A complaint was filed with the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline regarding Judge Susan Johnson’s comments to felons about voting for Donald Trump. [TNI]
Nevada Court of Appeals Judge Jerome Tao changed his political registration from Democratic to nonpartisan shortly before filing to run for the Supreme Court. [RJ]
The developer of Badlands has a string of lawsuits against the City of Las Vegas. [RJ]
President Trump tweeted about not hiring some lawyers yesterday and said that “Fame & fortune will NEVER be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted.” What do you think? [CNN]
Reminder today is the last day to get your written comments into the Supreme Court on mandatory audits. Original and 8 copies.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 4:33 pm
The Commission seems to have a lot higher budget than they had in previous years as indicated by the number of matters(a few somewhat marginal, IMO)that they are now pursuing.
Even people I have spoken to who are not Susan Johnson fans believe this is a waste of time and resources, particularly since she has apparently learned her lesson, and represents that these comments to felons were just miss-fired jokes and an attempt at levity.
Why go through all this time and money to teach her a lesson by issuing a reprimand, when she already apparently acknowledges that her attempts at being playful, although not appropriate, were intended to put people at ease and be less intimidated by the process?
Does anyone seriously think she is trolling to get votes for the president among two or three felons who may or may not get their voting rights restored in time to vote in 2020?
So, I pose the question whether you all think this is really that worthy of discipline. Notice I did not ask the question of what people think of Johnson in general, or whether she deserves to be re-elected. I don't appear down there enough to have a point-of-reference or an opinion on that. But since I know people will say she deserves to be disciplined for this matter simply because they don't like her as a judge, let me rephrase the question: If a judge you find to be solid, or at least acceptable, did the exact same thing, do you believe it warrants serious discipline?
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 4:39 pm
I understand your point 9:33, but keep in mind the reporting on these judicial discipline complaints is often misleading, or at least confusing, in that it seldom makes the following distinction: if some group or individual complains to the commission, that is not the same as if the commission decides to file charges. Some progressive group filed some sort of letter of complaint to the commission, but there is no indication(at least not yet) that the commission has approved the matter for prosecution.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 5:19 pm
9:39 makes an important point. Unless and until the commission approves the filing of a formal complaint, the entire process is confidential. The only individuals/entities that even know of the complaint are the commission, the complainant, and possibly the alleged offending judge (the judge only learns of the complaint if the commission votes to investigate the complaint rather than summarily dismissing it). Included in the universe of persona knowing the complaint is anyone the complainant voluntarily discloses it to as the process is confidential until the filing of a public complaint by the commission (subsequent by a vote, to its investigation and response by the judge).
Many, if not most complaints received by the commission are either summarily dismissed or resolved with a private letter of caution, thus the public only learns of a very small number of the complaints submitted.
What may appear to be a marginal formal complaint may be in part prompted by a non-public history of problems involving the same judge which had previously been handled by way of private letters of caution.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 5:20 pm
Correct, 9:39.I bet 9:33 will read a little closer next time before expending the time to get indignant and upset. It said a complaint was filed "with" the commission, not "by" the commission.
Now if the commission acts on it, and actually files a complaint, then I think 9:33 has a point–it's a silly joke and the judge is(presumably) sorry and has learned her lesson.
I notice the commission filed a complaint against a judge in Washoe Family Court. The judge presides over meetings of the Domestic Violence Task Force. At such a meeting, he pointed out that the Violence Against Women program is being de-funded by the feds(or at least the funding is being gutted). He then noted that this shows the priorities of those responsible for the de-funding and that they are trying to "put women back in their place."
Someone at the meeting responded by saying "and what is our place?", and the judge responded something like "the bedroom and the kitchen."
The commission is proceeding against the judge. Now, that is understandable if it is believed that the remarks he made reflect his belief system. But he apparently has made it clear that his remarks were simply poorly chosen, flippant language to reflect what the priority system of the budget cutters is.
Agree that it was stupid, ill-conceived and insensitive. But how likely is it that he was reflecting his own beliefs with these statements? After all, he was chosen to serve as the head of this critical task force designed to protect women from violence.When he indicates that those poorly chosen remarks were not of course his beliefs, but the apparent beliefs of those who cut the budget to protect women, does that not seem like a reasonable explanation?
