9th Circuit Federal Judge (and former NV Solicitor General) Lawrence VanDyke asks Supreme Court to please start publicly humiliating his colleagues. [Above the Law]
District of Nevada seeks applicants for Reno-based magistrate judge. [U.S. District of NV]
Henderson to require data center operators to enter into development agreements. [RJ; TNI]
‘Vegas Dave’ told to hand over assets or be locked up. [RJ]
Judge Eric Johnson postpones plea agreement for officer accused of touching a woman inappropriately. [News3LV]
Looking back with the benefit of hindsight it’s clear that the ABA’s evaluation of VanDyke was more accurate than its critics let on. Of course, the senators who ignored that critique seem to have received exactly what they voted for but it makes me wonder why anyone bothered to pretend. For that matter, why did VanDyke put on such a show, crying about his Christian love for his LBGTQ brothers and sisters just so he could mercilessly mock them a few years later?
I question the judgment of the attorney who hires a disbarred attorney to work in their office….saw a disbarred ID attorney working for a plaintiff’s firm several years ago and thought that’s a problem waiting to happen. No thanks!
I do not know about that view. They have expertise in the area and they need to earn a living like everyone else. It depends on the level of degeneracy and whether they have made amends and are trying to move on.
(1) You get years of experience at a bargain rate that can help not merely your firm but your clients. (2) You can build in safeguards against what was the violation (for example your law clerk is not hitting your trust account) (3) Honestly you can help your fellow man if they want help get their life back. Would I hire Doug Crawford? Hell no. Are there any number of people who have drawn a suspension who I would help get back on their feet? Absolutely. There are a number of violations which I do not think reflect “degeneracy.”
Nelson was a great lawyer advocate. It was a shame the stupid things he did. His firm should have let him pay back the charges instead of reporting him to the bar. In insurance defense because the hourly rate is too low, most firms are double charging and double billing. I know clients who were quoted competitive rates by California firms who set up shop here only to find out instead of $200 and hour they were paying really $400 an hour with partners in California reviewing along with paralegals running up charges. On the plaintiff side, the p.i. firms are ripping off their clients left and right.
The pi firms are ripping people off? They tell them the exact percentage of the fee up front and the client doesn’t pay fees or costs. Nothing could be more transparent. Hourly attorneys say it should only take this amount of work or that amount of work and next you thing know your bill is $200k.
It’s because he hasn’t paid back the $200K that he owes. Plus, the barrier for him to come back is very high. He has to take the full bar exam again including the MPRE and that still doesn’t guarantee he even gets re-admitted.
Oh my Jen Schwartz. Probation on a reckless resulting in death? Teenager died after being hit by driver. After a trial. Schwartz grants probation.
DDAs go off in the media which I’ve never seen them do.
And speaking of Johnson’s case, is the respond of the DAs office really that the victim was hard to reach?? They have investigators for this very reason.
Victim was jay walking and defendant had no criminal history. It is also a large suspended sentence. The defendant was speeding, but not drunk. Probation is appropriate.
So probation would be appropriate if someone was going double the speed limit in a residential area and killed your child? Because that’s what defendant did here.
He KILLED A CHILD because he was intentionally going TWICE the speed limit in a RESIDENTIAL AREA. A criminal history would’ve been a reason to give him MORE prison time; the lack of a criminal history isn’t an excuse to give probation to someone who KILLED A CHILD. PD Judges are too desensitized to crime. If this happened in any other jurisdiction, any other judge wouldn’t have hesitated to impose a prison sentence.
Did you miss the part where he was street racing? Do you think it’s his first time street racing? I’ve seen enough of these races and street takeovers in town to know that most of them get away every time Metro responds. This needs to stop. We live in a desert for god’s sake. Go out to LV Blvd in Good Springs or head out to Sandy Valley if you need to get your racing rocks off. Stop doing it where civilians can get hurt.
Don’t be supercilious. The statutory maximum for that crime is 28-72 months in prison. A little over two years in prison for killing a child while you were street racing is an exceptionally reasonable sentence.
It’s such a bad-faith argument to posit an absurdly long, facially llegal and insultingly nonsensical sentence just so you can use it as a strawman. There’s a rational conclusion here that includes a prison sentence in the legal range.
