- Quickdraw McLaw
- 38 Comments
- 253 Views
- Ozzie Fumo faces bar complaint over “white supremacist” comment. [RJ]
- 2023 could bring better tracking, accountability for risky drivers. [RJ]
- Unregistered vehicles flying under the radar. [KTNV]
- Water district seeks to limit pool size. [RJ]
- TNI article on Joey Gilbert suit was updated with the complaint for those who want to read it.
I'm concerned about what 2023 is bringing. This is a particularly ominous post…
In what regard?
It was a joke. The original post just said "2023 could bring" and the link and last part of the headline was left off.
That complaint is, to use a legal term of art, pure applesauce.
Alternatively, complete bullshit.
Apologies, I meant Gilbert's complaint.
TTHHWWWAAACCKK!!!
I knew a guy who drove around town on expired out of state tags for about two years. I on the other hand was pulled over once because I let mine go over by a week or two.
Herndon is a white person in a white supremacy culture. By definition, he's a white supremacist.
That's no insult. "Racist" and "white supremacist" aren't aspersions of character anymore, just a recognition of one's intractable position in our caste system. Hogge needs to read more Robin DiAngelo and Ibram Kendi, and chill.
You should not be an attorney. That's no insult, just a recognition of one's inability at logical and rational discourse in our legal system.
So Judge Ballou and now Ozzie Fumo get targeted for bar complaints, but Sigal "hanging from a crane" Chattah skates through to the general election, after implying to the public that suggesting violence against one's political opponent is, um, no big deal?
None of Ballou, Fumo, or Chattah's reported comments are acceptable from lawyers who hold or who are seeking public office. Whether any rise to the level of bar discipline is for the bar to decide. But if we're policing speech to preserve the integrity of the judicial system and our rule of law, subjecting Ballou and Fumo – but not Chattah – to bar scrutiny over their public comments just seems wrong to me.
Actually, 12:14, I think it illustrates the difference between logical and rational. The propositional logic is valid (If A then B. A. Therefore, B). But no common sense.
@12:10
Pay no regards, 12:`0 is the persistent troll who could find racism in vanilla ice cream.
@12:53 you don't see anything racist in the fact that vanilla ice cream (a white ice cream) is considered the superior ice cream. Try reading some Robin DiAngelo
Don't know whether it rises to the level of discipline, but the remark was quite outrageous.
However, Fumo was not wrong abut the incident he complained about. The judge received a letter from METRO or PPA complaining about attorneys wearing BLM lapel pins in court. The judge then, under the dubious pretext of wanting to retain a "neutral courtroom", then complied with the police request and prohibited the BLM pins in court. Had BLM written him complaining about people wearing lapels in support of law enforcement, would he have precluded them from wearing such pro-law enforcement pins? Quite unlikely IMO.
At any rate, context is also quite important. Had this been a racially charged jury trial, with allegations of police misconduct, I would understand the judge precluding wearing of the BLM pins. But this involved the accepting of a plea deal. Both the defense attorney(Ballou), and the ADA, both wanted the deal finalized on the record that day. Considering that, so what that she was wearing a BLM pin? Let it go. Pointless, and counter-productive, fight to pick
Which is exactly why Ballou took the button off. To her credit.
Agree with 1:21 and 1:38, and there is an additional point I would like to offer.
If I was a District Judge, and now freshly elected to the Nevada Supreme Court, and someone referred to me a white supremacist, no matter how offended I was at such an outrageous and patently false statement, I would want the matter to die a quick death with minimal publicity. I would not know want the State Bar taking up for me and pursuing the person who made the statement. It keeps the matter very alive, with a good deal of focused publicity. Some people will conclude that the State Bar is being over-aggressive in pursuing the matter and that such aggression may be largely motivated by the exalted and powerful position the person holds who was called a white supremacist. It all seems like a real over-defensive over-reaction and will have people wondering that where there is smoke there may be fire.
It's, of course, beyond absurd to call him a white supremacist, and relatively speaking, very few people were made aware of this when it occurred. But many people will now be aware that Fumo is getting hammered by the State Bar for daring to insult a very powerful and prominent jurist.
In other words, if I were the justice, I would conclude the State Bar is doing me no favors by aggressively reviving something that was relatively obscure news when first reported, and was essentially forgotten within a couple weeks.
Also the timing looks very suspicious and disturbing. This was reported back In January I believe. They appear to conveniently wait until Fumo lost the June Primary(his bid to become D.A.) before they start to pursue him.
3:57, yes, in general, when someone prominent is publicly called a racist or something similar, no matter how outrageous it was to call them such, it is clearly best if it is initially not too widely reported and is quickly forgotten.
No one, no matter how unfairly attacked, benefits by the issue being kept alive, and the person who was wronged indignantly hollering to the press that they are the least racist person around, and here's the prominent African Americans who can vouch for me, etc.
