- Quickdraw McLaw
- 32 Comments
- 74 Views
- A jury decided that one of Tom Pitaro‘s clients should get life without parole instead of a death sentence 31 years after first being sentenced. [RJ]
- The Legacy golf course sold for several million less than what was recorded on the deed. [RJ]
- The new pro soccer team will be called the Las Vegas Lights. [Las Vegas Sun]
Well said Mr. Pitaro.
"Outside the courtroom after the verdict, DiGiacomo said the original error in 1988 was 'harmless,' but Valerio 'got a benefit out of it,' because he is no longer on death row. 'But he’ll still argue that this version’s not correct, prosecutor Giancarlo Pesci added, slightly exasperated. 'Because he’ll appeal this (for parole). He’s got nothing else to do.'”
There is no "harmless error" when it comes to sentencing factors for death. This was a huge difference. The jury told you yesterday that the decision is different when you change the factors. But you don't want to accept the Jury's decision but have the gall to insult this guy because he will explore appellate options? The prosecutorial mindset is just insultingly mind-numbing at times.
Unless you're personally familiar with the case and the appellate opinions, I don't think you can express an opinion about what is harmless.
Also, assuming the change in sentence was due to the changed instruction is a completely unreasonable assumption. Not only are juries today far more liberal than in the 80s, but the guy had the opportunity to get up there and tell them all about how he reformed himself over the past 30 years. Moreover, the entire case was likely presented by someone reading 30 year old transcripts. Not exactly as emotionally compelling as the original witnesses were at the original trial. I'm quite confident that changed instruction on the legal definition of "depravity of the mine" had absolutely nothing to do with the change in sentence.
*mind
As a lawyer who does not practice criminal law and does not know the backstory, what I took from it was we shouldn't sentence people only for what they did, but also for who they are.
If you know anything about NSC criminal opinions, they always default to harmless error. When they find an error not harmless, it means it's really not harmless.
When the appellate courts agree to intervene in a case this long afterwards and to find the instruction problematic, that is the rule in the case. The instruction was already found to NOT be harmless; to say it is harmless is to ignore the law of the case. To then say that the sentencing jury got it wrong is to have no respect for the jury. To then insult the defense that they might exercise rights of appellate review and not respect the life without sentence is hypocritical. The Courts and Juries are only right when they agree with the prosecution? CCDA is better than that. That baloney is usually confined to Myrhe's mouth.
I literally don't know a single civil lawyer that doesn't blame the judge and/or jury for every loss and doesn't feign outrage when the other side appeals. The fact that this is apparently so extraordinary in the criminal context boggles my fucking mind.
Does anybody here have a recommendation for a good tailor? I bought a few suits that I'd like to get professionally tailored but I've never been to one before. I usually just had the guy at Jos. A Bank do it but I feel like they always do the quickest and cheapest job possible. I'm now willing to spend more to get a better job done.
Nick's Tailoring 5435 W Sahara Ave Ste C, Las Vegas, NV 89146
Try Alverson TAYLOR
I'm not sure if Sammy's tailor will do outside suits, but check out Celini's on Sahara. Get all my suits there.
12:23 is funny. A little corny, but legitimately funny.
Alverson Taylor– Taking in and letting out associates for over 30 years.
If you're buying your suits at Jos. A BAnk no tailor in the world can help you. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
I am impressed by your sartorial superiority, 3:25 PM. Well done.
3:25 is a little testy. My guess is that 11:32's Jos. A Bank suit looks better on him than 3:25's custom job looks on him. If you're a good looking and fit guy, almost no suit looks bad. But if you're a lumpy overweight guy, no suit can make you look good. So enjoy your expensive suit, 3:25 – all the while knowing that your FUPA and moobs are still there.
Rose's Cleaners and Alterations on Spring Mountain – very good
I saw that Facebook page, CCFCWarmongers, devoted to undermining the local VIP organization.
Although the individuals behind it are to be commended for some hard work(including digging back a quarter century in attempt to determine the nature and extent of the combat experience of the "leader" of VIP), I wonder how much of this is really necessary.
He is focusing most of his attention on judges, particularly Family Court judges).Most of them seem to have gotten the message as his upcoming event(his events usually include several judges) only includes one sitting Clark County Judge(who does not intend to run again) as well as a Nevada Supreme Court Justice.
