Security Fund. In other words, why would Cohen ever compromise and work with the Insurance Company when any efforts at resolution would result in having to make the same payment to the State Bar? The Supreme Court has destroyed any incentive for Cohen to work to pay it off faster or more favorably. These are the people controlling your fates as professionals.
Speaking of Hiring Bill T(and, yes, he is the main go-to guy for attorney and judicial discipline)I have some concerns as to how Judge Potter, who was represented by Bill T, prepared for(or, more to the point, did not prepare for) the hearing. A few concerns:
1. Potter wasn't prepared that they would ask him about rule violations that he admitted to in his interrogatories. He would deny violation of a rule, and then essentially be impeached with a discovery answer where he admitted to such violation.
2. Showed no remorse for his actions, such as holding the attorney in contempt and having her hand-cuffed. Displayed regret as to losing his temper to the degree he did, but apparently insisted that how he handled the contempt was appropriate and justified.
3. Almost three years later and he apparently still has no notion of the few, and relatively simple, steps to comply with as to decorum-based contempts occurring in the court's presence.
4. Had no intention of apologizing to the attorneys for his conduct. In fact, quite the opposite, he seemed to maintain that they deserve what they got.
5. Refused to concede or appreciate that him contacting the press to rake David Mann and his client over the coals, in a case that was being aggressively litigated before him, constituted improper ex parte communication.
6. Allowed himself to be goaded into exploding.
Perhaps no matter how much Bill T prepared him before hand, #6
was bound to occur.
But as to some of these other matters, does it appear like insufficient preparation on the part of both of them?
Or, based on the dynamics concerning how Judge Potter deals with conflict situations he is directly involved with, was this all bound to occur regardless of the level of preparation?
We are handcuffed (no pun intended) when our clients believe that they are the smartest person in the room. Potter believes exactly that. Furthermore until you have sat and been the subject of a hearing, especially after 10 years of calling the shots in every proceeding in which you participate, it is a hard transition.
Not that it would ever happen, but I would bet Stiglich wouldn't stand a chance against Silver. Even though Stiglich is the incumbent, Silver is a sitting COA judge, who if she loses would remain in the same seat. Silver is also a proven fundraising machine, something Stiglich has never yet established her abilities. She has not won a contested election. She was appointed to the District Court in 2012, won re-election in 2014 and was appointed to NSC in Dec. 2016.
In her last election, Stiglich raised slightly more than 167K, with a large portion of her largest contributors residing in the San Fransisco area (likely friend or family). Silver in comparison, last ran a contested race in 2006 wherein she raised 254K for a Justice of the Peace race. She subsequently was unopposed in 2 District Court races and 1 COA race. Based on prior history, I would give the fundraising advantage to Silver.
In terms of where they served in local offices, Stiglich was a District Judge in Reno, Silver in Las Vegas. Using the data of the 2014 election, the last Governor election (non-presidential) which is also the last time both Silver and Stiglich were on the same ballot, the total number of ballots cast statewide was 552,326. Of those ballots, 341,354 (61.8%) were cast in Clark County alone. Washoe County had 116,335 (21.1%). Based upon geographical voter base (name familiarity), advantage goes to Silver. I don't know Stiglich's party affiliation (but since she was appointed twice by Gov. Sandoval it's probably safe to assume she is a Republican), but without being certain, I can't assess whether party dynamics come into play in a match-up.
Silver would CRUSH her due to fundraising. There is a contingent of attorneys who view Stiglich as a carpetbagger (similar to how Nakagawa is in some circles viewed as a carpetbagger).
Just so she will get off the District Court bench and stop screwing up cases down here and sanctioning attorneys for not attending hearings that she forgets to notice?
Guest
Anonymous
December 3, 2017 11:27 pm
James Dean Leavitt did not apply to fill the Judge Lippis vacancy via the appointment process. He announced his intention to fun for the seat in late July, prior to her announcing her resignation.He has always intended to run for the vacant seat this coming January when filing commences.
Douglas is an excellent choice for the new NSC chief.
Chief is selected based on term expiration.
That's why he's so good for it.
I wish Douglas would not retire.
I agree. He is a very principled guy.
I'm a supporter of any meaningful firearm restrictions that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people bent on harming others.
But I would rather the government do nothing at this time, until they can implement a policy which will actually help to a significant extent.
If the people in favor of meaningful restrictions are thrown a bone like this one, that will empower the opposing side, in the future, to say slow down we already gave you a few things. We are not willing to restrict usage further. We already compromised.
But what they are offering is next to useless. They have the intelligence and strategic analysis to know that, but the side blindly clamoring for any restrictions, and willing to grab whatever morsel is offered, don't have the intelligence to know they are being offered nothing.
It is far better to hold out for real reform and reject meaningless overtures, then accept such meaningless overtures which then justify the other side, in the future, to say we already gave you this, and gave you that.
