A blistering decision by Judge Richard Scotti is vindication for Steven Stubbs and his client in the Boulder City crosswalk case. [I-Team]
Uber and Lyft drivers are picking up unaccompanied minors. [KTNV]
Former DA David Roger analyzes a recent “self-defense” killing. [Fox5Vegas]
Remember to watch out for trick or treaters tonight and if you manage to find yourself having one too many to drink on a Wednesday night Halloween, good for you, but please don’t drive.
Boo haha.. Spooky being first this late in the morning.
Guest
Anonymous
October 31, 2018 5:23 pm
"Boulder City Communications Manager Lisa Laplante told the I-Team Tuesday afternoon that the city respectfully disagrees with the ruling, and said the pedestrian protest was the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. She also said that the city plans to appeal the decision."
Think about this. Boulder City believes that a one-man peaceful protest equates to causing a mob riot. This is the person that BC believes should be speaking for it. What I thought was just a peaceful community is really pretty scary out there isn't it? No wonder they made I-11 go completely around the town.
I'm not a criminal practitioner, but if the case was already appealed to the district court from whatever local court, where exactly is the City going to appeal to? District courts have final appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in justice court. Am I missing something here?
Boulder was served with a Wrongful Arrest law suit, and then compounded matters ten fold, guaranteeing a further law suit focusing on Malicious Prosecution, or an amendment of the original law suit to add new causes of actin.
The misdemeanor charges against him are dismissed. Eleven months later, after he files a law suit for the wrongful arrest, the criminal charges are restored, along with several new charges, even though the City Attorney has acquired no new information on the case after initially dismissing the charges.
And all that is just the tip of the iceberg. Scotti's decision demonstrates that there is a lot more involved–all quite bad for the city.
And then the city does what most fools do when they have dug themselves a deep hole, they dig a deeper one by insisting they will appeal this decision.
Agreed that often when one takes a questionable or arguably untenable positon, you need to stick with it and ride it out to the end.
But when the positon is this glaringly vindictive and unsupported, and has clearly already been documented as such, only a true idiot, after digging a huge hole for themselves, think the solution is to dig a deeper hole.
If they have any sense, they will settle.
Now,I don't necessarily agree with this being a totally appropriate protest by this guy. It is certainly not akin to screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre(example used by city spokesperson), but crossing a crosswalk repeatedly and merely as a protest, could cause some potential traffic issues and possible accidents(far more so in Vegas, than in Boulder where this occurred).
But no arguments of that sort, or any other sort, are available to the City, when defending Malicious Prosecution, because they in fact dismissed all charges against him almost a year before he filed his Wrongful Arrest lawsuit. That action really guts any defense based on his actions.
Any defense based on his actions on the crosswalk are therefore gone. And any argument that they are not motivated by malicious prosecution is likewise gone because the restored and augment charges came only after his law suit, with absolutely no new info. being received.
Thus I think settlement is the only viable option. Anyone have any idea of how to viably defend the City?
Now,I don't necessarily agree with this being a totally appropriate protest by this guy. . . . [B]ut crossing a crosswalk repeatedly and merely as a protest, could cause some potential traffic issues and possible accidents(far more so in Vegas, than in Boulder where this occurred)."
Except that what he was protesting was the actions by Boulder City is sending officers unnecessarily back and forth across the street in trying to set up drivers for tickets for failing to yield in the crosswalk. His protest was to do EXACTLY what Boulder City authorities were doing.
That is the problem with the assertion that Hunt's actions were akin to "yelling fire in a crowded theatre." In order to assert that his speech was dangerous, Boulder City would be stating that its sting operation was unnecessarily dangerous. His conduct was no more dangerous than what Boulder City Police were doing except one was done by a citizen and one was done by the guys with the guns who are related to and go to church with the Judge who is ecclesiastically beholden to the City Attorney who is related and goes to church with pretty much the whole City Council. What an incestuous pit of slime Boulder City looks like in this whole deal.
And then to make matters worse, Boulder City keeps doubling down on their ridiculous positions which is entirely consistent with how children who have never been told "No" in their lives act when they get out in the real world and no longer make all of the rules. They are so petulantly used to not being able to be held accountable or overruled that they do not know how to handle it.
Federal or state court? Cross-appeal in play? The rules can be different for cross-appeals. Below are the rules for a normal appeal.
State Court: NRAP 28(i) permits the filing of a single brief or adopting by reference portions of each other's briefs in cases involving multiple appellants or respondents. If two or more parties on the same side of a case (appellants, respondents) are represented by the same attorney or are jointly represented, I would think multiple briefs would be frowned upon as a means to try to evade length of brief limits, unless there are issues distinct to one party at play.
Federal Appeals Courts: Same as Nevada state court under Fed. R. App. P. 28(i). Same caveat about jointly represented parties.
Ninth Circuit: Slightly different rule for reply briefs where there are multiple answering briefs. 9th Cir. R. 28-5.
Also note that the Advisory Note to Circuit Rule 32-2(b) states that "Rule 32-2(b) encourages separately represented parties to file a joint brief to avoid burdening the Court with repetitive presentations of common facts and issues." Thus the Ninth Circuit has expressed a preference for joint briefing.
Finally, a pending rules amendment in the Ninth Circuit would amend Circuit Rule 28-5 would limit a party or group of jointly represented parties to filing a single principal or reply brief, even when responding to multiple briefs by other parties. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2018/10/16/Public%20Comment%20Document.pdf The Rule would take effect June 1, 2019, if adopted.
