The Special Legislative session kicks off today. [Las Vegas Sun; TNI]
The Nevada Supreme Court was asked to reinstate a defamation claim by Steve Wynn against the Associated Press. [Las Vegas Sun]
The Nevada Supreme Court also heard argument about murder charges in DUIs. [RJ]
DA Wolfson has not ruled out retrial of Jessica Williams in crash that killed 6 teens. [RJ]
Washoe County judge Barry Breslow appointed a special master to investigate the DETR/PUA backlog. [TNI]
The US Supreme Court issued two opinions today and will close out its term tomorrow. Any predictions on the Trump taxes case? Anyone think there will be retirement announcements? [SCOTUSblog]
An attorney in Florida made a federal court appearance in a hazmat suit. [Above the Law]
Steve Wolfson knows that poor girl should never have been rung up in the first place. Shame on him. Asshole. Leave her alone to live what's left of her life.
I agree. What happened was horrible and she was in the wrong, but this was not a DUI type of offense. It was a terrible accident that ruined many lives. To the extent that prison time was warranted, she served plenty.
Just a quick recap from yesterday. Here's our Nevada law firms that received more than $1 million from the fraudulent PPP bailout:
Pereira & Associates (14 employees)
Bighorn Law (81 employees)
Glen Lerner (65 employees)
Harris Law Firm (88 employees)
Heidari Law Group (12 employees)
Hutchison & Steffen (93 employees)
J. Bruce Alverson (92 employees)
Kaempfer Crowell (63 employees)
Kolesar & Leatham (10 employees)
Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada (150 employees)
Marquis Aurbach Coffin (61 employees)
McDonald Carano (90 employees)
I'm no alleging any of these law firms committed fraud – I'm saying the bailout was fraudulent. However, I do hope someone investigates how 3 law firms with less than 15 employees, each received more than $1 million of taxpayer money. One of these 3 law firms allegedly "closed" in February but applied for this bailout PPP in April and received between $1-$2 million.
The purpose of PPP was to prevent small businesses hurt by corona shutdowns from laying off workers. The money was intended to cover payroll and other overhead costs while business operations were limited. It's wasn't payroll replacement for every business and subsidiary out there. The original application language asked businesses to show year-to-year revenue drop, but they got rid of that requirement because more language equals more complicated application process and the goal was to get the money out fast. The spirit of the program was to keep businesses from shutting permanently or laying off employees because they had to cover fixed overhead costs while operations were limited or not possible because of corona.
I do not think law firms should have qualified for PPP. Lawyers and staff are able to work effectively remotely without severely limiting their business operations. Hell, some of the law firms in this list never even shut down or went to working remotely. They put their employees at risk, kept normal business operations, and received windfall bailout from taxpayers. Shame!
Non-profits qualify for PPP? Way to go, Babs. Buckley. Way to bilk the system, Legal Aid. I want to keep your "non profit" in business while you represent union members for pay. Is this still happening?
The same people that will take any tiny, nuanced wild interpretation of the law to argue for a client now complaint that a law firm used the law to there benefit. #hypocrites
Guest
Anonymous
July 8, 2020 6:42 pm
*their
Guest
Anonymous
July 8, 2020 6:58 pm
So if the firm I work for took PPP money, how long is my job safe for before they can fire me?
As to the post of 10:43 re; Jessica Williams, on the surface it would not appear to be supportable, as the killing of six young people by a DUI driver could justify many decades, if not virtually a whole life, in prison. That's how incredibly serious these matters are.
However, when we start peeling away at it a bit, and get more into the weeds, the point by 10:43 becomes a lot more supportable.
This was not some raging drunk who drank at taverns all night and then finally drove home in the morning and mowed down half a dozen children at a school bus stop.
No. What happened here is that she was not drinking at all, and in fact the jury determined that she was not impaired. But what was finally determined after repeated lab testing is that she had a very tiny trace of THC in her system, as she had smoked a joint some time earlier. If I recall she claimed it was to aid her sleep prior to her long drive home on the interstate. Perhaps, or perhaps she just liked smoking pot and occasionally getting high. I don't know.