In other words,the pro-gun coalition is effectively playing and manipulating the gun-control advocates, and masterfully so.
Beefing up back ground checks is next to useless. First, the overwhelming majority of the time these mass shooters are using a firearm registered to someone else. Secondly, in the few cases where they used their own firarm, can anyone point to one case where the current method of approving firearm purchases would not have caught the fact a dangerous psychopath is attempting to purchase a gun, but this supposed new and enhanced method would supposedly have detected it?
So, let the AG enforce what the voters approved. When juxtaposing such back ground checks with the current(admittedly looser) standard of approving gun sales, it is difficult to find a mass shooting case where background checks, or enhanced background checks, would have prevented anything.
If, again, for starters, more than 95% of the time someone else's gun is being used, and the gun is not registered to the shooter, these enhanced methods of inquiry amount to absolutely nothing.
As to our own tragedy on Oct.1, that was one of the relatively few cases where the shooter was, I believe, using weapons validly registered to him.
At least some of the firearms he brought to the room were registered to him, and validly obtained. Perhaps they all were, I don't recall.
But, to the point raised above, even in this case, which is in the clear minority of such cases as the firearms(at least some of them) were registered to the shooter, any sort of enhanced back ground checks would have been next to worthless. If I recall, he has no felony convictions, and no serious, diagnosed psychological illness. So, either under the current method, or the method just approved by the voters, he presumably still would have been able to obtain weapons.
Are Cadish and Silver running again st each other?
Cadish has indicated that her intention is to steer clear of Silver (probably smart). The sad thing is that the Court will arguably to losing 2 of its more compassionate members and will leave Hardesty to run amok.
Cadish is running for Douglas' seat. Silver for Cherry's.
I hope someone runs against Cadish.
I hope someone runs against Silver.
I would be fine with Cadish on the Court; Silver will be a nightmare. However anyone running against Silver is wasting their money. Reminds me of Saitta v. Becker. Nancy Becker was the better jurist; Nancy Saitta was the better candidate.
Cherry is a big loss, particularly if replaced by one of these two, although I respect Cadish's intellect.
I will donate a nice sum to Cadish's opponent.
To: 10:02. If Cadish intends to steer clear of Silver, she would never directly indicate that. She is too smart. I realize she won't ally herself directly with Silver, but if she, while maintaining proper distance and boundaries, has a cordial campaign relationship with Silver's camp, that can both directly and indirectly benefit her. After all, Silver is a fund raising and endorsement generating machine.
Someone please run against the anointed one, Cadish. She is scary.
11:36– Perhaps I should have been more artful in my language. By "steer clear" I only meant that Cadish has told those friendly to her after being passed over for Stiglich that she would determine going forward which seat Silver was seeking and steer clear of ever trying to run for the same seat as Silver.
I would vote for a Johnson over Cadish. Take your pick.
12:05– You are a masochist unless your "Johnson" reference meant a phallus rather than Eric or Susan.
My wife won't let me throw my hat in the ring for the NSC race. I informed her I was interested. She asked about cost. I told her that if I spent one million dollars that I could garner as much as 42% of the vote–only losing to Silver or Cadish by 16 points. I told her that for 1.5 million I can reach 45%, and for two million I could reach 48%.
I then cheerfully announced to her that if I spent 2.5 million I am confident I could squeak by my opponent and be elected.
She asked how much of this I could raise from outside sources, and I said less than 1%. So, she then quickly and ruthlessly annihilated my dreams and pronounced that I am not running.
She is really not fully supportive of my professional endeavors. She believes some of my decisions are half-baked at best, as well as being impulsive and irresponsible.
So, looks like you guys will have to elect Silver and Cadish without opposition, as I have to sit this one out.
And even if you all profess to dislike one or both of them, you guys would not have donated to my campaign anyway.
Thank you, Eglet.
Both of these choices suck. If I have to, I will vote none of the above.
Makes you wonder if we end up with a disproportionate percentage of justices from the North because people down south do not know how atrocious they are.
If 1:55 were Mr.Eglet, as 1:59 humorously suggests it is, there would be no problem raising the money. In fact it, and a great deal more, is sitting there in the bank.
Also 1:55 is self-effacing, self-deprecating, and, with humor and irony, seems to recognize his significant limitations.
Does that remotely sound to you the way Mr. Eglet would describe himself? I think not.
I don't know who you are, 1:55, but I would have thrown $20 to your campaign FWIW!
Cadish's opponent has my support. I will kick in north of $500.00. I am well respected in my circle, and I can bring 20-30 votes your way.
I would love to Denton or Watkins run against Cadish. I like their intellect.
Herndon or Delaney would be fine as well.
The Nevada Supreme Court is so slow as it is. Putting Delaney on the court would mean having decisions issued in the 2030's.
