On October 20, a federal jury here in Nevada awarded plaintiff (represented in part by Tick Segerblom) a $1.3 million judgment against Delta (represented by Scott Mahoney) for discrimination. [ETurboNews]
What to watch for in the Bundy trial as jury selection starts today. [Las Vegas Sun]
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Guest
law.dawg
October 30, 2017 5:58 pm
I hate to ruin the fun, but I'm concerned that this video might implicate certain privilege issues. I'm sure many of you will disagree, but I'd rather play it safe. Thanks for understanding.
Guest
Anonymous
October 30, 2017 6:25 pm
Understood. Clearly the topic is ripe for discussion. However completely understand taking down publication of the video itself.
I'm impressed that nearly every version of the video has been scrubbed from the internet. Clearly, some lawyers (or others) have been hard at work. Aggressive work.
I don't practice at all in P.I. I'm curious to hear the thoughts of those who do as to how this will (or won't) affect the cases where Dr. F is currently acting as a witness. My instinct says that while it's embarrassing that it won't affect his long-term career as an expert, but of course, I could be wrong.
Was he an expert treating physician, or an independent expert retained to review records and offer an opinion as to injuries and prognosis?
This is all probably much more likely to affect him as an independent expert if people are now wary of engaging him.
But as far as being a treating physician, if he is like most physicians, and receiving patients who are insured by a carrier, I imagine it will not affect that situation too much. Most patients would not even be aware of this deposition, and even if they are, not much they can do about it. They will see the specialist the carrier authorizes them to be treated by.
Someone who downloaded it should take the time to bleep out personal info (home address and patient name) so the video can be shared without running into confidentiality issues. Without that it's just a drunk doctor which is hilarious. I seriously doubt this would have any long-term impact on his career, it's just funny. He says he's Bart Simpson for fucks sake. Comedy gold
@ Lawyer Bird – I understand that desire to remove personal information, but the transcript of the depo is now a public document attached to one of Jaffe's recent motions. The info is out there.
If he really said he's Bart Simpson, confidentiality concerns be damned. We all deserve to see that. We are in a difficult, highly stressful profession, and are often desperate for a little levity to help us decompress and release the pressure valve.
We need to see it. We deserve to see it. Did he represent himself as being any other fictional characters? How about actual living celebrities or prominent people?
I Understand that MAC has been aggressively working to pull down the video, a buddy at a defense firm said they are getting litigation hold letters. This is not over yet
Why would the videographer release the video? Makes zero sense. Tons of risk and literally no upside for him/her. The videographer gets nothing out of releasing the video. If caught, the VG risks his/her career. Zero sense.
Sitting in front of the Nevada Supreme Court. Like so many other cases, just sitting there. At least Nelson's cases was only filed with the Supreme Court in May and submitted for decision in June. I never heard what the Disciplinary Panel recommended; however I presume Nelson was OK with it because he had Bill Terry file a Submission on the Record.
Guest
Anonymous
October 30, 2017 10:16 pm
I am enjoying my Hillary Clinton vote right now. I can live with myself and sleep at night.
Deposition testimony is akin to trial testimony. There should be no expectation of privacy or privilege for any of the parties, as you can seek to use the deposition testimony in dispositive motions or trials (both of which are public). Thoughts?
What about where the parties have a confidentiality agreement/order?
But I suppose the real issue here is that a seemingly innocent person appears to have been caught-up in a mess created by their doctor through no fault of their own, so now their situation/medical information is suddenly the focus of scrutiny/attention it otherwise wouldn't normally receive. So maybe its not a privilege issue, but more of a confidentiality/decency issue to keep this stuff private?
The letter to the editor concerned a jury trial wherein the judge started out with the usual remarks to the jury–jury duty is inconvenient but it is a sacred cornerstone of all system, etc.
The judge then(supposedly) discussed an event the judge attended involving the judge's son. As soon as ROTC approached with the flag, the judge stood up, and crossed their heart. However, the judge complained that most other people didn't even stand until the flag was front and center and the national anthem began. The judge then went on to observe(apparently based on this innocuous action of those who didn't stand up soon enough)as to how many bad citizens there are out there.
