- Quickdraw McLaw
- 52 Comments
- 411 Views
- Evictions continue before the moratorium set forth in Directive 36 starts tomorrow. [TNI]
- DETR is still a mess. [RJ]
- But rest assured, Barbara Buckley says DETR is not broke. [News3LV]
- Can employers force workers to get vaccinated? It depends. [RJ]
Good work Dems on your top 3 accomplishments for 2020:
1. Virus panic
2. Stole election with senile President and Manchurian Candidate VP
3. Destroyed economy
I thought China was to blame for all three? Make up your mind troll!
10:18 – liberals always respond with name calling. China caused the virus – not the virus panic. Democrat Gov's can be thanked for that. Democrats tanked out economy and continue to block stimulus. But nice try. Just saying "troll" really helps.
It's clearly voldemort trolling the blog. He regularly lifts comments from this blog and reports them as factual on his radio show. Makes his minions think he has connections and knows people. Don't take the bait. Trolls die when they don't get the attention they need.
It's not just liberals who respond with name-calling. I'm pretty conservative and I think the term "troll" fits 10:11 perfectly. I would not use that term to describe 10:27. I would call 10:27 a "clown". (See, political leanings have nothing to do with it.)
"Troll", the new word of choice for liberals, overtaking "science", which replaced "collusion".
No, now we are the Knights who say, "ekke ekke ekke ekke ptang zoo boing!"
"Evidence," the new word of choice for the GOP, overtaking "winning" which replaced "treason"
You keep using that word…
Gonna be a long 12 years bud
Serious question for this serious blog. Why can’t people agree to disagree and move forward. Does trump winning or losing really change someone’s life that much? How was your life so adversely effected or improved by Trump? In 4 years we get to vote again, but in the meantime can’t people see what we agree on and work to make things better.
This is not a serious blog so I reject the premise of your question. This is the current incarnation of the internet comments section.
7:28:
My life was improved under Trump because he pulled us out of the anti-US Paris Climate Accords — and my energy prices reflected that. He stopped the senseless overseas blood bath and men and women and children who would have otherwise died lived, albeit at the expense of some Defense Companies bottom line.
He cut taxes. He cut regulations. He freed petty criminals who were caught up in the unjust war on drugs. He initiated massive deregulation of the medical industrial complex that was starting to show results with dropping prices and increased consumer option.
He consistently hyped hope and that we can achieve peace and prosperity through open trade deals and reasonable peace treaties. He finally started enforcing immigration laws and targeted violent Central and South American gangs who run massive child prostitution rings.
He correctly identified Chyna as the natural enemy of the USA and initiated peaceful decoupling. He inspired the residents of Hong Kong to fight for liberty — until KungFlu brought that liberty movement crashing down. As far as I am concerned Sisolak is no better than the Chief Executive of Hong Kong.
And Trump was incredibly entertaining as he slayed the media, establishment, sacred cows, and so on.
He was a populist's populist. Brilliant. Unfortunately, he never had a chance. Congratulations to the establishment: you took down the lawfully elected leader of the USA. He thought if the landslide was yuge enough, they could not print enough (or, really, just make up enough) votes. But they did. They really did. We are forever changed now that Philly, Detroit, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, and Atlanta can change any national election at will. The courts refused to enforce the law. Very sad.
RIP the Republic.
I asked how it actually helped you. He cut taxes, but did your tax bill go down? How did cutting regulations help you? What energy prices went down? NV Energy has gone up and gas fluctuates the same as it always has.
Calling BS on 10:17's energy prices going down. That's not how energy pricing works.
Interesting piece by Brianna Smith's husband. https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/socially-distanced-separation-of-powers
My probably less interesting reply to a reply to Mr. Smith:
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/socially-distanced-separation-of-powers#comment-5190467218
Regular UI claim filed in June. Still pending adjudication today. DETR is broken.
I am sorry for you. I am waiting 4 months for an investigator to call me back on a ui fraud claim. I cannot file until that is cleared up.
Re: J. Breslow's DETR Contempt Order.
What good is a contempt order against an agency? To be effective, the OSC and contempt should be against an individual responsible for running DETR. THEN you will some claims getting processed and payments made.
See: Judge Goldman's contempt order against Clerk of the Court Loretta Bowman for jail time. I thought he was crazy. But then I deal with a Clerk's Office now that cannot even file pleadings correctly on the fourth opportunity and wonder if he was on to something.
People seem to have strong general opinions on both side of the eviction moratorium issues.
My view is that it should be a case-by-case basis as to who deserves the benefit of the moratorium. There are obviously people whose employment and income are profoundly affected by covid, and who obviously deserve the benefit of the moratorium.
But there are also many people whose incomes were not adversely affected by covid, but have simply stopped paying rent or mortgage due to the moratorium. These people, generally speaking, don't deserve the same protection as the truly needy.
