Is there some type of suit that can be filed against Justin Jones for his role in what is now an $86 million dollar disaster for the County? It may be more symbolic because he doesn’t have that much money, but can we at least get a judgment against him?
Justin runs for office on “no development near Red Rock” platform and wins. The Commission subsequently votes 7-0 against Gypsum on one development proposal. Justin deletes texts around the time of the vote. The other Commissioners did not delete texts and testify that Justin did not text them. So even if Justin’s text deletions violated the NPRA, how did it affect the litigation? Was there a walking quorum? Did Justin text Steve Sisolak to inform him that “payment” would be transmitted immediately? The NSC’s Badlands decision motivated settlement much more than the text messages.
I don’t think it’s so much a NPRA issue. It’s a spoliation issue that could allow a jury to assume the worst. I agree the 7-0 vote makes it hard to show that any messages would have mattered anyway though.
Correct. At the end of this, Telles will be a multi-millionaire from the settlement he received from the DA. Then he will write book, which will be made into a TV show.
Does anyone have the link to watch the disciplinary hearing that is going on? From what I’ve been told, this sounds like the Bar (or at least certain members of it) doing Metro’s bidding to discourage zealous defense work.
My interest is piqued and I’d like to watch, but can’t find it.
Watching it now. Here’s an interesting question: Bar counsel seems to say that Hawkins erred because her request for OSC was threatening to the person receiving it and she had been told by Metro that her interpretation of the law is wrong. This whole proceeding is premised on the idea that Hawkins was legally wrong (which is an issue that the Supreme Court has not weighed in on yet).
Bar counsel has now been told repeatedly that HE is wrong on the law, yet he keeps seeking discipline against Hawkins. Which is making Hawkins feel threatened.
So, hypothetically, by his logic, if the Nevada Supreme Court agrees that defense counsel IS allowed to issue subpoenas, does that mean Bar Counsel must be disciplined under his own theory? Because he’s now been told multiple times he is legally incorrect and HIS actions seeking discipline are on par with Hawkins actions seeking an OSC for Metro’s failure to comply with her subpoena.
He has already violated Rule 3.1 by proceeding with an action he knew to be frivolous. The minute he found out that other courts had ruled in favor of Hawkins’ position, which was MONTHS ago, he knew the charge against Hawkins was false and unsupportable. He proceeded anyway.
Wait, so Bar Counsel is essentially arguing that she should have taken legal advice from an opposing party? Because a colorable argument that has been made and accepted in other trial courts is never legally wrong until mandatory authority says it is. It may not be accepted, but that doesn’t mean it’s a legal error to advocate for it.
But bar counsel will drop the RPC charges if she just agrees that counsel for Metro, whose analysis of the statute is supported by only him, is correct! *eye roll*
It was being recorded but I do not know if they make it public afterwards
Guest
Anonymous
June 20, 2024 12:48 pm
Howard Hughes Center is now in a court-ordered receivership.
Guest
Anonymous
June 20, 2024 1:41 pm
This is all I know: Since I have been an attorney at least three attorneys facing SBN discipline have committed suicide. Yet the Bar constantly tells lawyers who are stressed out to seek help. Does the SBN care when it is creating the stress and depression? Hardly.
OBC and the bar have demonstrated very clearly that they do not care how many attorneys die by suicide. They have been contacted by members of the legal community who have offered to help and they have ignored the offers. They don’t care.
And when these two attys and 2 paralegals called Metro, what did the police do?
Guest
Anonymous
June 20, 2024 2:40 pm
OBC and NSC plays favorites. Jim Jimmerson and Leila Hale received letters of public reprimand for conduct which usually results in suspensions and fines.
And a Metro detective was the lay person on the panel. Metro was not a party but he testified. If BOG does nothing about Hooge now, we should push for a voluntary bar and just pay for discipline
Is he ok? He argued this was a battle for the soul of Nevada. Going to the mat on this one raises serious questions about his judgment which already was in question.
Yeah i’m not sure he’s ok. He is still acting like every case is the one murder in Lincoln County a year instead of using the nuance and public policy considerations the position should consider.
“Battle for the soul of Nevada” That’s is some creepy handmaiden’s tale BS right there. Has that so-called attorney even heard of the establishment clause? Or did he skip that day in Con Law?
