The Boulder City city council approved a contract for Steve Morris as the new city attorney. [BCR]
Also in Boulder City, municipal Judge Victor Miller issued an order prohibiting “all counsel are prohibited from engaging in extrajudicial communications that in any way disparage or otherwise comment on opposing counsel relative to this case.” The case is Boulder City v. Hunt, case number (S) 17-CR-68. Counsel in that case are the aforementioned Steve Morris as acting city attorney and Stephen “Bowtie” Stubbs for the defendant. The order comes after Stubbs made a post on his Facebook page about Morris. Stubbs also raised concerns about Morris being a Mormon stake president and having religious authority over Judge Miller.
More idiot judges making stupid, abuse discretion rulings. No wonder the Supreme is backed up.
Guest
Anonymous
March 1, 2018 5:48 pm
98% of the time I disagree with Stubbs. However he is right on this one. Ridiculously overbroad and unconstitutional (so long as not violating NRPC).
And Stubbs is right in that BC is an incestuous backwater. How is Victor Miller the Muni Court Judge and the JP? The fact that it has been this way for 20 years and no one blinks just makes Deliverance-style banjos start playing in the background.
I have my LDS approved sheet music along with my Kermit the Frog banjo to stroke out some judicial corruption tunes.
There was judge from Vegas…whose last name did not begin with a D.
Guest
Anonymous
March 1, 2018 5:59 pm
Concur.
Guest
Anonymous
March 1, 2018 6:30 pm
The cities of Boulder, Mesquite and Carson have their Justices of the Peace serve as Ex Officio Judges in their municipal courts. Their city charters set it up this way so one only has to be elected a JP and then are automatically appointed muni judge. They are paid separate salaries by the city and county.
Guest
Anonymous
March 1, 2018 6:30 pm
What he should have done is report the unethical behavior to the State Bar and let them handle it. The ruling is ridiculous.
Guest
Anonymous
March 1, 2018 7:08 pm
Stubbs is right about the conflict of interest in having a Stake President act as prosecutor in front of a judge within the Stake President's religious jurisdiction. Huge problems there. How did they not see that?
You guys act is if this stuff hasn't been going on in Nevada for generations. Does anyone remember Judge Myron Leavitt or Judge Steven Huffaker or Judge Lloyd George (to name just a few)? Was anyone ever a non-LDS lawyer in one of their courtrooms up against a Mormon lawyer representing a Mormon client? How'd that work out for ya?
I think the Mormon judges/attorneys/Bishops/SP thing is a bit blown out of proportion, mostly by non-Mormons. I don't see anyone up in arms when a Catholic person appears before a Catholic judge. I get that the issue is the "ecclesiastical leader" and who is in your down-line, but I just don't see this as an issue.
I knew that would be the response 11:51, but I still don't really see the issue. I see the hypothetical issue, but not the practical one. It just doesn't work that way in Mormon circles (in my experience and opinion).
You guys are all missing the point. Of course there isn't a problem with a Mormon lawyer appearing in front of a Mormon judge. It's unavoidable. The problem is that in this case, the prosecutor is THE (not a) STAKE PRESIDENT of judge in front of whom he regularly appears. In the Courtroom, the JUDGE presides over the STAKE PRESIDENT, and in an ecclesiastical setting the STAKE PRESIDENT presides over the JUDGE. Think about that. Would you like to be a tried for a crime in this circumstance? Knowing that the Judge who is presiding over your fate is in a subservient position to the prosecutor ecclesiastically?
"By the way, it's even worse in Utah and Idaho." Completely false. As hegemonic as Utah Mormons can be, they have the good sense to avoid something as stupid and ham-fisted as this. Public officials and ecclesiastical leaders in Utah are quite careful to avoid these types of obvious conflicts in the courtrooms.
For those unfamiliar, the Stake President is the leader of all the Mormon congregations (usually about 10) in a geographical area. There are about 20 stakes in the county and several stake presidents are attorneys, which really is NBD. The odds of a stake president appearing in front of a judge in his stake are quite low, but when it does happen there should obviously be recusal.
I'm not missing that point ('m the guy arguing above). I can see how a defendant/defense attorney would use it to make some noise, but I just don't think that its a REAL issue. "I'd better rule in favor of the prosecutor here, or he'll yank my temple recommend!" Dumb.
Also, I'm not up on the role of the City Attorney in Boulder City, but is Steve Morris expected to go to court and prosecute cases?
