Prosecutors want $1 million bail for man accused of shooting at officers, kidnapping sex worker. [RJ]
Jury sentences former convict to death for murder of ex-girlfriend. [Fox5Vegas]
It’s time for the annual holiday parties discussion! What is your firm doing this year? Are you doing lunch in the office, dinner on the strip, a cruise, etc? Will there be gifts, door prizes, alcohol? While we’ll get to bonuses later, does your firm do bonuses before or after the holiday party?
We used to have a holiday party that involved events (fancy dinner, VGK Game, rent a ballroom and have a cocktail mixer, rent hotel rooms out of town and do an event that involves mild travel). Then about 8 years ago we put it to our employees which they would prefer (a) holiday party of their choosing or (b) potluck and the firm would pay a second bonus equal to the per capita cost of a holiday party. Every year the vote has been unanimous for the latter or not the former. So shit on those firms who have an intraoffice event if you wish but quite possible the employees of those firms prefer that.
Guest
Anonymous
December 4, 2024 12:39 pm
There are few things I dread each year more than whatever wacky-fun gift exchange management dreams up. This year it’s secret Santa, so we get to buy stuff for people we only know professionally, and I think it’s awkward and wasteful.
Guest
Anonymous
December 4, 2024 1:06 pm
No thanks to Holiday parties. I don’t want to spend time with these people outside of work on a normal day, let alone during the holidays.
I plan to take my employees to lunch on the Thursday before Christmas, no plus ones, no alcohol, pass out bonus checks, and send them home early. Simple.
Government employee. No gifts, no door prizes, no bonuses, no alcohol. But a decent work-life balance, doing interesting work. We’ll have a lunch event that is voluntary. The attorneys will pay a bit extra to pay for the support staff lunch expenses. Some of us will go out after hours for a happy hour, which will be great because I like my co-workers.
Op here was my thinking (yes I’ll stick to my day job): the gov post was obviously OBC and they think all other lawyers are stealing so I thought it appropriate n mildly humorous.
4:48 here. Definitely not OBC. btw – I don’t think the State Bar is a government office and I sure has hell don’t think they prohibit use of funds for private purposes. They annual boondoggle to exotic locations under the guise of bar conventions suggests little regard for questionable expenses. My government office, however, uses off-brand sticky notes and shitty legal pads. Still, happy to work hard on behalf of you all, no stealing necessary.
You know, I think you got the wrong impression about me. I think in all fairness, I should explain to you exactly what it is that I do. For instance tomorrow morning I’ll get up nice and early, take a walk down over to your law office and… walk in and see and, uh… if you don’t have my money for me, I’ll… crack your fucking head wide open in front of everybody in the office. And just about the time that I’m coming off my six month and one day suspension, hopefully, you’ll be coming out of your coma. And guess what? I’ll split your fucking head open again. ‘Cause I’m fucking stupid. I don’t give a fuck about OBC suspending my license.
Excellent question – in short, short term lessees (enterprise, hertz, etc.) have been laboring recently under the impression that NRS 482.305 is preempted by the Graves Amendment, meaning that they are not liable for damages caused by their renters, despite NRS 482.305 imposing state minimum $25,000.00 obligations. The Supreme Court denied that argument, and ruled that NRS 482.305 is NOT preempted by Graves, and therefore short term lessees remain liable for their renter’s damages up to $25,000.00 (either as primary – meaning the renter did not have valid insurance coverage, or secondary, above and beyond any insurance available to the renter through their own policies).
“In sum, we hold that NRS 482.305 is not preempted by the Graves Amendment because it is a financial responsibility law preserved by the savings clause under 49 U.S.C. § 30106(b)(1) and (2). Hall clearly supports an interpretation of NRS 482.305 as “imposing liability [on
lessors] … for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law” pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 30106(b)(2). See Hatt, 122 Nev. at 693, 137 P.3d at 1109.”
So good for injured people, bad for rental car companies is the take away here – but not surprising in the least.
so i only occasionally work in this area of law, but when the cards settle, would not the most likely ‘solution’ be that these companies are just going to add something like a $10 fee to ensure compliance with NRS obligations? Unless maybe the renter is going to present insurance that confirms some sort of portable coverage?
It’s even better than that. If the lessor fails to provide the minimum coverage (25/50) then they are jointly and severally liable with their lessee for ALL the damages.
