- Quickdraw McLaw
- 57 Comments
- 430 Views
- Robert Graham pleads guilty. Sentencing set for January 11. [RJ; KTNV]
- Judge Wiese declines to dismiss the Save Red Rock case. [Las Vegas Sun; RJ]
- Judge Earley sentenced a man to least 10 years for killing his father. [RJ]
- One of our readers tipped us off to this great dissent by Judge Kozinski, brought to you in part by Costco.
Kozinski is hilarious.. "thrice right before thanksgiving" haha
and "im off to Costco to buy some food." hahahah
I'm with Koz on this one. When cops can claim anything is code for drugs, money, or a drug transaction, routine meetings suddenly become PC. I remember reading a Simple Justice post where the defense attorney was talking on the phone to a client about how he needed to pick up a cake for his mother's birthday. Lo and behold, some officer claimed that "cake" was code for drugs.
Yep, you can lump "code words" in with "furtive movements" as the stuff cops make up when they want to search or shoot you but don't have any actual cause.
I especially like the part about not all Costcos being equal. Black Letter Law.
Henderson is getting a higher grade Costco. It's a big deal!
As someone that lived in Honolulu for a couple years, no one, and I mean no one, would travel to Kapolei to go to Costco if they lived anywhere in town (as in Honolulu). That drive takes no less than an hour in normal, for Hawaii, traffic. I agree with Kozinski generally about the overreach, but sometimes the people on the ground know more about street lingo than a Ninth Circuit judge.
Where does it say that either of them lived in town? Their meetings were at a restaurant in West Oahu and a McDonalds in Wainaie. All of the evidence appears to show that all of their meetings were in West Oahu. Sometimes food is just food.
I think Koz got it right (although the lack of objections as noted by the Majority is troubling on the record). I do have an issue with Kozinski ending his dissent so flippantly as if, win or lose, the results of the decision were no big deal.
The whole Red Rock development case is much ado about nothing, and continues to be completely un-newsworthy in that there is zero uncertainty as to what will occur, yet the papers and media outlets keep reporting on it as if there is really any uncertainty or interesting matters that could arise.
Bottom line is that I understand the position of Save Red Rock, and for the most part feel the same way. But I don't see a legal leg for them to stand on. Although their suit was not dismissed, the likelihood of ultimate success is zero.
They are a charitable and/or public interest type group, that, in part,
wants to preserve the dwindling wonders of nature that are available to us in the community. Couldn't agree with them more, but I don't see a supportable legal theory.
The land in question is not federally owned or controlled. It is owned by Clark County and Gypsum Resources. If they wish to legitimately contract with a developer to build the area, that's the way it will be.
This dynamic has been occurring on for decades. Developments keep pushing the boundaries on all sides of town, people continue to get upset about such development and how it encroaches on nature and our natural wonders, and yet such development continue. Obviously, things slowed down quite a bit residentially the last decade(both in the interior areas as well as the boundaries of town), but if they are now picking back up, they cannot be stopped providing the contracts are all legal and proper, and all requirements are satisfied.
So, what am I missing? Hoe can Judge Wiese interfere if everything turns out to be entirely proper and legal? He can't void the contract simply because a lot of people love nature and wish to preserve the few remaining abutting patches of undeveloped wonders. I guess one thing I'm missing is that for all I know there may ultimately be a jury in this matter, as opposed to a bench trial, and juries can and will do just about anything at times.
You crack me up. Natural wonders! Yeah, maybe to a geologist.
Almost all of Nevada is a barren wasteland. It's sand and rock. Without transportation and man-made technological advances, this land would not support human life. Let me know the next time you eat something that was grown naturally here in Las Vegas. Everything you eat is either trucked in on a federal highway or flown into the airport. Diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, air conditioning, and the dam are really the only way that man can live here at all in any real numbers. Build away, I say. Preserving rock and sand need not be a priority.
To: 10:13. It's 9:37 here again. Well, aside from the debate as to whether any of this is worth preserving(and it's clear you believe it is not) do you agree with the point that the Save Red Rock group has zero chance, through their litigation, to prevent the developing from proceeding forward?