Herndon is a great trial judge but has not shown any type of appellate acumen. Plus I think the Fred Steese issue may end up meaning that Herndon should be happy if he can keep his current seat without fallout.
Denton is the wildcard. He has Supreme Court aspirations.
I would love Denton. I wish he would run. We need smarts and compassion on the bench. I would even take Bell.
Denton would be the best. He has two votes here. Too bad my puppy cannot vote.
The crowd roars, Denton, Denton. We need you!
Judge Denton has votes here from Carson City.
What about Gonzales?
Denton would be my pick. I would vote for him and Silver. Silver applies the law.
Primo Denton, First Justice of the Race,
Your devotees are on their knees to implore you!
Can you stay out when they're shouting your name?
Think of how they all adore you!
Primo Denton, Opinions will resume
Think of the Writs
While Silver sits
In the NCA!
Can you deny us the triumph in store?
Run, Primo Denton, Once More!
I am all in with Denton. Can my wife and I contribute separately? No Cadish or Harry Reid for us.
Think of all the old Denton bumper stickers you could use. Save your campaign thousands.
Hell, we want Denton forever. Not just one term.
Denton would have to run against Cadish. He would not win against Silver. Please run, this state needs you.
Denton, Denton. I hope he knows he has support. We should call his chambers. Denton, Denton.
I will endorse Denton. Nicest man in the world.
@4:24– While you state no Cadish and Harry Reid for you, Denton's politics are to the left of Cadish.
Pass me the Denton campaign sign. Cadish is a Republican.
Cadish is unpredictable and pissy on the bench.
2:32 – sounds like Eglet trying to sound self-effacing.
Denton, Denton. I am still hopeful.
Me, too. Denton for the win!
I have my checkbook ready for my opponent candidate to Cadish. Let me know when you file. I put my money where my mouth is.
As do I, and my check will be made out to Judge Cadish!
Thought Cadish was a Democrat as I recall when appointed by Gov. Gibbons. She was the third name to advance with two others who had been previously rejected by the Governor. This is what was so amazing about her appointment. Did she change parties.
We are taking the non support for Cadish a little perdonal.
Please stand by….
Personal
Reading our own resume vebatim and tooting our own in horn in 3…2…1..
Stiglich is the best addition to that court in years.
Nelson Cohen suspended for 5 years + 1 day. Hardesty and Stiglich dissented wanting disbarment.
Well that answers the question from Kirk-Hughes's hearing which is can suspensions be longer than 5 years.
Not quite sure of the point of the +1 day. In the criminal world I understand the difference between 1 year and 1 year + 1 day, but in this context what is the difference between 5 years and 5 years + 1 day? Other than being able to say his suspension was in excess of 5 years, I don't get it.
Suspensions of 5 years are the cutoff for those who must retake the Bar Exam under SCR 116(5). Odds are this was a tip of the cap to the Justices who wanted disbarment that it was more than 5 years.
5.  Decision on reinstatement; conditions.  If the attorney does not meet the burden of proof to justify reinstatement, the petition shall be dismissed by the hearing panel. If the attorney meets the burden of proof, the hearing panel’s recommendation for reinstatement shall be entered. Reinstatement shall be conditioned upon the attorney’s payment of the costs of the proceeding, restitution to parties injured by the petitioner’s misconduct, including the Clients’ Security Fund, any further conditions deemed appropriate by the panel, and such proof of competency as may be required by the supreme court, which proof may include certification by the bar examiners of the successful completion of an examination for admission to practice subsequent to the date of suspension or disbarment. If an attorney has been continuously suspended for 5 years or more at the time a petition for reinstatement is filed, irrespective of the term of suspension initially imposed, successful completion of the examination for admission to practice shall be a mandatory condition of reinstatement.
Having reviewed the Discipline Decisions over the past 6 months, the Nevada Supreme Court has sent a clear message: mitigation and cooperation with the State Bar does not matter and will not help you. If you have a glitch in your Trust Account or make a mistake, do not go to the Bar and do not cooperate with any inquiry OBC send to you because it will not matter when the Supreme Court does its de novo review.
Furthermore the Supreme Court is going to punish the most serious offense without regard for how many offenses there are; so if you commit one offense, commit as many more as you can. 8 violations of 5 different RPCs gets punished the same as one violation of one RPC. Pretty chilling stuff that is going to set the stage for relationships with the OBC being exclusively adversarial. Be careful and hire Bill Terry early.
Here is one other thing to consider in Discipline cases (before you cooperate with the State Bar). Suspensions over 6 months require petitioning for reinstatement. Petitioning for Reinstatement is averaging between 9 to 14 months from filing to decision. Therefore a 6 month, 1 day suspension will really keep you out of the practice for 15-20 months. There is no middle ground.
The Disc. panel is more reasonable than ego. Brought to you by your Board of Govs.