But I do know that to equate her to someone who drank all night is a bit of a reach. Plus she has already served two full decades, essentially her prime youth years(20 to 40). Plus I have never seen a more devastated and remorseful defendant, and that must count for something. Remorse doesn't bring back victims, but the level of remorse(or absence thereof) is often cited in sentencing decisions for serious felonies.
Also, at the time a big deal was made about the idiotic placement of these teenagers, who were forced to perform road work. Don't recall if the agency that came under fire was Dept. Of Juvenile Parole And Probation, or some other entity. But, if memory serves, these teenagers, who were assigned to this community service as part of a juvenile sentence, were in a most treacherous area, around a real sharp curve, where they were largely inconspicuous to even the most alert driver until the driver was right on them. At least there was much of that made at the time.
So, under thee specific facts of this case, 10:43 is right. Yes, it was a horrible loss of six young lives. But I think by this time we got our pound of flesh as she served almost 20 years. And, yes, I would admittedly feel differently if my child was one of those killed as with personal grief and loss objectively and a sense of proportion are often compromised(I have experienced such a reaction myself after serious personal loss).
She was also paroled before her conviction was tossed. There's no rationale in retrying her.
Well, I guess the only rationale for retrying her is if you're trying to avoid civil liability for a wrongful conviction. Granted I know nothing about this area of the law. Is she entitled to money damages because her conviction was tossed? If so, settle it – toss her some money and don't retry her.
Guest
Anonymous
July 8, 2020 7:03 pm
The PPP is a blessing and is not fraudulent. It has ensured our ability to pay employees and keep things afloat. Shame on anyone who questions a business's motive to seek such redress and help. The PPP provided certainty for a going concern. I hope there are more programs such as the PPP for all businesses and that the next round of stimulus provides for more direct landlord/tenant relief as well.
It's not a role of government to provide blessings. Are you also for free healthcare, free college education, student loan forgiveness, free housing (oh wait, you already said you are ok with that last one).
12:03 – Are you for the redistribution of wealth? Cause that's just what happened when you took PPP funds. The government has no wealth of its own – it can only redistribute the wealth of others.
Yes, as long as I am in charge of the redistribution.
Guest
Anonymous
July 8, 2020 7:12 pm
Don't necessarily agree with the conclusion of 12:02 or 10:43. Six lives were lost, and 19 years may arguably not be sufficient sentence for that.
So, a re-trial, (to the extent it is not foreclosed and constitutionally precluded as to certain matters) does not necessarily seem, on the surface, as an obvious gross miscarriage of justice.
But that said, I do appreciate the thoughtful, humane and analytical perspective taken by 12:02, who made a couple interesting points.
But, not to quibble too much, but I think 12:02 may not recall a couple other matters totally accurately. The description of when she smoked the joint, and under what circumstances, may not be as remembered by 12:02, who makes it sound like Jessica merely took a couple puffs to assist with sleep prior to her long trip home. I'm not sure that 100% jells with trial testimony(but, yes, 12:02 is right about the jury not finding her impaired, but she did reach a legal level of THC which justified prosecution).
And I also think 12:02 may be making that whole placement of the teenagers issue sound more reckless and horrible than it was. But that said, I do remember there were some viable concerns expressed at the time as to the placement of these children picking up trash on the interstate.
As I recall, whichever entity it was that thought it was a good idea to put kids in that position wound up paying a settlement. I would also note that, at least in the interview that I read, Ms. Williams took full responsibility and did not seek to shift any blame in that regard.
Murderers often serve less time than Jessica Williams served. Williams was convicted on a nonsensical statute. It was found by a jury, as a matter of fact, that she was not impaired. There was no intent or reckless indifference found. How in God's name does someone serve 19+ years on those facts?
This was an act of mere negligence, with a tragic result, which should have been redressed via a civil judgment. With all respect to the surviving families, the government and garbage contractors paid hefty civil settlements. The remedy against Williams should similarly have been a civil judgment, rather than a conviction and 19+ years in prison.
But then again, how would anyone calculate a 40% contingency fee on an uncollectible civil judgment against a (likely) underinsured negligent 20-year-old woman?
I agree with 10:43 and 12:02. There is no good reason for Wolfson to pursue this any further.
It kind of seems that 12:12 would agree with 10:43 and 12:02, but 12:12 puts big emphasis on the number of lives lost(6).