The letter writer then(quite rightfully in my view) opined on the judge's apparent miss-placed priorities. The writer stressed that good citizenship is much better measured by what kind of human being one is and how kind and supportive they are with others(several good examples were offered). The writer essentially indicated that such human characteristics and kindnesses was a much better barometer of good citizenship than how quickly one rises to genuflect to a symbol of patriotism.
The letter writer was spot on. The judge's remarks(if reported accurately),in addition to seeming condescending, superior, pedantic and inappropriate, also appear highly perplexing and harshly judgmental. After all, the other attendees apparently all stood for the anthem and flag–but none of them did it soon enough to suit the judge. The judge, being more aware of protocol, stood and crossed his/her heart as soon as the flag was observed being brought forward. But, apparently, everyone else did stand, although not as quickly. So everyone else at the event, all of whom stood for the anthem, are bad citizens?
I doubt any of this raises any real ethical issues of serious import(particularly if the judge has the sense to retire this anecdote from the judge's repertoire).But I am concerned that it shows evidence of a dogmatically inflexible, extremely self-important, hyper-elitist, hopelessly narrow approach of instantly classifying and condemning huge numbers of people based on the most trivial of non-transgressions. And those are hardly good qualities for a jurist. My remarks, of course, are based on a presumption that this has all been accurately reported by the letter writer, and there is always a good chance it may not have been. One or two unintended misquotes, or leaving out context and other remarks of the judge, could change things dramatically and make the remarks sound considerably more offensive, and possibly they were not offensive at all.
I'm glad the identity is not revealed. With my luck it would be some jurist I like a great deal and hold in high esteem.
This Judge should be publicly outed. The transcript should be examined and this Judge publicly subject to scrutiny. Why do I suspect that this Judge is older, white, male and extremely conservative.
You assume that because(even though it is admittedly unfair to prejudge it in that fashion), you have a very high chance of being accurate if you assume it.
Like you, I could not envision a relatively young, politically moderate, female judge spouting such tripe. I just can't.
Well lets list the Judges who I could see spouting that crap. Scotti, Doug Smith, Eric Johnson on the State Level. Federal level– Jeesh the whole Elderly Gentlemens' Club. George, Hicks, Jones, Dawson.
A little bit of a tangent, but directed at our former military folks. I thought a JAG officer told me one did not put one's hand on heart or hold a salute, just because the flag went by but one should do so when accompanying flags are dipped at the start of the Pledge or the anthem. Thoughts?
Here's my question, why do any of you care? Whatever this particular judge's opinion is on "being a good citizen" does not matter and I'm amazed that somebody would be so offended that the judge offered his opinion that they would write in to a newspaper to give their own opinion on what "being a good citizen" really is. Is it possible that they can both have their own opinions on the same subject? Are we at a point where we have to get offended any time somebody expresses an opinion that is contrary to ours? Good hell, get a life.
Except when your opinion involves wearing a black robe and having authority over people, then yes, your opinion is not merely an opinion but a statement of what is required under color of law. What this Judge says while a Scoutmaster, church group leader, private citizen on their front lawn while watering the flowers is not my concern. What this judge says while in a state-sponsored position exercising state authority matters greatly to everyone.
Any other independent counsel would have done the same thing. The problem is the IC statute. It gives the IC carte blanche for a fishing expedition. It was the same with Starr against Clinton. Manafort and Gates have been indicted for things going back over a decade that have f*ck all to do with the 2016 campaign. If they broke the law and laundered money and failed to register as Ukrainian lobbyists or whatever, screw them, they can rot. No one cares. But the IC is wasting resources pursuing that crap. There are probably indictments coming against Podesta and other Democrats, too, although those may have something to do with the election. Mueller: file charges relating to why you were appointed or shut up and tell the AG you found nothing and you're done.
Focus, people. Manafort is not the story. Papadopoulos is.
They wouldn't have cut a deal with Pappagiorgio if he Nick Pappagiorgio wasn't about to roll on some higher ups. The fact that the media can't figure out what's obviously more significant (vis a vis Manafort and Pappagiorgio) is more proof of how incompetent the media is.
Papa-what's-his-name (to quote LBJ) was arrested for lying to the FBI (the created crime that pops up in all of these types of investigations, like the Starr-Clinton affair), not for anything having to do with "collusion" with Russians, which, for the 1000th time per every legal expert who has talked about it, is not a crime anyway.
