- Quickdraw McLaw
- 24 Comments
- 267 Views
- The arrest of a woman who showed up for her green card appointment has the Las Vegas immigrant community on edge. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Might the City of Las Vegas be getting in on the opioid lawsuits? [RJ]
- How major Nevada cities and counties deal with sexual harassment. [TNI]
First
"Trump is taking unprecedented initiative to crack down not only on criminally affiliated immigrants, but also those like Gomez who abide by the law and are contributing members of a community."
The reporter states that Gomez was a law abiding illegal immigrant. Now that is funny. This article's tone proves that there are those who believe that we should not have any immigration laws and that everyone a right to come to the U.S. and live here. Anyone want to take the bet that Ms. Gomez obtained a false social security number in order to work while living here for the past 20 years?
I am not proposing that all illegal immigrants should be deported as this would be an impossibility. However, I do object to the way this article projects Ms. Gomez as a victim in all this. She is the one who chose to come to the U.S. illegally and took the chance of getting caught at some point. She is not a victim. She knew the consequences and the risk she took upon herself.
Did I misread the article in that it says a judge issued her deported in August 1998 and that they just hadn't deported her since then? My question is how she ended up making it here for 20 years with a deportation order in existence? I clearly don't do immigration or I could answer that question myself. Isn't that like having a warrant out for your arrest for a crime one commits but just not being caught and arrested yet?
@10:51 the article's tone proves no such thing. Presumably you're an attorney…don't you have enough education to read a little more critically than that? And yes, she was a victim. Perhaps not of the immigration laws (though that's arguable), but she was certainly victimized by a notario. It is highly doubtful that she knew of any consequences or risks. She didn't even know enough to know she was being scammed by a notario. We have a serious problem with notarios in this community and the AG and State Bar aren't doing anything about it. It's very easy to see how a person in her position could be taken advantage of.
But she knew she was coming into the country illegally when crossing the border from Mexico. So yes she was a victim of a notario, but she had to know the other shoe would drop at some point. What will be her punishment in all this? She is sent home to her country of origin.
There is no indication she (1) illegally crossed the border from Mexico or (2) knew her status was unauthorized. Indeed, the article implies she thought she came legally, noting the notario fraud in her case. 10:51 and 1:33 are reading quite a bit into the article that is not there to minimize this woman's victimization.
@ 12:50 "…don't you have enough education to read a little more critically than that?" It is those kinds of self righteous comments that annoy me about this blog. Can you state your opinion without personally attacking someone else's? Even if your point is correct or agreeable, when you speak like that you sound like a jerk. It's so routine here it's taking the fun out of this blog for me.
1:48…um, unless she teleported over here, yeah, there is.
Not everyone who enters the US crossed the Mexican boarder illegally or teleported in. There are indeed multiple ways to end up here other than teleportation and illegally crossing the Mexican boarder, including coming over on a tourist or student visa, or the one implied by the article: through the asylum process.
2:24 p.m., that is not how it works. They come here first and then seek asylum. She would not have come here originally seeking asylum. She would have come here illegally across the border. Or, as you seem to suggest, but unlikely, she overstayed on a tourist or student visa. In that scenario, she broke immigration laws by violating her visa.
1:48 and 2:24 here, I was responding to 1:33's unfounded statement she "knew she was coming into the country illegally when crossing the border from Mexico." Leaving aside your point's nonresponsiveness to that issue, you are incorrect.
First, you can seek asylum at the border. There is no requirement you enter the country before seeking asylum. Second, depending on which research you're using, somewhere from around a third to a significant majority of unauthorized immigrants enter legally. I would hardly consider an event with a probability between .3-.7 "unlikely" by any consensus understanding of the word.
This is a silly argument. Whether she broke the law by crossing the border illegally or by staying illegally after a visa ran out or something, the point is she made a choice to break the immigration laws.