Probation on a crime like this is for people who made honest mistakes and are earnestly trying to make changes in their behavior. Neither of those facts are present. We need to beleive as a society that killing children through knowingly reckless behavior will have some meaningful consequence.
I’ve been thinking about this a fair amount, and I actually believe it’s important that we avoid drawing premature conclusions based on what is, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively limited observational window. While it is certainly true that there has not, to the best of my knowledge, been a comment explicitly referencing AI within approximately the last 36-hour period, I think we need to contextualize that data point within the broader historical cadence of blog discourse, the cyclical nature of online conversational ecosystems, and the ever-evolving patterns of community engagement.
For example, a temporary reduction in AI-related commentary could plausibly be attributable to any number of factors, including—but certainly not limited to—topic saturation, audience diversification, temporal posting variance, the statistical randomness inherent in asynchronous communication, or even the possibility that people are, at least momentarily, discussing other subjects. None of these possibilities should be discounted without a sufficiently robust longitudinal analysis supported by an appropriately representative sample size.
Moreover, I think it’s worth asking whether the absence of AI discourse should necessarily be interpreted as evidence of declining blog vitality in the first place. Is a blog defined by the frequency of AI mentions? Or is it instead defined by the quality of engagement, the consistency of participation, and the underlying resilience of the community? These are not merely rhetorical questions—they point toward a more nuanced framework through which we might evaluate the overall health of the platform.
That said, I also don’t want to minimize the legitimate concerns that can arise when established conversational patterns appear to shift, even temporarily. Change, particularly in digital communities, can sometimes feel more significant than it objectively is. It’s only natural for regular participants to notice these fluctuations and wonder whether they reflect a meaningful trend or simply normal variance.
Ultimately, I think it’s too early to say with any confidence whether we’re observing a transient anomaly, the beginning of a broader paradigm shift, or simply an unremarkable stretch of time during which nobody happened to mention AI. More data will likely be required before we can responsibly reach any definitive conclusions.
So, in summary, while I understand the concern, I don’t think we have enough information to conclude that the blog is dead. Nor do I think we have enough information to conclude that it isn’t. At this stage, the most reasonable course of action is probably to continue monitoring the situation and revisit the question once additional evidence becomes available.
I’m waiting for an AV-preeminent matrimonial law virtuoso to do a deep dive on the finer points of intrusion into seclusion claims that arise when self-represented litigants unleash autonomous AI agents on a self-help discovery mission deep into the opposing party’s email inbox and social media accounts. Or at least a few redacted summaries of the strange and uncomfortable conversations found in parties’ AI chatbot logs.
VanDyke’s call is rooted in his view that the Ninth Circuit systematically under-protects the Second Amendment and fails to follow higher-court precedent in that area (and sometimes others). Critics of the circuit often point to its long-term Supreme Court reversal rate as supporting evidence of broader problems:Over the period from roughly 2007 to recent terms, the Ninth Circuit has the highest reversal rate among the federal circuits at about 79% of the cases the Supreme Court reviews from it.
It also accounts for the largest absolute number of reversals because it is the biggest circuit by population, caseload, and volume of petitions granted.
The Sixth Circuit is extremely close behind (~79%). Most other circuits fall in the 60–75% range; the Seventh is among the lower ones (~63%). Overall, the Supreme Court reverses lower courts in roughly 70–75% of the merits cases it decides.
The 5th Circuit Loonies are giving the 9th Circuit a run for its money, both in the number of petitions the Court has to hear, and the number of times they rule the 5th Circuit goes way too far.
“VanDyke is the epitome of Walter Sobchak in the bowling alley, waving a firearm around and insisting he’s the calmer man in the room.”
Maybe he should open his next dissent with “Am i the only one that gives a sh*t about the rules!?”
Looking back with the benefit of hindsight it’s clear that the ABA’s evaluation of VanDyke was more accurate than its critics let on. Of course, the senators who ignored that critique seem to have received exactly what they voted for but it makes me wonder why anyone bothered to pretend. For that matter, why did VanDyke put on such a show, crying about his Christian love for his LBGTQ brothers and sisters just so he could mercilessly mock them a few years later?
he is an embarrassment
Scott Cantor appearing as a paralegal in probate court this morning. Interesting.