§1001 Violations are the "Crime so we can charge you with something easy" crimes.
Guest
Anonymous
October 31, 2017 4:12 pm
Yes, "collusion" itself is not a crime. You and I could collude to eat ice cream later. The media keeps using that word, which is giving Trump apologists an argument that the IC isn't even looking for a crime. But you know that's BS. If you collude with a foreign government to manipulate a national election or if your campaign receives help from a foreign government in exchange for certain promises once elected then you bet your ass there are some issues. True, the "collusion" by itself is not a crime, but if you collude to commit treason I certainly hope your defense wouldn't be that collusion isn't a crime.
Conspiracy to commit treason is a crime, but working with a foreign agent to win a domestic election without breaking any actual election finance or computer hacking laws or anything isn't treason in the first place. If that is a crime, then any candidate who has ever coordinated a public or private event with a foreign leader for the purpose of improving one's image (that is, all of them) during an election is guilty of treason. The "treason" talk is absurd. Treason is making "war" against the US or helping enemies who are at war with the US. Judges who strike down the DOJ's screening rules from countries where ISIS and Al Qaida operate are literally more guilty of treason than a candidate who explicitly colludes with a foreign power to win an election.
9:12 here. "Working with a foreign agent to win a domestic election without breaking any actual election finance or computer hacking laws or anything isn't treason."
First, I didn't say that was treason. Second, that's why I said working with a foreign government to manipulate an election. I don't know where you get that coordinating an event with a foreign leader for the purpose of improving one's image equals manipulating an election, so looks like you're just trying to twist words. But as far as manipulation, I'm not a federal election law expert, but my guess is that actual manipulation would probably violate a law or four. But that's for arguing against a point I didn't make.
And if you think breaking election/finance/wire fraud/other laws (not saying they did, but that's what IC is investigating) with the Russian government to get their inside candidate elected who will at at worst be a puppet of the foreign government and at best make pro-Russian decisions (ahem, failing to implement sanctions ordered by law against Russia) is not treason then I'm talking to a brick wall.
Nor is working with a foreign government to "manipulate an election" treason. It is not a crime to "manipulate an election." You're supposed to "manipulate elections" if you're a candidate. It's called campaigning. Campaign finance violations or computer hacking are different matters. And yes, I guess you're talking to a brick wall, and the other bricks in the wall include every federal judge you or Mueller will ever come before, because treason is making "war" against the US or giving aid and comfort to its "enemies" (meaning wartime enemies).
Guest
Anonymous
October 31, 2017 4:49 pm
The Fazzini Video has been filed with the Court as an Exhibit to a Motion (actually two). Seems it is public record now.
How is it relevant; particularly in other cases. I have had cases in the past where I have developed evidence (admittedly not this graphic) of a doctor having a substance abuse problem. In general, I haven't been able to get it in absent a showing that the doc was drunk/stoned/whatever at the time of treatment of the patient at issue. I understand there are lots of defense firms gunning for Fazzini, but they all like to forget that only relevant evidence is admissible and that even if relevant it should still be excluded if prejudicial effect outweighs probative value, right?
^^^ "Yes, I failed to tell the truth because I was intoxicated." Embarrassing? Sure. Does that go to integrity? Not really. While it made for some great voyeurism, I'm not really sure that any of the video disqualifies Dr. F from acting as an expert in the future.
But if you are P's counsel, why sign up for the headache? Why hire an expert who will be dragged through the mud? I agree he won't likely be struck, but Defense counsel will have a field day with him in front of the jury. I think he'll be out of work because P's counsel will realize they can get some other Neurologist for less money who doesn't have that problem.
What happened to the Dr. Fazzini video? Asking for a friend.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I hate to ruin the fun, but I'm concerned that this video might implicate certain privilege issues. I'm sure many of you will disagree, but I'd rather play it safe. Thanks for understanding.
Understood. Clearly the topic is ripe for discussion. However completely understand taking down publication of the video itself.
I'm impressed that nearly every version of the video has been scrubbed from the internet. Clearly, some lawyers (or others) have been hard at work. Aggressive work.