Rather than a blanket moratorium, would it have been too difficult, from an administrative standpoint, to require someone to fill in a form and offer representations as to reduction of income(e.g. was earning $5,200 per month, but got laid off on Sept. 5, and receive the following weekly amount in unemployment benefits).
Why isn't there at least some minor requirement like that? Why does everyone simply receive this huge automatic benefit that should be reserved for the truly needy? After all, if the government is taking the huge step of interfering with private contracts and the property/financial interests of the landlords or note holders, the protections should be limited to the truly needy.
My view will not be popular as many people despise landlords. But a lot of tenants are really bad as well, as proven by how many of them are improperly exploiting a major health crisis to allow them to live rent-free even thought their incomes may not have decreased.
Yeah – my friend has a couple rental properties. The tenants that got laid off are doing everything in their power to pay what they can and work with her to stay in the house. She also has tenants who are still working full time and just not paying rent. She already told them as soon as the moratorium is lifted, she's evicting them. There should be some kind of proof required that the tenants got laid off. Just allowing people not to pay rent is clearly asking jerks to take advantage.
I don't give a rat's ass about whether the non-paying tenants are laid-off workers struggling because of the panic shut-down of the economy or whether they are fixed income recipients who have not missed a single payment during the shutdown. I care that the government is putting the problem onto the landlords, who are innocent of the shutdown. Due process? Just compensation?
Contract clause? Are we lawyers or social justice warriors?
@12:35 and @1:05 have a point. The current eviction mediation program requires the tenant to submit a COVID statement. No real specifics required, only mumble something about how COVID has somehow affected the tenant. In LVJC all a tenant has to do to get a hearing set 30 days out is to mark a checkbox on the Tenant Answer form.
1:05 that's not a great argument. Laws are a reflection of society's values so the answer is yes to both. And remember…what the Nazis did was "legal," slavery was "legal," the slaughter of Native Americans was "legal." There's all kinds of "legal" crap that goes on that is wrong and immoral and unjust. If you fancy yourself a lawyer, make better arguments than that.
2:03, it is your argument that is lacking. 1:05's issue is with the government effectively choosing winners and losers. They have stepped in and told one group of people that they do not have to pay their bills while another group receives no relief from theirs. (It becomes even more insidious when you consider the likely political leanings of the respective groups) Your insinuation that there is something immoral about evicting someone who doesn't pay their rent and comparing it to atrocities throughout history is little more than a Godwin's law esque tactic. The Governor and you are basically saying they do not care about the individuals who own rental properties as income or as their retirements. That is immoral.
I'm not sure whether it's "immoral." Governments pick winners and losers all the time. It definitely sucks to be on the losing end, and I definitely have been there, but I've never thought that the government was being immoral by choosing to help one group over another.
And let's be real. The intent of the moratorium is to enable people to be able to continue social distancing instead of having to run off to a crowded shelter. That rationale has not been effectively conveyed by the governor's office. So yeah, I'm not sold on the idea that the governor is picking winners as opposed to trying to minimize the impact of a pandemic. But sure, the end result is that shitbag renters can live rent free. Sucks, but I get the reasoning.
2:03 here…I actually did NOT opine on 1:05's comment regarding the evictions. I only responded to the question "Are we lawyers or social justice warriors?" Absolutely nothing in my comment said anything about the evictions. 1:05 could do a better job framing their argument…couching the argument in those terms is just not good. It's intellectually lazy and inflammatory.
3:32, the reasoning is 100% political. It has nothing to do with enabling people to social distance. That is just bullshit rationalization. It has everything to do with politicians who torpedoed our economy and trying to cover up some of the damage.
I didn't think I would live to see the Moochers take over.
I would be open to OP's standard of evaluating on a case-by-case basis except LVJC's eviction operation has been a nightmare that has refused to follow or enforce the CDC Moratorium and is constantly getting being reversed on appeal. The "calling balls and strikes" model only works if (a) you have a clear strike zone which that model would not and (b) the umpire actually follows a consistent strike zone in the rules. Right now there is neither. The eviction mediation program is such a disaster that I actually quit as a mediator already because it is a nightmare of disorganization.
Look I have 8 rental properties that I have worked my tail off (ok my property manager has worked his tail off) to keep the tenants paying and they have. The frustration and risk on the Landlord side is palpable and real and also something that could be shifted elsewhere if the rental assistance program actually was effective and if foreclosure/default moratoriums were likewise implemented.
12:17–true that some tenants are more deserving than others, but adding the requirement you indicate, in addition to adding an expensive extra bureaucratic step, will lead to allegations that people, when filling in the form, lied about income and the extent it has decreased, etc. It' much more logistically manageable to simply have the across the board moratorium until the crisis passes.
As far as lawyers, who on this blog complain time-to-time about not receiving unemployment benefits, I am truly not trying to be a callous, insensitive a-hole when I observe the following.
I know young lawyers, who are working for firms, who have now been laid off so I understand them complaining about the benefits being so badly delayed.