He is NOT ok. He routinely goes after attorneys (mostly small firms and solos) for frivolous nonsense that would not be actionable under any coherent regime in OBC. Instead he forces attorneys to go to war over their license, threatening to take away their livelihoods because he feels like it. When do OBC’s victims get an award of fees and costs after they have to pay Robe Bare to (again!) take Dan and company to the wood shed? That’s right. Never. Hooge acts with impunity and threatens our community. He is a petty vengeful man and he should NEVER have been given any access to power.
Guest
Anonymous
June 20, 2024 9:59 pm
They need to make Janeen Isaacson Bar Counsel. This is what should have happened to begin with.
She was never Bar Counsel. She was Assistant Bar Counsel. When David Clark was shown the door, Janeen was the logical choice to be elevated and wanted the position; they skipped over her and brought in Brian Kunzi. Then then pushed him out for Stan. When it was clear that Stan was doddering, Janeen was the heir apparent. They pushed her out of the way for some guy with no bar or disciplinary experience. Janeen rightfully had enough. Good for her.
blog is ded
Blog is dead.
**Its very quiet the last couple days.
Is there some type of suit that can be filed against Justin Jones for his role in what is now an $86 million dollar disaster for the County? It may be more symbolic because he doesn’t have that much money, but can we at least get a judgment against him?
I got thwacked for this question yesterday.
probably deserves a thwack bc it is void of legal substance.
If that is true, why are we paying $80 MM for this shit?
blog is dead
Everyone must be celebrating Juneteenth
Is Justin Jones’ malpractice insurance going to cover any of that $86 million settlement? I dont’ understand why I have to pay
Justin runs for office on “no development near Red Rock” platform and wins. The Commission subsequently votes 7-0 against Gypsum on one development proposal. Justin deletes texts around the time of the vote. The other Commissioners did not delete texts and testify that Justin did not text them. So even if Justin’s text deletions violated the NPRA, how did it affect the litigation? Was there a walking quorum? Did Justin text Steve Sisolak to inform him that “payment” would be transmitted immediately? The NSC’s Badlands decision motivated settlement much more than the text messages.
I don’t think it’s so much a NPRA issue. It’s a spoliation issue that could allow a jury to assume the worst. I agree the 7-0 vote makes it hard to show that any messages would have mattered anyway though.
First. Obligatory blog is dead.
First
No comments? None?
Well, now there’s two. yay!
I commented, but was thwacked
fake news. we had an issue with our spam detector plugin so all comments were stuck in limbo for a few days. sorry about that.
It happens. I saw that couple of my comments were pending approval. The no show. No worries Law Dawg, tech glitches happen.
Word on street is DA is begging Telles to leave jail and not sue but Telles is staying inside to make his civil suit stronger.
Genius!
Correct. At the end of this, Telles will be a multi-millionaire from the settlement he received from the DA. Then he will write book, which will be made into a TV show.
“If I Did It”
If the glove fits…
Whoever keeps posting these…thank you.
Does anyone have the link to watch the disciplinary hearing that is going on? From what I’ve been told, this sounds like the Bar (or at least certain members of it) doing Metro’s bidding to discourage zealous defense work.
My interest is piqued and I’d like to watch, but can’t find it.
I’m just impressed you spelled piqued correctly.
On today’s episode of Witch Hunt: https://nvbar.zoom.us/j/85785178735
Watching it now. Here’s an interesting question: Bar counsel seems to say that Hawkins erred because her request for OSC was threatening to the person receiving it and she had been told by Metro that her interpretation of the law is wrong. This whole proceeding is premised on the idea that Hawkins was legally wrong (which is an issue that the Supreme Court has not weighed in on yet).
Bar counsel has now been told repeatedly that HE is wrong on the law, yet he keeps seeking discipline against Hawkins. Which is making Hawkins feel threatened.
So, hypothetically, by his logic, if the Nevada Supreme Court agrees that defense counsel IS allowed to issue subpoenas, does that mean Bar Counsel must be disciplined under his own theory? Because he’s now been told multiple times he is legally incorrect and HIS actions seeking discipline are on par with Hawkins actions seeking an OSC for Metro’s failure to comply with her subpoena.
