Turns out that Judge Susan Johnson has made a comment about Defendants being able to vote for Trump after parole more than once…and there is video. [TNI]
Despite being offered release during trial, Cliven Bundy is staying behind bars. [LasVegasNow]
Here’s a little tiny puff piece about Amanda Connor and her cannabis business law practice. [LasVegasWeekly]
LACSN has created a financial toolkit for shooting victims who will receive funds. [Fox5Vegas]
Vegas Legal Magazine is having their winter launch party tonight. Anyone going?
Anyone know when the greatest Supreme Court candidate we’ll never have and his wife are throwing their party?
What is your firm doing for a holiday party this year?
There is a post in a previous thread that was made this morning regarding Susan Johnson. It is worse than I imagined. The colloquy is positive but includes the statement that if you do what you should, you will be able to vote for Mr. Trump "and I am sure he can use your vote." She then immediately follows up with the warning "But if you don't, if you screw up once, you will go to prison." Yikes.
Judicial discipline commission.Form is on the website.
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2017 5:07 pm
It apparently had something to do with if they comply with the conditions relative to their criminal case negotiation, they can avoid a felony conviction, and maintain their right to vote. Or, in the alternative, some of the case may have involved a situation where if they comply with certain terms their civil rights are restored, including their right to vote.
I'm probably wrong about all that, and someone else will explain much better as to what was technically occurring in the case.
But the upshot of all of it were remarks to the effect that if they comply they will still be able to vote for Trump at his re-election, or if their civil rights(including right to vote)are restored they will be able to vote for him in time of his re-election.
I think way too much was made of it. It was just silly, light-hearted, playful little remarks, presumably designed to put the Defendants at ease and not view the judge as an intimidating ogre, etc.
But since a particular person was mentioned, the concern was that could be viewed as some sort of endorsement of the President in particular, and the Republican party in general.
So, once all this came to light, I think she avoided any further remarks of this nature.
If people really want to complain about this judge, or most of the others for that matter, they can find real substantive matters to complain about–misapplication of the Law, demeanor issues, etc.
But we should not get too hung up that a judge attempted to put some criminal defendant at ease–particularly one who is apparently committed to comply with probation or some other game plan.
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2017 5:16 pm
The Eglet party is tomorrow night. It's usually a hodgepodge of the legal/medical elite and drunken party animals. I go for the slutty women (and usually leave for one, too).
How did the party turn out? Did Tracy actually make an appearance this year?
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2017 5:37 pm
I agree with 8:57 and 9:07 that it was just a silly attempt at light humor, designed to put the Defendants at ease, and that it simply fell flat.
I don't see it as 9:00 does, as some dramatic, coercive type situation against some disenfranchised person who can't fight back and must do as they're told. That poster said "the people at the butt end of a gun always think it's a joke. The people on the barrel end don't have that liberty."
Really? You actually think that applies in this case? You honestly believe that such defendant is successfully intimidated into thinking they must vote for Trump in 2020, and if they don't that the judge will somehow know how each citizen has voted, even if they decide to keep that info. to themselves? Save your dramatic little statements to situations where they may really apply and where someone really is being treated unfairly or out at risk.
Also, does any rational person actually believe the judge thinks this is an effective method to campaign for Trump in general, or republicans in particular?
If she is actually trying to help a candidate and the party, it's the least effective method I've ever seen. I am quite confident that some young women facing a felony conviction for identify theft(apparently, motivated out of financial desperation), and who I bet has never voted and never will, is not the type of person Johnson would target when trying to shill for the republicans.
It all makes zero sense. What the judge did was ill advised and kind of stupid. But to argue it's some huge, nefarious ethical problem is ludicrous.
How is that the case if the judge admits these instances were silly attempts at humor, and avoids repeating them?
Are you seriously suggesting that she was campaigning for a president by trolling for votes among two or three convicted felons who probably never voted in their life, and probably never will? That's probably the least effective method in history of someone trying to help a particular candidate or political party.
So, I don't buy it. However, there is something admittedly troubling about it because of the very specific content of the jokes–not just that they will be able to vote, but will be able to vote for a very specific person in 2020.
I'm not necessarily saying as to whether or not she is too ethical to cross this line, since I really don't know, but I simply can't believe that she or any other judge would believe it is a good and effective idea f to lobby known felons, in open court, to vote for a certain candidate in a certain election.
That's why I'm assuming it was all a joke, because even if I accept the premise that a judge would be so blatantly unethical on the record, I am also being asked to accept that she would be that incredibly stupid. Who the Hell has ever lobbied for votes among a pool of convicted felons–even if one or two of them may eventually get voting rights restored. And the few that do have their rights restored will probably never vote considering that three quarters of the people who are eligible to vote never bother doing so.