Stupid? Yes. But cruel and meant to be reflective if his beliefs? I'm not so sure.
Perhaps the complaint made to the commission is politically motivated to some extent. I'm surprised he was selected to serve in that position, and perhaps some people wanted him out. After all, he was always harshly criticized in prior elections for being really pro-male, and had(supposedly) aligned himself with Father's Rights groups when he was in private practice and first attempting to get elected.
But since the commission approved this for prosecution, apparently they would reject the view that it was just a dumbly, insensitively phrased remark to reflect not his beliefs, but those of those who cut the budget to protect women.And perhaps the judge has not totally owned up to it to the extent I thought he did, has not apologized profusely, and has not totally clarified(to the commission's satisfaction) that his remarks were not jabs at the women he is charged to protect, but instead a jab at the budget cutters.So, there may be more here that I am unaware of, but that the commission is aware of.
At the very least, I hope he no longer heads the task force.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 5:45 pm
Good, they should investigate this. The comments are improper. If attorneys are getting audited, the judges should be scrutinised at the same level.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 6:24 pm
Of course judges should be scrutinized, but you may be comparing two disparate things that don't lend themselves to fair comparison.
Judges should be scrutinized and be held accountable by the Judicial Discipline Commission when warranted, but that level of scrutiny should not necessarily become more intense on account that the State Bar is imposing random audits on attorneys.
I don't agree that random audits is the approach the Bar should implement, but since they have that does not have anything to do with whether this judge should be reprimanded for his admittedly ill-chosen, stupid remarks.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 6:33 pm
Actually, judges should be scrutinized more than attorneys. Judges take an additional oath. Judges are subject to their own rule of ethics. Johnson should be investigated
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 7:27 pm
Whoever comes forward to speak out about what ethical violations are alleged against our judiciary takes a lot of guts. Except for a few,the judges on the Eighth Judicial suck.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 7:31 pm
Do judges have to report ethics violations of other judges?
Yes they do. Judge Hoeffgen in NLVMC was publicly reprimanded by the Commission for not reporting Judge Ramsey's violations of judicial canons.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 8:16 pm
Yes, Judge Hoefgren in North Las Vegas Municipal was sanctioned for failing to report Judge Ramsey's ethical issues, if I recall correctly.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 8:16 pm
Technically, yes, but it has about as much teeth as the requirement that attorneys report other attorneys. No attorney appears to have gotten into trouble for failure to report another attorney, unless the non-reporting attorney was involved in the same activity which lead to ethical violations.
If an attorney is ever accussed of not reporting someone, the defense would simply be they didn't really know fully of the alleged conduct and/or were not persuaded it reached the level of an ethical violation. And it would usually be quite difficult to prove what the non-offending attorney knew or did not know.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 8:40 pm
I am laughing how I was right that Elissa Cadish would draw an opponent. Her handlers misspent that 500k for the misfire.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 9:45 pm
She is being endorsed by Glen Lerner. Joke.
Guest
Anonymous
March 26, 2018 10:25 pm
Question to attorneys. When is your action as settlement attempt becomes blackmail and extortion? What is the case law in Nevada on that?
I'm guessing what you are asking is what is an illegal settlement attempt. If you threaten criminal action should the other side not settle,i.e. you give me money or my client will file rape charges against your client, that is blackmail and/or extortion. Chesnoff recorded another attorney doing just that during a settlement negotiation I believe, didn't end well for the other attorney. But that may be an apocryphal story.
Что касается судебных разбирательств. Это также тактика для меня. Это дело для меня. И я был успешным. И я знаю, что использовал судебный процесс. И иногда я использую его, может быть, когда не хочу, а иногда и нет. Если я буду угрожать вам уголовным преследованием, чтобы получить урегулирование, то только потому, что я снова пытаюсь сделать Америку здоровой! Кроме того, можете ли вы поверить, насколько горячи моя дочь !? Она похожа на 10, и я бы полностью ее коснулся, если бы я не был ее папой!
Nothing much is going to happen with the Judge Susan Johnson complaint. The comment was unnecessary but the complaint against her smacks of politically incorrect speech. The Commission could take so many routes. It may result at the most in some type of reprimand. It could result in nothing. She was merely saying that if a defendant completed all the conditions they could get restoration of their voting rights and even vote for President Donald J. Trump. Sarcastic? If she said they could vote for Bernie or Hillary, less offensive? This is much ado about nothing. How was it prejudicial to the defendant? Did it affect the outcome? No and not likel. It was politically motivated by the defense attorney in this case the deputy public defender.