The event does include a small handful of local, non-judicial, politicians, who presumably may not be fully aware of this War On Family Court declared by the organization. The people who are mainly following all this are the people who are most affected–Family Court Judges, as well as a few Family Court attorneys. It may take a little time for other, non-judicial office holders, to become fully aware of all this on line dialogue and developments and decide to stay away.
But at this time at least judges and attorneys in Family Court seem to have gotten the message. I believe only two lawyers who practice in Family Court were listed as panel participants at the event. One quickly disavowed that he is involved, while the other is a co-defendant with the VIP leader in one or more lawsuits.
So, those behind the anti-VIP page should perhaps calm down a little. They may rationalize that their page is effective in dissuading judges and attorneys from having any involvement with VIP. But the truth is the judges, on their own, are running for the hills from the organization based on this absurd and destructive "Declaration Of War Against Family Court."
All that's accomplished by continuation of the page at its current level of vitriol is to establish that they really give the VIP leader significant credibility. The more time spent loudly declaring that someone has no credibility, the more that those actions establish that such individual or group is in fact a force to be reckoned with. After all, no one repeatedly kicks a dead dog. Local journalists have written columns in the past about how VIP should be afforded no credibility and that politicians should stay away. But it had no effect and political turn out at his events remained high. Why? Because if there is more than one column with prominent placement in the local section of our only daily paper declaring that some group should be afforded no credibility, that inversely establishes their credibility to an extent. The columns inadvertently gave the group a lot of free coverage, and the reasons to avoid the group remained murky and vague at best–mainly along the lines that the VIP leader thinks he's an influential big shot but he really isn't. Since no really compelling negative reasons were offered to avoid the group, this extensive free publicity clearly worked to the group's benefit.
So, as your parents told you of what often works to neutralize loud mouths and self-aggrandizing braggarts and bullies–simply ignore them. Then they will wilt as attention and anger toward them is their air, water and food. Cut off the oxygen supply and watch them wilt.
Also, it's important not to take things too seriously. If people behave absurdly enough, they will drive away their supporters all by themselves.
When an attorney appears on a VIP program to help explain the statutory intricacies of military and disability pension division, and the host then attacks him by declaring that unless the guest has seen his dearest friends blown to bits six yards from his head that he has no right to have an opinion on anything involving military benefits, that type of shit actually constitutes highly humorous farce. It should be laughed at and laughed off. No need to get worked up over it as no one with even half a brain would find that to be a rational argument.
I agree with a lot of what 5:06 says but there is an important inconsistency which should not be overlooked. He/She says that the tone of the anti-VIP page may be a bit over-heated, and that it is not necessary because the judges, on their own, are all fully aware, based on recent events, to distance themselves from the organization, and that too much vitriol gives the organization too much attention(and yes, even certain types of negative attention can inadvertently provide an organization with credibility in the eyes of some).
Fair enough, but when it is then asserted that other, non-judicial, office holders, who are not fully aware of the War On Family Court, may need some time to be fully exposed to the situation, it should be kept in mind that a good way for them to get exposed to it is to keep up the heat, as the page does.
And, yes, the videos of the VIP leader, including attacking a lawyer for offering information on military disability pensions,
and insisting that the attorney must not be heard on such issue unless he has experienced a certain type of horrific violence which is then graphically described, is comically absurd. And the page is doing a service by including those broadcast excerpts. That way, not only will family judges get the message(and, yes, most of them already got the message), but other politicians, and veterans who need legitimate assistance, will get the message as well.
I generally agree with the calm, rationale approach that 5:06 espouses. That generally works unless you run into a Kim Jong Un. Senor Malin Gerer is that crazy, lunatic, nuclear exception. Sometimes ignoring a weed only allows it to come back again.
We are to blame. We allowed him to get away with bullshit for years and never called him on it. We allowed him to be something he is not. He had a decade to build up this false façade; I am willing to give the Mongers some time to knock it down and then to bomb it so hard that it can never be resurrected again.
Apparently Judges can (1) imprison people for 20 days without any real reason; (2) use the Court as a dating service for their friends; (3) rule on their family and friends' cases; (4) verbally harass their staff; (5) create a system whereby the Court will give away the title to automobiles and all you get is suspended for a year.
