You are correct. I tried to put that same info in a comment on the Tribune article, but it didn't pass through moderation yet…? Looks like they may not be interested in fact.
Correct. That is exactly what happened. The LasVegasTribute.net may wish to exercise greater caution in the future before leveling false and unfounded allegations against members of our judiciary.
Guest
Anonymous
July 28, 2014 11:25 pm
I'm already slightly germophobic, but from now on, I'll definitely be saying, "Fist me."
Guest
Anonymous
July 29, 2014 1:08 am
Wow, there were 3 people all really interested in the Judge Escobar topic within a period of 13 minutes this afternoon. Funny how that works.
Guest
Anonymous
July 29, 2014 1:25 am
NV Supreme Court is considering whether SCR 123 is unconstitutional. Case No. 63326.
Guest
Jordan Ross, Principal, Ross Legal Search
July 29, 2014 6:59 am
Now I actually read the Tribune. I certainly can't blame them for being a boat rocker; that would be a little too much of the pot calling the kettle black. And while I've not agreed with some of the Tribunes writings, on the other hand they have had important points to make over the years. So I have to say I'm disappointed that the Tribune made such a clearly inaccurate accusation about Judge Escobar, but they should not compound it by refusing to correct the error. May I suggest to them that contacting the subject of a negative news story would seem to be a basic journalistic practice that could avoid such errors.
Had they simply reached out to her and asked for a comment, this probably wouldn't have happened. I sincerely hope they will repair this and I have every reason to believe that Rolando Larraz, the Editor in Chief of the Tribune, will do just that. He’s admitted mistakes in the past, which is more than some media outlets do. It would be the right thing to do; Judge Escobar does not deserve to have a scurrilous attack lingering over her name. Nor should the Tribune risk it's own reputation.
Guest
Anonymous
July 29, 2014 4:15 pm
I totally agree. If the Tribune had did just a little research they would have found that there was an election in November of 2012 and who participated (only one being Judge Escobar – who did in fact beat Michael Davidson). I read the entire Tribune and it appeared as if there was some bias going on against Judge Escobar; that being said if they retract or correct their article quickly and with complete accuracy it would be better than ignoring the entire thing.
Guest
Anonymous
July 30, 2014 9:04 pm
Judge Escobar has no business being on the bench adjudicating civil matters. It's clear from her rulings that she is not familiar with and does not understand some of the most basic tenets/concepts of civil law and procedure. Perhaps more importantly, it's questionable whether she can or is willing to "learn on the bench" because her rulings over time since she has been appointed in 2012 have not gotten any better. She has even been known to reverse herself from the bench during oral argument (which by itself is not that unusual, but when even the prevailing side feels compelled to admit in open court that they can't understand her decision at all, that speaks volumes). She does appear to be very concerned about potential conflicts in the cases before her — e.g., she announces "potential" conflicts in every single case that appears before her in every single hearing no matter how tenuous and superfluous the connections between her and the parties or the attorneys — and she is always very sweet and gracious to everyone. But really, litigants don't want or need "nice;" they need "competent." Don't know yet that I'm prepared to vote for her opponent, but I am sure going to give him serious consideration. All CC voters should.
Boyd grads need not apply: http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/28/investing/rich-kid-loan-bonds/index.html?iid=Lead
I'm a junior attorney that makes more than these guys (presumably in a lower cost of living city), and I have no debt because I went to Boyd.
Good for you, but this is a douchey post.
If you want to work for the ACLU, now's your chance.
Judge Escobar was appointed for a few months and then beat Mike Davidson in the election in 2012 I do believe.
You are correct. I tried to put that same info in a comment on the Tribune article, but it didn't pass through moderation yet…? Looks like they may not be interested in fact.
Correct. That is exactly what happened. The LasVegasTribute.net may wish to exercise greater caution in the future before leveling false and unfounded allegations against members of our judiciary.
I'm already slightly germophobic, but from now on, I'll definitely be saying, "Fist me."
Wow, there were 3 people all really interested in the Judge Escobar topic within a period of 13 minutes this afternoon. Funny how that works.
NV Supreme Court is considering whether SCR 123 is unconstitutional. Case No. 63326.
Now I actually read the Tribune. I certainly can't blame them for being a boat rocker; that would be a little too much of the pot calling the kettle black. And while I've not agreed with some of the Tribunes writings, on the other hand they have had important points to make over the years. So I have to say I'm disappointed that the Tribune made such a clearly inaccurate accusation about Judge Escobar, but they should not compound it by refusing to correct the error. May I suggest to them that contacting the subject of a negative news story would seem to be a basic journalistic practice that could avoid such errors.
Had they simply reached out to her and asked for a comment, this probably wouldn't have happened. I sincerely hope they will repair this and I have every reason to believe that Rolando Larraz, the Editor in Chief of the Tribune, will do just that. He’s admitted mistakes in the past, which is more than some media outlets do. It would be the right thing to do; Judge Escobar does not deserve to have a scurrilous attack lingering over her name. Nor should the Tribune risk it's own reputation.
I totally agree. If the Tribune had did just a little research they would have found that there was an election in November of 2012 and who participated (only one being Judge Escobar – who did in fact beat Michael Davidson). I read the entire Tribune and it appeared as if there was some bias going on against Judge Escobar; that being said if they retract or correct their article quickly and with complete accuracy it would be better than ignoring the entire thing.
Judge Escobar has no business being on the bench adjudicating civil matters. It's clear from her rulings that she is not familiar with and does not understand some of the most basic tenets/concepts of civil law and procedure. Perhaps more importantly, it's questionable whether she can or is willing to "learn on the bench" because her rulings over time since she has been appointed in 2012 have not gotten any better. She has even been known to reverse herself from the bench during oral argument (which by itself is not that unusual, but when even the prevailing side feels compelled to admit in open court that they can't understand her decision at all, that speaks volumes). She does appear to be very concerned about potential conflicts in the cases before her — e.g., she announces "potential" conflicts in every single case that appears before her in every single hearing no matter how tenuous and superfluous the connections between her and the parties or the attorneys — and she is always very sweet and gracious to everyone. But really, litigants don't want or need "nice;" they need "competent." Don't know yet that I'm prepared to vote for her opponent, but I am sure going to give him serious consideration. All CC voters should.