I question the judgment of the attorney who hires a disbarred attorney to work in their office….saw a disbarred ID attorney working for a plaintiff’s firm several years ago and thought that’s a problem waiting to happen. No thanks!
I do not know about that view. They have expertise in the area and they need to earn a living like everyone else. It depends on the level of degeneracy and whether they have made amends and are trying to move on.
(1) You get years of experience at a bargain rate that can help not merely your firm but your clients. (2) You can build in safeguards against what was the violation (for example your law clerk is not hitting your trust account) (3) Honestly you can help your fellow man if they want help get their life back. Would I hire Doug Crawford? Hell no. Are there any number of people who have drawn a suspension who I would help get back on their feet? Absolutely. There are a number of violations which I do not think reflect “degeneracy.”
Scott made a mistake, he isn’t acting as an attorney, he is acting in a reduced role as he has expertise and wisdom to assist the office.
Nelson Cohen was working as a paralegal for various Plaintiff’s PI firms.
Nelson was a great lawyer advocate. It was a shame the stupid things he did. His firm should have let him pay back the charges instead of reporting him to the bar. In insurance defense because the hourly rate is too low, most firms are double charging and double billing. I know clients who were quoted competitive rates by California firms who set up shop here only to find out instead of $200 and hour they were paying really $400 an hour with partners in California reviewing along with paralegals running up charges. On the plaintiff side, the p.i. firms are ripping off their clients left and right.
The pi firms are ripping people off? They tell them the exact percentage of the fee up front and the client doesn’t pay fees or costs. Nothing could be more transparent. Hourly attorneys say it should only take this amount of work or that amount of work and next you thing know your bill is $200k.
He wasn’t double charging, he was embezzling money, and caught a second time.
This. There’s a reason he was only suspended for 5 years and now it’s been almost 10 and he’s still not an attorney
It’s because he hasn’t paid back the $200K that he owes. Plus, the barrier for him to come back is very high. He has to take the full bar exam again including the MPRE and that still doesn’t guarantee he even gets re-admitted.
There but for the grace of God. . . .
Oh my Jen Schwartz. Probation on a reckless resulting in death? Teenager died after being hit by driver. After a trial. Schwartz grants probation.
DDAs go off in the media which I’ve never seen them do.
And speaking of Johnson’s case, is the respond of the DAs office really that the victim was hard to reach?? They have investigators for this very reason.
Are you surprised? PD’s as judges, it’s their time to shine as activists! More of this to come!
Victim was jay walking and defendant had no criminal history. It is also a large suspended sentence. The defendant was speeding, but not drunk. Probation is appropriate.
So probation would be appropriate if someone was going double the speed limit in a residential area and killed your child? Because that’s what defendant did here.
He KILLED A CHILD because he was intentionally going TWICE the speed limit in a RESIDENTIAL AREA. A criminal history would’ve been a reason to give him MORE prison time; the lack of a criminal history isn’t an excuse to give probation to someone who KILLED A CHILD. PD Judges are too desensitized to crime. If this happened in any other jurisdiction, any other judge wouldn’t have hesitated to impose a prison sentence.
Did you miss the part where he was street racing? Do you think it’s his first time street racing? I’ve seen enough of these races and street takeovers in town to know that most of them get away every time Metro responds. This needs to stop. We live in a desert for god’s sake. Go out to LV Blvd in Good Springs or head out to Sandy Valley if you need to get your racing rocks off. Stop doing it where civilians can get hurt.
What should the sentence be?
Double life plus cancer, of course. You know, so we can show how tough on crime we can be.
Don’t be supercilious. The statutory maximum for that crime is 28-72 months in prison. A little over two years in prison for killing a child while you were street racing is an exceptionally reasonable sentence.
It’s such a bad-faith argument to posit an absurdly long, facially llegal and insultingly nonsensical sentence just so you can use it as a strawman. There’s a rational conclusion here that includes a prison sentence in the legal range.
Probation on a crime like this is for people who made honest mistakes and are earnestly trying to make changes in their behavior. Neither of those facts are present. We need to beleive as a society that killing children through knowingly reckless behavior will have some meaningful consequence.