I don't practice at all in P.I. I'm curious to hear the thoughts of those who do as to how this will (or won't) affect the cases where Dr. F is currently acting as a witness. My instinct says that while it's embarrassing that it won't affect his long-term career as an expert, but of course, I could be wrong.
Was he an expert treating physician, or an independent expert retained to review records and offer an opinion as to injuries and prognosis?
This is all probably much more likely to affect him as an independent expert if people are now wary of engaging him.
But as far as being a treating physician, if he is like most physicians, and receiving patients who are insured by a carrier, I imagine it will not affect that situation too much. Most patients would not even be aware of this deposition, and even if they are, not much they can do about it. They will see the specialist the carrier authorizes them to be treated by.
It's still out there. Found it with less than 30 seconds of searching. This ain't going away.
Someone who downloaded it should take the time to bleep out personal info (home address and patient name) so the video can be shared without running into confidentiality issues. Without that it's just a drunk doctor which is hilarious. I seriously doubt this would have any long-term impact on his career, it's just funny. He says he's Bart Simpson for fucks sake. Comedy gold
@ Lawyer Bird – I understand that desire to remove personal information, but the transcript of the depo is now a public document attached to one of Jaffe's recent motions. The info is out there.
If he really said he's Bart Simpson, confidentiality concerns be damned. We all deserve to see that. We are in a difficult, highly stressful profession, and are often desperate for a little levity to help us decompress and release the pressure valve.
We need to see it. We deserve to see it. Did he represent himself as being any other fictional characters? How about actual living celebrities or prominent people?
Case No.?
A-15-722327-C
I Understand that MAC has been aggressively working to pull down the video, a buddy at a defense firm said they are getting litigation hold letters. This is not over yet
HJC swears they didn't release it, which means all eyes are probably looking at the videographer.
Why would the videographer release the video? Makes zero sense. Tons of risk and literally no upside for him/her. The videographer gets nothing out of releasing the video. If caught, the VG risks his/her career. Zero sense.
It is relevant because Fazzini perjured himself by stating that he had imbibed no alcohol in the last 24 hours when he was hammered.
Will never go completely away
So what is the latest on Nelson Cohen's disciplinary proceeding?
Sitting in front of the Nevada Supreme Court. Like so many other cases, just sitting there. At least Nelson's cases was only filed with the Supreme Court in May and submitted for decision in June. I never heard what the Disciplinary Panel recommended; however I presume Nelson was OK with it because he had Bill Terry file a Submission on the Record.
I am enjoying my Hillary Clinton vote right now. I can live with myself and sleep at night.
Good for you Rob Reiner.
Deposition testimony is akin to trial testimony. There should be no expectation of privacy or privilege for any of the parties, as you can seek to use the deposition testimony in dispositive motions or trials (both of which are public). Thoughts?
Aren't depositions subject to the same redaction requirements as other pleadings before they are filed?
What about where the parties have a confidentiality agreement/order?
But I suppose the real issue here is that a seemingly innocent person appears to have been caught-up in a mess created by their doctor through no fault of their own, so now their situation/medical information is suddenly the focus of scrutiny/attention it otherwise wouldn't normally receive. So maybe its not a privilege issue, but more of a confidentiality/decency issue to keep this stuff private?
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/oct/30/judges-remarks-were-offensive/ – Any guess on who the judge is in this letter to the editor?
The letter to the editor concerned a jury trial wherein the judge started out with the usual remarks to the jury–jury duty is inconvenient but it is a sacred cornerstone of all system, etc.
The judge then(supposedly) discussed an event the judge attended involving the judge's son. As soon as ROTC approached with the flag, the judge stood up, and crossed their heart. However, the judge complained that most other people didn't even stand until the flag was front and center and the national anthem began. The judge then went on to observe(apparently based on this innocuous action of those who didn't stand up soon enough)as to how many bad citizens there are out there.
The letter writer then(quite rightfully in my view) opined on the judge's apparent miss-placed priorities. The writer stressed that good citizenship is much better measured by what kind of human being one is and how kind and supportive they are with others(several good examples were offered). The writer essentially indicated that such human characteristics and kindnesses was a much better barometer of good citizenship than how quickly one rises to genuflect to a symbol of patriotism.
