Judge Jennifer Dorsey sanctioned Les Stovall by dismissing with prejudice his client’s case against Cristiano Ronaldo. [NPR]
Officers’ widows feel disrespected by Metro, sheriff. [Las Vegas Sun]
Margaret Rudin’s is breathing easier after the AG’s office indicated it will not appeal the ruling dismissing her murder conviction. [RJ]
Henry Rugg’s lawyers ask the Court to toss blood evidence. [RJ]
In a little over a month, 9-8-8 will become the hotline number for mental and behavioral health calls; Nevada has a lot of work to do to get ready. [Nevada Current]
Oh, friendly reminder that there is a primary tomorrow.
I understand generally that we cannot make political comments on this blog but the reminder about the primary seems to suggest it might be OK today if we keep it civil. Therefore, I will try. I offer one thought – if you just look at policies and not personalities, do you really like the inflation, war, supply issues, etc. we are having now versus when conservatives were in power. Please vote conservative and get us back to being energy independent, etc. Please get over the social issues and personalities and just let it go and get the country back to how it was under conservative leadership. Thank you.
Nice try but your comment, while cloaked in politeness, proves why this can't work. Voting "conservative" often means voting for big lie pushers, who in my view and many people's views, are trying to destroy democracy. Therefore, no thanks.
10:47 OP back – thank you for a thoughtful reply – please consider this, by "big lie" I think you refer to Trump claiming he won the election – OK I grant that Trump is a problematic personality with more problems and issues than I can count – he certainly is not an ideal person – but if you and I can focus on the policies can't we agree that being energy independent, etc. worked better. In the last election my young niece was an ardent liberal and we had endless discussions – now she called me up last week to ask if I could drive her out of state to find baby formula – I realize it is anecdotal – thank you for civilly discussing this with me
Your friend 1047 here, Trump is for sure a problem but many believe his nonsense. Close to home, what are you asking, that we vote for Laxalt over Catherine? Laxalt is a strong believer that Trump won the last election. It's just hard to even get off the ground on the issues with that baggage. Also, no one knows what Laxalt (or many local republicans) want to do for issues. It's not like Biden makes baby powder, in fact, his response largely was to do nothing i.e. defer to the capitalist system. Feels like Biden is at his "best" being more moderate so I would grant you, he should not listen to ultra-progressives on enery or any other issue. But better yet would be reasonable, center candidates from either party to choose from.
The way things are now has to do with policies and decisions that were made when conservatives were in power. It takes years for policies and decisions to affect the economy. Also Trump signed off on 2 of the Covid relief spending bills. Also, it's not as simple as just look at who is in office now. Based on Covid, China shutdowns (supply), the spending, the war in Ukraine some of the current economics were going to happen regardless of who was in the white house. Most importantly, it is hard to vote for anyone that pushes the big lie because that means they put "winning" over protecting democracy and the best interests of the country.
Yeah, because Masto is going to lower insulin costs (like they were under Trump). Because she was so vocal when Biden reversed Trumps EO regarding insulin pricing and prices skyrocketed again.
Energy Independence? What does that look like to you? Does it mean extracting more oil in the Biden years than the Trump years? Already done. Inflation? Well, dropping money from the sky does have an inflationary result, but I don't remember any conservatives trying to put the brakes on it. To the contrary, they were more than happy to dole out the funds as long as it went to the right sorts of people. Supply chain issues? Since when do conservatives advocate using the power of the government to impose government mandates on how businesses operate? If your daughter is looking for someone to blame for the formula shortage, perhaps she should start by looking at monopolies and an inadequately funded FDA. Tell me, will conservatives strengthen the FDA, or weaken it? Was the problem government-created, or was it the result of deferred maintenance and bacteria at a factory owned by a private business that generates a significant portion of the formula?
What steps – precisely – would a conservative-dominated government to to improve supply chains. To decrease inflation? Don't hide behind bullet points or generic soundbites, actually identify what policies, measures, or actions can be taken, and then address any conflicts between small-government conservatives advocating for big-government solutions.
Dude, the "social issues and personalities" are literally all the GOP has left these days.
11:56 stop using logic. No one could have ever predicted we would have inflation. It is like blaming Obama for the economy when he took office after Bush.