Reminder today is the last day to get your written comments into the Supreme Court on mandatory audits. Original and 8 copies.
The Commission seems to have a lot higher budget than they had in previous years as indicated by the number of matters(a few somewhat marginal, IMO)that they are now pursuing.
Even people I have spoken to who are not Susan Johnson fans believe this is a waste of time and resources, particularly since she has apparently learned her lesson, and represents that these comments to felons were just miss-fired jokes and an attempt at levity.
Why go through all this time and money to teach her a lesson by issuing a reprimand, when she already apparently acknowledges that her attempts at being playful, although not appropriate, were intended to put people at ease and be less intimidated by the process?
Does anyone seriously think she is trolling to get votes for the president among two or three felons who may or may not get their voting rights restored in time to vote in 2020?
So, I pose the question whether you all think this is really that worthy of discipline. Notice I did not ask the question of what people think of Johnson in general, or whether she deserves to be re-elected. I don't appear down there enough to have a point-of-reference or an opinion on that. But since I know people will say she deserves to be disciplined for this matter simply because they don't like her as a judge, let me rephrase the question: If a judge you find to be solid, or at least acceptable, did the exact same thing, do you believe it warrants serious discipline?
I understand your point 9:33, but keep in mind the reporting on these judicial discipline complaints is often misleading, or at least confusing, in that it seldom makes the following distinction: if some group or individual complains to the commission, that is not the same as if the commission decides to file charges. Some progressive group filed some sort of letter of complaint to the commission, but there is no indication(at least not yet) that the commission has approved the matter for prosecution.
9:39 makes an important point. Unless and until the commission approves the filing of a formal complaint, the entire process is confidential. The only individuals/entities that even know of the complaint are the commission, the complainant, and possibly the alleged offending judge (the judge only learns of the complaint if the commission votes to investigate the complaint rather than summarily dismissing it). Included in the universe of persona knowing the complaint is anyone the complainant voluntarily discloses it to as the process is confidential until the filing of a public complaint by the commission (subsequent by a vote, to its investigation and response by the judge).
Many, if not most complaints received by the commission are either summarily dismissed or resolved with a private letter of caution, thus the public only learns of a very small number of the complaints submitted.
What may appear to be a marginal formal complaint may be in part prompted by a non-public history of problems involving the same judge which had previously been handled by way of private letters of caution.
Correct, 9:39.I bet 9:33 will read a little closer next time before expending the time to get indignant and upset. It said a complaint was filed "with" the commission, not "by" the commission.
Now if the commission acts on it, and actually files a complaint, then I think 9:33 has a point–it's a silly joke and the judge is(presumably) sorry and has learned her lesson.
I notice the commission filed a complaint against a judge in Washoe Family Court. The judge presides over meetings of the Domestic Violence Task Force. At such a meeting, he pointed out that the Violence Against Women program is being de-funded by the feds(or at least the funding is being gutted). He then noted that this shows the priorities of those responsible for the de-funding and that they are trying to "put women back in their place."
Someone at the meeting responded by saying "and what is our place?", and the judge responded something like "the bedroom and the kitchen."
The commission is proceeding against the judge. Now, that is understandable if it is believed that the remarks he made reflect his belief system. But he apparently has made it clear that his remarks were simply poorly chosen, flippant language to reflect what the priority system of the budget cutters is.
Agree that it was stupid, ill-conceived and insensitive. But how likely is it that he was reflecting his own beliefs with these statements? After all, he was chosen to serve as the head of this critical task force designed to protect women from violence.When he indicates that those poorly chosen remarks were not of course his beliefs, but the apparent beliefs of those who cut the budget to protect women, does that not seem like a reasonable explanation?
Stupid? Yes. But cruel and meant to be reflective if his beliefs? I'm not so sure.
Perhaps the complaint made to the commission is politically motivated to some extent. I'm surprised he was selected to serve in that position, and perhaps some people wanted him out. After all, he was always harshly criticized in prior elections for being really pro-male, and had(supposedly) aligned himself with Father's Rights groups when he was in private practice and first attempting to get elected.
