Ah yes, the little-known gubernatorial exemption from obeying traffic laws.
Guest
Anonymous
July 14, 2026 9:23 am
I guess I’m just naive, but I would’ve thought that during a reelection campaign the governor would’ve been careful to avoid any suggestion that he abused his office to get out of a ticket. But it seems like once you get in the habit of using your power to avoid consequences, it’s hard to get out of it.
Case in Point: Caren Turner, New York Commissioner for the Port Authority forced to resign after she was videotaped berating police officers for citing her daughter during a traffic stop. Turner repeatedly told the officers who she was, what her position was and that she would handle the situation for her child. She came off as a conceited bully. Adios Caren.
I mean did he sue the government for 20 mil? Did he give a big opioid litigation contract to his buddies outside the public bidding process? Joe’s “corruption” is small potatoes by comparison. Who cares?
No, we’re supposed to accept it because of the comparative shade of corruption. It’s a lighter shade of corruption. A privileged shade of corruption, if you will.
Bob Eglet effectively paying off Aaron Ford’s tax liens in exchange for the multimillion dollar opioid litigation – or Lombardo getting out of a red light?
Like continuing to publish campaign photos depicting oneself in his sheriff’s uniform, despite having been warned about the ethical propriety of doing so?
It’s definitely a nice little sound bite that will get some play. He doesn’t even let the officer do his job. just, “C’mon, man” in a tone that speaks volumes. And then the officer immediately concedes and walks away.
I get the feeling you’re a partisan tribalist. Running a red light isn’t corruption on the scale of Donald Trump, I will give you that. By itself it’s not that big of a deal. But that interaction is so short it will fit nicely into a TV ad. It’s also got some very sticky lines: “I’m Joe Lombardo.” “Come on!” So while you may have dismissed it, don’t be so quick to assume that it won’t shape the campaign.
The Ford not getting enough attention is the Ford Raptor that Governor Lombardo was driving during the traffic stop. That vehicle choice alone entitles him to four more years.
Guest
Anonymous
July 14, 2026 10:30 am
I’m not Mormon, but the temple controversy is at the intersection of a couple of my interests – people trying to control what happens on other people’s private property and discrimination against religious minorities. I know I’m in the minority on this blog (and probably in Vegas), but I’m glad that these people are building something suitable for their religious and practical needs, and I really struggle to sympathize with someone complaining that they’ll be able to see a religious building from their backyard.
That’s awesome you’re giving them the benefit of the doubt, but now do yourself a favor and look at it from another perspective. Check out this TikTok i saw today about how bright they illuminate these temples. They’re not something that fades into the background. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTS7do2KJ/
Look at that video again. The temple may be illuminated. The trees at the edge of the temple property are not. You live in Las Vegas. The lights from the strip are visible pretty much anywhere. That same light from the Strip is not spilling over into my backyard.
This is 10:30. I’m not going to police the lighting on a religious building short of it, like, shining a spotlight into a specific person’s window. I know most people disagree. But to me, it’s just too easy to start trying to regulate religious practice when, to me, a religious group should have a ton of leeway about what it can do on its own property.
For a legal angle, look at City of Boerne v. Flores, which arose from a city telling a Catholic church that it wasn’t allowed to expand its own building. How easy would it be for people to have similar complaints about my own minority religion’s buildings if they want to stop us from expanding to meet demand? The building is too big for the character of neighborhood. It’s too bright. It’s changing a historic building. The construction will be loud. There will be traffic on Friday nights. Kids will be playing in the street on Saturdays and that’s dangerous. Etc. etc. etc.
It’s Las Vegas, baby !.
Every house in every neighborhood has outside lights turned on, every street has streetlights. A preserving the night sky argument in LV is not particularly credible.
10:57 here. I disagree. We should be very careful about light pollution. I was happy when the city and county started working towards LED streetlights the light up the street and not the yards. I think we’ve made tremendous strides towards curbing the problems that made the stars disappear from the Vegas night sky (and, for that matter, from the night sky for fifty miles around). Which is why I asked 10:44 to take a look at the actual effects, not the believed effects. The actual effect is that of an illuminated building that does not light up the neighborhood. It’s just visible, as are many buildings in the area. 10:44 might think that it’s lighting up the area, but 10:44 would be wrong.
