"…all has finally ended well for Margaret Rudin." Mr.Rudin, on the other hand….
On other topics, the stuff alleged against Doug Crawford is just stunning. I have to admit that I am apparently very naive as to this stuff allegedly continuing in 2022. It makes me wonder how often sexual misconduct occurs in our profession that goes unreported. Maybe very few go unreported, maybe not. I have no idea. It is just ridiculous that any woman would be subjected to what is alleged.
There have been rumors for years about several male attorneys doing this. I know of at least two right now who are rumored to trade legal work for sex with clients. It is far too common and Doug is just the tip of the ice berg.
Quid pro quo and inappropriate relationships with staff are both common in our profession. I am barred in several states and I split my time between them. Las Vegas is the worst I've seen. Off the top of my head I can name three male attorneys that I know regularly proposition younger female members of their staff. All three have had sexual relationships with these staff members. All three manipulate their victims with promises of a future together, higher pay, added benefits, things of that nature. All three are married. At least two of them have also had sexual relationships with clients during representation.
I've been propositioned as a married female attorney by multiple attorneys I worked for and with. And I am an attorney. It is has to be worse for the support staff. Legal secretary to 50 percent of the male attorneys I know means my bang partner. Glad to see female attorneys and judges sticking by the Doug Crawford predator.
The long story of Ms. Rudin's attorneys is amazing. She had Amador, who was unprepared and did a horrible job. She had Tom Pitaro, who tried to stop it all, but was powerless because Judge Bonaventure didn't care. She had Craig Creel on appeal, and he wrote an incredibly bizarre brief which went nowhere. Then she had Dayvid Figler on PCR. Figler is the only lawyer in Nevada history who has been singled out twice by name by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for his unethical conduct in abandoning clients. He abandoned Rudin. Blew all the deadlines. When asked about it, he has no apologies. He says, well, my Dad died, I'd do exactly the same thing again. Figler should have faced bar discipline. Then, finally, Rudin got someone who cared, and that was Chris Oram. Chris Oram worked his butt off on that case. And then, I guess, she got the final fellow. It was clear from the beginning that Amador was hugely ineffective. The Supreme Court set up the PCR in the decision rejecting the direct appeal. And Figler screwed it all up by blowing all the deadlines. Of course, let's face it: Rudin was likely guilty as hell.
Guest
Anonymous
May 31, 2022 5:29 pm
The Starbucks meth story is hilariously bogus.
>Plaintiff drank from the beverage 2-3 times over the course of approximately 10-15 minutes while parked in the parking lot of the Starbucks in question before dumping the iced coffee out in the parking lot due to a strange aftertaste from drinking from the iced coffee.
Did he gather any evidence? No.
Did he test the coffee? No.
Did he go get tested? No.
Is there any evidence there was meth? No.
>The lawsuit does not offer any details on how the illness was attributed to methamphetamine or the Starbucks drink. It contends that Starbucks “is an establishment/company that condoned and encouraged antipolice rhetoric, defund the police organizations and employees to wear clothing supportive of Black Lives Matters.”
I don't practice in an area that would benefit from this kind of marketing, but it amazes me that so many attorneys don't understand the marketing game and get bent out of shape about this. "How does Attorney X know anything about Y? He practices in area Z!" It doesn't matter whether or not the news story has anything to do with the attorneys "wheelhouse." It creates exposure and presents the attorney as a trusted expert. How can you be an attorney and be so unaware of the fine art of bullshitting?
Have watched lots of News 3 segments. Trust me the questions thrown to Mr. Hoffman are not just softball but cotton puff. Also his answers are basically from Wikipedia, or in many cases outright wrong. But it is surely good marketing.
Okay. Crawford hired Tony L. Abbatangelo, Esq. I am not a criminal attorney so it it outside my wheelhouse. Looks like there is a no contact order in place to protect Does and he is still in custody. Did anyone attend the hearing?
Per Channel 8 website, bail set at $100k. Not a whole lot in the way of new detail except that he apparently didn’t waste any time putting on his sexy moves with the vice cop.
That clearly is NOT Judge Susan Johnson who was barred in 1985. The posting Susan Johnson purports to have attended Boyd. Do some research, it took me 45 seconds to learn that they were not the same person.
That is not Susan Holland Johnson. Read the comments– they are clearly written by a man on a FB profile that has one generic picture. Run the same "Susan Johnson" on the State Bar website and you will see that its not her. Judge Susan Johnson is "https://www.facebook.com/susan.johnson.18041092" . This "Susan Johnson" has a different account.