But as analyzed by 12:02 and 12:53,even considering that multiple young lives were lost, 19 years in prison is far more than enough under these specific facts
2:36,it is apparent on this blog that sometimes someone will post something, and then add a post agreeing with the one just posted.
But the posts you mention are far from entirely consistent with each other, and disagree with each other on some points.
That said, some people do tend to argue with themselves, so perhaps you are right. Or perhaps the poster is trying to generate discussion, but no one is taking the bait, except the poster themself.
Dawson held that her rights to due process were violated because the statute at the time did not give adequate notice that presence of mj metabolite could be the basis for criminality. How do you fix that for a retrial?
You charge her with murder as the DA's office seems to enjoy doing now. Bonus – solves any statute of limitations issue and maybe they lock her up longer also!
Guest
Anonymous
July 8, 2020 9:27 pm
12:53 is right. They were so desperate to make her pay criminally for this horrible tragedy, that when they determined she did not have alcohol in her system, they became real creative and desperate and used that statute defining permissible levels of THC. And it indicated a violation at a very, very minimal level. So, she was(just barely) in violation of that statute, but she was not impaired, and the jury was clear on that point.
So, the system was vey fortunate to get this conviction and an unjustified prison term of two decades.
So, that's more than sufficient pound of flesh. Plus, as some have pointed out, there has never been a more remorseful defendant. So, let it go.
But they may not. The original prosecution, and desperate use of that THC statute, was, in my view, largely influenced by intense media, political and public pressure.
And some of those same dynamics will be still in play. The D.A. is an elected position. If he is able to re-file charges, and declines to do so, that is the proper decision, but perhaps not a politically astute decision. MADD and other agencies will probably raise a big hue and cry, and so will media outlets. And a potential political opponent could make effective use of all that political fodder and run on a platform that the current D.A. is "soft" on drunk drivers who mow down children–which,of course, is absurdly false, but they wont let the truth get in the way.
Jessica, although no doubt deserving of some punishment, served a grossly disproportionate two decade prison sentence as a result of media and political pressure, and not based on what was deserved(ethics, morals, as well as proportionality and consistency of criminal sentences, were all totally ignored).
I feel that now 20 years down the road, the same will happen to her again. It has nothing to do with what is right and just. It is all about how best to gain political coverage and protection by placating blood-thirsty factions of the media and the public.
If Wolfson does anything more to this poor woman than what'e already been done, HE is the one who should burn in Hell. Politics be damned; this was an absolute travesty of justice. Stewart Bell should never have let this happen. Yes, six children's lives were lost; but an unjust crucifixion didn't and won't ever bring them back.
Guest
Anonymous
July 8, 2020 11:11 pm
Anyone else nervous that Il Duce and his gang in Carson City are scheming to take our money and liberties in earnest? With D's in charge across the board, including the courts, we are barely a step behind California.
4:11. I don't feel that much more comfortable when republicans are in charge, either state-wide or nationally. They talk a much better game, about controlling spending, but when push comes to shove, they are (almost)every bit as bad,albeit that some of the wasteful spending is in a different direction based on party philosophies and priorities.
Bush the First, Bush The Second, and Now the Trump administration when all is said and done, will have a spending record and a budget every bit as disturbing, in some respects, as Carter, Clinton and Obama.
These republicans may be better, than the democrats, in spouting rhetoric about "family values" and American patriotism and greatness, but study the financial records and expenditures, and it is not a great improvement over democratic administrations.
If the republican power brokers were truly sincere that they are rapid budget hawks, they would have nominated someone like Gngrich, rather than Bush, and then McCain, and then Romney, and then Trump(BTW, Romney would have been the worst spender of all republican presidents).
But it was recognized that Gingrich had a shitty, off-putting, unelectable personality, and, again, the priority is to win elections, not to truly cut budgets. That's the biggest crock in decades when viable presidential candidates promise to slash the budget, and appear to really mean it. It scares the living crap out of both parties, otherwise Gingrich types would not be marginalized and dismissed so entirely by their own party.
Only three viable presidential candidates truly and sincerely lived and breathed federal budget cutting and were committed to it above all else. One, was in fact the charisma lacking Gingrich(assuming he could be classified as "viable.").
