Alpine Motel Apartments fire survivor testifies about blocked door. [RJ]
AG’s office calls for stricter penalties on business selling tobacco to youth. [Nevada Current]
Opinion: Survivors of sexual assault deserve to have their day in court. [TNI]
Accused cult leader indicted on sexual assault charges. [RJ]
What are they hiding? RJ launches new, occasional feature about government not releasing documents. Today’s topic: UNLV, CSN thwart transparency of personnel records. [RJ]
New docs in lawsuit involving Tony Hsieh’s estate reveal more about his mental state in months before his death. [8NewsNow]
Nevada Supreme Court upholds ban on using credit scores to hike insurance premiums. [News3LV]
As a woman, I appreciate awareness. but this piece was difficult to read for all the wrong reasons.
There is no reason for the author to be so absurdly graphic with something that is traumatic not only to the victim but to other SA survivors. There is a balance between describing the assault and going into graphic detail ("He then penetrated virtually every orifice of Jaqueline’s body with his penis, hands and mouth.").
This is supposed to be about the Nevada Supreme Court's callous and inequitable holding that the state's failure to process a rape kit is not lack of diligence on the part of the victim under the theory of equitable tolling. That is not how this reads . . .
Publishing such explicit content says more about the author and less about the trauma and injustice that the victim suffered.
I wonder if the author had anyone read this for feedback before submission. Most people would have told him to pull out the explicit play-by-play. It's a tawdry distraction from the important issue at hand.
I think the author was trying to more fully convey the horrible nature of what happened, as opposed to saying "she was sexually assaulted," which may not be enough to get the message across to some. But I understand 12:15's point as well. I hope the legislation passes in some form. Unlimited statutes of limitation make me a little uneasy, but something on the order of 8-10 years, with a generous tolling clause to address situations like the rape kit backlog would be well within reason.
Sounds to me like he's still trying to make excuses for blowing the SOL. There is no requirement to have rape kit results before filing a civil complaint. Assuming she retained him within two years of the alleged attack, he should have filed the case within the SOL and worried about the rape kit during discovery. Based upon his version of facts his client had all of the information she needed to allege the elements of causes of action for assault, battery, civil conspiracy and IIED.
@12:15 and 1:00, after reading your comments I took the time to read the Indy article. I'm not sure I can come to the same conclusion you both reach. The article is 20 paragraphs long and any "absurdly graphic" description is cabined to one paragraph — clearly designed to set the stage for the egregiousness of the perpetrators' actions, and the Court's decision. I disagree with a lot of what Mr. Guinasso has written on in the past, but this article is not the explicit content you both chalk it up to be.
I'm with 1:17 on this one. The article speaks about "sexual assault" but there's a very wide range of conduct that is covered under sexual assault, right?
The author also fails to note whether or not the young woman reached a climax during the physical congress with her boss. Maybe that’s why she needed the kit before filing.
The rape victim did NOT need the results of the rape test kit to know who had raped her. There was no need to delay the filing of a civil lawsuit, and there is no excuse for not filing it within the Statute of Limitations.
I blew my clients case. Let me write article to absolve myself.
Guest
Anonymous
February 23, 2023 10:46 pm
Let's be intellectually honest. Filing a civil suit against a person after 20 plus years since the alleged sexual assault is beyond the pale. There needs to be a SOL for that as well. At that point, it just becomes a he said / she said and is seen as nothing more than a money grab. If the victim wants her day in court, then she should have come forward at the time.
The fact that the Court is silent about its entire e-file system being down is pitiful. There are filing deadlines and statutes of limitation in play; the court is completely mute about this problem. You cannot have mandatory e-filing and then not have a working e-file system.
Old timer here. They used to allow physical filing when e-filing unavailable. What happened to that. You could file in open court or with a Department when there was an emergency. Is e-filing still down?
Except that nowadays, "paper filing" means going down to the clerk's office, where they point you to the scanner/computer combo in the corner and tell you to e-file. They don't take paper copies of anything any more because e-filing is mandatory.
Yes of course but there must be manual filing available on an emergency basis when the system is down. In the first year or two of e-filing such a system was available.
Hey old timer 941…. You know runners go to the courthouse and then have to e-file using the scanner and computer in the clerk's office lobby, right? So in your case the
piece
of
paper
only gets filed once the runner converts it to an e-file. Now I will get off of your lawn.
12:32PM-Hey Millennial/Gen. Xer–If the system is down how can it be filed using the scanner and computer in the clerk's office. Is the system up and running now?
Kudos on The Nevada Independent piece. Thanks for bringing awareness. I hope your client gets the justice she deserves.
As a woman, I appreciate awareness. but this piece was difficult to read for all the wrong reasons.