It was important enough for me to file a supplemental opposition to a pending MSJ yesterday afternoon.
Guest
Anonymous
December 5, 2024 3:12 pm
The near universal approval of Brian Thompsons murder is surprising and disturbing. Don’t bother with the, “You’re really surprised given the way insurace companies act?” Yes, I am surprised. It’s not surprising that some people would celebrate the murder. It *IS* surprising how widespread the support of the murder has been. On reddit, the murder has near universal approval. Even that is an understatement. All of this is to say that we are also in an industry that involves life altering decisions. We all need to take precautions to be safe.
While I don’t condone it, I’m not surprised. I think as common folks find it harder and harder to live and as wealth disparity increases, you’ll increasingly see people lashing out at the establishment and the greed that keeps them down. And with time, I don’t think history will fault them for doing so. Nobody looks back on the French Revolution and says, “Those poor starving commonfolk really took things too far when they beheaded the nobility.” Most historians recognize the French Revolution as a critical watershed in the ever-constant march towards democracy and equality.
3:12 PM here. When you say you’re not surprised, do you really mean that you’re not surprised by how *widespread* approval is? That’s is nearly universally approved of (and really celebrated) on Reddit? The extent of the support is what is surprising to me.
Yes, to all your points about the growing, well really, accelerating concentration of wealth in this country. It can’t go on like this forever, obviously.
Now, I hope you’re not suggesting that Thompsons murder was somehow morally justified.
As attorneys, we are largely immune from the economic reality of most people. I was a poor college student once, but that’s not real poverty. I haven’t worried about how to make ends meat in many, many years. Neither has any attorney reading this (unless they are incompetent in some combination of personal finance, running a practice or the practice of law).
My original point was that this kind of sentiment hits close to home for a lot of us. WE are involved in life changing events, that often leave people feeling marginalized and desperate. I have friends in this profession and town who have received death threats.
I mean… did y’all not see the Olympic opening ceremony? It wasn’t “oh, how terrible, we beheaded aristocrats back in the day.” It was “Hell yeah, in France, this is how we took care of our little oligarch problem and here’s us celebrating them swinging from the lampposts.” That deep-rooted frustration is not uniquely French.
The shell casings found at the Thompson crime scene apparently included the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.” Everyone on this blog knows what those words mean in context, who they implicate, and why they appear there. There’s nothing inevitable about how modern corporations operate or whose interests they are designed to prioritize. And no corporation can assert its rights, policies, or positions in a court of law unless we – not the shareholders, not the CEOs, not the managers, not the employees – agree to make those arguments for it.
News reports circulated today that Anthem had planned to implement a policy of denying medical claims for surgical anesthesia in two eastern states, if the surgery went for a time period beyond some arbitrary time-limit imposed by the insurance company. I’m sure Anthem ran that policy by Legal before they announced it, and were prepared to defend it in court if they had to.
Earlier today on Reddit, after the Anthem policy hit the news, I saw several very popular posts featuring the Anthem CEO’s name and likeness, which made reference to the anesthesia-denial proposal. The comments to these posts were the same flavor we’ve seen in connection with the Thompson murder.
Several hours later, the news broke that Anthem was cancelling the plan to change its anesthesia denial policy.
So yeah 3:12 I have to agree with you, this sequence of events does not bode well for the good ol’ rule of law.
If the populace believes some are above the law, then the rule of law is meaningless. No one is supposed to be above the law in this country, correct? Well, we’ve quite recently proved that wrong, haven’t we?
@3:12 I don’t see how the immediate death by shooting of a man is any less violent than the slow death of a man by cancer because United Healthcare delayed his stage one cancer treatment until it metastasized and turned into stage four and now his children get to watch him die before they graduate high school. And United is by far the worst (and most profitable) of the offenders. Don’t expect sympathy when you live off the misery of others.
But hey…letting a corporation decide what healthcare you get, all while they’re incentivized to give you no health care, is much better than having a government bureaucracy decide for you, right? ‘Merica.
Lastly, since this seems to be the thread for famous quotes: Live by the sword, die by the sword. Womp Womp
You don’t get freedom in the US healthcare system. You get the worse doctors your insurance carrier could contract with to provide you services at the very lowest prices. That’s not freedom or choice. At least in a single-payer system you can go to any provider. It’s really more free market than our current system because good doctors thrive and poor doctors struggle to get business when insurance companies aren’t funneling them patients.
Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram are not the real world. Sure, there are real people who say shit off the cuff about their hatred of the health insurance system, but let’s be real. Pretty much all social media platforms are manipulated by bot farms. When the “likes” or whatever on a post show favor for any one side I always take that with a grain of salt because who knows what bot farm is pumping numbers in any one direction. tl;dr: the internet is not the real world and is subject to mass manipulation by bad actors.
Thank you for submitting additional information regarding your claim. Your claim that this isn’t funny is still denied due to the pre-existing condition of you having no sense of humor.
You’ve clearly never received a denial and six figure hospital bill after jumping through hoops to obtain prior authorization from an insurance company for life saving treatment. UHC monopolized healthcare and nearly bankrupted 60% of medical providers across the US when they mismanaged their recent data breach. The AI this CEO rolled out led to denials resulting in 72,000 preventable deaths. Amazing how one rich guy is worth more than 72,000 of our parents/grandparents.
And don’t forget the fun part where the hospital procedure is approved, but the lab and surgeon are out of network and the anesthesiologist’s bill is denied.
The references to the French Revolution are right on. People like Thompson have more money than they could ever spend. Worrying about paying medical bills is not something they ever have to worry about. But he makes decisions every day which affect thousands of others who pay a lot money to his company to be protected in the event of serious illness. When his company focuses its efforts on ways to avoid providing that protection, people in some of the most desperate times of their lives will react. Some more forcibly than others.
https://babylonbee.com/news/scotus-to-carefully-weigh-whether-its-okay-for-guys-to-slice-off-childrens-body-parts-with-giant-knife
There was a case at the Supreme Court about circumcision? Love the idea of making a man wait until he is an adult to have this performed.
Supreme Court Case link
Whatever you do, don’t have a potluck at the office. ew, gross.
Sign of a cheap employer
We used to have a holiday party that involved events (fancy dinner, VGK Game, rent a ballroom and have a cocktail mixer, rent hotel rooms out of town and do an event that involves mild travel). Then about 8 years ago we put it to our employees which they would prefer (a) holiday party of their choosing or (b) potluck and the firm would pay a second bonus equal to the per capita cost of a holiday party. Every year the vote has been unanimous for the latter or not the former. So shit on those firms who have an intraoffice event if you wish but quite possible the employees of those firms prefer that.
There are few things I dread each year more than whatever wacky-fun gift exchange management dreams up. This year it’s secret Santa, so we get to buy stuff for people we only know professionally, and I think it’s awkward and wasteful.
No thanks to Holiday parties. I don’t want to spend time with these people outside of work on a normal day, let alone during the holidays.
Are you me?
I plan to take my employees to lunch on the Thursday before Christmas, no plus ones, no alcohol, pass out bonus checks, and send them home early. Simple.
What! You give bonuses?
Government employee. No gifts, no door prizes, no bonuses, no alcohol. But a decent work-life balance, doing interesting work. We’ll have a lunch event that is voluntary. The attorneys will pay a bit extra to pay for the support staff lunch expenses. Some of us will go out after hours for a happy hour, which will be great because I like my co-workers.
If you had any fucking heart at all you’d be out fucking stealing for a living.
Bruh.. what?? lmao
Hahaha cmon man it’s a quote from Nicky Santoro in casino
Op here was my thinking (yes I’ll stick to my day job): the gov post was obviously OBC and they think all other lawyers are stealing so I thought it appropriate n mildly humorous.
4:48 here. Definitely not OBC. btw – I don’t think the State Bar is a government office and I sure has hell don’t think they prohibit use of funds for private purposes. They annual boondoggle to exotic locations under the guise of bar conventions suggests little regard for questionable expenses. My government office, however, uses off-brand sticky notes and shitty legal pads. Still, happy to work hard on behalf of you all, no stealing necessary.
Sticky notes?
So 1970.
Romy and Michelle are judging 1:53.
10:08 here. Great movie. Forgot that line. I retract my previous comment.
Classic
You know, I think you got the wrong impression about me. I think in all fairness, I should explain to you exactly what it is that I do. For instance tomorrow morning I’ll get up nice and early, take a walk down over to your law office and… walk in and see and, uh… if you don’t have my money for me, I’ll… crack your fucking head wide open in front of everybody in the office. And just about the time that I’m coming off my six month and one day suspension, hopefully, you’ll be coming out of your coma. And guess what? I’ll split your fucking head open again. ‘Cause I’m fucking stupid. I don’t give a fuck about OBC suspending my license.