I disagree a little bit, 4:04. I went back and looked at some of his posts and videos, and, knowing what we know now, it is easy to say "this screams sexual predator." But without that knowledge, I probably would have considered many or most to be self-aggrandizing, and a few to be a bit creepy (e.g. the much younger girlfriend sticking her tongue in his ear), but I don't know that there is anything there (and again I didn't spend all day looking at everything) that would flag the guy as an obvious sex criminal in my mind if I didn't know what just happened. I don't know Crawford at all and never dealt with him or heard any rumors, etc. Maybe I'm naive, but hindsight is 20/20 as well.
I know,I looked. I saw. I remembered who is friends with Douglas Crawford. Them I saw some of the names on my ballot,Bonaventure,and my male self did not vote for you
Nasty AF how? I saw one or two that were a little creepy, but it's not like he was sitting by the pool in a lime green mankini whilst reflecting on his visit to the swinger's resort.
Who defends Douglas Crawford other than Abbatangelo? The posts are creepy. I went 15 deep,there are close to 10that are. disgusting. Pick just one:1) he is stalking a stage performer,frenching her in the air……not normal. Gross.
Doug Crawford is obviously a very sick guy. He's an addict (to many things). HIs behavior is indefensible. He doesn't deserve to practice law. Regarding his "victims," it's interesting how, when certain women were in the office with Crawford, they would gather around a monitor to watch. Unwilling observers? Yeah.
It was not really an issue of people gathering around monitors. Crawford is alleged to have shown videos to staff unsolicited and directly shared his exploits with unwitting and unwilling staff. I employ one of the victims and another former staff member who is not a victim; they both have corroborated these issues.
Is it just me or is equating his FB friends with actual friends a little tenuous? I mean who among us has FB friends that aren't actually "friends".
Of course, I am anal enough that I went through my friends and asked myself "Do I give a shit what this person is up to in life? Do I give a shit if they know what I am up in my life? If the answer was no to either question, they were defriended."
No more judges and attorney should have enough standards to not associate with a felon. And then there is the harassment and sexual assault side to Douglas Crawford. But keep self affirming
It's not just you 9:20. Let's be real. People send out FB friend invites way too freely to people they just met at a county bar event. I generally accept FB or linkedin requests regardless of who it is and try not to unfriend in order to avoid that awkward encounter years down the road when you run into the person in real life. It's not worth alienating people when you can just accept and then set your settings to not see their stuff. TL;DR – tying people to their FB or linkedin "friends" is dumb.
I agree with you 10:16. FB friends might be actual friends, professional friends, professional acquaintances or people who FB suggested as friends and who I accidentally friended when I fell asleep on my phone. However when I see FB friends going off the deep end (politically, mentally, professionally) I do make a decision as to whether they are close enough that I reach out in compassion or distance myself from them. I might unfriend, or I might just never comment on any of their content. In this case, Doug threw money around which is attractive to judges (hence the picture of Amy Mastin on his page from last week). He was a schmoozer which is why he has more FB "friends" than I have, and I am totally OK with that.
Excuse me while I go conduct a thorough examination of the feeds of each of my several hundred FB “friends,” so that I can reach a conclusion, based on that information alone, as to whether any of them are sex criminals. brb.
Hey,brb. Buy a clue join a sex club weara hat on your penis. Leave the change on the table.
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2022 2:29 pm
Has anyone had a summary judgment hearing in a civil case in front of Christy Craig (Dept 32)? Does she have any grasp of the standard? Any thoughts are appreciated.
"…all has finally ended well for Margaret Rudin." Mr.Rudin, on the other hand….
On other topics, the stuff alleged against Doug Crawford is just stunning. I have to admit that I am apparently very naive as to this stuff allegedly continuing in 2022. It makes me wonder how often sexual misconduct occurs in our profession that goes unreported. Maybe very few go unreported, maybe not. I have no idea. It is just ridiculous that any woman would be subjected to what is alleged.
There have been rumors for years about several male attorneys doing this. I know of at least two right now who are rumored to trade legal work for sex with clients. It is far too common and Doug is just the tip of the ice berg.
Quid pro quo and inappropriate relationships with staff are both common in our profession. I am barred in several states and I split my time between them. Las Vegas is the worst I've seen. Off the top of my head I can name three male attorneys that I know regularly proposition younger female members of their staff. All three have had sexual relationships with these staff members. All three manipulate their victims with promises of a future together, higher pay, added benefits, things of that nature. All three are married. At least two of them have also had sexual relationships with clients during representation.