It is an express violation of the Judicial Canons. Yes, flagrantly violating the Judicial Canons is a big deal if you are someone threatening prison to people who break rules.
It all just seem too silly and preposterous to be reasonably viewed as some sort of condition or expectation the person must comply with to avoid prison.
It may come down to how a reasonable, objective person would view it. Apparently , some bloggers here believe that it would generally be viewed in a coercive fashion. I view it as a really lame attempt at being humorous and light-hearted.
2:03– As someone who has stood at the right hand chair of the Defense Table (read: party, not attorney), our "reasonable, objective" attorney standard is not who the rules are meant to protect. Everything the Judge says in a sentencing is coercive– carrot and stick. And Johnson followed up the comment with very specific stick. Think about that.
To those who assert Johnson was being "humorous and light-hearted", the very next sentence was an omninous promise that the Defendant would go to prison. There was nothing "humorous and light-hearted" about that comment. There is no "light humor, designed to put the Defendants at ease" in promising a Defendant with force of law that you will throw them in prison. Johnson was very clear and aware that she was holding this woman's liberty in her hands and was not afraid to use it. There is no joking, humor or ease under the circumstances.
The first statement is the carrot – you can get your civil liberties back if you do X. As a side note, one thing you can do with your civil liberties is Y. The very next sentence was the stick: But if you fuck up, you get Z. So don't fuck up. Y and Z are unrelated logically. If Johnson had said "hey, you can get your gun collection back if you do this straight, but if you screw up, you're going to jail" would you say that implies "get your gun back, or go to jail"?
Your hypothetical presumes that X. Y and Z are permissible standing on their own and are stated with equal tone and authority. Your comment ignores the fact that none of them are joking, lighthearted statements under dire circumstances. Furthermore your hypothetical skips the Y. But I will add a Y for you to play out your example. "(x) hey, you can get your gun collection back if you do this straight, (y) which you can use to convince Judge Cadish that she really does not want to get into this Supreme Court race (if you catch my drift) (z) but if you screw up, you're going to jail". Har, Har, Har, just kidding.
Just learned Don Ashworth passed away a couple of weeks ago. Probably won't mean anything to most people here, but he was the Probate Commissioner for 16 years until 2007. A nicer and more patient guy you'll never meet.
There is a post in a previous thread that was made this morning regarding Susan Johnson. It is worse than I imagined. The colloquy is positive but includes the statement that if you do what you should, you will be able to vote for Mr. Trump "and I am sure he can use your vote." She then immediately follows up with the warning "But if you don't, if you screw up once, you will go to prison." Yikes.
It was a joke that fell flat.
The people on the butt end of a gun always think its a joke. The people on the barrel end do not have that liberty.
Where do you report an ethics violation against a judge?
Call the Bar.
Judicial discipline commission.Form is on the website.
It apparently had something to do with if they comply with the conditions relative to their criminal case negotiation, they can avoid a felony conviction, and maintain their right to vote. Or, in the alternative, some of the case may have involved a situation where if they comply with certain terms their civil rights are restored, including their right to vote.
I'm probably wrong about all that, and someone else will explain much better as to what was technically occurring in the case.
But the upshot of all of it were remarks to the effect that if they comply they will still be able to vote for Trump at his re-election, or if their civil rights(including right to vote)are restored they will be able to vote for him in time of his re-election.
I think way too much was made of it. It was just silly, light-hearted, playful little remarks, presumably designed to put the Defendants at ease and not view the judge as an intimidating ogre, etc.
But since a particular person was mentioned, the concern was that could be viewed as some sort of endorsement of the President in particular, and the Republican party in general.
So, once all this came to light, I think she avoided any further remarks of this nature.
If people really want to complain about this judge, or most of the others for that matter, they can find real substantive matters to complain about–misapplication of the Law, demeanor issues, etc.
But we should not get too hung up that a judge attempted to put some criminal defendant at ease–particularly one who is apparently committed to comply with probation or some other game plan.
The Eglet party is tomorrow night. It's usually a hodgepodge of the legal/medical elite and drunken party animals. I go for the slutty women (and usually leave for one, too).
The legally corrupt will be there.
Best party of the year!
Always the first Saturday in December.
Damn, my invite got incinerated on the way from Hell.
How did the party turn out? Did Tracy actually make an appearance this year?
I agree with 8:57 and 9:07 that it was just a silly attempt at light humor, designed to put the Defendants at ease, and that it simply fell flat.
I don't see it as 9:00 does, as some dramatic, coercive type situation against some disenfranchised person who can't fight back and must do as they're told. That poster said "the people at the butt end of a gun always think it's a joke. The people on the barrel end don't have that liberty."