Another was Barry Goldwater who got crushed by LBJ in '64, and to some real extent(although not to the extent his worshippers insist) Reagan, when he won in '80 and '84.
But all(not some, but all) of Reagan's core ideas on the economy were taken from Goldwater's playbook, and then somewhat updated to fit the needs of the 1980's.But Goldwater was truly the real deal when it came to budget cutting commitment.
But his ideas on military aggression and other matters, scared people.
If you truly study these budgets, they are often not consistent with party philosophies. For example,If you don't like too much spent on welfare benefits, then it was Clinton whose cuts you should applaud, not some republican(not that I am taking up for Clinton's budgets as there is an awful lot I didn't like).
The special session will open the door to an income tax. This will become law within six years.
Vote by mail and other fraud will put Biden in the White house. He will grant citizenship to 15 million aliens.
Running gun battles will turn the Strip a no go zone.
The Vegas Valley will resemble a FEMA camp within ten years.
Nevada is only one of five states to have a so-called per se law on the books making it a crime to have even a minimal level of THC in the system, even if one is not in possession of pot, nor did it contribute to an accident.
And this law still exists even though much later marijuana was deemed legal for medicinal purposes in our state, and then in 2016 for recreational purposes as well.
So, had these current marijuana laws been in effect at trial, she could not have been convicted under that nonsensical per se statute, since marijuana is now not illegal. Yes, still illegal to drive with it in one's system under certain in circumstances, but the jury found she was not impaired.
Although 2:36 has suggested that the same person is posting everything on this subject, this is my first post today(unless 2:36 is correct that all posts on this subject must be by the same person).
Now if the same person is in fact posting, they are kind of schizophrenic as to their wildly altering viewpoints, plus I must be very forgetful to not retain the fact that I already posted several times today.
For example, if 2:27 and 3:12 is truly the same person, or,worse yet, if both in fact are me,(as 2;36 insists all posts on J.Williams are by the same person)then I must disagree with myself when I post at 3:12 and suggest it would be beyond shocking if she is again prosecuted. I believe what I(supposedly) wrote at 3:12 that it would be appalling if she is prosecuted based on political motivations, but I agree with what I also(apparently) wrote at 2:27 that, as usual, politics will control.
So, tragically, I fear they may not be done with her. I pray I'm wrong(as to all my posts).
Steve Wolfson knows that poor girl should never have been rung up in the first place. Shame on him. Asshole. Leave her alone to live what's left of her life.
I agree. What happened was horrible and she was in the wrong, but this was not a DUI type of offense. It was a terrible accident that ruined many lives. To the extent that prison time was warranted, she served plenty.
Gearing up for 2020 Special Session II. https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/legislature-should-repeal-bill-that-makes-it-harder-to-hold-police-accountable-for-wrongdoing
Just a quick recap from yesterday. Here's our Nevada law firms that received more than $1 million from the fraudulent PPP bailout:
Pereira & Associates (14 employees)
Bighorn Law (81 employees)
Glen Lerner (65 employees)
Harris Law Firm (88 employees)
Heidari Law Group (12 employees)
Hutchison & Steffen (93 employees)
J. Bruce Alverson (92 employees)
Kaempfer Crowell (63 employees)
Kolesar & Leatham (10 employees)
Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada (150 employees)
Marquis Aurbach Coffin (61 employees)
McDonald Carano (90 employees)
I'm no alleging any of these law firms committed fraud – I'm saying the bailout was fraudulent. However, I do hope someone investigates how 3 law firms with less than 15 employees, each received more than $1 million of taxpayer money. One of these 3 law firms allegedly "closed" in February but applied for this bailout PPP in April and received between $1-$2 million.
The purpose of PPP was to prevent small businesses hurt by corona shutdowns from laying off workers. The money was intended to cover payroll and other overhead costs while business operations were limited. It's wasn't payroll replacement for every business and subsidiary out there. The original application language asked businesses to show year-to-year revenue drop, but they got rid of that requirement because more language equals more complicated application process and the goal was to get the money out fast. The spirit of the program was to keep businesses from shutting permanently or laying off employees because they had to cover fixed overhead costs while operations were limited or not possible because of corona.