That said, I also know lawyers past 50 years-old with over 20 years licensed, who were working for firms and who were laid off and who are also complaining endlessly about how they are in such dire straits due to the benefits being so badly delayed.
When we become attorneys, and make that huge sacrifice of years and money, one reason we presumably do so is that we are not merely a wage-earning slave when we are in our 50's or even 60's, who are always just one pay check from oblivion.
So, even if a lawyer past 50 decided that he/she always wants to work for a firm and receive a steady pay check, as opposed to going out on their own, I understand that, but then after 20+ years in practice they should have enough saved that they could go a few months without a paycheck, and still survive, if a crisis hits.
I know one 56-yera-old attorney, who has always worked for a firm at a salary, now endlessly belly-aching about how he could never even miss one pay period without being in the poor house. He always slaved away at more than 60 hours per week with the firm.
Covid arrived and the firm cut him, among others. When he panicked I noted to him that he presumptively had at least a little nest egg saved up after 28 years of practice. He bellowed that he has 6 kids, three in college, including two of them at BYU, and that he no longer has two nickels to rub together.
But all of those are live choices he made. And those life choices should be made with the knowledge that it is imperative to at least have a little bit banked in case one had to miss work for a few months, whether it be illness, injury, our current crisis or whatever.
I guess I differ from many others. I entered the law, in part, so that by the time I was middle-aged I would have some financial flexibility and options and did not necessary need to be a slave to "the man" until I was well into my 60's, and then retire to live off limited social security.
When I say these things my wife tells me I am being a hard, insensitive bastard. Am I?
No you are not being an insensitive bastard
I think the same way when someone comes on this cite to complain that they can not afford to go to the bar convention
Isn't "hard, insensitive bastard" a required qualification to be an attorney?
12:52 is being reasonable. I'm not too far off from the attorney he describes, but I made the choice with my eyes wide open. We are at any given moment the sum of our decisions in life.
No, you are not an insensitive b@#$&+*. We live in a world where the majority of folks live outside their means, then take zero responsibility for their life choices and want the govt to become their new sugar daddy. That life philosophy is prevalent among Democrats, which is why they want "free" everything.
You are not being insensitive. To those of you unemployed, you have my sympathies. With that said, there is TONS of legal work out there that will tide you over. Join LRS, sign up for some of these legal referral networks, call your attorney friends and see if they have some contract work. No it does not come with the safety and security of a punch-the-clock firm but we are not in a time where safety and security abounds.
I agree with 8:38 a.m. I was laid off and was able to pick up a bit of contract work from a law school classmate to help tide me over, and two weeks later I landed a job that is better than the one from which I was laid off. The market is even better now, I believe, and should only strengthen. There is legal work out there.
12:52, I don't disagree with much of what you say, nor do I think you are being some complete, insensitive jerk.
That said I believe you really over-simplify when you allow that it is okay for young attorneys to complain about delayed unemployment benefits, but that older, more experienced attorneys should not be heard to complain,and that it is always their fault if they didn't save up for a rainy day.
Yawn.
So rich people take PPP bailout, but you are a loser lawyer if you take him benefits you or your employer pay for? This is on par with RJC judge's logic.
Which judge's logic?
Did Giuliani ever give up the metadata for the Hunter Biden laptop/emails? I never heard anything about that after a couple days when he refused to let anybody look into it.
It's pretty funny how the media, twitter, facebook, etc. were able to ridcule and suppress the NY Post story about Hunter Biden's criminal acts. Republican heads are exploding and these half-wits can't accept that bad orange man lost. BIDEN – HARRIS WON! Deal with it!
I disagree that the story was suppressed because of ridicule. It wasn't picked up because newspapers wanted to verify that the emails were authentic and Giuliani wouldn't let them. Hard to run a story as true when you can't verify that it's true. I know I'll get pounded for this by the fake news crowd, but the backbone of journalistic ethics is truth and accuracy. Can't verify that a story is accurate? Then you don't run it. Even Fox News understood that. I'm more curious if Giuliani ever let anyone actually look at the laptop or emails for verification. My guess is no since nothing has been reported.
@3:36–how do you reconcile that with the Steele dossier? After it was published once, most news agencies covered it and then because it was unverifiable just ascribed the verifiability to the first publisher. People so desperately wanted it to be a story that they farmed out the Journalistic Ethics.
2:23, you might want to pump the brakes on the touchdown dance. It's likely that the Biden-Harris victory will stand, but I wouldn't expect him to hold the office too long. If the developing China scandal doesn't take him down, his own party is likely to oust him in favor of Kamala. And the dem voters did not want her in that position as revealed through the primary process. Awkward situation at best.
It's easy to reconcile 3:36 with the Steele dossier. There was no doubt that the dossier itself was genuine. He might have had some things wrong, but it wasn't a fake document. Nobody can even verify if the emails are real. That's the difference.
Is Lawyers concerning lawyers accept third party referrAls from lawyers?