The letter writer was spot on. The judge's remarks(if reported accurately),in addition to seeming condescending, superior, pedantic and inappropriate, also appear highly perplexing and harshly judgmental. After all, the other attendees apparently all stood for the anthem and flag–but none of them did it soon enough to suit the judge. The judge, being more aware of protocol, stood and crossed his/her heart as soon as the flag was observed being brought forward. But, apparently, everyone else did stand, although not as quickly. So everyone else at the event, all of whom stood for the anthem, are bad citizens?
I doubt any of this raises any real ethical issues of serious import(particularly if the judge has the sense to retire this anecdote from the judge's repertoire).But I am concerned that it shows evidence of a dogmatically inflexible, extremely self-important, hyper-elitist, hopelessly narrow approach of instantly classifying and condemning huge numbers of people based on the most trivial of non-transgressions. And those are hardly good qualities for a jurist. My remarks, of course, are based on a presumption that this has all been accurately reported by the letter writer, and there is always a good chance it may not have been. One or two unintended misquotes, or leaving out context and other remarks of the judge, could change things dramatically and make the remarks sound considerably more offensive, and possibly they were not offensive at all.
I'm glad the identity is not revealed. With my luck it would be some jurist I like a great deal and hold in high esteem.
This Judge should be publicly outed. The transcript should be examined and this Judge publicly subject to scrutiny. Why do I suspect that this Judge is older, white, male and extremely conservative.
You assume that because(even though it is admittedly unfair to prejudge it in that fashion), you have a very high chance of being accurate if you assume it.
Like you, I could not envision a relatively young, politically moderate, female judge spouting such tripe. I just can't.
Well lets list the Judges who I could see spouting that crap. Scotti, Doug Smith, Eric Johnson on the State Level. Federal level– Jeesh the whole Elderly Gentlemens' Club. George, Hicks, Jones, Dawson.
Can confirm the story is true. Also none of the above are the correct judge.
A little bit of a tangent, but directed at our former military folks. I thought a JAG officer told me one did not put one's hand on heart or hold a salute, just because the flag went by but one should do so when accompanying flags are dipped at the start of the Pledge or the anthem. Thoughts?
So who is the Judge 10:27?
Here's my question, why do any of you care? Whatever this particular judge's opinion is on "being a good citizen" does not matter and I'm amazed that somebody would be so offended that the judge offered his opinion that they would write in to a newspaper to give their own opinion on what "being a good citizen" really is. Is it possible that they can both have their own opinions on the same subject? Are we at a point where we have to get offended any time somebody expresses an opinion that is contrary to ours? Good hell, get a life.
Except when your opinion involves wearing a black robe and having authority over people, then yes, your opinion is not merely an opinion but a statement of what is required under color of law. What this Judge says while a Scoutmaster, church group leader, private citizen on their front lawn while watering the flowers is not my concern. What this judge says while in a state-sponsored position exercising state authority matters greatly to everyone.
Herndon
I don't think Herndon does civil cases anymore. Jerry Wiese???
Susan Johnson
Including, telling people to vote for Trump. Wrong to do.
Mueller is a monster. Evil.
Any other independent counsel would have done the same thing. The problem is the IC statute. It gives the IC carte blanche for a fishing expedition. It was the same with Starr against Clinton. Manafort and Gates have been indicted for things going back over a decade that have f*ck all to do with the 2016 campaign. If they broke the law and laundered money and failed to register as Ukrainian lobbyists or whatever, screw them, they can rot. No one cares. But the IC is wasting resources pursuing that crap. There are probably indictments coming against Podesta and other Democrats, too, although those may have something to do with the election. Mueller: file charges relating to why you were appointed or shut up and tell the AG you found nothing and you're done.
Focus, people. Manafort is not the story. Papadopoulos is.
They wouldn't have cut a deal with Pappagiorgio if he Nick Pappagiorgio wasn't about to roll on some higher ups. The fact that the media can't figure out what's obviously more significant (vis a vis Manafort and Pappagiorgio) is more proof of how incompetent the media is.
