Happy Thanksgiving to most of you as many of us are out after today.
Guest
Anonymous
November 25, 2025 11:22 am
I think we need a lawyer like discussion on taping somebody outside of telephone or wiretap and whether this can be criminal or a crime. I have my doubts on the DA’s case against Henderson Councilwoman Cox. Recording a conversation in a public place even when you are not a party–how is that a crime under the statute? Hoffa v U.S.? I know she was not a party–but seriously this is a crime? No way. My .02.
Watch the interview with Monica Larson after the vote and just try to not have your skin crawl. Cox is a weird person but man is the cabal on the other side of this one just nefarious.
It sure would be nice to know who is paying for her private security. I suspect there is more to Ms. Larson than meets the eye–and that’s not just because she lies about her past employment. Her present conduct raises significant questions as well.
well, I am pretty sure the NRS at issue is 200.650 (not 200.604 as reported by 8news now) and here is what it says: “Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.”
So, it should turn on whether or not the parties involved in the conversation had a reasonable expectation of privacy, no? I haven’t looked too much into the facts of the case, but if she was hiding behind a curtain, that doesn’t look good…but…if they are just speaking out in the open in a public place, that’s an issue, as well….It’s an interesting case.
Facts as alleged are that Larson was in the middle of a very public space inside of City Hall while on city business after attending a city-sponsored retirement celebration. Public official in a public space of a public building discussing another public figure. About as private as a Beyonce concert.
“On Jan. 9, Larson, Cox and other community leaders attended a retirement celebration at Henderson City Hall. Larson said she believed Cox had later left the party, and, around 5 p.m., she began to speak privately with another attendee. Part of the conversation involved discussing Cox, Larson said.”
Sounds like a question of law and a question fact. Retired prosecutor here. Either a dismissal or not guilty or hung jury. No reasonable likelihood of conviction. Why did the even bring such a case. To my knowledge not one reported decision under the statute. It is mentioned in one case but nothing relevant here. Comes up a lot in family law when one party records the other on the phone without permission. Have there even been any recent prosecutions?
It’s also a serious concern for people with home security systems (that law enforcement frequently leverage to their advantage). Am I committing a felony every time I record walkers or joggers engaging in conversation as they pass by my house unless my camera identifies itself? They’re not on my property and I’m clearly not a party to the conversation. If the expectation of privacy is the only thing that matters then I’m not committing a crime, but if the one-party recording statute is strictly adhered to then maybe I am? We also need to talk about the benefits of outlawing recording at all. I get that it may discourage people from being forthright, engaging in meaningful discussion, hinder settlement negotiations, etc. But it also allows people to get away with a lot of illicit conduct. Maybe we’d all be better off if we accounted ourselves as if we were being recorded at all times.
“Maybe we’d all be better off if we accounted ourselves as if we were being recorded at all times.”
No, thank you. WE’re already trending dystopian enough as it is. The old “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you should have no problem with this,” line of reasoning is garbage. Privacy is inherently valuable. I don’t have to justify it, or prove that I’m not engaged in “illicit conduct” to protect it or object to incursions of it.
Guest
Anonymous
November 25, 2025 11:33 am
Does anyone know if there is a new civil cover sheet reflecting the new probate limits?
Considering they didn’t change when the limits increased before, I’m guessing not.
Guest
Anonymous
November 25, 2025 12:23 pm
State bar email had some interesting stuff
-CLE Committee sunsetting out
-BoG admits the website is shit so they are starting over with full redo
-BoG approves 28 stipends of 2k apiece to the 13 affinity bars and UNLV. So you are spending $56,000 to send not you to the Annual Meeting.
‘Annual Meeting Stipends
The board reviewed historical stipend allocations for Bar Conference attendance. Following discussion, the board approved the continued budget for two $2,000 stipends for Boyd School of Law students and two $2,000 stipends for Nevada’s 13 affinity bars.’
That says stipends totaling only $8,000 were approved. Misleading, at best.
Are you aware that the Board of Bar Governors, two or three years ago, approved spending $50,000 to pay for LSAT prep classes for some minority students? I find that outrageously offensive. Very few people know about this. It happened when Paola whatever-her-name-is was President. There was a mention of this in the Nevada Lawyer, and I’ve often wondered if the money was actually spent. IF it was, how did they choose which minority students they were going to help as they prepared to take the LSAT?
I do not understand the value of paying for two law students to attend the State Bar conference. Can anyone name the “affinity bars.” I am not familiar with them.
Happy Thanksgiving to most of you as many of us are out after today.
I think we need a lawyer like discussion on taping somebody outside of telephone or wiretap and whether this can be criminal or a crime. I have my doubts on the DA’s case against Henderson Councilwoman Cox. Recording a conversation in a public place even when you are not a party–how is that a crime under the statute? Hoffa v U.S.? I know she was not a party–but seriously this is a crime? No way. My .02.