Anyone who took basic economics knows when you print more money that inflation is gonna go up. and it is very clear the printing of money was done under Trump administration and GOP oversight. to blame inflation squarely on Biden is asinine.
As for the baby formula, the Biden administration admitted they dropped the ball on catching the issue sooner. I give credit for at least admitting they messed up. Trump would NEVER admit any type of fault.
Lastly, did the GOP just vote on party line to decline the Price Gouging Bill? that tells you already what you need to know…and lets not even start talking about gun reform…
10:47 OP back – OK I agree with much of what you said and will agree if we could find a center candidate would be better for all – thanks to Mr/Ms Dawg for letting us have a nice conversation where we actually found middle ground – thanks!
@2:12 how dare you just assume Dawg's gender, let alone assume there's just Mr/Ms. 🙁 There's 64 different genders, currently, and more are being discovered every day. You should try doing some research.
Sorry, but inciting an attempted coup (or trying to justify it or excuse it away) is not merely "social issues and personalities." It's an automatic disqualifier. Full stop. Do not pass go. What "social issues" are you referring to – guns? abortion? Hardly mere trifles.
The "attempted coup" is about as serious as my 5-year old telling me he's going to beat me up. It was never a "coup." All they wanted was a few selfies. I honestly can't believe this is even a serious discussion.
10:10 the fact that it failed at it doesn't change the fact that it was attempted. And you are obviously willfully blind to what actually happened, which is beyond dispute. I honestly can't believe this is even a serious discussion.
By saying a "fact" is "beyond dispute" you have simply established it is not a fact and the actuality of an event is absolutely in dispute. Nice try though. Almost as effective as a simple dismissive "No, just no!"
Right, because when I want to take a selfie at the Bellagio, I always beat back security, knock down barriers, break windows, and demand (along with 500 of my closest buddies) that Randy Morton present himself to my constructed gallows. Did you forget your Back the Blue badge this morning because it involved Capitol Police doing their job on a day the Capitol was closed to visitors?
Can we just call them rioters that caused property damage and scared the hell out the capital police? If they were truly there to overthrow the government, they would have been armed to the hilt and there would have been a lot of shooting and people dead.
9:11, exactly. What do those who actually believe it was a "coup" think was going to happen? There was a 0% chance the rioters would actually overthrow the government of the entire country. It's actually laughable how pathetic the "coupers" are. Were they rioters, I'll say yes when the Left admits the BLMers were rioters. Same coin, different political party.
That they are complete dumbasses does not lessen the criminal intent. Trump thought he could use dumb people to create such a scene and disruption to the process that he pressure Pence or others to obey his orders and not certify the elections. That it was done by clowns that have the mental capacity of the other poster’s 5 year old makes it no less criminal. And let me guess, you are a law and order type who usually wants the book thrown at people who trespass, break and enter, and injure LEOs, etc.
I just want to be able to fill my wife's SUV's gas tank without cringing. That's a whole billable hour of time! One tank. She goes through those every two or three days. And do not get me started on our grocery bills.
5:05, the overwhelming majority of republicans want to punish rioters, whether they be the antifa/blm non-peaceful protestors or the capital trespassers and selfie takers. But what happened on Jan is is not even close to an "attempted coup." And, Trump authorized security for Jan 6, it was Pelosi and the DC mayor who failed to enact proper security measures. Makes one wonder why.
6:00 – can you cite to evidence Trump authorized more security? I see that referenced, but have never been able to verify from a reliable source. I have heard that Pelosi and the mayor had not control over security. I have not been able to verify that either.
Guest
Anonymous
June 13, 2022 5:27 pm
Smh,punishing a woman bc of her attorney. Another good Jennifer Dorsey decision.
That was a good decision. The client can pursue a malpractice claim. Not to mention, the evidence to be introduced was altered and counsel lied about it.
The only real person to vote for Judge Dorsey was Randall Jones. Harry Reid said, hey, Randall, who do you want for federal judge, and Randall said, Jennifer.
The attorney represents the party. Stovall engaged in extremely unethical practices on behalf of his client. Stovall is sanctioned. Client is punished. Client can sue Stovall for malpractice. Makes perfect sense to me.
You act like it was a dead winner despite the lady settling years earlier. The lady is a teacher, but didn’t have the capacity to sign and understand a release?
Thwack here. Not the same person. Just making a point that when comments are removed, I imagine a "Thwack!" sound.