None. (10:13)
10:13
You've obviously never ventured out of Clark County and seen much of the state. The southern environs are a desolate wasteland, but the same can't be said for the rest of Nevada. Don't be afraid. Go to Reno one weekend. Take the long road trip to Elko (stop at the museum and have some Basque food). My point is that there is so much more to Nevada than just Vegas. Vegas people will surely counter that Las Vegas is the only thing that matters. And that is why everybody hates you.
In the Graham matter, the church is fully aware that all the (very substantial) donations made to Graham to the church were stolen from clients(often, destitute clients).
They know this because the authorities, as well as Graham himself, have made it clear all monies that came in from client's cases were never applied to the client's cases or accounts, but were instead mis-directed to pay Graham's huge personal and professional over-head, as well as massive church donations.
So, it's not one of those matters where it is logistically difficult or impossible for the church to know which of the funds were stolen, and what proportion were legitimately earned by Graham through his honest labor. Under the unique facts of this case, it's clear all the funds donated to the church were stolen and belong to the aggrieved clients. The church knows this because the authorities have conclusively established it, and because Graham himself has fully admitted it.
If we lived in a world different than the one we actually live in, we could hope that the church would turn the donations made by Graham back to the authorities, to be redistributed in some proportional sense to the victims. It would not come close to making them whole, but it would help a bit.
But, again, we don't live in a world where that would ever happen.
And, BTW, I'm not distracted by what church he donated to. It's not relevant because, sadly, I don't believe any church, or any religion, would turn the donations over to the authorities to be distributed to the victims.
I really think they should return it.
I think they will, there is plenty of precedent for them doing so:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865681124/LDS-Church-will-return-tithing-donated-by-man-who-defrauded-5400-victims.html
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865681387/LDS-Church-to-return-23M-in-donations-from-imprisoned-businessman.html
A few points.
1. I am aware that Rob paid tithing. I haven't seen anywhere in the record where a specific amount or even a ball park figure has been established. If someone knows how much he paid, that would be more helpful than superlatives like "massive."
2. I am a trust litigator and had many cases with Rob over the years. He actually did make some money legitimately, just not enough. So it's not as simple as you claim, 9:50 to differentiate between what was legitimately earned and donated or not.
3. The LDS Church has already committed to returning any donations obtained through fraud. https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/indicted-las-vegas-lawyer-used-firms-funds-for-church-donations/
Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for the church in Salt Lake city, would not discuss Graham’s church ties.
But in an email he said: “Church members routinely make donations to the Church. We would never knowingly accept or retain donations that are the proceeds of ill-gotten gains, including fraud. If it is demonstrated that the donations received from this individual were from money obtained by fraudulent means, the donations will be returned.”
As noted by 11:02 AM, the Church has an established precedent for doing this. I am confident that after a full investigation is complete as to all Rob's victims – not just those identified in the criminal matter – the Church will return the funds. If they err, it will certainly be on the side of disgorgement. It will be interesting to see if other beneficiaries of Rob's faux generosity, like Colorado State University, act similarly.
Here is the issue LDS Trust Attorney, Rob has admitted as part of the plea deal that he owes every cent over the years in question. Do I think Rob stole $16MM? Hell no. Do I think this is the equivalent of what the Feds cook up as "intended loss" where they tar him with every penny that ever went through his fingers? Yes. But he admitted to $16MM being dirty which is probably every cent that passed through his account, earned or not. So it all goes back.
11:53 hits the nail on the head. And as far as 11:43 is concerned, I know you resent if strangers inform you that you are wrong as to what happened in your own life, but I believe you are dead wrong and I believe you are being neither honest or honorable when you say that you had many cases with Rob and that he did much legitimate work. I believe you are taking this approach so you can justify arguing that the church can keep the money because it is supposedly difficult to decipher which amount was earned legitimately and which amounts were not. Let me help you with this. As 11:53 indicates, none of it was legitimately earned. Not one dime. The authorities have established that and Graham himself now admits that no legitimate work on behalf of clients was done for years, and instead as soon as any monies were received, rather than apply it to client's cases or accounts, he stole it to pay massive professional and personal overhead, including massive(yes, I stand by use of the word) donations to the church.If he steals millions, and he pays the requisite percentage to the church based on those stolen millions, that is massive.