I do not think law firms should have qualified for PPP. Lawyers and staff are able to work effectively remotely without severely limiting their business operations. Hell, some of the law firms in this list never even shut down or went to working remotely. They put their employees at risk, kept normal business operations, and received windfall bailout from taxpayers. Shame!
Non-profits qualify for PPP? Way to go, Babs. Buckley. Way to bilk the system, Legal Aid. I want to keep your "non profit" in business while you represent union members for pay. Is this still happening?
Our system is broke.
How is Kolesar Leatham getting money when closed? I will say it, f…r..
Terry Coffing and Phil Aurbach, I don't vote for people who take bailouts.
Tipping point for me to not vote for either of them. #MeNeither
Jacob Reynolds at Hutchison, too.
The same people that will take any tiny, nuanced wild interpretation of the law to argue for a client now complaint that a law firm used the law to there benefit. #hypocrites
*their
So if the firm I work for took PPP money, how long is my job safe for before they can fire me?
It's not safe. Ever.
As to the post of 10:43 re; Jessica Williams, on the surface it would not appear to be supportable, as the killing of six young people by a DUI driver could justify many decades, if not virtually a whole life, in prison. That's how incredibly serious these matters are.
However, when we start peeling away at it a bit, and get more into the weeds, the point by 10:43 becomes a lot more supportable.
This was not some raging drunk who drank at taverns all night and then finally drove home in the morning and mowed down half a dozen children at a school bus stop.
No. What happened here is that she was not drinking at all, and in fact the jury determined that she was not impaired. But what was finally determined after repeated lab testing is that she had a very tiny trace of THC in her system, as she had smoked a joint some time earlier. If I recall she claimed it was to aid her sleep prior to her long drive home on the interstate. Perhaps, or perhaps she just liked smoking pot and occasionally getting high. I don't know.
But I do know that to equate her to someone who drank all night is a bit of a reach. Plus she has already served two full decades, essentially her prime youth years(20 to 40). Plus I have never seen a more devastated and remorseful defendant, and that must count for something. Remorse doesn't bring back victims, but the level of remorse(or absence thereof) is often cited in sentencing decisions for serious felonies.
Also, at the time a big deal was made about the idiotic placement of these teenagers, who were forced to perform road work. Don't recall if the agency that came under fire was Dept. Of Juvenile Parole And Probation, or some other entity. But, if memory serves, these teenagers, who were assigned to this community service as part of a juvenile sentence, were in a most treacherous area, around a real sharp curve, where they were largely inconspicuous to even the most alert driver until the driver was right on them. At least there was much of that made at the time.
So, under thee specific facts of this case, 10:43 is right. Yes, it was a horrible loss of six young lives. But I think by this time we got our pound of flesh as she served almost 20 years. And, yes, I would admittedly feel differently if my child was one of those killed as with personal grief and loss objectively and a sense of proportion are often compromised(I have experienced such a reaction myself after serious personal loss).
She was also paroled before her conviction was tossed. There's no rationale in retrying her.
Well, I guess the only rationale for retrying her is if you're trying to avoid civil liability for a wrongful conviction. Granted I know nothing about this area of the law. Is she entitled to money damages because her conviction was tossed? If so, settle it – toss her some money and don't retry her.
The PPP is a blessing and is not fraudulent. It has ensured our ability to pay employees and keep things afloat. Shame on anyone who questions a business's motive to seek such redress and help. The PPP provided certainty for a going concern. I hope there are more programs such as the PPP for all businesses and that the next round of stimulus provides for more direct landlord/tenant relief as well.
It's not a role of government to provide blessings. Are you also for free healthcare, free college education, student loan forgiveness, free housing (oh wait, you already said you are ok with that last one).
Piggybacking on 12:19,
12:03 – Are you for the redistribution of wealth? Cause that's just what happened when you took PPP funds. The government has no wealth of its own – it can only redistribute the wealth of others.
Redistribution of wealth is good.
Yes, as long as I am in charge of the redistribution.
Don't necessarily agree with the conclusion of 12:02 or 10:43. Six lives were lost, and 19 years may arguably not be sufficient sentence for that.
So, a re-trial, (to the extent it is not foreclosed and constitutionally precluded as to certain matters) does not necessarily seem, on the surface, as an obvious gross miscarriage of justice.
But that said, I do appreciate the thoughtful, humane and analytical perspective taken by 12:02, who made a couple interesting points.