But since the commission approved this for prosecution, apparently they would reject the view that it was just a dumbly, insensitively phrased remark to reflect not his beliefs, but those of those who cut the budget to protect women.And perhaps the judge has not totally owned up to it to the extent I thought he did, has not apologized profusely, and has not totally clarified(to the commission's satisfaction) that his remarks were not jabs at the women he is charged to protect, but instead a jab at the budget cutters.So, there may be more here that I am unaware of, but that the commission is aware of.
At the very least, I hope he no longer heads the task force.
Good, they should investigate this. The comments are improper. If attorneys are getting audited, the judges should be scrutinised at the same level.
Of course judges should be scrutinized, but you may be comparing two disparate things that don't lend themselves to fair comparison.
Judges should be scrutinized and be held accountable by the Judicial Discipline Commission when warranted, but that level of scrutiny should not necessarily become more intense on account that the State Bar is imposing random audits on attorneys.
I don't agree that random audits is the approach the Bar should implement, but since they have that does not have anything to do with whether this judge should be reprimanded for his admittedly ill-chosen, stupid remarks.
Actually, judges should be scrutinized more than attorneys. Judges take an additional oath. Judges are subject to their own rule of ethics. Johnson should be investigated
Whoever comes forward to speak out about what ethical violations are alleged against our judiciary takes a lot of guts. Except for a few,the judges on the Eighth Judicial suck.
Do judges have to report ethics violations of other judges?
Yes they do. Judge Hoeffgen in NLVMC was publicly reprimanded by the Commission for not reporting Judge Ramsey's violations of judicial canons.
Yes, Judge Hoefgren in North Las Vegas Municipal was sanctioned for failing to report Judge Ramsey's ethical issues, if I recall correctly.
Technically, yes, but it has about as much teeth as the requirement that attorneys report other attorneys. No attorney appears to have gotten into trouble for failure to report another attorney, unless the non-reporting attorney was involved in the same activity which lead to ethical violations.
If an attorney is ever accussed of not reporting someone, the defense would simply be they didn't really know fully of the alleged conduct and/or were not persuaded it reached the level of an ethical violation. And it would usually be quite difficult to prove what the non-offending attorney knew or did not know.
I am laughing how I was right that Elissa Cadish would draw an opponent. Her handlers misspent that 500k for the misfire.
She is being endorsed by Glen Lerner. Joke.
Question to attorneys. When is your action as settlement attempt becomes blackmail and extortion? What is the case law in Nevada on that?
Hire a lawyer and ask.
Just type your question in Russian. We might be able to understand it.
I'm guessing what you are asking is what is an illegal settlement attempt. If you threaten criminal action should the other side not settle,i.e. you give me money or my client will file rape charges against your client, that is blackmail and/or extortion. Chesnoff recorded another attorney doing just that during a settlement negotiation I believe, didn't end well for the other attorney. But that may be an apocryphal story.
Что касается судебных разбирательств. Это также тактика для меня. Это дело для меня. И я был успешным. И я знаю, что использовал судебный процесс. И иногда я использую его, может быть, когда не хочу, а иногда и нет. Если я буду угрожать вам уголовным преследованием, чтобы получить урегулирование, то только потому, что я снова пытаюсь сделать Америку здоровой! Кроме того, можете ли вы поверить, насколько горячи моя дочь !? Она похожа на 10, и я бы полностью ее коснулся, если бы я не был ее папой!
Кроме того, многие люди говорят, что Бойд-13 является самым большим. Выпускники Boyd 13 продолжают по-настоящему ценить мир!
Trump 2020.
Read Bull v. McCuskey and Dutt v. Kremp.
Mother Russi.
Nothing much is going to happen with the Judge Susan Johnson complaint. The comment was unnecessary but the complaint against her smacks of politically incorrect speech. The Commission could take so many routes. It may result at the most in some type of reprimand. It could result in nothing. She was merely saying that if a defendant completed all the conditions they could get restoration of their voting rights and even vote for President Donald J. Trump. Sarcastic? If she said they could vote for Bernie or Hillary, less offensive? This is much ado about nothing. How was it prejudicial to the defendant? Did it affect the outcome? No and not likel. It was politically motivated by the defense attorney in this case the deputy public defender.
Sure. She is just a judge.