So,IMOyou are a Graham, and church, apologist, and you try to distract us from that by adding as an afterthought that there is a policy the church can follow if they believe the funds resulted from ill-gotten gains. But you then, in so many words, argue that no funds should be returned because it is impossible to tell what was legitimately earned or not. And your justification for this? Your insistence, that even an idiot would not believe, that you consistently sat across the desk from Graham over the years while he kept his nose to the grind-stone performing legitimate work on cases. How can you dare argue that when Graham himself admits he did no legitimate work for years, and geared all his efforts to route his client funds to himself?
If you worked on all these cases where Graham did legitimate work, you are the only one. Again, Graham himself would say you are wrong, and in fact has said so when he admits he performed no legitimate work for years, but only stole.
11:43 here.
Not a Graham apologist at all. He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.
I just think it's stupid to criticize the LDS Church for not returning the ill-gotten gains when, in fact, the LDS Church has already committed to doing so.
And no, it's not as simple as you think. You think that Graham sat in his office for 7-8 years and didn't have a single case where he did legitimate work? That he stole from every single client? No.
Rob Graham is an evil sociopath. I'm no defending him, and I won't defend him. I only propose that, as far as the disgorgement is concerned, it's not as simple as presented by some. The LDS Church will certainly disgorge the ill gotten gains, but that needs to be done in a careful and accurate way. The victims deserve no less.
I think taking Client monies is the highest sin an attorney can do. But spend the rest of his life in prison? Dude is 52 years old. I don't want pay to house him, feed him and wipe his ass for another 25 to 30 years. I want to hitch his ass to a plow, closely monitor him and yell "mush" to pay back his victims.
I know its easy to get wound up in the "firing squads for all" mentality but on some level we need to drop the pitchforks and douse the torches and really decide what is in the best interests of society as a whole. Incarcerating everyone for everything got really expensive and benefitted no one (other than those in the private and public correctional industries). Housing Graham for the rest of his actualially calculated life will solve nothing. You want to make the victims feel better? Come up with the way that will get them back their money.
"Housing Graham for the rest of his actualially calculated life will solve nothing. You want to make the victims feel better? Come up with the way that will get them back their money."
11:43 here.
I completely disagree. Graham deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison not just for retributive reasons, but also as a deterrent. As you correctly state, this is the worst sin an attorney can commit, particularly given the vulnerable nature of Rob's clients. Locking up Rob forever sends lawyers a clear message that if you do what Rob did, you essentially lose your life.
Rob didn't just steal from vulnerable clients. He eroded the integrity of our legal system.
The idea that if we let Rob out of prison after X years that he will provide restitution is just silly. If he gets out in 8 years, he will be 60 years old, have no marketable skills and will be completely unemployable. There isn't a way for him to pay this back through work. He should rot in prison until the day he dies.
To: 11:43. It's 12:29p.m. and 9:50 a.m. here again.
First, I believe it's unfair to say I'm stupid for criticizing the LDS church for not returning the money. I made it clear in my first post that it really does not matter what church or religion is involved, and I am not commenting on the protocol
or procedures of a particular church. I was only commenting that churches, when confronted with these instances, usually don't return the money. And I'm not certain you are accurate when you insist the LDS church is returning all the tithing and other donations that Graham gave. In fact, you seem to anticipate the justification for not returning the money by arguing that it is impossible to decipher which parts are ill-gotten and which are not. Where is it specifically committed in writing that the church is returning all the money? It was not in the article. And in your final paragraph you essentially concede that there is not yet any such commitment, that it is a complex and laborious issue, and that the church must establish feasibility committees(or whatever the heck) to analyze this complex issue over time. I believe that you are correct that such approach will be taken, which will certainly not result in all, or most, of the money being returned. It's easy to calculate, from the records, everything he paid. If there is not a commitment to return it all ASAP, and instead, as you suggest(and I think you are correct) that they intend to take their sweet time under the pretext of laboriously analyzing and itemizing everything, then I am not optimistic much of it will be returned. IMO everything Graham paid to the church should be transferred to the authorities, to eventually distribute to the lives Graham ruined.