Hahaha awesome! That was a great part of the movie
As someone who doesn’t do PI, how important is the Supreme Court’s decision on the Graves’ act?
Excellent question – in short, short term lessees (enterprise, hertz, etc.) have been laboring recently under the impression that NRS 482.305 is preempted by the Graves Amendment, meaning that they are not liable for damages caused by their renters, despite NRS 482.305 imposing state minimum $25,000.00 obligations. The Supreme Court denied that argument, and ruled that NRS 482.305 is NOT preempted by Graves, and therefore short term lessees remain liable for their renter’s damages up to $25,000.00 (either as primary – meaning the renter did not have valid insurance coverage, or secondary, above and beyond any insurance available to the renter through their own policies).
“In sum, we hold that NRS 482.305 is not preempted by the Graves Amendment because it is a financial responsibility law preserved by the savings clause under 49 U.S.C. § 30106(b)(1) and (2). Hall clearly supports an interpretation of NRS 482.305 as “imposing liability [on
lessors] … for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law” pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 30106(b)(2). See Hatt, 122 Nev. at 693, 137 P.3d at 1109.”
So good for injured people, bad for rental car companies is the take away here – but not surprising in the least.
Sounds like another reason to not buy their overpriced in-house rental car insurance.
Excellent synopsis; thank you
Despite screwing up on all sorts of things, the mandatory minimum liability auto coverage is one thing the the NSC has been fiercely protective over.
so i only occasionally work in this area of law, but when the cards settle, would not the most likely ‘solution’ be that these companies are just going to add something like a $10 fee to ensure compliance with NRS obligations? Unless maybe the renter is going to present insurance that confirms some sort of portable coverage?
It’s even better than that. If the lessor fails to provide the minimum coverage (25/50) then they are jointly and severally liable with their lessee for ALL the damages.
It was important enough for me to file a supplemental opposition to a pending MSJ yesterday afternoon.
The near universal approval of Brian Thompsons murder is surprising and disturbing. Don’t bother with the, “You’re really surprised given the way insurace companies act?” Yes, I am surprised. It’s not surprising that some people would celebrate the murder. It *IS* surprising how widespread the support of the murder has been. On reddit, the murder has near universal approval. Even that is an understatement. All of this is to say that we are also in an industry that involves life altering decisions. We all need to take precautions to be safe.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
excellent quote
I think it’s more apathy than celebration.
While I don’t condone it, I’m not surprised. I think as common folks find it harder and harder to live and as wealth disparity increases, you’ll increasingly see people lashing out at the establishment and the greed that keeps them down. And with time, I don’t think history will fault them for doing so. Nobody looks back on the French Revolution and says, “Those poor starving commonfolk really took things too far when they beheaded the nobility.” Most historians recognize the French Revolution as a critical watershed in the ever-constant march towards democracy and equality.
3:12 PM here. When you say you’re not surprised, do you really mean that you’re not surprised by how *widespread* approval is? That’s is nearly universally approved of (and really celebrated) on Reddit? The extent of the support is what is surprising to me.
Yes, to all your points about the growing, well really, accelerating concentration of wealth in this country. It can’t go on like this forever, obviously.
Now, I hope you’re not suggesting that Thompsons murder was somehow morally justified.
As attorneys, we are largely immune from the economic reality of most people. I was a poor college student once, but that’s not real poverty. I haven’t worried about how to make ends meat in many, many years. Neither has any attorney reading this (unless they are incompetent in some combination of personal finance, running a practice or the practice of law).
My original point was that this kind of sentiment hits close to home for a lot of us. WE are involved in life changing events, that often leave people feeling marginalized and desperate. I have friends in this profession and town who have received death threats.
I mean… did y’all not see the Olympic opening ceremony? It wasn’t “oh, how terrible, we beheaded aristocrats back in the day.” It was “Hell yeah, in France, this is how we took care of our little oligarch problem and here’s us celebrating them swinging from the lampposts.” That deep-rooted frustration is not uniquely French.
illegitimi non carborundum, my friends.
Violence never solves anything.