It’s so funny you post this. (1) This influencer (Rebecca Gleason) carpet bags into any city council meeting where a temple is being considered and eggs locals on to oppose the temple; (2) The opponents here in Las Vegas followed her rhetorical cues and arguments, failed to convinced the City Council and then sued the city. This ended in a $56,000.00 judgment against the opponents; (3) The settings on a camera can overstate or understate light at night, this video shows nothing; (4) the Church already committed to turn off the lights on the Lone Mountain Temple at 11, which rarely if ever gets acknowledged; (5) the Church committed to no light spilling off the property. If people are actualy upset about the lighting, I encourage them to report it to the City and hold the Church accountable; (6) the opponents of this temple are a mix of genuine NIMBY Karens and people who just don’t like the LDS Church, neither group is very sympathetic as both impede on fundamental rights.
We have zoning laws for a reason. For those of you that say home owners should not complain, if they were building a data center or warehouse could they complain?
You thing a data center and warehouse is comparable to a house of worship legally and aesthetically? Walk us through how you came to that conclusion. Very odd.
I was at the city planning meeting when they approved the zoning change. One of the planning commissioners challenged everyone there in opposition to “do your homework” and drive to the existing temple in Las Vegas and see if the lighting is really the issue it is being made to be. He concluded that while you could see the building from a far, as you can with many residential and non-residential buildings in Las Vegas, the up-close examination revealed that the lighting was very concentrated on the building and did not spill even on to the street, let alone the surrounding houses. The real complaint here seems to be that some people simply don’t want to be able to see the building at night, but that is realistic.
Pro Per Ghosted Pleadings, ABC Legal?
I am frequently seeing Pro Per parties with reasonably good pleading that I am sure are beyond the skills and knowledge of the Pro Per litigant. For example, the Answer is handwritten and does not make sense. A later filing is a lot more polished and is filed by the Pro Per without a notation that it was prepared by an attorney.
In each of these cases, a service contact is “ABC Legal”. As far as I can tell, this is only a national process server. Are they engaged in UPL?
I have a paralegal effectively representing an opposing party and engaging in UPL. The crazy part is that the opposing party is getting ABSOLUTELY HOSED by the paralegal, who is generating AI briefs on behalf of the opposing party that neither of them understand. These AI pleadings have legitimately hurt the “pro se” opposing party. But they are hurting my client too by dragging out the litigation and creating a giant, expensive mess.
Ghost Lawyering Ethics Opinion
“…ghost-lawyering is unethical unless the lawyer’s assistance and identity are disclosed to the court by the signature of the ghost-lawyer under Rule 11 upon every paper filed with the court for which the ghost-lawyer gives substantial assistance to the pro se litigant by drafting or otherwise.”
The question of whether an attorney can ghostwrite pro se filings without appearing was a pretty big deal a few years ago, but I don’t think it has the same juice anymore since pro se parties can just use AI now. I’m not sure where Nevada came out on it, and I can see arguments on both sides.
If ABC Legal is a process server, I would guess it’s more likely that there’s a lawyer ghostwriting all of these briefs who is either referring pro se parties to ABC Legal or is being referred pro se parties by ABC Legal. There’s no reason to assume ABC Legal is taking it upon itself to unlawfully draft things, but anything’s possible.
But see the RJ article today about a defense attorney who’s about to be rung up on sanctions for making up a case that he relied on repeatedly (assuming the DA is correct that the case doesn’t exist).
AI-assisted pro se brief writing is a real problem. These services all disclaim in their TOS that they don’t provide legal advice and that users should consult qualified lawyers.
The trouble is these services are per se engaging in the practice of law. They’re applying facts to law and then drafting briefs. So when the AI work product gets it wrong, who does the pro se sue for malpractice or some other theory of liability? The owners of the AI service? The programmers?
Licensing lawyers is supposed to be about protecting the public, yes? Well, these AI services that are acting as electronic lawyers, they aren’t regulated at all. At least not in a direct fashion.
AI pulls from the internet. Who’s the proper defendant, every website source? It’s nothing the pro per couldn’t source on their own. AI just saved them time.
Disagree. Ask you average person on the street a legal question. Would they know enough to even ask AI the right AI questions? Maybe a simple Answer but not for Motions, counterclaims etc. etc. Someone is helping the Pro Per.
I will bet at least a little finger Clark DA’s I’ve had on cases wrote briefs mostly or entirely with AI. I have the receipts!
Guest
Anonymous
July 14, 2026 2:58 pm
Is there anyone here who doesn’t use AI? Of course there isn’t because we are all using it. I’ve attended CLEs telling us how to ethically use it. Basically check the cases and citations. We are all supervising attorneys now supervising our junior associate Chapt GPT. Judges, too, use AI. Every single one of them. I was told they had not one but TWO CLEs at the annual conferences showing them how to use it.