He has already violated Rule 3.1 by proceeding with an action he knew to be frivolous. The minute he found out that other courts had ruled in favor of Hawkins’ position, which was MONTHS ago, he knew the charge against Hawkins was false and unsupportable. He proceeded anyway.
I agree with all this, who do I report bar counsel to?
Which Bar Counsel is taking this thwacking?
Good question. Bar counsel routinely violates the RPC including lying, frivolous persecutions, and filing after the SOL.
Don’t put that logic on bar counsel man! Quote inspired by Ron burgundy
Wait, so Bar Counsel is essentially arguing that she should have taken legal advice from an opposing party? Because a colorable argument that has been made and accepted in other trial courts is never legally wrong until mandatory authority says it is. It may not be accepted, but that doesn’t mean it’s a legal error to advocate for it.
But bar counsel will drop the RPC charges if she just agrees that counsel for Metro, whose analysis of the statute is supported by only him, is correct! *eye roll*
Who is counsel for Metro on this? In-house?
Yes. Matt Christian
Disappointed to hear that.
Are these posted to youtube or are they recorded somewhere?
Which bar counsel: Larry curly or moe?
It was being recorded but I do not know if they make it public afterwards
Howard Hughes Center is now in a court-ordered receivership.
This is all I know: Since I have been an attorney at least three attorneys facing SBN discipline have committed suicide. Yet the Bar constantly tells lawyers who are stressed out to seek help. Does the SBN care when it is creating the stress and depression? Hardly.
OBC and the bar have demonstrated very clearly that they do not care how many attorneys die by suicide. They have been contacted by members of the legal community who have offered to help and they have ignored the offers. They don’t care.
And when these two attys and 2 paralegals called Metro, what did the police do?
OBC and NSC plays favorites. Jim Jimmerson and Leila Hale received letters of public reprimand for conduct which usually results in suspensions and fines.
Hooge asked for suspensions.
Sarah Hawkins won!
Bar Counsel should be brought up on charges for pressing that meritless case.
You should file the complaint. Be the hero. Show us how its done.
NACJ is discussing doing just that.
Where is the laughing at you emogi?
And a Metro detective was the lay person on the panel. Metro was not a party but he testified. If BOG does nothing about Hooge now, we should push for a voluntary bar and just pay for discipline
Yeah, let us know how that turns out.
Right after you file your Complaint, Sue the Bar guy
Sue who, and for what?
Suing the bar. . . . . . . next month.
Hooge is ok. But he should not have done Christian’s bidding!
Is he ok? He argued this was a battle for the soul of Nevada. Going to the mat on this one raises serious questions about his judgment which already was in question.
Can’t disagree.
Yeah i’m not sure he’s ok. He is still acting like every case is the one murder in Lincoln County a year instead of using the nuance and public policy considerations the position should consider.
“Battle for the soul of Nevada” That’s is some creepy handmaiden’s tale BS right there. Has that so-called attorney even heard of the establishment clause? Or did he skip that day in Con Law?
He is NOT ok. He routinely goes after attorneys (mostly small firms and solos) for frivolous nonsense that would not be actionable under any coherent regime in OBC. Instead he forces attorneys to go to war over their license, threatening to take away their livelihoods because he feels like it. When do OBC’s victims get an award of fees and costs after they have to pay Robe Bare to (again!) take Dan and company to the wood shed? That’s right. Never. Hooge acts with impunity and threatens our community. He is a petty vengeful man and he should NEVER have been given any access to power.
They need to make Janeen Isaacson Bar Counsel. This is what should have happened to begin with.
She was bar counsel. She resigned. She works for the people now (defending lawyers from the nonsense) – where she’s needed and belongs.
I thought she was Assistant Bar Counsel? 9:59 here. She needs to be Numero Uno. That’s what I am saying. She is wicked smart, honest and pragmatic.
She was never Bar Counsel. She was Assistant Bar Counsel. When David Clark was shown the door, Janeen was the logical choice to be elevated and wanted the position; they skipped over her and brought in Brian Kunzi. Then then pushed him out for Stan. When it was clear that Stan was doddering, Janeen was the heir apparent. They pushed her out of the way for some guy with no bar or disciplinary experience. Janeen rightfully had enough. Good for her.
Based on personal experience, she’s just the opposite: corrupt, disobeys rules, engages in personal vendettas, the list goes on and on.
Hell no!