But, not to quibble too much, but I think 12:02 may not recall a couple other matters totally accurately. The description of when she smoked the joint, and under what circumstances, may not be as remembered by 12:02, who makes it sound like Jessica merely took a couple puffs to assist with sleep prior to her long trip home. I'm not sure that 100% jells with trial testimony(but, yes, 12:02 is right about the jury not finding her impaired, but she did reach a legal level of THC which justified prosecution).
And I also think 12:02 may be making that whole placement of the teenagers issue sound more reckless and horrible than it was. But that said, I do remember there were some viable concerns expressed at the time as to the placement of these children picking up trash on the interstate.
As I recall, whichever entity it was that thought it was a good idea to put kids in that position wound up paying a settlement. I would also note that, at least in the interview that I read, Ms. Williams took full responsibility and did not seek to shift any blame in that regard.
Murderers often serve less time than Jessica Williams served. Williams was convicted on a nonsensical statute. It was found by a jury, as a matter of fact, that she was not impaired. There was no intent or reckless indifference found. How in God's name does someone serve 19+ years on those facts?
This was an act of mere negligence, with a tragic result, which should have been redressed via a civil judgment. With all respect to the surviving families, the government and garbage contractors paid hefty civil settlements. The remedy against Williams should similarly have been a civil judgment, rather than a conviction and 19+ years in prison.
But then again, how would anyone calculate a 40% contingency fee on an uncollectible civil judgment against a (likely) underinsured negligent 20-year-old woman?
I agree with 10:43 and 12:02. There is no good reason for Wolfson to pursue this any further.
It kind of seems that 12:12 would agree with 10:43 and 12:02, but 12:12 puts big emphasis on the number of lives lost(6).
But as analyzed by 12:02 and 12:53,even considering that multiple young lives were lost, 19 years in prison is far more than enough under these specific facts
12:02, 12:12, 2:09, and likely 12:53.
MA
And 2:27
2:36,it is apparent on this blog that sometimes someone will post something, and then add a post agreeing with the one just posted.
But the posts you mention are far from entirely consistent with each other, and disagree with each other on some points.
That said, some people do tend to argue with themselves, so perhaps you are right. Or perhaps the poster is trying to generate discussion, but no one is taking the bait, except the poster themself.
@2:36 and 2:37 – yup. lol!
DO
Dawson held that her rights to due process were violated because the statute at the time did not give adequate notice that presence of mj metabolite could be the basis for criminality. How do you fix that for a retrial?
You charge her with murder as the DA's office seems to enjoy doing now. Bonus – solves any statute of limitations issue and maybe they lock her up longer also!
12:53 is right. They were so desperate to make her pay criminally for this horrible tragedy, that when they determined she did not have alcohol in her system, they became real creative and desperate and used that statute defining permissible levels of THC. And it indicated a violation at a very, very minimal level. So, she was(just barely) in violation of that statute, but she was not impaired, and the jury was clear on that point.
So, the system was vey fortunate to get this conviction and an unjustified prison term of two decades.
So, that's more than sufficient pound of flesh. Plus, as some have pointed out, there has never been a more remorseful defendant. So, let it go.
But they may not. The original prosecution, and desperate use of that THC statute, was, in my view, largely influenced by intense media, political and public pressure.
And some of those same dynamics will be still in play. The D.A. is an elected position. If he is able to re-file charges, and declines to do so, that is the proper decision, but perhaps not a politically astute decision. MADD and other agencies will probably raise a big hue and cry, and so will media outlets. And a potential political opponent could make effective use of all that political fodder and run on a platform that the current D.A. is "soft" on drunk drivers who mow down children–which,of course, is absurdly false, but they wont let the truth get in the way.
Jessica, although no doubt deserving of some punishment, served a grossly disproportionate two decade prison sentence as a result of media and political pressure, and not based on what was deserved(ethics, morals, as well as proportionality and consistency of criminal sentences, were all totally ignored).
I feel that now 20 years down the road, the same will happen to her again. It has nothing to do with what is right and just. It is all about how best to gain political coverage and protection by placating blood-thirsty factions of the media and the public.