A judge told me they put both sides’ briefs in and all AI to write questions to ask in the hearing. Seems like a good idea to anticipate judges’ questions…?
There is using AI as a tool, which everyone with a computer does whether we want to than not. AI is integrated into virtually every program we use.
What you are asking, I think, is there anyone who doesn’t let AI do their thinking for them. If you are letting AI do all the work then you are just “checking the cases and citations” are you even a lawyer anymore? It’ll never be me, I will always use actual intelligence over artificial intelligence.
5:26 Me thinks you would be entirely right. The “other” organization this one seems to be referencing, has been a little more than emphatically swooning and ball washing over their interactions with the judiciary. I’ve wondered how they are supposed to criticize judges when they only seem to fanboy for photo ops with them.
Kind of hard to judge the professed integrity and transparency of this new entity when they’re not very transparent who they are and who funds them.
Guest
Anonymous
July 14, 2026 5:32 pm
Anyone licensed in Arizona that could help an old client do a small satellite proceeding in Mojave County? It involves a small piece of land that isn’t worth much, probably 6-10k at the most. Wants to know if there is something that can be done cheap enough that it is worth it. Client is 90 years old so time is of the essence.
Guest
Anonymous
July 14, 2026 5:33 pm
The next time I get pulled over I will to the officer, I am Joe Lombardo.
Officer, I don’t know how to say this… but in Nevada, I’m kind of a big deal.
But are you AV rated?
Ah yes, the little-known gubernatorial exemption from obeying traffic laws.
I guess I’m just naive, but I would’ve thought that during a reelection campaign the governor would’ve been careful to avoid any suggestion that he abused his office to get out of a ticket. But it seems like once you get in the habit of using your power to avoid consequences, it’s hard to get out of it.
Case in Point: Caren Turner, New York Commissioner for the Port Authority forced to resign after she was videotaped berating police officers for citing her daughter during a traffic stop. Turner repeatedly told the officers who she was, what her position was and that she would handle the situation for her child. She came off as a conceited bully. Adios Caren.
I mean did he sue the government for 20 mil? Did he give a big opioid litigation contract to his buddies outside the public bidding process? Joe’s “corruption” is small potatoes by comparison. Who cares?
So we are supposed to accept it because it is a lesser brand of corruption?
No, we’re supposed to accept it because of the comparative shade of corruption. It’s a lighter shade of corruption. A privileged shade of corruption, if you will.
I see what you did there. Well played.
How dumb is Lombardo. When I was a deputy DA I never mentioned my position during a traffic stop and I never showed my badge. Some did.
He would’ve looked great if he had said “gosh, I’m sorry. Please give me the citation and I shall pay it post-haste.”
Bravo.
Red lights for thee, but not for me. –Gov. Cop, probably
This is going to ruin the tour.
LOLOLOLOLOL
The world tour?
What’s worse?
Bob Eglet effectively paying off Aaron Ford’s tax liens in exchange for the multimillion dollar opioid litigation – or Lombardo getting out of a red light?
Both bad.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt relief vs. not coming to a complete stop at a red light? Basically the same
The Lombardo thing is a nothingburger; but be assured that Ford will make it a major issue of the campaign.
Ford is an empty suit.
Sometimes small deals become metaphors for bigger deals. This may be one of those times. Let’s see if it has legs.
Like continuing to publish campaign photos depicting oneself in his sheriff’s uniform, despite having been warned about the ethical propriety of doing so?
It’s definitely a nice little sound bite that will get some play. He doesn’t even let the officer do his job. just, “C’mon, man” in a tone that speaks volumes. And then the officer immediately concedes and walks away.
I get the feeling you’re a partisan tribalist. Running a red light isn’t corruption on the scale of Donald Trump, I will give you that. By itself it’s not that big of a deal. But that interaction is so short it will fit nicely into a TV ad. It’s also got some very sticky lines: “I’m Joe Lombardo.” “Come on!” So while you may have dismissed it, don’t be so quick to assume that it won’t shape the campaign.
The Ford not getting enough attention is the Ford Raptor that Governor Lombardo was driving during the traffic stop. That vehicle choice alone entitles him to four more years.
I’m not Mormon, but the temple controversy is at the intersection of a couple of my interests – people trying to control what happens on other people’s private property and discrimination against religious minorities. I know I’m in the minority on this blog (and probably in Vegas), but I’m glad that these people are building something suitable for their religious and practical needs, and I really struggle to sympathize with someone complaining that they’ll be able to see a religious building from their backyard.