I've been propositioned as a married female attorney by multiple attorneys I worked for and with. And I am an attorney. It is has to be worse for the support staff. Legal secretary to 50 percent of the male attorneys I know means my bang partner. Glad to see female attorneys and judges sticking by the Doug Crawford predator.
The long story of Ms. Rudin's attorneys is amazing. She had Amador, who was unprepared and did a horrible job. She had Tom Pitaro, who tried to stop it all, but was powerless because Judge Bonaventure didn't care. She had Craig Creel on appeal, and he wrote an incredibly bizarre brief which went nowhere. Then she had Dayvid Figler on PCR. Figler is the only lawyer in Nevada history who has been singled out twice by name by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for his unethical conduct in abandoning clients. He abandoned Rudin. Blew all the deadlines. When asked about it, he has no apologies. He says, well, my Dad died, I'd do exactly the same thing again. Figler should have faced bar discipline. Then, finally, Rudin got someone who cared, and that was Chris Oram. Chris Oram worked his butt off on that case. And then, I guess, she got the final fellow. It was clear from the beginning that Amador was hugely ineffective. The Supreme Court set up the PCR in the decision rejecting the direct appeal. And Figler screwed it all up by blowing all the deadlines. Of course, let's face it: Rudin was likely guilty as hell.
The Starbucks meth story is hilariously bogus.
>Plaintiff drank from the beverage 2-3 times over the course of approximately 10-15 minutes while parked in the parking lot of the Starbucks in question before dumping the iced coffee out in the parking lot due to a strange aftertaste from drinking from the iced coffee.
Did he gather any evidence? No.
Did he test the coffee? No.
Did he go get tested? No.
Is there any evidence there was meth? No.
>The lawsuit does not offer any details on how the illness was attributed to methamphetamine or the Starbucks drink. It contends that Starbucks “is an establishment/company that condoned and encouraged antipolice rhetoric, defund the police organizations and employees to wear clothing supportive of Black Lives Matters.”
Oh, there it is. Way to bury to lede RJ.
There have been a few of these "food services employee does something anti-police" stories, and all of them were eventually debunked.
And yet he will still end up getting some sort of settlement most likely.
I don't see how this lawsuit doesn't get dismissed. What is his proof? I see nothing.
@8:25 BuT hIs NoN-ExPeRt wItNeSs TeStImOnY CrEateS a QuEsTioN of FaCt!
Why are we having Sam & Ash comment on any and every legal issue that arises– even those outside of their wheelhouse? I remember when Channel 3 used to have a legal commenter on to comment on every type of case– his name was Doug Crawford. https://www.si.com/nfl/raiders/the-black-hole-plus/sam-mirejovsky-roger-goodell-jon-gruden-mark-davis-nfl?fbclid=IwAR3PtsKcyV0u1xbxGzeV0zOUEQow5NFhudSOS2NXT07Ki5OxWHs7GqsnasA
Same thing with Matt Hoffman,Battle Born. He is an abortion attorney?
I don't practice in an area that would benefit from this kind of marketing, but it amazes me that so many attorneys don't understand the marketing game and get bent out of shape about this. "How does Attorney X know anything about Y? He practices in area Z!" It doesn't matter whether or not the news story has anything to do with the attorneys "wheelhouse." It creates exposure and presents the attorney as a trusted expert. How can you be an attorney and be so unaware of the fine art of bullshitting?
Have watched lots of News 3 segments. Trust me the questions thrown to Mr. Hoffman are not just softball but cotton puff. Also his answers are basically from Wikipedia, or in many cases outright wrong. But it is surely good marketing.
He looks like a. .
Sam and Ash. A creation of a public relations firm. And it works.
Won't Crawford have to be arraigned today? I think he's been locked up since Thursday. Will be interested to see where bail is set.
Can't wait to see who he retains as counsel.
Okay. Crawford hired Tony L. Abbatangelo, Esq. I am not a criminal attorney so it it outside my wheelhouse. Looks like there is a no contact order in place to protect Does and he is still in custody. Did anyone attend the hearing?
Per Channel 8 website, bail set at $100k. Not a whole lot in the way of new detail except that he apparently didn’t waste any time putting on his sexy moves with the vice cop.
It's pretty surprising that judge Johnson is responding to facebook comments on his page about the allegations.
Judge Susan Johnson"s comments are sexist,victim blaming,and unethical. You a curse word,,Susan Johnson.
That clearly is NOT Judge Susan Johnson who was barred in 1985. The posting Susan Johnson purports to have attended Boyd. Do some research, it took me 45 seconds to learn that they were not the same person.