That's not the point. The point is 1:33 made an unjustified inference, regarding a legal issue, on a blog largely patronized by lawyers. Maybe 1:33 is a law student or paralegal; his or her sloppiness would be a little understandable. This is a legal blog, however, and when posters make unsupported claims about the law, based on poor reading comprehension or legal ignorance, others more knowledgeable should call them out on it.
Also, you are substantively incorrect. It doesn't mean she made such a "choice," not necessarily. If you still don't understand that I don't know what to tell you. Most undocumented immigrants come from highly vulnerable populations, and many do not understand the immigration process. That means predators, like this notario, can take advantage of that. The fact that posters here presume to know this woman's intent betrays either ignorance or bias. Many are tricked into thinking they are coming here properly and do not have the language skills or education to understand otherwise. The article above indicated this woman was a victim of a willful predator, and people who clearly have no experience in immigration are just assuming otherwise.
The Supreme Court of Nevada issued an order allowing additional comments from the public and the bar on ADKT 0533, the SBN's proposal concerning trust account audits. Comments may be submitted electronically or in hard-copy by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 20.
Thank you, Andrew. Now you cannot even read the bar journal without Bog propa for audits, convention and audits.
Imsurance
Thank you Andrew for alerting folks~! And, it sounds like the court is accepting electronic copies which is a huge improvement.
Did it surprise anyone that during his presentation about opioids, before the LV City Council, Robert Eglet asked for preferential treatment, and then claimed he was not soliciting business?
Eglet makes bar counsel discipline favorite, Glen Lerner, look like a saint. Anybody who accepts Eglet money appears swarmy. Research who the candidates take money from before you vote. You can check it on the Nevada Secretary of State's website.
Research who Eglet puts his money on and then put your money on that horse because there is no reason to not bandwagon with whomever is going to win.
11:06, that is the spirit. Only Eglet "esteemed" win. No corruptness there. You get what you pay for.
This concept of suing opioid manufacturers is a bit problematic to me. The manufactures don't base the amount they produce based on any illegal trade of street dealing. They base it on what amounts are generally needed to meet the amounts being prescribed by physicians.
Now, yes, some physicians over-prescribe, or prescribe when unnecessary.
And yes, there is certainly a street trade of these drugs, wherein rather than being used by those they are prescribed too, they are sold to others. But how can the manufacturers properly calculate the degree to which any of this occurs?
If they manufacture fewer of these pills, some physicians will still improperly prescribe or over-prescribe, and the street trade will still be flourishing(albeit at much higher prices per pill due to dwindling supply).
So, I say keep the focus on being harsh with the physicians who improperly prescribe, and on the street dealers. Making the manufacturers liable does not control either of these activities; it just increases the street price dealers charge.
The logic of making the manufacturers liable seems to be based on the illogic that decreasing the supply dramatically helps to correct the problem. It does not. People will still be addicted, and will simply resort to greater desperation(read:crime) to get the money to meet the dramatically increased prices.
So, yes, hammer these bad physicians, hammer the drug dealers, and increase funding for rehab., or anything else constructive to attack the problem.
But please don't waste time shilling to the media and public that the political and legal community really care and are attempting to help solve the problem. Suing manufacturers, who are producing an amount to meet the needs of prescriptions being written is ludicrous. Instead, go after the quacks who are writing these scripts, punch their ticket, and then the orders placed to the manufacturers will be far more proportionally based on what is legitimately needed for medical purposes.
I disagree with your position, but let's say your are correct. Why would manufacturers put out fake studies on opiods? Why would they have internal memos detailing they knew there was an issue with over prescribing, but there obligation was to ahareholders?
What if the manufacturers knew the medicine was much more addictive than they let on and hid that fact (i.e. nicotine in cigarettes), or pushed sales associates to get doctors to prescribe potent opiods for off-label uses (i.e. low and medium level pain) in order to generate more sales. No matter how you spin it, there is a profit incentive for these companies to expose an ever-widening group of people to a highly addictive substance in order to make them regular customers. I'm a defense attorney, and even I think you can sell that profits over people narrative to a jury all day long.