If Wolfson does anything more to this poor woman than what'e already been done, HE is the one who should burn in Hell. Politics be damned; this was an absolute travesty of justice. Stewart Bell should never have let this happen. Yes, six children's lives were lost; but an unjust crucifixion didn't and won't ever bring them back.
Anyone else nervous that Il Duce and his gang in Carson City are scheming to take our money and liberties in earnest? With D's in charge across the board, including the courts, we are barely a step behind California.
4:11. I don't feel that much more comfortable when republicans are in charge, either state-wide or nationally. They talk a much better game, about controlling spending, but when push comes to shove, they are (almost)every bit as bad,albeit that some of the wasteful spending is in a different direction based on party philosophies and priorities.
Bush the First, Bush The Second, and Now the Trump administration when all is said and done, will have a spending record and a budget every bit as disturbing, in some respects, as Carter, Clinton and Obama.
These republicans may be better, than the democrats, in spouting rhetoric about "family values" and American patriotism and greatness, but study the financial records and expenditures, and it is not a great improvement over democratic administrations.
If the republican power brokers were truly sincere that they are rapid budget hawks, they would have nominated someone like Gngrich, rather than Bush, and then McCain, and then Romney, and then Trump(BTW, Romney would have been the worst spender of all republican presidents).
But it was recognized that Gingrich had a shitty, off-putting, unelectable personality, and, again, the priority is to win elections, not to truly cut budgets. That's the biggest crock in decades when viable presidential candidates promise to slash the budget, and appear to really mean it. It scares the living crap out of both parties, otherwise Gingrich types would not be marginalized and dismissed so entirely by their own party.
Only three viable presidential candidates truly and sincerely lived and breathed federal budget cutting and were committed to it above all else. One, was in fact the charisma lacking Gingrich(assuming he could be classified as "viable.").
Another was Barry Goldwater who got crushed by LBJ in '64, and to some real extent(although not to the extent his worshippers insist) Reagan, when he won in '80 and '84.
But all(not some, but all) of Reagan's core ideas on the economy were taken from Goldwater's playbook, and then somewhat updated to fit the needs of the 1980's.But Goldwater was truly the real deal when it came to budget cutting commitment.
But his ideas on military aggression and other matters, scared people.
If you truly study these budgets, they are often not consistent with party philosophies. For example,If you don't like too much spent on welfare benefits, then it was Clinton whose cuts you should applaud, not some republican(not that I am taking up for Clinton's budgets as there is an awful lot I didn't like).
Fair points
The special session will open the door to an income tax. This will become law within six years.
Vote by mail and other fraud will put Biden in the White house. He will grant citizenship to 15 million aliens.
Running gun battles will turn the Strip a no go zone.
The Vegas Valley will resemble a FEMA camp within ten years.
Change My Mind.
That sounds awesome.
Nevada is only one of five states to have a so-called per se law on the books making it a crime to have even a minimal level of THC in the system, even if one is not in possession of pot, nor did it contribute to an accident.
And this law still exists even though much later marijuana was deemed legal for medicinal purposes in our state, and then in 2016 for recreational purposes as well.
So, had these current marijuana laws been in effect at trial, she could not have been convicted under that nonsensical per se statute, since marijuana is now not illegal. Yes, still illegal to drive with it in one's system under certain in circumstances, but the jury found she was not impaired.
Although 2:36 has suggested that the same person is posting everything on this subject, this is my first post today(unless 2:36 is correct that all posts on this subject must be by the same person).
Now if the same person is in fact posting, they are kind of schizophrenic as to their wildly altering viewpoints, plus I must be very forgetful to not retain the fact that I already posted several times today.
For example, if 2:27 and 3:12 is truly the same person, or,worse yet, if both in fact are me,(as 2;36 insists all posts on J.Williams are by the same person)then I must disagree with myself when I post at 3:12 and suggest it would be beyond shocking if she is again prosecuted. I believe what I(supposedly) wrote at 3:12 that it would be appalling if she is prosecuted based on political motivations, but I agree with what I also(apparently) wrote at 2:27 that, as usual, politics will control.
So, tragically, I fear they may not be done with her. I pray I'm wrong(as to all my posts).
I truly dread being expected back in the office.
When are you expected back there? I haven't heard anything from my employer.
We are still required to stay remote. We have been told we will be allowed to stay remote at least through 2020.