Second, you refuse to allow for the fact that sometimes in life we are confronted with a unique situation which tends to defy common sense and the way life ordinarily operates. Granted, it would be a rare situation, and would usually defy common sense
to argue that for the last couple years he really did not substantively work on too many case, but instead sat in his office for the purpose of furthering his plot to steal money, but that is what occurred here. Yes, it's unique, and it does at first blush sound implausible. But that's what happened, and that's what he conceded happened, and that's why he will be on ice for years. For the last few years, no money that came in was
legitimately applied to client cases or to client accounts, but was all routed to feed Graham's fraud.
Third, you fail to recognize you are conflicted because you entangle your apparent contempt for Graham with you commitment to be faithful to your church. But I don't think they need to be entangled. You appear to be a highly principled, insightful and intelligent person. I must concede that. But I think there is some sort of disconnect here. If all the facts were the same except that Graham contributed to some other church, I believe you would have fuller clarity and objectivity on these matters. Perhaps if you took a step back and tried to view this horrendous position from the shoes of an outsider you would say Graham is horrendous and the church must return all the money, rather than saying Graham is horrendous, but as for the church returning all the money, well it's real complicated.
I appreciate your mostly even handed approach here 12:29/9:50. Earlier you stated: "I believe you are dead wrong and I believe you are being neither honest or honorable when you say that you had many cases with Rob and that he did much legitimate work."
I know this is just an anonymous forum, and I could be a 25 year old unemployed millennial in Mom's basement for all you know, but I really did have a lot of cases with Rob over the years. I know first hand from those cases he was paid for legitimate work. I actually believe that Rob could have had a successful practice if he had been a competent businessman and wasn't so insecure that he felt the need to maintain an image. Add to those two things a lack of conscience, and you end up with this wake of human tragedy. He had enough good work to have run a respectable, legitimate practice. And he was a pretty decent opponent in terms of skill. His briefing was well-written and he was an effective, well-prepared oral advocate. Before anyone flips out, I am not defending him. He represents the worst of humanity and I think it's a tragedy that he may one day walk out of prison.
I agree that the disgorgement should happen quickly, and I believe it will. It just needs to be done deliberately and in coordination with the State Bar, DA and BK Trustee. If there is an error, it will be on the side of disgorging more, not less. These victims are, after all, the kind of vulnerable people that should be the target of religious generosity anyway.
11:43/2:38– I understand he eroded the integrity of the legal system. And the mortgage brokers who wrote phony owner/occupied loans eroded the integrity of the lending, property and banking systems. And Andy Fastow eroded the integrity of public securities. And Dario Herrera eroded the integrity of the County Commission. None of those people went jail for life.
Our firm represents one set of Graham's victims– they don't want retributive justice; they want their money (or as much of their money as possible) back. Unless you are one of the victims, you don't retribution. Deterrence? Deterrence is a farce. No one is thinking that they would take money from their trust account but for a life sentence. That's North Korea type stuff (minus the anit-aircraft fire execution). "If you do what Rob did, you essentially lose your life." Come on Stalin. We aren't lining people up behind Scott Dozier no matter how much money you took.
"The idea that if we let Rob out of prison after X years that he will provide restitution is just silly." Actually it is not silly because we can make it not silly; he can be made to pay back a hell of a lot more restitution hitched to the wheel than locked in a cell. Graham has marketable skills and will be completely employable under strict supervision. That is what parole is supposed to be. Once again, the standard isn't whether he can pay it all back through work; the standard is whether we could compel him to pay more of it back through work on the outside than his $0.12 prison labor on the inside.