That’s awesome you’re giving them the benefit of the doubt, but now do yourself a favor and look at it from another perspective. Check out this TikTok i saw today about how bright they illuminate these temples. They’re not something that fades into the background. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTS7do2KJ/
Look at that video again. The temple may be illuminated. The trees at the edge of the temple property are not. You live in Las Vegas. The lights from the strip are visible pretty much anywhere. That same light from the Strip is not spilling over into my backyard.
This is 10:30. I’m not going to police the lighting on a religious building short of it, like, shining a spotlight into a specific person’s window. I know most people disagree. But to me, it’s just too easy to start trying to regulate religious practice when, to me, a religious group should have a ton of leeway about what it can do on its own property.
For a legal angle, look at City of Boerne v. Flores, which arose from a city telling a Catholic church that it wasn’t allowed to expand its own building. How easy would it be for people to have similar complaints about my own minority religion’s buildings if they want to stop us from expanding to meet demand? The building is too big for the character of neighborhood. It’s too bright. It’s changing a historic building. The construction will be loud. There will be traffic on Friday nights. Kids will be playing in the street on Saturdays and that’s dangerous. Etc. etc. etc.
It’s Las Vegas, baby !.
Every house in every neighborhood has outside lights turned on, every street has streetlights. A preserving the night sky argument in LV is not particularly credible.
10:57 here. I disagree. We should be very careful about light pollution. I was happy when the city and county started working towards LED streetlights the light up the street and not the yards. I think we’ve made tremendous strides towards curbing the problems that made the stars disappear from the Vegas night sky (and, for that matter, from the night sky for fifty miles around). Which is why I asked 10:44 to take a look at the actual effects, not the believed effects. The actual effect is that of an illuminated building that does not light up the neighborhood. It’s just visible, as are many buildings in the area. 10:44 might think that it’s lighting up the area, but 10:44 would be wrong.
yes, but look at where the comparably lit up buildings are located in Vegas—on the Strip. Not in residential neighborhoods.
The temple will cast as much light into the residential neighborhood as the Strip buildings will to that same neighborhood. That’s the point.
It’s so funny you post this. (1) This influencer (Rebecca Gleason) carpet bags into any city council meeting where a temple is being considered and eggs locals on to oppose the temple; (2) The opponents here in Las Vegas followed her rhetorical cues and arguments, failed to convinced the City Council and then sued the city. This ended in a $56,000.00 judgment against the opponents; (3) The settings on a camera can overstate or understate light at night, this video shows nothing; (4) the Church already committed to turn off the lights on the Lone Mountain Temple at 11, which rarely if ever gets acknowledged; (5) the Church committed to no light spilling off the property. If people are actualy upset about the lighting, I encourage them to report it to the City and hold the Church accountable; (6) the opponents of this temple are a mix of genuine NIMBY Karens and people who just don’t like the LDS Church, neither group is very sympathetic as both impede on fundamental rights.
We have zoning laws for a reason. For those of you that say home owners should not complain, if they were building a data center or warehouse could they complain?
You thing a data center and warehouse is comparable to a house of worship legally and aesthetically? Walk us through how you came to that conclusion. Very odd.
not 12:25, but having driven past Central Church (ware)house of worship in Hendo more times than I can count, I can understand the comparison.
Church Stadium.
I was at the city planning meeting when they approved the zoning change. One of the planning commissioners challenged everyone there in opposition to “do your homework” and drive to the existing temple in Las Vegas and see if the lighting is really the issue it is being made to be. He concluded that while you could see the building from a far, as you can with many residential and non-residential buildings in Las Vegas, the up-close examination revealed that the lighting was very concentrated on the building and did not spill even on to the street, let alone the surrounding houses. The real complaint here seems to be that some people simply don’t want to be able to see the building at night, but that is realistic.
“not realistic.”
Pro Per Ghosted Pleadings, ABC Legal?
I am frequently seeing Pro Per parties with reasonably good pleading that I am sure are beyond the skills and knowledge of the Pro Per litigant. For example, the Answer is handwritten and does not make sense. A later filing is a lot more polished and is filed by the Pro Per without a notation that it was prepared by an attorney.
In each of these cases, a service contact is “ABC Legal”. As far as I can tell, this is only a national process server. Are they engaged in UPL?
It could just be the pro per using AI. It does a fairly good job of putting together pleadings and arguments that a pro per can use.
