- Quickdraw McLaw
- 37 Comments
- 401 Views
- Governor Brian Sandoval is getting married this weekend. [TNI]
- Danny Tarkanian, represented by Marc Randazza, sent a cease and desist letter to Susie Lee, represented by Todd Bice. [TNI]
- The DA race is over, but the push for reform of the bail system isn’t. [Nevada Current]
Danny Tarkanian needs to just piss off already
I'm a republican, and I am sick of Tarkanian, but Randazza v. Bice will be a good time [insert gif of me eating popcorn here].
Randazza has a good control game and an excellent jump shot. Bice is strong in the paint. [insert gif of me smoking a bowl].
The claim that he "helped to set up scams" by helping them incorporate and acted as a registered agent for the companies is a slam dunk for Randazza. Whether he can fade back and sink the three on the FDIC issue has yet to be seen.
Randazza is up for bar discipline. http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=47682
Randazza's a top First Amendment lawyer. Google him and dig down. I don't know about the discipline case. But, Randazza got cross with Steve Wynn a few years ago and, until recently, Wynn had powers all over Nevada. Coincidence? You decide.
If one can be judged by their enemies then Randazza gets my vote as he must be doing good to be targeted by the Bar
great point 12:55.
I have Marc once, and he seemed like a real nice guy. Even when i didnt agree with some legal positions with him he was open to my interpretation and wasnt argumentative. I have also seen him in action and know he strongly advocates for his clients. thats all you can ask your attorney to do for you
The Sandoval story raises the question: was this why he got divorced? Yes, it's possible he met this woman after his divorce, or at least didn't become romantically involved until afterwards. But the timing is suspicious. Six months from divorce to remarriage is very fast. It's going to be an issue if he ever tries to run for office again. Anyone have more info than is in the press?
He's not running for office again. The Republican party and the Republican base have no interest in a thoughtful, intelligent, and moderate Hispanic leader.
@9:58, and what evidence do you have to support your statement?
The evidence he cited already: Divorce was February, remarried in July. Awfuly short time to meet someone new.
I was more interested in his evidence as to, "The Republican party and the republican base have no interest in a thoughtful, intelligent, and moderate Hispanic leader."
I would say that it sounds more like an opinion.
Wasn't Governor Sandoval separated from his wife and announced they were getting divorced long before February this year.
Sandoval issued a statement announcing the separation and pending divorce in December 2017. The divorce was finalized in February. I'm not familiar enough with the governor's personal life to know whether they were actually separated before then.
I've never really perceived Sandoval as being particularly thoughtful, intelligent, or moderate. But he is nominally Hispanic and would actually make a good running mate for someone like Kasich. The Republicans are likely to get smacked in the mid-terms. Let's hope that emboldens someone like Kasich to run a primary campaign. The grisly part of the Republican party still really likes Trump. But the more sophisticated part of the party (read: donors) is getting tired of his act.
The donors and establishment Republicans don't care how many goofy tweets Trump types, as long as he gets conservative judges confirmed, lowers taxes and regulations, and generally disrupts or dismantles the administrative state. He's having beyond-Reagan-level success in these areas, which is why his approval rating has consistently exceeded Obama's by 4-5% at any given point in their respective presidencies.
One can only hope that the Republican party finally walks away from the cool-aid bowl and ejects the nutcase fringe [yes, that means the tea party, Trump, Bannon, etc. extremists] and returns to it's core beliefs that has served it well since the years of Lincoln.
Either it wakes up and changes course, or it will be ultimately relegated to the fringes of political life [or the history books] [Independent; Federalist; Democratic-Republican; National Republican/Whig; Free Soil]. The alternative is of course, as shown by history, the birth of a new party to serve as a home for the dissatisfied former members of the old party.
Perhaps in this era of hyper-partisan politics, it would not be such a bad thing if the moderates of both major parties were to break off from their respective parties (leaving the extremists of both to push each of those parties further to their respective left or right) while joining forces to occupy the middle ground. In this way, they could have greater influence than they currently exert being able to form compromises that are issue based rather than agenda based.