Boo haha.. Spooky being first this late in the morning.
"Boulder City Communications Manager Lisa Laplante told the I-Team Tuesday afternoon that the city respectfully disagrees with the ruling, and said the pedestrian protest was the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. She also said that the city plans to appeal the decision."
Think about this. Boulder City believes that a one-man peaceful protest equates to causing a mob riot. This is the person that BC believes should be speaking for it. What I thought was just a peaceful community is really pretty scary out there isn't it? No wonder they made I-11 go completely around the town.
I'm not a criminal practitioner, but if the case was already appealed to the district court from whatever local court, where exactly is the City going to appeal to? District courts have final appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in justice court. Am I missing something here?
Nope.
The City can file a writ of the DC decision.
What a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.
Boulder was served with a Wrongful Arrest law suit, and then compounded matters ten fold, guaranteeing a further law suit focusing on Malicious Prosecution, or an amendment of the original law suit to add new causes of actin.
The misdemeanor charges against him are dismissed. Eleven months later, after he files a law suit for the wrongful arrest, the criminal charges are restored, along with several new charges, even though the City Attorney has acquired no new information on the case after initially dismissing the charges.
And all that is just the tip of the iceberg. Scotti's decision demonstrates that there is a lot more involved–all quite bad for the city.
And then the city does what most fools do when they have dug themselves a deep hole, they dig a deeper one by insisting they will appeal this decision.
Agreed that often when one takes a questionable or arguably untenable positon, you need to stick with it and ride it out to the end.
But when the positon is this glaringly vindictive and unsupported, and has clearly already been documented as such, only a true idiot, after digging a huge hole for themselves, think the solution is to dig a deeper hole.
If they have any sense, they will settle.
Now,I don't necessarily agree with this being a totally appropriate protest by this guy. It is certainly not akin to screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre(example used by city spokesperson), but crossing a crosswalk repeatedly and merely as a protest, could cause some potential traffic issues and possible accidents(far more so in Vegas, than in Boulder where this occurred).
But no arguments of that sort, or any other sort, are available to the City, when defending Malicious Prosecution, because they in fact dismissed all charges against him almost a year before he filed his Wrongful Arrest lawsuit. That action really guts any defense based on his actions.
Any defense based on his actions on the crosswalk are therefore gone. And any argument that they are not motivated by malicious prosecution is likewise gone because the restored and augment charges came only after his law suit, with absolutely no new info. being received.
Thus I think settlement is the only viable option. Anyone have any idea of how to viably defend the City?
Now,I don't necessarily agree with this being a totally appropriate protest by this guy. . . . [B]ut crossing a crosswalk repeatedly and merely as a protest, could cause some potential traffic issues and possible accidents(far more so in Vegas, than in Boulder where this occurred)."
Except that what he was protesting was the actions by Boulder City is sending officers unnecessarily back and forth across the street in trying to set up drivers for tickets for failing to yield in the crosswalk. His protest was to do EXACTLY what Boulder City authorities were doing.
That is the problem with the assertion that Hunt's actions were akin to "yelling fire in a crowded theatre." In order to assert that his speech was dangerous, Boulder City would be stating that its sting operation was unnecessarily dangerous. His conduct was no more dangerous than what Boulder City Police were doing except one was done by a citizen and one was done by the guys with the guns who are related to and go to church with the Judge who is ecclesiastically beholden to the City Attorney who is related and goes to church with pretty much the whole City Council. What an incestuous pit of slime Boulder City looks like in this whole deal.
And then to make matters worse, Boulder City keeps doubling down on their ridiculous positions which is entirely consistent with how children who have never been told "No" in their lives act when they get out in the real world and no longer make all of the rules. They are so petulantly used to not being able to be held accountable or overruled that they do not know how to handle it.
Good win Stubbs. I may find you annoying most of the time, but I like this fight.
I have an appeals question, is each appellant allowed to file their own 30 page brief? Thank you.
Federal or state court? Cross-appeal in play? The rules can be different for cross-appeals. Below are the rules for a normal appeal.
State Court: NRAP 28(i) permits the filing of a single brief or adopting by reference portions of each other's briefs in cases involving multiple appellants or respondents. If two or more parties on the same side of a case (appellants, respondents) are represented by the same attorney or are jointly represented, I would think multiple briefs would be frowned upon as a means to try to evade length of brief limits, unless there are issues distinct to one party at play.
Federal Appeals Courts: Same as Nevada state court under Fed. R. App. P. 28(i). Same caveat about jointly represented parties.
Ninth Circuit: Slightly different rule for reply briefs where there are multiple answering briefs. 9th Cir. R. 28-5.
Also note that the Advisory Note to Circuit Rule 32-2(b) states that "Rule 32-2(b) encourages separately represented parties to file a joint brief to avoid burdening the Court with repetitive presentations of common facts and issues." Thus the Ninth Circuit has expressed a preference for joint briefing.
Finally, a pending rules amendment in the Ninth Circuit would amend Circuit Rule 28-5 would limit a party or group of jointly represented parties to filing a single principal or reply brief, even when responding to multiple briefs by other parties. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2018/10/16/Public%20Comment%20Document.pdf The Rule would take effect June 1, 2019, if adopted.
Nevada Supreme Court, sorry.
If it is not in the rule, it is allowed.
Each party is allowed to file their own separate brief or file a joint brief, please correct me if I am wrong.