There is no reason for the author to be so absurdly graphic with something that is traumatic not only to the victim but to other SA survivors. There is a balance between describing the assault and going into graphic detail ("He then penetrated virtually every orifice of Jaqueline’s body with his penis, hands and mouth.").
This is supposed to be about the Nevada Supreme Court's callous and inequitable holding that the state's failure to process a rape kit is not lack of diligence on the part of the victim under the theory of equitable tolling. That is not how this reads . . .
Publishing such explicit content says more about the author and less about the trauma and injustice that the victim suffered.
Sounds like the author is a real horn dog and would like to get in on the action! Lol. Whoa.
I wonder if the author had anyone read this for feedback before submission. Most people would have told him to pull out the explicit play-by-play. It's a tawdry distraction from the important issue at hand.
I think the author was trying to more fully convey the horrible nature of what happened, as opposed to saying "she was sexually assaulted," which may not be enough to get the message across to some. But I understand 12:15's point as well. I hope the legislation passes in some form. Unlimited statutes of limitation make me a little uneasy, but something on the order of 8-10 years, with a generous tolling clause to address situations like the rape kit backlog would be well within reason.
Sounds to me like he's still trying to make excuses for blowing the SOL. There is no requirement to have rape kit results before filing a civil complaint. Assuming she retained him within two years of the alleged attack, he should have filed the case within the SOL and worried about the rape kit during discovery. Based upon his version of facts his client had all of the information she needed to allege the elements of causes of action for assault, battery, civil conspiracy and IIED.
117 nailed it. I knew that the unabated SoL was not the answer when it passed (in 2017, as I recall). But, I really like this solution.
@12:15 and 1:00, after reading your comments I took the time to read the Indy article. I'm not sure I can come to the same conclusion you both reach. The article is 20 paragraphs long and any "absurdly graphic" description is cabined to one paragraph — clearly designed to set the stage for the egregiousness of the perpetrators' actions, and the Court's decision. I disagree with a lot of what Mr. Guinasso has written on in the past, but this article is not the explicit content you both chalk it up to be.
I'm with 1:17 on this one. The article speaks about "sexual assault" but there's a very wide range of conduct that is covered under sexual assault, right?
Grabbing s
The author also fails to note whether or not the young woman reached a climax during the physical congress with her boss. Maybe that’s why she needed the kit before filing.
1:22, we know you're guinasso, you horn dog.
The rape victim did NOT need the results of the rape test kit to know who had raped her. There was no need to delay the filing of a civil lawsuit, and there is no excuse for not filing it within the Statute of Limitations.
Sounds like legal malpractice to me.
^^ This right here.
Bingo.
The client could have also waited until after the results to go to the attorney
You have no idea when he was retained or whether he was the initial lawyer to have the case.
I blew my clients case. Let me write article to absolve myself.
Let's be intellectually honest. Filing a civil suit against a person after 20 plus years since the alleged sexual assault is beyond the pale. There needs to be a SOL for that as well. At that point, it just becomes a he said / she said and is seen as nothing more than a money grab. If the victim wants her day in court, then she should have come forward at the time.
in this case the suit was filed about three years after the incident.
E-File being an absolute nightmare for anyone else today?
Yes. I had to upload a SINGLE page declaration four times before it was accepted.
The fact that the Court is silent about its entire e-file system being down is pitiful. There are filing deadlines and statutes of limitation in play; the court is completely mute about this problem. You cannot have mandatory e-filing and then not have a working e-file system.
e-filing support sent out an email…
There are rules for this situation, please settle down.
We did not receive any emails from E-Filing support
Our office is unable to file anything, and has not gotten any status from support.
Is Odyssey still down for everyone?
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/NEFCR.html
Rule 15(b) or paper file.
What does "paper file" mean?
File
a
piece
of
paper.
Its what us old timers used to employ runner services for.
Old timer here. They used to allow physical filing when e-filing unavailable. What happened to that. You could file in open court or with a Department when there was an emergency. Is e-filing still down?
Except that nowadays, "paper filing" means going down to the clerk's office, where they point you to the scanner/computer combo in the corner and tell you to e-file. They don't take paper copies of anything any more because e-filing is mandatory.
Yes of course but there must be manual filing available on an emergency basis when the system is down. In the first year or two of e-filing such a system was available.
Hey old timer 941…. You know runners go to the courthouse and then have to e-file using the scanner and computer in the clerk's office lobby, right? So in your case the
piece
of
paper
only gets filed once the runner converts it to an e-file. Now I will get off of your lawn.
Interesting, I wonder how the Clerk's office would handle a Summons in paper format when the machines are down?
1:36, they won't.
12:32PM-Hey Millennial/Gen. Xer–If the system is down how can it be filed using the scanner and computer in the clerk's office. Is the system up and running now?