Guest
Anonymous
June 13, 2022 9:28 pm
Does anyone know the term for when someone makes a public statement about another person (the target) that the speaker knows and / or intends is likely to motivate some rando to harass and/or attack the target?
For example: a prominent celebrity or politician tweets something like "Now that [target's] identity is known to the public, I hope that [s]he will find out what it's like to [be beaten] [be raped] [be killed] [some other horrible thing]."
Apparently there is a specific term for this, which I just heard the other day, but now I can't remember it. I thought it was "statistical threat" or something like that, but my google skills are failing me… It's not "doxing," although it often is combined with doxing. I'm looking for the term describing a statement that is basically a call to the lunatic fringe to actually do the horrible thing the speaker "hopes" will happen to the victim. Anyone?
Could it maybe be "incitement of violence?" Like when someone says "maybe Mike Pence [the Vice President of the United States of America] deserves to be hung?" Something like that?
I'm pretty sure it was "________ threat," and sounded more like a sociological term than a legal one. Not "statistical," but something implying that the number of listeners is sufficiently large that there's a good chance at least one of them is crazy enough to act.
Did you see Senator Schumer's comments about conservative justices on the USSC? You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said while the justices were hearing arguments in a critical Louisiana abortion case. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Then we learn that an armed man traveled to Justice Kavanaugh's home to assassinate him. Interesting that Congress and the media ignore the connection of these two stories.
8:03 oh for the love of god. There are kooks on both sides. Do you think the DNC hired that nut job to assassinate Kavanaugh? Congress and the media ignored the “connection” because there isn’t one
Guest
Anonymous
June 13, 2022 10:12 pm
TSD is alive and well on this blog.
Guest
Anonymous
June 14, 2022 2:17 am
Need to stop reading the comments. Get too worried about the legal profession.
I understand generally that we cannot make political comments on this blog but the reminder about the primary seems to suggest it might be OK today if we keep it civil. Therefore, I will try. I offer one thought – if you just look at policies and not personalities, do you really like the inflation, war, supply issues, etc. we are having now versus when conservatives were in power. Please vote conservative and get us back to being energy independent, etc. Please get over the social issues and personalities and just let it go and get the country back to how it was under conservative leadership. Thank you.
Nice try but your comment, while cloaked in politeness, proves why this can't work. Voting "conservative" often means voting for big lie pushers, who in my view and many people's views, are trying to destroy democracy. Therefore, no thanks.
Big lie as in "Russian Collusion" hoax? I am confused…
You are 100% correct, OP. Signed embarrassingly, a former democrat.
10:47 OP back – thank you for a thoughtful reply – please consider this, by "big lie" I think you refer to Trump claiming he won the election – OK I grant that Trump is a problematic personality with more problems and issues than I can count – he certainly is not an ideal person – but if you and I can focus on the policies can't we agree that being energy independent, etc. worked better. In the last election my young niece was an ardent liberal and we had endless discussions – now she called me up last week to ask if I could drive her out of state to find baby formula – I realize it is anecdotal – thank you for civilly discussing this with me
Vote with your wallet. Period.
Your friend 1047 here, Trump is for sure a problem but many believe his nonsense. Close to home, what are you asking, that we vote for Laxalt over Catherine? Laxalt is a strong believer that Trump won the last election. It's just hard to even get off the ground on the issues with that baggage. Also, no one knows what Laxalt (or many local republicans) want to do for issues. It's not like Biden makes baby powder, in fact, his response largely was to do nothing i.e. defer to the capitalist system. Feels like Biden is at his "best" being more moderate so I would grant you, he should not listen to ultra-progressives on enery or any other issue. But better yet would be reasonable, center candidates from either party to choose from.
The way things are now has to do with policies and decisions that were made when conservatives were in power. It takes years for policies and decisions to affect the economy. Also Trump signed off on 2 of the Covid relief spending bills. Also, it's not as simple as just look at who is in office now. Based on Covid, China shutdowns (supply), the spending, the war in Ukraine some of the current economics were going to happen regardless of who was in the white house. Most importantly, it is hard to vote for anyone that pushes the big lie because that means they put "winning" over protecting democracy and the best interests of the country.
Yeah, because Masto is going to lower insulin costs (like they were under Trump). Because she was so vocal when Biden reversed Trumps EO regarding insulin pricing and prices skyrocketed again.