11:56: What approval ratings are you looking at? Obviously, not the same ones as the rest of us.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
"Since the years of Lincoln." GTFO. I'm sick of Republicans taking credit for Lincoln. Yes, the party he belonged to was nominally called the Republicans while the other party was called the Democrats. But if you look at what the general party platforms were in the 1860s, there really isn't a clean comparison. Both parties's platforms have substantially evolved in the past 150 years. Republicans were (pre Civil Rights era) the party of racial progress, civil rights, and big government. Y'know, the exact opposite of today's GOP on those issues. So go ahead and trumpet that the GOP is the party of Lincoln, but understand that means taking the good along with some dirty lib positions of today.
"What approval ratings are you looking at?"
Exactly. It's just downright comical the way the conservative media cherry picks the most favorable outlier polls (usually Rasmussen) to make these arguments.
@1:48; As a life-long Republican I am proud of the GOP stand for civil rights in the pre-Civil Rights era. I am ashamed and horrified by many of its current positions when talking about individual rights.
I also agree with you that the party has lost it's way in terms of the nature and size of the government, along with it's interactions with the citizenry. I have to disagree with you, however, that the GOP was ever the party of big government with ever expanding governmental programs.
At it's core, the party stood for (or at least used to stand for) the concept of dignity and responsibility. When an individual did their part in terms of responsibility (financial and social) yet still needed a helping hand then society (through their government and social institutions) owed an obligation to assist that individual to get onto their feet. It goes back to the old concept of giving a hand-up not a handout. Somewhere along the line that believe system was lost and now they like the other major party are all about me me me.
It is sad but both parties are mirror images of each other without much distinction. Both use the government to enhance their own power and line their own pockets and to hell with everyone else.
Maybe the best answer is for the voters to say to h%ll with both of you, refuse to play along, and pick new leaders not controlled by either existing major party. Wishful thinking… but one can always dream…
Danny is whiny, but I am really sick and tired of campaigns not merely shading the truth, but just making shit up about their opponent. I read Randazza's letter. He is 100% correct that Lee's campaign knew their statement about Danny's involvement in these "schemes" is false.
The truth is that the people who run for office have such an incredible lust for power that they will do anything their campaign managers suggest. Most campaign managers have absolutely no qualms about using lies to destroy people as the means to an ends of winning. I find both the lust of the candidates and the absolute immorality of campaign managers to be incredibly appalling.
Danny is a perpetual loser and I would never vote for him. But what does it say about Susie Lee that she wants to win so badly that she will trot out allegations she KNOWS are objectively false, presumably at the advice of a slimy campaign advisor?
The Judge in the Manafort Trial seems like an abusive jerk who hates the prosecutor. How will this conduct affect the jury? I hope they become sympathetic to the prosecutor:
From CNN: Judge and prosecutor keep butting heads in Manafort trial
From CNN's Liz Stark and Katelyn Polantz
Judge T.S. Ellis once again reminded prosecutors on Wednesday that they should wrap their case quickly.
"As a concession to the shortness of life, we need to get it done," Ellis said, after prosecutor Greg Andres implored him to allow them to show the jury documents an FBI agent reviewed. "Now we need to bring it to a close and it's lunchtime."
Andres said his side has focused sharply on the accusations they need to prove.
Earlier in the morning, Ellis had reprimanded Andres for being impolite, while the jury watched.
After Ellis questioned whether defense attorney Kevin Downing followed the prosecutors' lead from the day before in his inquiries of witness Rick Gates, Andres responded, "Yeah."
Ellis turned to Andres: "Be careful about that. This is not an informal proceeding."
Andres: "Yes."
Ellis: "I beg your pardon."
Andres: "Yes, judge."
What happened earlier in the week
Ellis, privately, told Andres he needed to look at the senior judge while speaking to him, and accused him of having tears in his eyes, according to an exchange recorded in a court transcript that the jury and the public did not hear.
Hard to judge courtroom demeanor from a transcript. There is a world of sighs, eye-rolling, and body language that don't make it to the printed page. Having said that, It's interesting they let a trial of this magnitude go to a senior judge. Without using too broad a brush, I find that most senior judges are similarly brusque and have little time for what they perceive as theatrics or BS.
Don't remember for certain, but I think "Senior Judge" in the federal system has a different meaning than a "Senior Judge" in the Nevada state court system.
In the federal system, I recall it meaning that they are more of a part-time status, still with an assigned albeit reduced caseload whereas in the state system it is more akin to a substitute teacher when the assigned judge is unavailable for the day.
Senior federal judges keep their chambers and staff but the position can be filled with a new appointment. If you want to make money at other stuff like arbitration you have to retire. E.g. Phil Pro.