“Dr. Ruth says violence is an expression of sexual frustration. ”
-J-5 hero.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
The shell casings found at the Thompson crime scene apparently included the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.” Everyone on this blog knows what those words mean in context, who they implicate, and why they appear there. There’s nothing inevitable about how modern corporations operate or whose interests they are designed to prioritize. And no corporation can assert its rights, policies, or positions in a court of law unless we – not the shareholders, not the CEOs, not the managers, not the employees – agree to make those arguments for it.
News reports circulated today that Anthem had planned to implement a policy of denying medical claims for surgical anesthesia in two eastern states, if the surgery went for a time period beyond some arbitrary time-limit imposed by the insurance company. I’m sure Anthem ran that policy by Legal before they announced it, and were prepared to defend it in court if they had to.
Earlier today on Reddit, after the Anthem policy hit the news, I saw several very popular posts featuring the Anthem CEO’s name and likeness, which made reference to the anesthesia-denial proposal. The comments to these posts were the same flavor we’ve seen in connection with the Thompson murder.
Several hours later, the news broke that Anthem was cancelling the plan to change its anesthesia denial policy.
So yeah 3:12 I have to agree with you, this sequence of events does not bode well for the good ol’ rule of law.
If the populace believes some are above the law, then the rule of law is meaningless. No one is supposed to be above the law in this country, correct? Well, we’ve quite recently proved that wrong, haven’t we?
Yep. Exactly that.
@3:12 I don’t see how the immediate death by shooting of a man is any less violent than the slow death of a man by cancer because United Healthcare delayed his stage one cancer treatment until it metastasized and turned into stage four and now his children get to watch him die before they graduate high school. And United is by far the worst (and most profitable) of the offenders. Don’t expect sympathy when you live off the misery of others.
But hey…letting a corporation decide what healthcare you get, all while they’re incentivized to give you no health care, is much better than having a government bureaucracy decide for you, right? ‘Merica.
Lastly, since this seems to be the thread for famous quotes: Live by the sword, die by the sword. Womp Womp
Death panels by government bureaucrat, bad.
Death panels by insurance company drone to support rent-seeking investors’ quest for ever increasing profits, a-okay.
Burn it all down. . . . its the medical industrial complex.
“Give me freedom or give me death”
Ironically, with the US health care system, you get both.
“the thing with chaos, it’s fair.”
–The Joker
You don’t get freedom in the US healthcare system. You get the worse doctors your insurance carrier could contract with to provide you services at the very lowest prices. That’s not freedom or choice. At least in a single-payer system you can go to any provider. It’s really more free market than our current system because good doctors thrive and poor doctors struggle to get business when insurance companies aren’t funneling them patients.
Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram are not the real world. Sure, there are real people who say shit off the cuff about their hatred of the health insurance system, but let’s be real. Pretty much all social media platforms are manipulated by bot farms. When the “likes” or whatever on a post show favor for any one side I always take that with a grain of salt because who knows what bot farm is pumping numbers in any one direction. tl;dr: the internet is not the real world and is subject to mass manipulation by bad actors.
Claim Denied. Prior authorization is required for sympathy.
This is not as funny as you think it is
Thank you for submitting additional information regarding your claim. Your claim that this isn’t funny is still denied due to the pre-existing condition of you having no sense of humor.
You’ve clearly never received a denial and six figure hospital bill after jumping through hoops to obtain prior authorization from an insurance company for life saving treatment. UHC monopolized healthcare and nearly bankrupted 60% of medical providers across the US when they mismanaged their recent data breach. The AI this CEO rolled out led to denials resulting in 72,000 preventable deaths. Amazing how one rich guy is worth more than 72,000 of our parents/grandparents.
And don’t forget the fun part where the hospital procedure is approved, but the lab and surgeon are out of network and the anesthesiologist’s bill is denied.
Just got that one!
You can still have sympathy, but it won’t be paid for by us.
Sorry, thoughts and prayers are out of network.
The references to the French Revolution are right on. People like Thompson have more money than they could ever spend. Worrying about paying medical bills is not something they ever have to worry about. But he makes decisions every day which affect thousands of others who pay a lot money to his company to be protected in the event of serious illness. When his company focuses its efforts on ways to avoid providing that protection, people in some of the most desperate times of their lives will react. Some more forcibly than others.
Let them eat cake!
Hmmmmph. Guess he deserved getting murdered . . . . .
Whether deserved or not, it was certainly foreseeable.