- Quickdraw McLaw
- 35 Comments
- 273 Views
- The Senate passed a bill that would strengthen enforcement of gun bans in casinos. [Nevada Current]
- If Vegas gets a Major League Baseball team (like the A’s), the stadium would likely cost $1 billion. [RJ]
- Police say a GPS ankle monitor links a man to a murder scene. [8NewsNow]
Is Ross Miller running for something? He just sent me an invitation to a campaign fund raiser, only $5,000 per couple! But he does not say for which office he is running. FYI I will put that $5,000 toward a trip to Hawaii.
You could always give that $5k to the gubernatorial candidate who called his daughter's African-American boyfriend a racial slur on a recorded line…
No, donate it to the Elissa Cadish retire her campaign debt party.
Its really hard to understand why anyone takes commentators seriously on this blog when basic facts escape these commentators, like Ross Miller is a current county commissioner, which means he is building a reelection warchest.
Ross wont quit until he is in the Gov mansion or DC. County Commish is just a temp landing point.
Generally agree 12:10. But county commission may be substantially better than D.C.
I would guess (doing absolutely no research) that being a Clark commissioner pays better than being a US rep.
Don't think thats right, but you don't have to fly back and forth, you do get paid something real, the biggest industry in the state cares about you as a commissioner a lot more, and there is substantially less BS to deal with and you might be able to get things done for people in comparison. D.C. is toxic.
This is 2:10 – having now done the research, I stand corrected, didn't realize it was part time. I agree with 2:40.
The money you make on the Commission is tax free. Usually delivered via bag man (oh, dear, I mean bag person). The money train goes choo choo.
Oakland A's
OH GREAT. Another stadium to benefit the strip properties, with tickets unaffordable to locals, and no f…ing parking.
Nevada Supreme Court Plans to Hold In-Person Hearing on Monday, June 28
The Nevada Supreme Court received petitions from Chief Justice James Hardesty regarding the following matters:
ADKT 0582: Requesting the court consider the formation of a Commission to Study the Statues and Rules of the Commission on Judicial Discipline;
ADKT 0581: Requesting the court consider the formation of a Commission to Study Best Practices in Virtual Advocacy in Nevada’s Courts; and
ADKT 0580: Requesting the court consider the formation of a Commission on the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.
I hope we can continue remote appearances whenever possible. Remember driving to the RJC, paying for parking, walking, waiting for the elevator, waiting for your case to be called, and then having the judge spend 20 seconds confirming your JCCR dates? Yeah, great times.
I just remember billing a 1 hour minimum (as permitted by the retainer agreement) for a court hearing. "Prepare for, travel and attend Court hearing on ___________.
2:53–and most hearings were billed for more than an hour, as preparation, travelling, waiting, presenting, and then travelling back, all usually ad up to far more than an hour.
And usually, the "waiting" pat , while other hearings are occurring, was the most time-consuming aspect.
With the new electronic hearings, obviously the traveling is eliminated as well as much of the waiting.
But there is still a fair amount of waiting while other matters are heard, so it's not like we can really stray far from the screen and absorb ourselves in other projects till our case is called.
So, it's not a panacea, but it is an improvement over the old system
Justice Hardesty wants not to have remote hearings so people should really submit comments.
Justice Hardesty is the ultimate boomer. When is that guy gonna retire? That said, how do you know this is his position? I think 80% of appearances could be done by video, 20% probably need to be in person. We need to be careful not to do 100% because then we'll have pure chaos with Californians parachuting in and never actually living or operating here.
What is the current gun law? I, perhaps naively, thought if a business said no guns allowed, you weren't allow to bring them in and they can ask you to leave if you don't comply. What does this bill change? The article doesn't really explain that.
NRS 207.200 allows any private property owner, including a casino, to ask anyone of their property. If warned, a person who does not comply faces misdemeanor liability/arrest/police contact. As you can see, this statute is not limited by any legal principle on its face. Thus, a casino could force someone out for having a gun. But the statutes does not explicitly apply to guns. It seems like MGM wants to put more teeth behind it. The whole debate seems a little silly given current law. If people were racist, they could be racist with the trespassing law (at least on its face).
What about private attorneys who allow male employees to openly carry guns in the office. Like in their waist bands. What if some of the other employees, male and female, complained. Isn't that a toxic work environment?
OMG, that reminds me of that twit female attorney who would listen to nasty NPR all day on her little desk radio. Talk about hostile work environment!!!
Guns versus a radio, makes sense.
The difference is that if you went to a casino with your concealed carry (licensed for it of course), the casino could remove you from the premises and issue you a trespass notice; if you returned it was criminal trespass. The new bill says that if they have a sign that says you cannot bring in your concealed carry or any other firearm, and you do, it's immediately a crime.
Thats not true 10:47. The bill requires a warning.
ROFL!!! A crime to use your concealed carry permit into a casino. Burn down a city, its called peaceful protests and your VP may bail you out of jail. ROFL
I can hardly walk into a casino any more. I moved here in part to partake in the fun offered by casinos. No more. Overpriced shitholes run by corporatefascist shysters who don't care about the customers, and most certainly do not care about Nevada and its citizens.
The gun thing is just another slap in the face. No security in the parking garage but my wife and I can't carry our fucking guns. Fuck off. I'll go elsewhere.
Yesterday there was a thread discussing a particular judge, and there were a couple disturbing remarks which either indicate that some attorneys are no longer truly aware of the function and limits of judges, or they are still aware of those functions and limits but have grown to tolerate a climate wherein those functions and limits are routinely ignored.
I realize I phrased that obliquely and awkwardly, so an illustrative example might help.