As a woman lawyer who has spent a lot of time in federal court, my rule is "Never let them see you cry."
I agree, but I do think it is rather cruel, and tacky, of a judge to criticize any attorney for having tears in his/her eyes, especially if the cranky judge caused those tears.
P.S. Anyone would be lucky to get Lloyd George as a Senior Judge, but I am not certain he is serving in that position any more.
I don't know about lucky. He is still a senior judge but with a very reduced caseload.
Who in the hell would somebody criticize an attorney or parry for having a human emotion in court??? Get off the ducking bench asshole.
The Supreme Court of Nevada did to Bob Nersesian a few years back … look it up.
Nersesian did more than just cry:
Court nullifies $150,000 award against Imperial Palace
By Cy Ryan (contact)
Friday, July 31, 2009 | 10:13 a.m.
Click to enlarge photo
SUN FILE PHOTO
Imperial Palace
Sun Coverage
More political stories
CARSON CITY – The Nevada Supreme Court has nullified a $150,000 punitive damage award against the Imperial Palace because of “egregious” misconduct by a Las Vegas lawyer during trial.
The court did, however, uphold a $99,000 judgment against the casino in favor of James Grosjean who said he was illegally held by security guards of the resort.
Grosjean was detained by casino security and two agents of the state Gaming Control Board because he matched the description of a person in whom a third gaming agent was interested. He was handcuffed, searched and detained by casino personnel.
When it was determined Grosjean was not the person being sought, the casino security still held him for an additional time, according to the suit.
Grosjean complained this was part of conspiracy to exclude professional gamblers from gambling at the casino.
The search turned up a large sum of money, chips from various casinos and two sets of identification, one of them false. Grosjean was also wearing two pairs of pants.
The court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Michael Douglas, said the jury in the punitive damages hearing appeared swayed by the improper behavior of attorney Robert Nersesian rather than the evidence. He represented Grosjean.
The court in its 33-page opinion ordered a new trial on the punitive damage phase of the suit.
The court said the testimony and evidence during the five day trial “reasonably could support the verdict rendered here” in awarding $99,000 to Grosjean. He was held for 45 minutes during which no physical injury occurred. The jury also awarded Grosjean $9 against Donnie Espensen, a casino security official.
But in overturning the punitive damage award, the court said Nersesian wrongly asked the jury to punish the Imperial Palace for not making substantial charitable contributions despite being a highly profitable corporation. He said the casino gave $3,026 to charity despite making $7 million.
The court said Nersesian violated the so-called “golden rule” by asking jurors to place themselves in the position of Grosjean. And the Imperial Palace claimed Nersesian cried and brought his personal feelings into the case during his presentation.
The court said professional conduct standards prohibit an attorney from expressing personal opinions regarding the justness of a cause.
Douglas said “this misconduct in this matter is so egregious as to warrant a new trial on punitive damages.”
The Supreme Court rejected the argument of the Imperial Palace that they were shielded from suit because they were acting on the instructions of the state gaming agents. The court ruled that District Judge Lee A. Gates was correct in holding that the casino was not entitled to qualified immunity.
The jury at first came back with a $500,000 punitive judgment award against the Imperial Palace. The judge reduced it to $150,000. And that issue will now go to trial again.
To:1:52: There are many positive reasons why we entered the legal field, and hopefully most of us enjoy some of those positive aspects on a regular basis.
But there is also that dark under-belly to being in the legal profession, and that is the dehumanizing elements, and the take-no-prisoners viciousness that some in the profession exhibit to others in the profession, as well as to outsiders.
And this judge ridiculing and demeaning someone for displaying appropriate, heartfelt emotion, is just one of a countless number of incidents which displays this dark,negative side.
The highly negative media and public perception of the legal profession, although quite exaggerated, is at least somewhat deserved. Very often, our profession, and those who inhabit it, are really vile–often to our own colleagues within the system.
And our profession is probably among the worst in terms of lack of collegiality and lack of support for others within the system. Many posts on this site prove that. People endlessly complain(often quite accurately) that the leadership in our profession wishes to relentlessly guard their turf, and that if you are not already in the inner circle, no one cares about your ideas, no one wants you to serve on any committees, and the message is that all you are good for is to get increased dues from so that you have the privilege of being the recipient of draconian discipline.
Except as you read in the story above, it was not heartfelt emotion. It was cloying violation of the Rules.