Energy Independence? What does that look like to you? Does it mean extracting more oil in the Biden years than the Trump years? Already done. Inflation? Well, dropping money from the sky does have an inflationary result, but I don't remember any conservatives trying to put the brakes on it. To the contrary, they were more than happy to dole out the funds as long as it went to the right sorts of people. Supply chain issues? Since when do conservatives advocate using the power of the government to impose government mandates on how businesses operate? If your daughter is looking for someone to blame for the formula shortage, perhaps she should start by looking at monopolies and an inadequately funded FDA. Tell me, will conservatives strengthen the FDA, or weaken it? Was the problem government-created, or was it the result of deferred maintenance and bacteria at a factory owned by a private business that generates a significant portion of the formula?
What steps – precisely – would a conservative-dominated government to to improve supply chains. To decrease inflation? Don't hide behind bullet points or generic soundbites, actually identify what policies, measures, or actions can be taken, and then address any conflicts between small-government conservatives advocating for big-government solutions.
Dude, the "social issues and personalities" are literally all the GOP has left these days.
Quit calling Republicans, conservatives. 80% of congress is Uniparty. D or R matters not.
Good point 1206.
In reality, what we have is establishment vs. non-establishment.
11:56 stop using logic. No one could have ever predicted we would have inflation. It is like blaming Obama for the economy when he took office after Bush.
All I know is the Dems are at fault for bitcoin dropping in value.
@1232 Both Bush and Obama were Uniparty / Establishment.
Both to Blame.
Anyone who took basic economics knows when you print more money that inflation is gonna go up. and it is very clear the printing of money was done under Trump administration and GOP oversight. to blame inflation squarely on Biden is asinine.
As for the baby formula, the Biden administration admitted they dropped the ball on catching the issue sooner. I give credit for at least admitting they messed up. Trump would NEVER admit any type of fault.
Lastly, did the GOP just vote on party line to decline the Price Gouging Bill? that tells you already what you need to know…and lets not even start talking about gun reform…
10:47 OP back – OK I agree with much of what you said and will agree if we could find a center candidate would be better for all – thanks to Mr/Ms Dawg for letting us have a nice conversation where we actually found middle ground – thanks!
@2:12 how dare you just assume Dawg's gender, let alone assume there's just Mr/Ms. 🙁 There's 64 different genders, currently, and more are being discovered every day. You should try doing some research.
@ 2:43 based. All we really know about the lawdawg is that they hate Russia.
Sorry, but inciting an attempted coup (or trying to justify it or excuse it away) is not merely "social issues and personalities." It's an automatic disqualifier. Full stop. Do not pass go. What "social issues" are you referring to – guns? abortion? Hardly mere trifles.
The "attempted coup" is about as serious as my 5-year old telling me he's going to beat me up. It was never a "coup." All they wanted was a few selfies. I honestly can't believe this is even a serious discussion.
10:10 the fact that it failed at it doesn't change the fact that it was attempted. And you are obviously willfully blind to what actually happened, which is beyond dispute. I honestly can't believe this is even a serious discussion.
By saying a "fact" is "beyond dispute" you have simply established it is not a fact and the actuality of an event is absolutely in dispute. Nice try though. Almost as effective as a simple dismissive "No, just no!"
Right, because when I want to take a selfie at the Bellagio, I always beat back security, knock down barriers, break windows, and demand (along with 500 of my closest buddies) that Randy Morton present himself to my constructed gallows. Did you forget your Back the Blue badge this morning because it involved Capitol Police doing their job on a day the Capitol was closed to visitors?
Cops open the door and wave them in. #Not ACoup
#FreeAshleyBabbitt
"Beyond dispute"
Said every denied Motion for Summary Judgment ever.
Can we just call them rioters that caused property damage and scared the hell out the capital police? If they were truly there to overthrow the government, they would have been armed to the hilt and there would have been a lot of shooting and people dead.
fiery but mostly peaceful
9:11, exactly. What do those who actually believe it was a "coup" think was going to happen? There was a 0% chance the rioters would actually overthrow the government of the entire country. It's actually laughable how pathetic the "coupers" are. Were they rioters, I'll say yes when the Left admits the BLMers were rioters. Same coin, different political party.