Guest
Anonymous
March 1, 2018 7:58 pm
I am not a fan of Stubbs, but that Order is ridiculous and warrants a larger story about Mormon Judges and prosecutors and attorneys in Nevada. Hey LVRJ or Las Vegas Sun, what about that for a real story?! Its the Mormon-mafia and God, and your new friend Joseph Smith, help you if you are on the wrong side of a case with a Mormon Judge and opposing counsel who outranks him in the church.
I think it funny how many people on this blog seem to think that because a practitioner is Mormon and the judge is Mormon, the judge automatically knows the practitioner is Mormon. I am Mormon and appear in front of Hardy, Smith, Corey, and Wiese regularly, and they do not know I am Mormon. Moreover, even if they do know, they have never given me a "bonus" ruling for being Mormon (they rule for and against me with the same frequency as any other judge …).
I do not deny that in a small community like BC it might be an issue, but I do not think in a city of over 2 million people like Las Vegas the perceived favorable Mormon bias is real. Sorry folks.
I always make sure to let the LDS judges know that I'm Mormon. "Yer onner, my client couldn't have committed that murder in Henderson because he was driving his truck down the mow-uhn near carn crick."
Since my language was apparently too inartful, Judge Hardy is a spineless judge (who happens to be LDS) who is beholden to whomever or whichever side bullies him more.
Gonzalez became LDS for political reasons. She is as LDS in real life as I am and as her political aspirations have waned (see the posts below on being bullied by Hardesty), her LDS status has likewise waned.
If someone becoming LDS for political reasons is not proof positive of the power which church affiliation has over judicial proceedings, I don't know what does.
Does Eli. Cadish call Ellsworth, Justice Ellworth?
Guest
NewlyMintedAttorney
March 1, 2018 8:22 pm
PSA, for those of us who never read SBN Spam:
On Feb. 27, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order in ADKT 0533 scheduling a public hearing and inviting public comment regarding proposed changes to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 78.5, to authorize the state bar to conduct random trust account compliance audits of active attorneys licensed in Nevada.
The hearing will take place on Monday, April 2, at 3 p.m. in the Nevada Supreme Court Courtroom at 408 East Clark Avenue in Las Vegas, and will be videoconferenced to the Nevada Supreme Court courtroom in Carson City. Hardcopy written comments and notifications regarding interest to participate in the hearing must be submitted to the clerk of the Supreme Court by 5 p.m. on Monday, March 26.
Someone start a petition opposing the rule change. See how many of us are willing to sign on.
Guest
Anonymous
March 1, 2018 8:31 pm
Are the expense accounts of the Supreme Court Justice's public? Their travel expenses, hotel bills, bar bills, etc.? How can I get a copy of those? Seems like if we want to do audits, let's start at the top!
File a records request under NRS 239.001 Nevada Public Records law and while you are at it, file one on the State Bar of Nevada. We're way overdue on finding out how these bureaucratic jokers are spending our mandatory monies, especially on their wasteful out-of-state annual convention junkets.
Under its annual operating budget, that's the $7.5 million dollar question. Does NRS 239.001 apply to a mandatory membership trade association that functions as a quasi-governmental agency, more specifically, the investigative arm of the Supreme Court of Nevada charged with investigating and disciplining the legal profession of the state? See "O'Connor v. State of Nevada," 626 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1982)
Parenthetically, one might reasonably think that under NRS 239.005, 5.(b), the Nevada Supreme Court satisfies the definition of a "governmental entity," to wit, "An institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department, division, authority or other unit of government of this State, including, without limitation, an agency of the Executive Department, or of a political subdivision of this State." But consider yourself disabused of such a notion since in "Civil Rights for Seniors v. Admin. Office of the Courts," 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 80 (Nevada 2013), the Court held that considering the judiciary’s authority to manage its own affairs, it would limit the scope of the public’s access to the records maintained by the Administration of the Courts (AOC).
Just the same, leave it to the SBN, itself scarcely a paragon of transparency having never meaningfully unveiled its financial kimono to its members, to now have the temerity to demand random audits of its members. Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.
The State Bar of Nevada is a public corporation operating under the supervision of the Nevada Supreme Court to regulate attorneys in the State of Nevada. It provides education and development programs for its members and to the public.