That is not Susan Holland Johnson. Read the comments– they are clearly written by a man on a FB profile that has one generic picture. Run the same "Susan Johnson" on the State Bar website and you will see that its not her. Judge Susan Johnson is "https://www.facebook.com/susan.johnson.18041092" . This "Susan Johnson" has a different account.
2:41, same as it would take 45 seconds for the attorneys and judges who follow Doug Crawford realize he is a sexual predator.
On facebook
I disagree a little bit, 4:04. I went back and looked at some of his posts and videos, and, knowing what we know now, it is easy to say "this screams sexual predator." But without that knowledge, I probably would have considered many or most to be self-aggrandizing, and a few to be a bit creepy (e.g. the much younger girlfriend sticking her tongue in his ear), but I don't know that there is anything there (and again I didn't spend all day looking at everything) that would flag the guy as an obvious sex criminal in my mind if I didn't know what just happened. I don't know Crawford at all and never dealt with him or heard any rumors, etc. Maybe I'm naive, but hindsight is 20/20 as well.
I agree with 4:04
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/abbatangelo-barred-from-judicial-office-for-four-years-after-domestic-violence-conviction/amp/
His facebook posts are nasty AF. Attorneys and judges who claim they didn't know are just lying.
I know,I looked. I saw. I remembered who is friends with Douglas Crawford. Them I saw some of the names on my ballot,Bonaventure,and my male self did not vote for you
Nasty AF how? I saw one or two that were a little creepy, but it's not like he was sitting by the pool in a lime green mankini whilst reflecting on his visit to the swinger's resort.
Who defends Douglas Crawford other than Abbatangelo? The posts are creepy. I went 15 deep,there are close to 10that are. disgusting. Pick just one:1) he is stalking a stage performer,frenching her in the air……not normal. Gross.
Doug Crawford is obviously a very sick guy. He's an addict (to many things). HIs behavior is indefensible. He doesn't deserve to practice law. Regarding his "victims," it's interesting how, when certain women were in the office with Crawford, they would gather around a monitor to watch. Unwilling observers? Yeah.
It was not really an issue of people gathering around monitors. Crawford is alleged to have shown videos to staff unsolicited and directly shared his exploits with unwitting and unwilling staff. I employ one of the victims and another former staff member who is not a victim; they both have corroborated these issues.
Is it just me or is equating his FB friends with actual friends a little tenuous? I mean who among us has FB friends that aren't actually "friends".
Of course, I am anal enough that I went through my friends and asked myself "Do I give a shit what this person is up to in life? Do I give a shit if they know what I am up in my life? If the answer was no to either question, they were defriended."
Best social media decision of my life.
I think it is just you, bud.
Well, more people should be like me then.
No more judges and attorney should have enough standards to not associate with a felon. And then there is the harassment and sexual assault side to Douglas Crawford. But keep self affirming
It's not just you 9:20. Let's be real. People send out FB friend invites way too freely to people they just met at a county bar event. I generally accept FB or linkedin requests regardless of who it is and try not to unfriend in order to avoid that awkward encounter years down the road when you run into the person in real life. It's not worth alienating people when you can just accept and then set your settings to not see their stuff. TL;DR – tying people to their FB or linkedin "friends" is dumb.
I agree with you 10:16. FB friends might be actual friends, professional friends, professional acquaintances or people who FB suggested as friends and who I accidentally friended when I fell asleep on my phone. However when I see FB friends going off the deep end (politically, mentally, professionally) I do make a decision as to whether they are close enough that I reach out in compassion or distance myself from them. I might unfriend, or I might just never comment on any of their content. In this case, Doug threw money around which is attractive to judges (hence the picture of Amy Mastin on his page from last week). He was a schmoozer which is why he has more FB "friends" than I have, and I am totally OK with that.
10:16
Excuse me while I go conduct a thorough examination of the feeds of each of my several hundred FB “friends,” so that I can reach a conclusion, based on that information alone, as to whether any of them are sex criminals. brb.
@1010. Felons are people too. They have friends and I have friends that are felons.
Good for you,be friends with felons. You are friends with pervert Douglas Crawford. You are not excused.
Hey,brb. Buy a clue join a sex club weara hat on your penis. Leave the change on the table.
Has anyone had a summary judgment hearing in a civil case in front of Christy Craig (Dept 32)? Does she have any grasp of the standard? Any thoughts are appreciated.
She does not. Nice person though.
The one relief when she was elected was that she became easier to avoid. She really was a bully in practice but now she can be preempted at least.
Thanks for the responses!
Wolfman Jack wants to congratulate the Douglas Crawford judicial perverts who are his friends. They all need Lawyers Concerning Lawyers Help