The part you just skip over is the $25,000 a year that Graham is not only not paying back to victims but is costing taxpayers. It is easy to say "rot in jail" on the faulty premise that it costs us as taxpayers nothing. Your plan to have him rot in jail will cost taxpayers $400,000. When you extrapolate that over millions of people who do not need to be in cages, there is a lot of money being wasted.
11:43 AM here.
"he can be made to pay back a hell of a lot more restitution hitched to the wheel than locked in a cell"
What wheel? Listen, I am all for restitution. Everybody is. But what work, specifically can a 60 or 65 year old felon do? Sweep floors for $10/hour? Given the number of victims and the amount taken, that kind of a job won't make any meaningful difference for his clients.
Usually attorneys released from prison end up making far more than $10.00 an hour and do not end up sweeping floors. But you continue to ignore the $25,000-$30,000 a year that he will not be costing taxpayers. Perhaps the fact that we have no concrete way to utilize the skills of a professional with post-graduate education who is a felon says more about how the system is broken than how the system should be buttressed.
Of course that begs the question…. Does the church get to keep 10% of the funds to be returned?
I like the opinion but I hate Kozinski. Even when his douchiness is directed at your opposing counsel he's still a douche. Every time I've been before him he makes a big show to make sure everyone in the room understands that he is the smartest most interesting person in the room. Can't wait until he retires.
Also, RJ and Jeff German, this is sloppy: "Church of the Latter Day Saints." There is no such Church. The full, official name is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That's a mouthful, so LDS Church or Mormon Church will do as well. It's kind of embarrassing that in the county with the fifth largest LDS population of any U.S. county that you would bungle this.
Jeff German bungle things? You don't say….
Looks like we got ourselves a butthurt Mormon over here..
clowns to the left of me jokers to the right
@11:56,
Because your work doesn't require precision?
Who gives a rats if they identified the proper name of the church. He ripped of the LDS grandmas and poppies.
1:05 is right on. He is obviously a very intelligent and handsome man.
Whether, in some hyper-technical sense, the journalist correctly identified the church by using the precise title is irrelevant. He identified it in such a manner that everyone knows that the Mormons are who is being discussed. And all that is essentially important is all the people the creep attorney ripped off.
11:50, who nitpicks that it is not "Church Of The Later Day Saints" but is instead (the almost identical name, by the way) "The Church Of Jesus Crist Of Later-Day Saints, is apparently a member of the church, and will pick at anything concerning the journalist's writing style, to distract from the blatant fraud.
Is 11:50 as picky about secular matters not affecting the church? If I told him to identify who John Roberts is, would he say, as almost anyone who recognizes the name would, "The Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court" as opposed to the far more obscure, but technically correct designation "Chief Justice Of The United States"?
So, as my new hero 1:05 strongly implies, 11:50 is far more concerned that the author of the article may not be fully informed of all things LDS, rather than the critical issue of all the suffering caused by the scum bag's thievery.
….and nobody really gives a shit that your cult has its 5th largest following in Clark County. If this article were about Scientology or Jehovah's Witnesses, would you be so concerned about properly spelling those cults' names and where those cults' most populous counties were?
Whoa, whoa, hey there sparky, it is not a "cult" when it's white people, okay?
11:50 here.
"Is 11:50 as picky about secular matters not affecting the church?"
Yes. There are only a few topics in life that I have deep knowledge of. When I see an author or reporter make mistakes on one of those topics, I consider the errors a barometer. I have a superficial, lay knowledge of 99% of the topics in the news media. When I see reporters mishandle one of the few topics I know, I become suspicious about the accuracy of their work in the 99% of topics I don't know.
And just so you know, "The Church Of Jesus C[h]rist Of Later-Day Saints" which 1:27 PM references in his post is an entirely different institution than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A hyphen and lower case D really does matter. Precision and details matter. You'd think attorneys, of all people, would understand this.
None of this is to defend Robert Graham. He is scum and should be locked up for the rest of his life.