Or so they say until they are challenged or they write their own administrative rule that exempts them from its reach. Please file a public records request and see what happens. I frankly disagree with their interpretation concerning records kept by AOC. Count on the Court, however, while conveniently excluding itself to pontificate for the other branches of government how NRS 239.001 is meant “to foster democratic principles.” And how Nevada’s Public Records law “must be construed liberally” and “any exemption, exception or balancing of interests which limits or restricts access. . . must be construed narrowly.”
The legislature is immune from NRS Chapter 239 too. Separation of powers issue. Really only state executive and local government entities are subject to Chapter 239, the Nevada Public Records Act.
Guest
Anonymous
March 1, 2018 10:55 pm
Some real head-scratcher decisions from the Supreme Court today.
–An attorney is an agent of its client unless it is an attorney
— You can issue a payday loan but you cannot enforce it when it goes into default.
— A statute that has a 24 month redemption period really grants a 26 month redemption period because… well it just does.
I just read these opinions and went WTF. And then I realized that 2 out of the 3 are opinions written by Hardesty, which explains the result-oriented justice.
The loan one is fascinating because not only did Hardesty write the Opinion but when you look at the history, it is actually an Amended Opinion because Hardesty originally issued an opinion which went far beyond the questions before the Court and declared a certain kind of loan impermissible, when both sides had agreed that it was and is permissible. What has become clear is that Hardesty (or his law clerk) are not actually reading the record; Hardesty is just writing what he wants to be the case to be.
Here is what I don't understand: why do so many of the Justices (except Pickering) just sign off on whatever Hardesty says (no matter how ridiculous it is)? We have a case where Hardesty wrote the Decision (adverse to us) and the Justices unanimously signed off on it– except even the other side called us up and said "Yeah file your Petition for Rehearing because Hardesty got the facts all wrong." Are the other justices really intimidated or bullied by Hardesty or do they just not care?
Well its appealable unless the ignoring is done by the highest court in the State and Court of last response. When the NSC ignores facts, evidence and the record, your only remedy is a 10 page Petition for Rehearing where you indicate that they ignored the facts and evidence without trying to show them for being as lazy and stupid as they really are. The Petition for Rehearing in Dollar Loan Center struck a good balance of "Are you f***ing kidding me? That wasn't even the question that we agreed to have decided" and "Hmmmm I think you might have gone a little far…"
In the payday loan case, I do not think the justices were ignoring the facts. They just hate deferred deposit and high interest rate loans. With this ruling, if a payday loan company agrees to refinance an existing defaulted loan under NRS 604A.480(2), they can never enforce via civil action said refinanced loan if client defaults again. Judge Pickering's dissent clearly sets forth what the ruling should have been.
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2018 12:03 am
Since there is a lot of discussion about Tim Kelley, if you were elected Judge today and could poach a JEA, who/which of the JEAs would you hire and why?
Question: You have a Judge you are before who has been presiding over your case for 18 months. On the eve of trial, you discover that your Judge practiced with the opposing counsel for 6 years and never disclosed that fact to you. Would you move for disqualification?
I think you have to raise the issue at the trial court level to preserve the error for appeal. I am not certain the Nevada Supreme Court would look at that issue anew on appeal. But yeah, that is really bad. That is like Judicial Ethics Complaint bad.
3:35 again. I think I would write to the judge before filing the motion bringing the matter to the judge's attention (although obviously the judge knows the issue) but I think as a matter of courtesy, I would make an attempt to get the judge to step off.
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2018 7:21 pm
Stubbs violated the gag order on his fb this morning. And acknowledges that he is in violation of it and is risking 25 days in jail to do so
Miller's ruling is in unconstitutional.
More idiot judges making stupid, abuse discretion rulings. No wonder the Supreme is backed up.
98% of the time I disagree with Stubbs. However he is right on this one. Ridiculously overbroad and unconstitutional (so long as not violating NRPC).
And Stubbs is right in that BC is an incestuous backwater. How is Victor Miller the Muni Court Judge and the JP? The fact that it has been this way for 20 years and no one blinks just makes Deliverance-style banjos start playing in the background.
I have my LDS approved sheet music along with my Kermit the Frog banjo to stroke out some judicial corruption tunes.
There was judge from Vegas…whose last name did not begin with a D.
Concur.
The cities of Boulder, Mesquite and Carson have their Justices of the Peace serve as Ex Officio Judges in their municipal courts. Their city charters set it up this way so one only has to be elected a JP and then are automatically appointed muni judge. They are paid separate salaries by the city and county.