It’s the usual dirty politics by the usual political affiliation in Las Vegas
Watch the interview with Monica Larson after the vote and just try to not have your skin crawl. Cox is a weird person but man is the cabal on the other side of this one just nefarious.
It sure would be nice to know who is paying for her private security. I suspect there is more to Ms. Larson than meets the eye–and that’s not just because she lies about her past employment. Her present conduct raises significant questions as well.
well, I am pretty sure the NRS at issue is 200.650 (not 200.604 as reported by 8news now) and here is what it says: “Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.”
So, it should turn on whether or not the parties involved in the conversation had a reasonable expectation of privacy, no? I haven’t looked too much into the facts of the case, but if she was hiding behind a curtain, that doesn’t look good…but…if they are just speaking out in the open in a public place, that’s an issue, as well….It’s an interesting case.
Facts as alleged are that Larson was in the middle of a very public space inside of City Hall while on city business after attending a city-sponsored retirement celebration. Public official in a public space of a public building discussing another public figure. About as private as a Beyonce concert.
“On Jan. 9, Larson, Cox and other community leaders attended a retirement celebration at Henderson City Hall. Larson said she believed Cox had later left the party, and, around 5 p.m., she began to speak privately with another attendee. Part of the conversation involved discussing Cox, Larson said.”
Sounds like a question of law and a question fact. Retired prosecutor here. Either a dismissal or not guilty or hung jury. No reasonable likelihood of conviction. Why did the even bring such a case. To my knowledge not one reported decision under the statute. It is mentioned in one case but nothing relevant here. Comes up a lot in family law when one party records the other on the phone without permission. Have there even been any recent prosecutions?
It’s also a serious concern for people with home security systems (that law enforcement frequently leverage to their advantage). Am I committing a felony every time I record walkers or joggers engaging in conversation as they pass by my house unless my camera identifies itself? They’re not on my property and I’m clearly not a party to the conversation. If the expectation of privacy is the only thing that matters then I’m not committing a crime, but if the one-party recording statute is strictly adhered to then maybe I am? We also need to talk about the benefits of outlawing recording at all. I get that it may discourage people from being forthright, engaging in meaningful discussion, hinder settlement negotiations, etc. But it also allows people to get away with a lot of illicit conduct. Maybe we’d all be better off if we accounted ourselves as if we were being recorded at all times.
“Maybe we’d all be better off if we accounted ourselves as if we were being recorded at all times.”
No, thank you. WE’re already trending dystopian enough as it is. The old “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you should have no problem with this,” line of reasoning is garbage. Privacy is inherently valuable. I don’t have to justify it, or prove that I’m not engaged in “illicit conduct” to protect it or object to incursions of it.
Does anyone know if there is a new civil cover sheet reflecting the new probate limits?
Considering they didn’t change when the limits increased before, I’m guessing not.
State bar email had some interesting stuff
-CLE Committee sunsetting out
-BoG admits the website is shit so they are starting over with full redo
-BoG approves 28 stipends of 2k apiece to the 13 affinity bars and UNLV. So you are spending $56,000 to send not you to the Annual Meeting.
I’m interested in what the contract with La Jolla Beach Club is all about, also in the email.
I suspect it was scouting for the 2027 Annual Meeting
Isn’t that the big meeting for the Board of Bar Examiners? Something else if it is.
Thought the elimination of the standing CLE committee was interesting, considering what they did with the CLE Board.
Where was this posted? I never see these announcements or notices or emails.
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Meeting-Digest–November-2025.html?soid=1102070670742&aid=O8S2QTis204
‘Annual Meeting Stipends
The board reviewed historical stipend allocations for Bar Conference attendance. Following discussion, the board approved the continued budget for two $2,000 stipends for Boyd School of Law students and two $2,000 stipends for Nevada’s 13 affinity bars.’
That says stipends totaling only $8,000 were approved. Misleading, at best.
Sounds like: ((2 x 13) + 2) * 2000
A lot more than $8k
GO BOG!!
That’s not how it was written. You are reading “each of” into it that ain’t there.
It was 2 per affinity bars. They wanted each affinity bar to be able to participate
Why are my bar dues going for scholarships to folks who are members of the bar just because they are minority members of the bar. What a croc.
Don’t know about the people here but when I choose a lawyer, I look at identity only.
You would be surprised, legitimately, how much identity influences the choice of a lawyer. You can pretend otherwise, but I see patterns.
Are you aware that the Board of Bar Governors, two or three years ago, approved spending $50,000 to pay for LSAT prep classes for some minority students? I find that outrageously offensive. Very few people know about this. It happened when Paola whatever-her-name-is was President. There was a mention of this in the Nevada Lawyer, and I’ve often wondered if the money was actually spent. IF it was, how did they choose which minority students they were going to help as they prepared to take the LSAT?
I do not understand the value of paying for two law students to attend the State Bar conference. Can anyone name the “affinity bars.” I am not familiar with them.
https://nvbar.org/for-lawyers/bar-service-opportunities/affiliate-nevada-bar-associations/