- law dawg
- 26 Comments
- 3123 Views
- Video evidence delays hearings for Rancho High School teens accused of beating, killing classmate. [KTNV]
- AG Aaron Ford says 6 so-called fake electors committed “grave offense” against state. [KTNV]
- Henderson to pay RJ $20k in legal battle over police video. [RJ]
- After years of standing empty, Fontainebleau is set to open tonight. [TNI]
I have had enough for one day of the idiots on our District Court bench, including the one who does not understand the difference between claims for damages, claims for injunctive relief, claims for equitable relief such as rescission or specific performance, as well as the difference between a claim and a remedy. I used small words. Next time my brief will be in the form of a picture book I guess.
Are we allowed to call judges idiots on here? Usually these comments are removed.
Not by name. But I suspect using “idiot” and “judges” in the same sentence will avoid the Thwack while making your point as did the OP at 12 noon, above.
These comments are not removed when they are not directed at an individual by name. Furthermore comments that are specific in their descriptions (such as the scheduling issues in Departments 11 and 25, such as judicial demeanor in Department 8 or familiarity and application of civil procedure issues in Departments 3, 7, 18, 23 and 24) all appear to pass muster
How much do taxpayers have to shell out to the media before these tiny brained, self-important government employees figure out that the first amendment really means what it says? I cannot wait for the writs on family court to come back. Cops, judges, and every other piglet nursing from the taxpayer’s teat needs to get it through their thick skulls that the media has every right to report on their jobs and job performance. If they don’t like it, they can get jobs in private industry.
Exactly. They don’t get to have their cake and eat it too. I’ve yet to see one reasonable, good-faith argument in favor of sealing these family court cases. Truly the only people that want these sorts of policies implemented are bootlickers.
Would the following be considered a reasonable, good faith argument?:
2 parents agree that they do not want the details of their divorce/custody battle online and therefore agree to seal their case?
If no, would it change your mind if there was a term either parent could “unseal” the case in the future if they want?
Its more reasonable than sealing everything. I am of the opinion that they should have to show cause beyond “I am a not well liked, controversial Family Court Judge of questionable skill and intelligence” and I do not want my divorce details made public.
I think the big distinction with 3:06’s comment is that it gives the parties the ability to seal (or unseal) their case, not the government/court.
(And I think that’s how it should be)
Speaking as a member of the public, let the sunshine in. Public courts, public documents.
If they’re really that invested in keeping their details private they can do a marital settlement agreement. Most high net worth people use MSAs for exactly that reason. Sealing the courts allows abusers, incompetent judges, and greedy bootlickers to thrive.
Exactly. Settling grants confidentiality. If you’re going to fight it out in court, and use resources paid for by the taxpayer, such as judges and courtrooms, we get to see pleadings and judgments in all their glory.
If you watch those 1A audit vidoes you’d come to the conclusion that the well is bottomless and the potential payouts limitless.
The First Amendment “audit” videos are obnoxious to the nth degree.
Can someone link the 1A audit videos
YouTube and Tiktok have many. They follow a familiar pattern: Filmer does something legal (sometimes odd, sometimes not). Cop approaches, demands ID. Often results in Arrest for obstruction, resisting, failure to follow a lawful order, etc. My personal favorite is when cops get butthurt because the filmer flips them off, unlawfully detains them, and then assaults the filmer. All without even the slightest iota of RAS.
Hey, Aaron, dog, what about the mail in ballots days after the election with defective signatures? No offense there?
Sounds like you have an issue with the laws put in place to ensure fair and free elections, mate. Why you have an issue with counting every ballot mailed by election day, and ensuring that voters have an opportunity to cure their signature before disenfranchising them is an exercise left to the reader.
Maill in ballots are so far from “fair and free”. More like Chicago style elections.
Fair and free is Voter ID, in person and 1 day elections.
Hate the military much? Deployed soldiers can’t vote without coming home on a specific day? Why should any citizen of Nevada be stripped of their right because of your paranoia?
You claim voting by mail is susceptible to fraud. Prove it.
Utah is vote by mail. Doesn’t seem to have mysteriously changed its political results. Vermont, Washington, Colorado? Same thing.
That is horseshit and you know it. Absentee balloting has worked for decades. UNIVERSAL mail in is the fraud.
Don’t be obtuse.
So absentee balloting works, but mail-in voting, which is just absentee balloting and is processed exactly the same, is fraud? The mental gymnastics that takes is remarkable.
Utah went 100% mail-in. The GQP there, who supported it before they opposed it, tried to roll it back. There was a revolt when county officials tried to eliminate the option, and they are still 100% mail in. But I suppose that’s just like the Nevada GQP and its position on primary v. caucus. They supported the change to primary, asserting the goal of increased participation. Then, suddenly, increased participation was no longer a good goal.
If it were up to me, everyone who wanted to could vote with EASE.
Ok, Zero Credibility. You [don’t] win.
You are wrong and you know it.
No, actually I don’t know it. You want to claim fraud, but don’t want to have to prove fraud. You know who also couldn’t prove fraud? The ones claiming fraud in the 2020 election. They had a chance to prove it before Judge Wilson. Zero success. Not even “hey, this could possibly be fraud, but needs more to meet the standard.” Nope. Not a concern under any legal standard. He heard the claims, listened to all the experts and evidence the NVGOP election deniers were able to muster, then pointed that none of what they claimed actually meant anything. I’m assuming you have legal training. You made the claim, you have the burden of proving it.
Your paranoia and gullibility about what you’ve been told by right wing nutters is not my problem. You don’t get to make it my problem by trying to make it harder to vote. Your candidates aren’t being denied by fraud, they’re being rejected by voters because their positions are repulsive.
As a member of the GOP, you are 100% right. Promotion of absentee ballots for military, college students, the elderly etc. is clearly the way to go. We want people to vote with ease. So long as we remain the party of better ideas, we need to encourage ease of voting. This notion that elections are only fair when we win (and then only the races that we win in otherwise fair elections) is garbage. We know its garbage.
In this case, I was referring specifically to EASE.
“Nevada’s Effective Absentee System for Elections, or EASE, is an online application that seamlessly integrates voter registration and electronic ballot delivery and marking. EASE is available to members of the United States Armed Forces, their spouses and dependents, Nevada voters who reside outside of the country and Nevada residents with a disability. Nevada’s EASE is the first entirely online application, from registration to requesting a ballot to ballot delivery to a ballot marking system using a digital/electronic signature, for military and overseas voters. “