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=44086
I don't believe that 5:06 or 5:19 suggested that any of those things are remotely proper, and clearly they are not proper,
That said, posting videos such as a judge hangs 25 days of contempt over a veteran's head, does not, in and of itself, remotely establish any wrong doing on the part of the judge.
The mere fact someone is a veteran does not mean that he is not held to some of the same standards and expectations we mere mortals must endure. I watched that posted video as VIP encouraged people to do.
The veteran is accused of repeatedly not paying money to his ex. And by the way, this was not support money, in the form of child support or alimony he was ordered to pay. He was simply ordered to return to his ex her own property and money. For example, if there is some savings account which includes $40,000., each is entitled to half. To argue that because someone is veteran and served the country that he is entitled to essentially steal the other side's one-half, or $20,000., and retain the entire $40,0000., to himself, is highly illegal, as well as being sickeningly immoral.
And, in essence, it appears that the we are urged to condemn the judge for not allowing a veteran to retain all money from a divorce, and requiring the veteran to give the other side their one-half.
At any rate, this veteran was instructed some time ago he needed to pay his wife whatever it is she was owed out of the accounts in dispute, and he did not comply.
Also, a huge, continuing issue in the case is that the veteran essentially insists his ex is a chronic liar and that she never admits cash payments he made to her. So, the judge then instructed him that if that be the case then make sure you never give her cash payments, or if you still insist on doing so, get a receipt.
So, what does he do as a result of this directive? Why of course he(as he represents) continues to give her cash, not ask for a receipt, and then acts shocked when she (who he has essentially characterized as the most demonically dishonest person in the world, and who keeps accepting large cash payments from him while denying all such receipts)denies receipt of the cash payments.
Duh!
He then extensively argues the most recent example. He claims he gave her $2,000. She admits he gave her $200., but not $2,000.
And all this raises another absurdity with his position. If she is so dishonest and diabolical, why admit even receiving the $200? Why not deny receiving even the $200., and then receive $1,800. more–the complete $2,000?
To: VIP: Even though someone is a veteran and should be highly revered for their service, it does not necessarily mean that all such individuals are saints and that everything they say is always true. They are still mortals with mortal foibles and faults.
So, if you really wanted to do this veteran a service, and you truly believed him when he said he made all these cash payments, rather than posting a video about how wrong the big, bad judge is, why not simply do the following. Tell the litigant "I believe you made the payments, but the judge will never believe you. The judge told you repeatedly that you will not receive credit for cash payments unless you get a receipt. So, stop paying her cash."
If you actually believe he paid, why not truly protect him and keep him from wasting thousands of dollars he does not get credit for? Why wait till he screws up bad, and is really in danger with the court? Is it so you have another video you can show about how unfair the system is? If you are truly offended that I imply that could be one of your motivations, then prove it. Next time someone is in this type of pickle get them to a lawyer you know for a free consultation(since you apparently know a lot of them)
If you don't want to go to that effort, then tell him not to pay cash. I realize you are not a lawyer, but trust me. No one will accuse you of the infraction of a non-lawyer offering substantive legal advice if all you do is tell someone to stop paying cash to someone who repeatedly denies the receipt of it.
Uhhhh the link above is the JP Dawn Haviland's judicial discipline case. It has nothing to do with VIPI or Steve Sanson. While I appreciate your well thought out editorial, it has nothing to do with this post.
I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to the anti-VIP page.
I found it by going on Facebook and typing CCFCWarmongers.
When I go there, the proper page comes up. I can't speak to the matter of why your computer displays something else.
Who gives a fuck.
JP Dawn Haviland was suspended for one year, without pay, by the Commission for Judicial Discipline. She has to take several education classes at her own expense. One she resumes her position on the bench, she then has to receive judicial mentoring from a judge who is licensed to practice law. Haviland never went to law school. Her term expires in 2018.
once, not one.
6:07 Well your comment is posted as a reply to a link on a different topic. The mistake is yours.
Correct. It is. But you can still find the page in the manner I indicate. It is interesting viewing.
Well Said.
Thanks for weighing in Tom!