Really? You actually think that applies in this case? You honestly believe that such defendant is successfully intimidated into thinking they must vote for Trump in 2020, and if they don't that the judge will somehow know how each citizen has voted, even if they decide to keep that info. to themselves? Save your dramatic little statements to situations where they may really apply and where someone really is being treated unfairly or out at risk.
Also, does any rational person actually believe the judge thinks this is an effective method to campaign for Trump in general, or republicans in particular?
If she is actually trying to help a candidate and the party, it's the least effective method I've ever seen. I am quite confident that some young women facing a felony conviction for identify theft(apparently, motivated out of financial desperation), and who I bet has never voted and never will, is not the type of person Johnson would target when trying to shill for the republicans.
It all makes zero sense. What the judge did was ill advised and kind of stupid. But to argue it's some huge, nefarious ethical problem is ludicrous.
No, it isn't.
So, it is some huge ethical issue?
How is that the case if the judge admits these instances were silly attempts at humor, and avoids repeating them?
Are you seriously suggesting that she was campaigning for a president by trolling for votes among two or three convicted felons who probably never voted in their life, and probably never will? That's probably the least effective method in history of someone trying to help a particular candidate or political party.
So, I don't buy it. However, there is something admittedly troubling about it because of the very specific content of the jokes–not just that they will be able to vote, but will be able to vote for a very specific person in 2020.
I'm not necessarily saying as to whether or not she is too ethical to cross this line, since I really don't know, but I simply can't believe that she or any other judge would believe it is a good and effective idea f to lobby known felons, in open court, to vote for a certain candidate in a certain election.
That's why I'm assuming it was all a joke, because even if I accept the premise that a judge would be so blatantly unethical on the record, I am also being asked to accept that she would be that incredibly stupid. Who the Hell has ever lobbied for votes among a pool of convicted felons–even if one or two of them may eventually get voting rights restored. And the few that do have their rights restored will probably never vote considering that three quarters of the people who are eligible to vote never bother doing so.
Yes.
It is an express violation of the Judicial Canons. Yes, flagrantly violating the Judicial Canons is a big deal if you are someone threatening prison to people who break rules.
It all just seem too silly and preposterous to be reasonably viewed as some sort of condition or expectation the person must comply with to avoid prison.
It may come down to how a reasonable, objective person would view it. Apparently , some bloggers here believe that it would generally be viewed in a coercive fashion. I view it as a really lame attempt at being humorous and light-hearted.
We shall see how it is ultimately viewed.
Yes, where is Hardesty?
The NSC wants to disbar everybody, why not Susan Johnson?
2:03– As someone who has stood at the right hand chair of the Defense Table (read: party, not attorney), our "reasonable, objective" attorney standard is not who the rules are meant to protect. Everything the Judge says in a sentencing is coercive– carrot and stick. And Johnson followed up the comment with very specific stick. Think about that.
To those who assert Johnson was being "humorous and light-hearted", the very next sentence was an omninous promise that the Defendant would go to prison. There was nothing "humorous and light-hearted" about that comment. There is no "light humor, designed to put the Defendants at ease" in promising a Defendant with force of law that you will throw them in prison. Johnson was very clear and aware that she was holding this woman's liberty in her hands and was not afraid to use it. There is no joking, humor or ease under the circumstances.
The first statement is the carrot – you can get your civil liberties back if you do X. As a side note, one thing you can do with your civil liberties is Y. The very next sentence was the stick: But if you fuck up, you get Z. So don't fuck up. Y and Z are unrelated logically. If Johnson had said "hey, you can get your gun collection back if you do this straight, but if you screw up, you're going to jail" would you say that implies "get your gun back, or go to jail"?
Your hypothetical presumes that X. Y and Z are permissible standing on their own and are stated with equal tone and authority. Your comment ignores the fact that none of them are joking, lighthearted statements under dire circumstances. Furthermore your hypothetical skips the Y. But I will add a Y for you to play out your example. "(x) hey, you can get your gun collection back if you do this straight, (y) which you can use to convince Judge Cadish that she really does not want to get into this Supreme Court race (if you catch my drift) (z) but if you screw up, you're going to jail". Har, Har, Har, just kidding.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Just learned Don Ashworth passed away a couple of weeks ago. Probably won't mean anything to most people here, but he was the Probate Commissioner for 16 years until 2007. A nicer and more patient guy you'll never meet.
He was a nice, patient man. I must admit that I thought he had passed away at least 8 years ago.
Harry Reid's buddy, Reuben Kihuen is accused of sexual harassment. #metoo
Never saw that coming. Lol.