I’m only sortacillious.
Usually in automobile death cases where the driver is criminally culpable in some way you still get 18 months to 2 years. Probation is wild.
https://news3lv.com/news/local/man-sentenced-to-prison-in-reckless-driving-crash-that-killed-teen-boy
Even the defendant’s attorney, Phil Singer was quoted as saying he was surprised by the light sentence. Not something I would say.
“I’d have cast that whippersnapper in the hoosegow for a donkey’s years” is probably something I would say.
No one has made a comment on the blog referencing the use of AI in at least 36 hours and it’s got me really concerned. Is blog dead? /s
Ran out of credits, bots will be back next week!
Another Grok user I see
I, for one, welcome Sam Altmann as our new A.I. overlord.
I’ve been thinking about this a fair amount, and I actually believe it’s important that we avoid drawing premature conclusions based on what is, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively limited observational window. While it is certainly true that there has not, to the best of my knowledge, been a comment explicitly referencing AI within approximately the last 36-hour period, I think we need to contextualize that data point within the broader historical cadence of blog discourse, the cyclical nature of online conversational ecosystems, and the ever-evolving patterns of community engagement.
For example, a temporary reduction in AI-related commentary could plausibly be attributable to any number of factors, including—but certainly not limited to—topic saturation, audience diversification, temporal posting variance, the statistical randomness inherent in asynchronous communication, or even the possibility that people are, at least momentarily, discussing other subjects. None of these possibilities should be discounted without a sufficiently robust longitudinal analysis supported by an appropriately representative sample size.
Moreover, I think it’s worth asking whether the absence of AI discourse should necessarily be interpreted as evidence of declining blog vitality in the first place. Is a blog defined by the frequency of AI mentions? Or is it instead defined by the quality of engagement, the consistency of participation, and the underlying resilience of the community? These are not merely rhetorical questions—they point toward a more nuanced framework through which we might evaluate the overall health of the platform.
That said, I also don’t want to minimize the legitimate concerns that can arise when established conversational patterns appear to shift, even temporarily. Change, particularly in digital communities, can sometimes feel more significant than it objectively is. It’s only natural for regular participants to notice these fluctuations and wonder whether they reflect a meaningful trend or simply normal variance.
Ultimately, I think it’s too early to say with any confidence whether we’re observing a transient anomaly, the beginning of a broader paradigm shift, or simply an unremarkable stretch of time during which nobody happened to mention AI. More data will likely be required before we can responsibly reach any definitive conclusions.
So, in summary, while I understand the concern, I don’t think we have enough information to conclude that the blog is dead. Nor do I think we have enough information to conclude that it isn’t. At this stage, the most reasonable course of action is probably to continue monitoring the situation and revisit the question once additional evidence becomes available.
AI
Creepy.
I’m waiting for an AV-preeminent matrimonial law virtuoso to do a deep dive on the finer points of intrusion into seclusion claims that arise when self-represented litigants unleash autonomous AI agents on a self-help discovery mission deep into the opposing party’s email inbox and social media accounts. Or at least a few redacted summaries of the strange and uncomfortable conversations found in parties’ AI chatbot logs.
Everyone saw Google’s quarterly cash flow turned sharply negative.
Go VanDyke. The 9th needs the bench slap
VanDyke’s call is rooted in his view that the Ninth Circuit systematically under-protects the Second Amendment and fails to follow higher-court precedent in that area (and sometimes others). Critics of the circuit often point to its long-term Supreme Court reversal rate as supporting evidence of broader problems:Over the period from roughly 2007 to recent terms, the Ninth Circuit has the highest reversal rate among the federal circuits at about 79% of the cases the Supreme Court reviews from it.
It also accounts for the largest absolute number of reversals because it is the biggest circuit by population, caseload, and volume of petitions granted.
The Sixth Circuit is extremely close behind (~79%). Most other circuits fall in the 60–75% range; the Seventh is among the lower ones (~63%). Overall, the Supreme Court reverses lower courts in roughly 70–75% of the merits cases it decides.
The 5th Circuit Loonies are giving the 9th Circuit a run for its money, both in the number of petitions the Court has to hear, and the number of times they rule the 5th Circuit goes way too far.