What he should have done is report the unethical behavior to the State Bar and let them handle it. The ruling is ridiculous.
Stubbs is right about the conflict of interest in having a Stake President act as prosecutor in front of a judge within the Stake President's religious jurisdiction. Huge problems there. How did they not see that?
It is hilarious how stupid judges are in this town. Report it.
You guys act is if this stuff hasn't been going on in Nevada for generations. Does anyone remember Judge Myron Leavitt or Judge Steven Huffaker or Judge Lloyd George (to name just a few)? Was anyone ever a non-LDS lawyer in one of their courtrooms up against a Mormon lawyer representing a Mormon client? How'd that work out for ya?
By the way, it's even worse in Utah and Idaho.
Lloyd George is an asshole. At least Myron Leavitt applied the law. RIP.
Senior Judges, should not be endorsing other judicial candidates. George, looking at you, grandpa.
I think the Mormon judges/attorneys/Bishops/SP thing is a bit blown out of proportion, mostly by non-Mormons. I don't see anyone up in arms when a Catholic person appears before a Catholic judge. I get that the issue is the "ecclesiastical leader" and who is in your down-line, but I just don't see this as an issue.
Not the same thing, 11:43. A priest is not a judge. A priest is not a practicing in front of a congregant. Next…
I knew that would be the response 11:51, but I still don't really see the issue. I see the hypothetical issue, but not the practical one. It just doesn't work that way in Mormon circles (in my experience and opinion).
You guys are all missing the point. Of course there isn't a problem with a Mormon lawyer appearing in front of a Mormon judge. It's unavoidable. The problem is that in this case, the prosecutor is THE (not a) STAKE PRESIDENT of judge in front of whom he regularly appears. In the Courtroom, the JUDGE presides over the STAKE PRESIDENT, and in an ecclesiastical setting the STAKE PRESIDENT presides over the JUDGE. Think about that. Would you like to be a tried for a crime in this circumstance? Knowing that the Judge who is presiding over your fate is in a subservient position to the prosecutor ecclesiastically?
"By the way, it's even worse in Utah and Idaho." Completely false. As hegemonic as Utah Mormons can be, they have the good sense to avoid something as stupid and ham-fisted as this. Public officials and ecclesiastical leaders in Utah are quite careful to avoid these types of obvious conflicts in the courtrooms.
For those unfamiliar, the Stake President is the leader of all the Mormon congregations (usually about 10) in a geographical area. There are about 20 stakes in the county and several stake presidents are attorneys, which really is NBD. The odds of a stake president appearing in front of a judge in his stake are quite low, but when it does happen there should obviously be recusal.
I'm not missing that point ('m the guy arguing above). I can see how a defendant/defense attorney would use it to make some noise, but I just don't think that its a REAL issue. "I'd better rule in favor of the prosecutor here, or he'll yank my temple recommend!" Dumb.
Also, I'm not up on the role of the City Attorney in Boulder City, but is Steve Morris expected to go to court and prosecute cases?
I am not a fan of Stubbs, but that Order is ridiculous and warrants a larger story about Mormon Judges and prosecutors and attorneys in Nevada. Hey LVRJ or Las Vegas Sun, what about that for a real story?! Its the Mormon-mafia and God, and your new friend Joseph Smith, help you if you are on the wrong side of a case with a Mormon Judge and opposing counsel who outranks him in the church.
God Joseph Smith, they discriminate against their own. They treat women like shit, so this would not smitlb.
False – Ask any of the mormon attorneys who have gotten a raw deal in front of Hardy lately.
Is Hardy becoming a Dem?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think it funny how many people on this blog seem to think that because a practitioner is Mormon and the judge is Mormon, the judge automatically knows the practitioner is Mormon. I am Mormon and appear in front of Hardy, Smith, Corey, and Wiese regularly, and they do not know I am Mormon. Moreover, even if they do know, they have never given me a "bonus" ruling for being Mormon (they rule for and against me with the same frequency as any other judge …).
I do not deny that in a small community like BC it might be an issue, but I do not think in a city of over 2 million people like Las Vegas the perceived favorable Mormon bias is real. Sorry folks.
Smith is Mormon, no way. Is Ellsworth?
I always make sure to let the LDS judges know that I'm Mormon. "Yer onner, my client couldn't have committed that murder in Henderson because he was driving his truck down the mow-uhn near carn crick."
Just kidding.