That they are complete dumbasses does not lessen the criminal intent. Trump thought he could use dumb people to create such a scene and disruption to the process that he pressure Pence or others to obey his orders and not certify the elections. That it was done by clowns that have the mental capacity of the other poster’s 5 year old makes it no less criminal. And let me guess, you are a law and order type who usually wants the book thrown at people who trespass, break and enter, and injure LEOs, etc.
I just want to be able to fill my wife's SUV's gas tank without cringing. That's a whole billable hour of time! One tank. She goes through those every two or three days. And do not get me started on our grocery bills.
5:05, the overwhelming majority of republicans want to punish rioters, whether they be the antifa/blm non-peaceful protestors or the capital trespassers and selfie takers. But what happened on Jan is is not even close to an "attempted coup." And, Trump authorized security for Jan 6, it was Pelosi and the DC mayor who failed to enact proper security measures. Makes one wonder why.
6:00 – can you cite to evidence Trump authorized more security? I see that referenced, but have never been able to verify from a reliable source. I have heard that Pelosi and the mayor had not control over security. I have not been able to verify that either.
Smh,punishing a woman bc of her attorney. Another good Jennifer Dorsey decision.
That was a good decision. The client can pursue a malpractice claim. Not to mention, the evidence to be introduced was altered and counsel lied about it.
I agree with 1027. Jennifer Dorsey decision is punitive against the wrong person
I still have a hard time believing the lady did not consent…
Evidence means nothing to Dorsey. She pranced to her own agenda
this is what happens when you vote solely based on genitalia and not skill.
I do not remember voting for or against Judge Dorsey (genitalia or not) but then again I am not a United States Senator.
The only real person to vote for Judge Dorsey was Randall Jones. Harry Reid said, hey, Randall, who do you want for federal judge, and Randall said, Jennifer.
The attorney represents the party. Stovall engaged in extremely unethical practices on behalf of his client. Stovall is sanctioned. Client is punished. Client can sue Stovall for malpractice. Makes perfect sense to me.
Yes,Jennifer Dorsey dismiss a perfectly good law suit filed by a rape victim,so you can go after an attorney. Got it.
And just like that a $20MM lawsuit reduced to $1MM E&O policy limits.
You act like it was a dead winner despite the lady settling years earlier. The lady is a teacher, but didn’t have the capacity to sign and understand a release?
Get ready.
THHWWAAAAACCCCKK!
Oh, great, whacky thwacky is back.
Has anyone ever seen whacky thwack guy in the same room as double kickstands dude? Seems suspicious.
Thwack here. Not the same person. Just making a point that when comments are removed, I imagine a "Thwack!" sound.
Does anyone know the term for when someone makes a public statement about another person (the target) that the speaker knows and / or intends is likely to motivate some rando to harass and/or attack the target?
For example: a prominent celebrity or politician tweets something like "Now that [target's] identity is known to the public, I hope that [s]he will find out what it's like to [be beaten] [be raped] [be killed] [some other horrible thing]."
Apparently there is a specific term for this, which I just heard the other day, but now I can't remember it. I thought it was "statistical threat" or something like that, but my google skills are failing me… It's not "doxing," although it often is combined with doxing. I'm looking for the term describing a statement that is basically a call to the lunatic fringe to actually do the horrible thing the speaker "hopes" will happen to the victim. Anyone?
Could it maybe be "incitement of violence?" Like when someone says "maybe Mike Pence [the Vice President of the United States of America] deserves to be hung?" Something like that?
Doxxing?
I'm pretty sure it was "________ threat," and sounded more like a sociological term than a legal one. Not "statistical," but something implying that the number of listeners is sufficiently large that there's a good chance at least one of them is crazy enough to act.
True threat? https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1759&context=student_scholarship
Existential threat. Sartre would be proud.
Did you see Senator Schumer's comments about conservative justices on the USSC? You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said while the justices were hearing arguments in a critical Louisiana abortion case. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Then we learn that an armed man traveled to Justice Kavanaugh's home to assassinate him. Interesting that Congress and the media ignore the connection of these two stories.
"Cat's paw." Is that it?
8:03 oh for the love of god. There are kooks on both sides. Do you think the DNC hired that nut job to assassinate Kavanaugh? Congress and the media ignored the “connection” because there isn’t one
TSD is alive and well on this blog.
Need to stop reading the comments. Get too worried about the legal profession.