To: 11:50.You insist that the views and arguments of the journalist and bloggers should be largely discounted due to some(seemingly innocuous) errors with grammar and lack of precision.
Since their anti-Graham discussions, according to your logic, should be ignored or at least called into serious question, that means that through the back-door you are taking up for Graham, or are at least in support of some mitigation.
Therefore, your after-thought post-script of BTW I agree Graham is heinous scum, rings quite hollow and insincere.
Anyone know why Stephanie Barker was fired from the Office of Bar Counsel? Inquiring minds want to know. Even if its just rumor, spill it.
She wasn't fired. She resigned, and OBC is sad about it.
3:57– That is interesting, not what I heard but interesting.
1:45– I heard she was shown the door for leaking information to certain people under investigation. I also heard it was resign or be fired so whether it was a real firing or just a "Reince Priebus" resignation I cannot say.
She resigned, and actually gave more than a month's notice. They'd let her return in a minute.
Thank you, Steph.
Yeah I am with you 4:44. 4:18 is either Stephanie or Kim Farmer.
You guys are dopes. If Kim Farmer said nice things here about Stephanie, then I guess she wasn't fired. Dopes
Kim Farmer is a fake and a fraud. So if she is saying nice things here, I would tend to believe the complete opposite. In fact anytime Kim Farmer acts one way, presume things are the other way. Dope.
Hit the OBC dbag bong.
Would someone like to tell me who the genius was who came up with these recaptchas where the same answer to the same puzzle works one time and does not work another time?
Kim not is neither a fake nor a fraud. She started to fix OBC when she finally had the backing and tools to do it. She has a difficult job, not made easier by rock throwing.
Difficult job? Are you serious? She wastes money internally. She wastes money externally. She has terrible morale from employees who she repeatedly stabs in the back. Feel free to ask any number of SBN employees (confidentially of course) in what high regard she is held. She has made the SBN largely hated by its members. Not a single department inside of the State Bar is better off since Kim took the helm (and there are numerous ones that are much weaker, poorer and worse). However she did get herself a much nicer office so I guess we count that as an accomplishment. And she has managed to get SBN funded trips to cities that State Bar members apparently do not wish to travel to for Annual Meetings, so she buttering her own back there.
As far as the OBC, fix it? Are you serious? She has fixed nothing. Attorney discipline presently has double the staff and half the results of when David Clark was running it. No one ever likes OBC but it was a professional relationship at the time. OBC now is a disaster. We were sold this bill of goods that the amount of time that a Discipline Case would take was going to decrease; it has actually increased. Slower, more bloated, less effective. Typical Kim Farmer move– more money for less results. Yeah Kim Farmer is a nightmare. But we know from SBN employees that Kim is a nightmare who reads this Blog (because she discusses it inside SBN HQ)– so Kim, or should I say 8:47, you need to know the esteem in which you are held (or not held). Like you are known to do, just because are smiling to your face does not mean they are not flipping you off as soon as you turn around.
Alan you were on, and President of, the BoG so you know better. The OBC has not only not been fixed but is worse than ever. I know it is common to want to support those with whom we work but please show us specifically how the OBC has been fixed. I will look forward to reading how Kim has made the SBN better because having been inside the SBN (just like you were) I have seen the Bar weakened in so many ways. I have see staff demoralized and despondent. And member satisfaction likewise anecdotally never worse. Does the Board not know how bad it is out here or are they so insulated that they do not care?
Anyone here ever dealt with Chad Dennie?
He is an absolute nightmare. Quite possible the worst I've dealt with in my 25 years of practice. It's especially bad if you're female.
People asked about Brooks Hubley. SBN has Brooks at Kolesar at Hubley having opened "Hubley Law".
I did see the past thread about these two lawyers apparently bouncing around a lot.
But in the legal community in general,it appears to me that these two are not well known and certainly do not have much name recognition.
Since very few practicing lawyers I asked seem to know who these two are, I'm not sure why their(apparently) ever-changing employments plans are worthy of much discussion or concern.