I heard Judge Steve Martin is Mormon. True story?
Since my language was apparently too inartful, Judge Hardy is a spineless judge (who happens to be LDS) who is beholden to whomever or whichever side bullies him more.
Gonzalez and Kephart are/were both LDS too.
Gonzalez became LDS for political reasons. She is as LDS in real life as I am and as her political aspirations have waned (see the posts below on being bullied by Hardesty), her LDS status has likewise waned.
If someone becoming LDS for political reasons is not proof positive of the power which church affiliation has over judicial proceedings, I don't know what does.
*eye roll* @ 4:38
Compelling argument 4:53.
Cruz is LDS
Harry’s boy Dario Herrera joined the LDS church when he was running for Congress. Then the indictments cams down and he was sent to prison.
Harry Reid should be in jail with his other buddies.
Dario Herrera was in my ward.
The Harry Reid Senior Apartment Complex failed health inspection. Seniors safety in peril, but you are involved in judicial races. Makes sense.
Judicial friendships….Ellsworth and Cadish. Others?
Does Eli. Cadish call Ellsworth, Justice Ellworth?
PSA, for those of us who never read SBN Spam:
On Feb. 27, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order in ADKT 0533 scheduling a public hearing and inviting public comment regarding proposed changes to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 78.5, to authorize the state bar to conduct random trust account compliance audits of active attorneys licensed in Nevada.
The hearing will take place on Monday, April 2, at 3 p.m. in the Nevada Supreme Court Courtroom at 408 East Clark Avenue in Las Vegas, and will be videoconferenced to the Nevada Supreme Court courtroom in Carson City. Hardcopy written comments and notifications regarding interest to participate in the hearing must be submitted to the clerk of the Supreme Court by 5 p.m. on Monday, March 26.
Can we start a go fund me account with P. Armeni's face on it to battle the audits? Make sure we spell her name right.
Was this Paola's idea? I got the feeling this was another H&H (Hunterton and Hardesty) idiocracy idea.
She is a BOG. They all are responsible.
My gold tooth is lose, can you pull it?
ElissCadish and Cindy Cruz.
Justice has a name. It is not these two.
I am LFS, I mean LDS, will Tim Kelley yell at me.
He yells at everybody, except Elissa. He treats staff like shit.
Someone start a petition opposing the rule change. See how many of us are willing to sign on.
Are the expense accounts of the Supreme Court Justice's public? Their travel expenses, hotel bills, bar bills, etc.? How can I get a copy of those? Seems like if we want to do audits, let's start at the top!
File a records request under NRS 239.001 Nevada Public Records law and while you are at it, file one on the State Bar of Nevada. We're way overdue on finding out how these bureaucratic jokers are spending our mandatory monies, especially on their wasteful out-of-state annual convention junkets.
As a non-governmental corporation, is the SBN governed under Chapter 239?
Under its annual operating budget, that's the $7.5 million dollar question. Does NRS 239.001 apply to a mandatory membership trade association that functions as a quasi-governmental agency, more specifically, the investigative arm of the Supreme Court of Nevada charged with investigating and disciplining the legal profession of the state? See "O'Connor v. State of Nevada," 626 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1982)
Parenthetically, one might reasonably think that under NRS 239.005, 5.(b), the Nevada Supreme Court satisfies the definition of a "governmental entity," to wit, "An institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department, division, authority or other unit of government of this State, including, without limitation, an agency of the Executive Department, or of a political subdivision of this State." But consider yourself disabused of such a notion since in "Civil Rights for Seniors v. Admin. Office of the Courts," 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 80 (Nevada 2013), the Court held that considering the judiciary’s authority to manage its own affairs, it would limit the scope of the public’s access to the records maintained by the Administration of the Courts (AOC).
Just the same, leave it to the SBN, itself scarcely a paragon of transparency having never meaningfully unveiled its financial kimono to its members, to now have the temerity to demand random audits of its members. Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.
That is some special Carson City brand of horseshit, right there.
The State Bar of Nevada is a public corporation operating under the supervision of the Nevada Supreme Court to regulate attorneys in the State of Nevada. It provides education and development programs for its members and to the public.
State Bar of Nevada – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Bar_of_Nevada
So the Court is immune of public records requests but the Legislative and Executive Branches are not?