It just never goes well. Once you are forced to produce minority individuals to say how inclusive and fair you are, you have pretty much lost the war.
Let it die quickly if you can, even if it means the other side gets away with the attack and suffers no adverse consequences for the outrageous smear..
Agree with 3:57 and 4:05. And, as the original comment suggests, the allegation of racism is so overused it really doesn't mean much, which is unfortunate. If anything, Fumo's comment only continues the trend of straining the terminology.
WOLF!, WOLf, WOlf, Wolf, wolf, wol, wo…
3:57, you mention the comment was in January and that the State Bar did not act until now. It is even worse than that. the comment was last October. They had al these months to act, but yes, conveniently waited till he lost the June Primary Election for D.A.
I lost all respect for Doug Herndon when he demanded an attorney remove the Black Lives Matter pin. But by that time I had learned how he engineered having an innocent man spend decades in prison. Why is Dougie even practicing law?
Why should Metro care if attorneys wear BLM pins in court?Should they really dictate what attorneys wear in a courtroom? Would an attorney have the audacity to tell Metro officers what they should wear on the job? Why would a judge even listen to them? Oh yeah I forgot. Some judges are spineless.
"Herndon is a white person in a white supremacy culture. By definition, he's a white supremacist."
This is insanity.
It is so frustrating that this country is totally incapable of having an open, thoughtful discussion about race. And the sad thing is, we really need that dialogue. We have major problems and inequities.
I'm confused by the police union's choice of bar-complaint target. I understand why they would be concerned by Judge Ballou's comments, but surely the officers they represent are more concerned about being put in actual physical danger. In that respect, why isn't the union up in arms about Chattah's "crane" comment? If some lunatic decides that Chattah's nonchalant dismissal of that comment was a dog-whistle for violence against politicians or political candidates, presumably police officers are most likely to be the ones in harm's way when that lunatic chooses to act. I have never been in law enforcement, but have to assume most officers are more concerned about being physically injured or killed by a criminal than whether someone is afraid enough of them to avoid them.
Doug Crawford's discipline up yet? Funny how these "innocuous' posts were removed
The temporary suspension is posted. He has not been disciplined yet.
Clearly having too much time on my hands, I read into Joey Knuckles' complaint to try to understand his basis for the election being "stolen" and how, instead of getting 28,300 votes, he actually got over 83,800. Apparently Gilbert (the guy who spent the last two years telling everyone how mail-in voting was fraudulent and was undermining our democracy) doesn't believe his supporters would be less likely to vote by mail? So, claiming that in a "fair election" every candidate would have proportional early/mail-in/in-person voting percentages, he takes his in-person votes and adds the proportion of mail-in votes that Sisolak and Lombardo got??
A few too many hits to head for Mr. Gilbert during the boxing career… CTE is no joke kids
With Craig Mueller as his attorney he needs all the help he can get.
What's the issue with Craig Mueller? I ask because I know of a very crooked person (not a friend) that's being represented by him.
Mueller represented that professional wrestler that lost to Suzy Lee. The professional wrestler also had some domestic violence issues. He couldn't accept that voters had rejected him so he hired Craig Mueller to challenge the results in court.
Craig Mueller is an effective attorney who is wel known in criminal defense circles. He is a former Deputy District Attorney. He has also handles many high profile matters (civil and criminal). End of story. And no I am not Craig Mueller. He is a long time Nevada attorney since the 1990s.
I wonder if there is a truckload of caselaw demonstrating a nationwide consensus that statements like “white supremacist” are necessarily 1A protected opinion, incapable of being legally true or false. Would be very embarrassing for this state bar attorney if there was!
#freefumosumowrestling
#freebonniebulla
#freethehooverdam
Did anyone read the article in the RJ about traffic tickets being reduced with no points, no traffic school and reduced fines? Do you think will be any change in how traffic tickets will be handled in the justice and municipal courts in light of the news article. My son got in an accident in Utah and was cited. The court would not allow him to attend traffic school to have it amended to zero points and he had to pay the full fine. Our insurance rates went up as a result. I would be interested to hear people's thoughts after reading the RJ article.
The RJ does this every few years. Nothing will change. Utah and other adjacent jurisdictions do not typically amend to non-moving violations, though they will reduce them if you work it.
I don't do PI. Are our overall insurance rates here in Nevada higher, in part, because insurers can't discern risk between drivers because the tickets are reduced to non-moving violations? I've always wondered, but don't know enough to have an informed opinion.
I assume rates are higher here because people drive like complete psychopaths. How much an (allegedly) more forgiving traffic court system contributes to that driving culture is a question above my pay grade.
Spot on, 9:31
there will be any changes… sorry