Stay tuned. Mueller is just warming up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/30/a-thought-on-the-papadopoulos-plea/?utm_term=.5b4d94579083
Papa-what's-his-name (to quote LBJ) was arrested for lying to the FBI (the created crime that pops up in all of these types of investigations, like the Starr-Clinton affair), not for anything having to do with "collusion" with Russians, which, for the 1000th time per every legal expert who has talked about it, is not a crime anyway.
§1001 Violations are the "Crime so we can charge you with something easy" crimes.
Yes, "collusion" itself is not a crime. You and I could collude to eat ice cream later. The media keeps using that word, which is giving Trump apologists an argument that the IC isn't even looking for a crime. But you know that's BS. If you collude with a foreign government to manipulate a national election or if your campaign receives help from a foreign government in exchange for certain promises once elected then you bet your ass there are some issues. True, the "collusion" by itself is not a crime, but if you collude to commit treason I certainly hope your defense wouldn't be that collusion isn't a crime.
It's interesting that the media elects to use the term "collusion" rather than the more loaded term "conspired".
Conspiracy to commit treason is a crime, but working with a foreign agent to win a domestic election without breaking any actual election finance or computer hacking laws or anything isn't treason in the first place. If that is a crime, then any candidate who has ever coordinated a public or private event with a foreign leader for the purpose of improving one's image (that is, all of them) during an election is guilty of treason. The "treason" talk is absurd. Treason is making "war" against the US or helping enemies who are at war with the US. Judges who strike down the DOJ's screening rules from countries where ISIS and Al Qaida operate are literally more guilty of treason than a candidate who explicitly colludes with a foreign power to win an election.
9:12 here. "Working with a foreign agent to win a domestic election without breaking any actual election finance or computer hacking laws or anything isn't treason."
First, I didn't say that was treason. Second, that's why I said working with a foreign government to manipulate an election. I don't know where you get that coordinating an event with a foreign leader for the purpose of improving one's image equals manipulating an election, so looks like you're just trying to twist words. But as far as manipulation, I'm not a federal election law expert, but my guess is that actual manipulation would probably violate a law or four. But that's for arguing against a point I didn't make.
And if you think breaking election/finance/wire fraud/other laws (not saying they did, but that's what IC is investigating) with the Russian government to get their inside candidate elected who will at at worst be a puppet of the foreign government and at best make pro-Russian decisions (ahem, failing to implement sanctions ordered by law against Russia) is not treason then I'm talking to a brick wall.
Nor is working with a foreign government to "manipulate an election" treason. It is not a crime to "manipulate an election." You're supposed to "manipulate elections" if you're a candidate. It's called campaigning. Campaign finance violations or computer hacking are different matters. And yes, I guess you're talking to a brick wall, and the other bricks in the wall include every federal judge you or Mueller will ever come before, because treason is making "war" against the US or giving aid and comfort to its "enemies" (meaning wartime enemies).
The Fazzini Video has been filed with the Court as an Exhibit to a Motion (actually two). Seems it is public record now.
How is it relevant; particularly in other cases. I have had cases in the past where I have developed evidence (admittedly not this graphic) of a doctor having a substance abuse problem. In general, I haven't been able to get it in absent a showing that the doc was drunk/stoned/whatever at the time of treatment of the patient at issue. I understand there are lots of defense firms gunning for Fazzini, but they all like to forget that only relevant evidence is admissible and that even if relevant it should still be excluded if prejudicial effect outweighs probative value, right?
Use it for impeachment purposes all day long. "Have you ever lied under oath?" and away you go…
^^^ "Yes, I failed to tell the truth because I was intoxicated." Embarrassing? Sure. Does that go to integrity? Not really. While it made for some great voyeurism, I'm not really sure that any of the video disqualifies Dr. F from acting as an expert in the future.
Might not disqualify him as an expert. Certainly goes to relevance for impeachment. Have you ever lied under oath? Yes seems sort of relevant.
But if you are P's counsel, why sign up for the headache? Why hire an expert who will be dragged through the mud? I agree he won't likely be struck, but Defense counsel will have a field day with him in front of the jury. I think he'll be out of work because P's counsel will realize they can get some other Neurologist for less money who doesn't have that problem.
If you have Fazzini currently, you have to think about punting him. Looks like Paternoster is trying to do just that in the underlying case.