Or so they say until they are challenged or they write their own administrative rule that exempts them from its reach. Please file a public records request and see what happens. I frankly disagree with their interpretation concerning records kept by AOC. Count on the Court, however, while conveniently excluding itself to pontificate for the other branches of government how NRS 239.001 is meant “to foster democratic principles.” And how Nevada’s Public Records law “must be construed liberally” and “any exemption, exception or balancing of interests which limits or restricts access. . . must be construed narrowly.”
The legislature is immune from NRS Chapter 239 too. Separation of powers issue. Really only state executive and local government entities are subject to Chapter 239, the Nevada Public Records Act.
Some real head-scratcher decisions from the Supreme Court today.
–An attorney is an agent of its client unless it is an attorney
— You can issue a payday loan but you cannot enforce it when it goes into default.
— A statute that has a 24 month redemption period really grants a 26 month redemption period because… well it just does.
2:55 I thought you were joking but you're not
I just read these opinions and went WTF. And then I realized that 2 out of the 3 are opinions written by Hardesty, which explains the result-oriented justice.
The loan one is fascinating because not only did Hardesty write the Opinion but when you look at the history, it is actually an Amended Opinion because Hardesty originally issued an opinion which went far beyond the questions before the Court and declared a certain kind of loan impermissible, when both sides had agreed that it was and is permissible. What has become clear is that Hardesty (or his law clerk) are not actually reading the record; Hardesty is just writing what he wants to be the case to be.
That is scary.
Here is what I don't understand: why do so many of the Justices (except Pickering) just sign off on whatever Hardesty says (no matter how ridiculous it is)? We have a case where Hardesty wrote the Decision (adverse to us) and the Justices unanimously signed off on it– except even the other side called us up and said "Yeah file your Petition for Rehearing because Hardesty got the facts all wrong." Are the other justices really intimidated or bullied by Hardesty or do they just not care?
In Hardesty's defense, he did write the dissent in the other case that was 4-3. So there's that.
No judge should ignore legitimate facts and evidence. That is appealable.
Well its appealable unless the ignoring is done by the highest court in the State and Court of last response. When the NSC ignores facts, evidence and the record, your only remedy is a 10 page Petition for Rehearing where you indicate that they ignored the facts and evidence without trying to show them for being as lazy and stupid as they really are. The Petition for Rehearing in Dollar Loan Center struck a good balance of "Are you f***ing kidding me? That wasn't even the question that we agreed to have decided" and "Hmmmm I think you might have gone a little far…"
In the payday loan case, I do not think the justices were ignoring the facts. They just hate deferred deposit and high interest rate loans. With this ruling, if a payday loan company agrees to refinance an existing defaulted loan under NRS 604A.480(2), they can never enforce via civil action said refinanced loan if client defaults again. Judge Pickering's dissent clearly sets forth what the ruling should have been.
Since there is a lot of discussion about Tim Kelley, if you were elected Judge today and could poach a JEA, who/which of the JEAs would you hire and why?
None.
Question: You have a Judge you are before who has been presiding over your case for 18 months. On the eve of trial, you discover that your Judge practiced with the opposing counsel for 6 years and never disclosed that fact to you. Would you move for disqualification?
Yes. It should have been disclosed. What a mess.
If they refuse to voluntarily recuse, file a Motion with the Chief Judge? Cannot believe that it was not disclosed.
Do you have to file a recusal motion, or can you address it on appeal?
You should be able to address it any time. That is bad. I think, but double check.
I think you have to raise the issue at the trial court level to preserve the error for appeal. I am not certain the Nevada Supreme Court would look at that issue anew on appeal. But yeah, that is really bad. That is like Judicial Ethics Complaint bad.
If it is mentioned on appeal, you should be fine. Not sure if you need to file recusal motion first.
I meant in the trial court.
Recusal must be filed in trial court to preserve the issue, particularly on an issue like this
agree with 2:57 100%
Does it require a motion with Gonzales, or can you just mention it in a motion? Thank you for the response.
You need to ask for relief to preserve the issue. So you file a motion to recuse in the docket and the process will proceed from there.
3:35 again. I think I would write to the judge before filing the motion bringing the matter to the judge's attention (although obviously the judge knows the issue) but I think as a matter of courtesy, I would make an attempt to get the judge to step off.
Stubbs violated the gag order on his fb this morning. And acknowledges that he is in violation of it and is risking 25 days in jail to do so
Freedom of speech. I would not do it, but good for him.
Agreed. Honestly good for him. Judge you are wrong and way out of line.