(Obviously it’s not good enough to rely on, but it’s definitely giving pro pers more to work with)
I have a paralegal effectively representing an opposing party and engaging in UPL. The crazy part is that the opposing party is getting ABSOLUTELY HOSED by the paralegal, who is generating AI briefs on behalf of the opposing party that neither of them understand. These AI pleadings have legitimately hurt the “pro se” opposing party. But they are hurting my client too by dragging out the litigation and creating a giant, expensive mess.
Have you reported it to the bar? Why or why not?
Ghost Lawyering Ethics Opinion
“…ghost-lawyering is unethical unless the lawyer’s assistance and identity are disclosed to the court by the signature of the ghost-lawyer under Rule 11 upon every paper filed with the court for which the ghost-lawyer gives substantial assistance to the pro se litigant by drafting or otherwise.”
In Re Jeanne WInkler
The question of whether an attorney can ghostwrite pro se filings without appearing was a pretty big deal a few years ago, but I don’t think it has the same juice anymore since pro se parties can just use AI now. I’m not sure where Nevada came out on it, and I can see arguments on both sides.
If ABC Legal is a process server, I would guess it’s more likely that there’s a lawyer ghostwriting all of these briefs who is either referring pro se parties to ABC Legal or is being referred pro se parties by ABC Legal. There’s no reason to assume ABC Legal is taking it upon itself to unlawfully draft things, but anything’s possible.
It’s amazing how good AI is. I have been shocked at how good some of the pleadings I have seen from pro per litigants.
But see the RJ article today about a defense attorney who’s about to be rung up on sanctions for making up a case that he relied on repeatedly (assuming the DA is correct that the case doesn’t exist).
AI-assisted pro se brief writing is a real problem. These services all disclaim in their TOS that they don’t provide legal advice and that users should consult qualified lawyers.
The trouble is these services are per se engaging in the practice of law. They’re applying facts to law and then drafting briefs. So when the AI work product gets it wrong, who does the pro se sue for malpractice or some other theory of liability? The owners of the AI service? The programmers?
Licensing lawyers is supposed to be about protecting the public, yes? Well, these AI services that are acting as electronic lawyers, they aren’t regulated at all. At least not in a direct fashion.
AI pulls from the internet. Who’s the proper defendant, every website source? It’s nothing the pro per couldn’t source on their own. AI just saved them time.
Disagree. Ask you average person on the street a legal question. Would they know enough to even ask AI the right AI questions? Maybe a simple Answer but not for Motions, counterclaims etc. etc. Someone is helping the Pro Per.
I will bet at least a little finger Clark DA’s I’ve had on cases wrote briefs mostly or entirely with AI. I have the receipts!
Is there anyone here who doesn’t use AI? Of course there isn’t because we are all using it. I’ve attended CLEs telling us how to ethically use it. Basically check the cases and citations. We are all supervising attorneys now supervising our junior associate Chapt GPT. Judges, too, use AI. Every single one of them. I was told they had not one but TWO CLEs at the annual conferences showing them how to use it.
A judge told me they put both sides’ briefs in and all AI to write questions to ask in the hearing. Seems like a good idea to anticipate judges’ questions…?
There is using AI as a tool, which everyone with a computer does whether we want to than not. AI is integrated into virtually every program we use.
What you are asking, I think, is there anyone who doesn’t let AI do their thinking for them. If you are letting AI do all the work then you are just “checking the cases and citations” are you even a lawyer anymore? It’ll never be me, I will always use actual intelligence over artificial intelligence.
This is not entirely wrong…
https://youtu.be/LusvpMPkv6Q
5:26 Me thinks you would be entirely right. The “other” organization this one seems to be referencing, has been a little more than emphatically swooning and ball washing over their interactions with the judiciary. I’ve wondered how they are supposed to criticize judges when they only seem to fanboy for photo ops with them.
Can’t even pronounce Nevada correctly – AI slop
Split the difference. First time says it wrong, second time says it correctly.
Kind of hard to judge the professed integrity and transparency of this new entity when they’re not very transparent who they are and who funds them.
Anyone licensed in Arizona that could help an old client do a small satellite proceeding in Mojave County? It involves a small piece of land that isn’t worth much, probably 6-10k at the most. Wants to know if there is something that can be done cheap enough that it is worth it. Client is 90 years old so time is of the essence.
The next time I get pulled over I will to the officer, I am Joe Lombardo.
Don’t forget to say, “Come on, man!” also