One poster, at 4:11 yesterday, conceded that a certain judge was "good" but that such judge routinely ignored the mandates of codified statutory law, as well as case precedent, and ruled however the judge feels like.
That implies that a judge can ignore the Law, and do whatever they want, as long as they have some other significant judicial skills to compensate for such behavior.
But since a judge's most basic and primary function, by definition, is to apply current, settled law to an existing legal/factual dispute, how could a judge remotely be described as "good" if that critical, essential purpose for their very existence, is routinely violated so that cases can turn on the personal preference and whim of such judge?
Personally, I strongly disagree that such is an accurate description of this judge in question. But what I think is not the point.
The point is that 4:11 believes it to be an accurate description, yet 4:11, on balance, still concludes that this is a solid judge despite a supposed, and consistent, abdication of the judge's fundamental oath.
I'm certain 4:11 is not alone, as I've heard similar analysis from others.
Is one possible explanation that some attorneys become "realists"(for lack of a better word) and evolve into believing it is naïve, unrealistic and even foolhardy to expect judges to consistently apply the law correctly, as judges can habitually "get away" with such misapplication as very, very few people can invest the money, time or stress of an appellate challenge to such rulings?
I'm just stabbing in the dark here, and my guess does not sound very good. So can others please weigh in and shed light on this disturbing dynamic?
5:44,I've heard similar observations form others, so I hear what you are saying.
Don't dismiss your explanation, in your second to last sentence, as I do believe that is one of the explanations.
But I believe the main explanation is something much more fundamental, and far more palatable to accept than your explanation that we have become brainwashed to hold judges in high regard even when they habitually ignore the law and do whatever they please.
When someone concedes that a judge is good or solid, while qualifying that remark with bemoaning that the judge sometimes ignores the law, I don't believe the person is suggesting that on a consistent, unyielding basis the judge totally ignores the law and does whatever they please.
Instead, there is a lot of subjectively involved and the attorney is kind of just venting about a case or two they had where they think the judge made the wrong call. Usually, they really don't believe the judge intentionally, willfully and consistently ignores the law, but that in these couple case the judge believed they made the right legal call, but the attorney simply disagrees.
And usually you can also tell by the tone of the attorney's criticism that they realize they are expressing their own, subjective view, and that they understand that other reasonable attorneys and judges could make the same rulings in such case that this judge did.
That all said, there is a major qualifier to my remarks. We have all encountered judges throughout the years that we find to be simply dreadful, and who seem to fairly consistently get matters wrong–either through lack of sufficient legal knowledge and/or playing favorites.
Fortunately, I don't think that's a huge problem now(although some would disagree), but let me tell you that many us found it to be a real problem up through the 90's. There may be a couple real clunkers among the current 32, but I think we are doing okay(again, when compared to 20, 30 years ago).
Of course perhaps my opinion is not worth much(s to current scenario) as I really don't have experience with any of these newly elected judges–and there are quite a few.
I actually agree more with 5:44 than I do with 6:11's seemingly more fair-minded approach.
And the fact that I find 5:44 to be fairly accurate and on target, scares me.
Makes the practice of law a lot tougher.
If I were giving a previous poster the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that the first duty of a judge is to make a decision. It should be rational, reasonable, and based on precedent and controlling law, but make a decision. If you want a waffle, go to Denny's.
We have too many Denny's fans on the bench. Be she right or be she wrong, the judge in question is not a fan of Denny's.
8:35–reminds me of what a retired(now senior) Family Court Judge used to say–a mediocre order, or even a poor order, is far better than no order at all.
And this is even more true in Family Court, than in many other areas, since in Family Court many orders are temporary, and subject to change as the case proceeds.
When a Family Court Judge issues a temporary custody order, even if it were not the one a client or attorney hoped for, at least everyone knows where and when each party is to receive the children during the week. Also, again, there is always a chance of obtaining a better custodial order later in the proceedings.
But (and there was another Family Court Judge who was infamous for this) if too many matters were taken under submission or continued for decision, clients constantly called their attorneys as to disputes involving child exchanges(as there was no order to rely on and the parties were in very high conflict) and cops get involved, matters greatly escalate and people can get hurt, etc.
So, unless a judge is waiting for additional briefing on some unique issue, there is seldom an excuse not to make a decision when one is badly needed, and right now.
I discussed this issue within thee context of Family La, but I'm sure it applies to other areas as well.
Candidates for Family Court have at times promised/suggested that before the parties leave the courtroom, a typed order will be handed to them concerning child support and custody/visitation, since it is so important to have clarity regarding these matters. Couldn't the court devise some type of form which would be printed off and given to the parties at the conclusion of their hearings? A subsequent Order could be prepared if there are additional issues, but at least the court could provide immediate direction to a couple who are in conflict.
Here is the problem. Nevada Supreme Court states (prudently) that it needs FFCL in every Order so that the basis of the decision is known and reviewable. An "Insta-Order" would sacrifice completeness for speed. With that said, minutes were supposed to provide some clarity regarding the Court's rulings pending adoption of a final Order. Minutes are taking weeks (and in one civil judge's case over a month) to get completed. The idea that clerks could generate Orders when they cannot even generate minutes makes Insta-Orders beyond the 3-part carbon Orders for referrals to FMC seem like they just will not work.
Surely someone could devise a form which sets child support, a temporary visitation order and a referral to FMAC??
California is strictly forms.
There could be a spot for FFCL on the form.
9:42–but as 9:14 suggests, if an immediate stop-gap order could be issued in court so people know how to exchange children and the like, and a subsequent order is issued with the necessary findings, could that not be considered adequate, even if the matter were reviewed?