But the Disciplinary Panel's findings are reviewed de novo which means that the Supreme Court (which is reading a cold record on the few occasions when they actually read the record) chooses the punishment and can (and often does) pick a random punishment out of the air.
If you think I am kidding about the Court not reading the record, look at the Nelson Cohen decision from today. Cohen ordered to pay $214,325 in restitution to Bremer Whyte's insurance carrier but if Cohen negotiates a compromise sum, then Cohen is to pay the balance to the Client Security Fund. In other words, why would Cohen ever compromise and work with the Insurance Company when any efforts at resolution would result in having to make the same payment to the State Bar? The Supreme Court has destroyed any incentive for Cohen to work to pay it off faster or more favorably. These are the people controlling your fates as professionals.
Speaking of Hiring Bill T(and, yes, he is the main go-to guy for attorney and judicial discipline)I have some concerns as to how Judge Potter, who was represented by Bill T, prepared for(or, more to the point, did not prepare for) the hearing. A few concerns:
1. Potter wasn't prepared that they would ask him about rule violations that he admitted to in his interrogatories. He would deny violation of a rule, and then essentially be impeached with a discovery answer where he admitted to such violation.
2. Showed no remorse for his actions, such as holding the attorney in contempt and having her hand-cuffed. Displayed regret as to losing his temper to the degree he did, but apparently insisted that how he handled the contempt was appropriate and justified.
3. Almost three years later and he apparently still has no notion of the few, and relatively simple, steps to comply with as to decorum-based contempts occurring in the court's presence.
4. Had no intention of apologizing to the attorneys for his conduct. In fact, quite the opposite, he seemed to maintain that they deserve what they got.
5. Refused to concede or appreciate that him contacting the press to rake David Mann and his client over the coals, in a case that was being aggressively litigated before him, constituted improper ex parte communication.
6. Allowed himself to be goaded into exploding.
Perhaps no matter how much Bill T prepared him before hand, #6
was bound to occur.
But as to some of these other matters, does it appear like insufficient preparation on the part of both of them?
Or, based on the dynamics concerning how Judge Potter deals with conflict situations he is directly involved with, was this all bound to occur regardless of the level of preparation?
We are handcuffed (no pun intended) when our clients believe that they are the smartest person in the room. Potter believes exactly that. Furthermore until you have sat and been the subject of a hearing, especially after 10 years of calling the shots in every proceeding in which you participate, it is a hard transition.
Imagine how screwed we are when that client somehow managed to be elected President.
If the NSC is going to throw the Quran at attorneys, then apply the fucking law.
It is full on Sharia currently.
Good analogy.
Stiglich is also up, having filled Saitta's seat. I don't think either Cadish or Silver is filing for that seat but it is open too.
It is up but it is not open. The distinction being what a sitting Justice has as an advantage in fund raising and arm twisting.
She won't get more than token opposition, if that.
Not that it would ever happen, but I would bet Stiglich wouldn't stand a chance against Silver. Even though Stiglich is the incumbent, Silver is a sitting COA judge, who if she loses would remain in the same seat. Silver is also a proven fundraising machine, something Stiglich has never yet established her abilities. She has not won a contested election. She was appointed to the District Court in 2012, won re-election in 2014 and was appointed to NSC in Dec. 2016.
In her last election, Stiglich raised slightly more than 167K, with a large portion of her largest contributors residing in the San Fransisco area (likely friend or family). Silver in comparison, last ran a contested race in 2006 wherein she raised 254K for a Justice of the Peace race. She subsequently was unopposed in 2 District Court races and 1 COA race. Based on prior history, I would give the fundraising advantage to Silver.
In terms of where they served in local offices, Stiglich was a District Judge in Reno, Silver in Las Vegas. Using the data of the 2014 election, the last Governor election (non-presidential) which is also the last time both Silver and Stiglich were on the same ballot, the total number of ballots cast statewide was 552,326. Of those ballots, 341,354 (61.8%) were cast in Clark County alone. Washoe County had 116,335 (21.1%). Based upon geographical voter base (name familiarity), advantage goes to Silver. I don't know Stiglich's party affiliation (but since she was appointed twice by Gov. Sandoval it's probably safe to assume she is a Republican), but without being certain, I can't assess whether party dynamics come into play in a match-up.
Silver would CRUSH her due to fundraising. There is a contingent of attorneys who view Stiglich as a carpetbagger (similar to how Nakagawa is in some circles viewed as a carpetbagger).
Judge Kishner needs to run and win a NVSC seat.
Just so she will get off the District Court bench and stop screwing up cases down here and sanctioning attorneys for not attending hearings that she forgets to notice?
James Dean Leavitt did not apply to fill the Judge Lippis vacancy via the appointment process. He announced his intention to fun for the seat in late July, prior to her announcing her resignation.He has always intended to run for the vacant seat this coming January when filing commences.