Who wants to be a justice of the peace in Las Vegas Justice Court Department 6? (Open because Judge Kephart is moving to district court.) It is a two year appointment and being such, you don’t even have to live in Las Vegas to get the job. The only caveat is that they’re not revealing who applies until after the deadline closes. Apply within.
President Obama is coming to town on Friday. The internet is abuzz with speculation that Del Sol High School will be the site of the signing of an executive order for immigration amnesty. [RJ; Washington Post; CNBC]
Construction defect “Sweeps” hearings are underway. A tipster informs us that there are two new dirt court judges: Judge Jerry Wiese and Judge Joanna Kishner. One to replace Judge Earl and one to replace….Judge Johnson???
University of Arizona dean Len Jessup has been announced as the new president of UNLV. Does this mean changes for Boyd? [Fox5Vegas]
Yeah, I was bummed about that one. I thought Cliff might have an advantage because so many other lawyers (and non-lawyers) know him from the community service program. Guess not.
Yep, he would have kicked global warming, um…global cooling…ah, Climate Change's ass by now! And taken the initiative to invent fully self aware AI AND land a little robot on a comet.
Not 4:36 here. You have to admit calling it Climate Change is moving the goal posts. Of course the environment is going to change, its been constantly changing for millions of years. The question is not "Is the climate changing?," it's "Is mankind the driver of the change." However, asking questions like that get you labeled a "Denier." A denier even though the leading models that predicted we would see X heat increase in the 1990s and 2000s have come up wrong. Actual temperatures are coming in far below estimates, despite there being greater concentrations of the offending particulates in the atmosphere. It's logical to ask "Could we be wrong?" …..why did I write this? Back to my MSJ.
No. It's not logical to ask, "could we be wrong?" When the overwhelming majority (97%) of climate scientists agree that humans are driving climate change, there is no debate to be had. That's the same strategy believers in creationism deploy: try to legitimize their position by saying there is a debate to be had. There is no debate there and there is none with climate change.
@ 3:31 PM -Okay, so there is climate change ("deniers" accpet this, just as they recognized that there has been significant climate changes throughout the billions of years the planet has been around), but you never addressed 2:42 PM's point. The models were wrong… that needs an explanation, not jsut a flippant comment about how religious people are illogical just like deniers.
Just making a point, I'm a Al Gore believer, but comments like that of 3:31PM bug me.
Yeah really, 3:31, it's a BS argument that "X%" of whoever believes whatever. First, the Gramscians made sure to remove, dismiss and harass anyone who questioned the data and conclusions therefrom. Second, all scientific progress — hey, focus and follow me on this one — comes from the minority of those who dared to question dicta. It's precisely because the science is so shallow that dissenters are harassed and ridiculed. "What, you dare question the sun revolves around the earth?! Blaspheme! Off to the clink with you!"
Nice one 9:46. Way to switch the positions around. I'm pretty sure it was the conservatives who considered it blasphemy to question whether the Sun revolves around the Earth, you know the same people pushing the drivel that humans are not causing climate change. And 6:09, how about you read a little of the following:
This is the article that says the 97% is fiction. And even if it isn't, didn't 97% of scientists once believe that consuming mercury would cure depression? Since when does consensus equal truth? It also used to be the consensus that the earth was warming. And since it is now known that the earth hasn't been warming for 20 years, we now have "climate change." http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Yes. The Wall Street Journal's "Opinion" piece is gospel and NASA's information is debatable. And the argument that the Earth hasn't been warming the last 20 years is fiction. 2014 is on pace for the hottest year on record. 1995, 1997, 1998, 2005 and 2010 all set new records too.
"There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 2000 and 2009 as the hottest since modern records began more than a century ago. Temperatures in the 2010s have been running slightly warmer still."
This is another classic myth perpetuated by the deniers.
"[A]lthough the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth 'they changed the name from global warming to climate change.'"
11/20@2:42 in their first sentence said nearly everything that needs to be said or debated about on this topic. Climate does change. Global warming occurs and so does global cooling. While not wholly irrelevant, the question of whether or not current changes in global climate are man-made, were it to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, would not solve *any* problems posed by climate change, and would open an argument, not close one.
Climate changes, and in the past it has sometimes changed quickly. The arguments we should be having are not "How do we stop this" but "How do we build a society that can adapt to change economically, fairly, and with a minimum destruction of human lives."
1:31: well said. The environmental movement was taken over by the lefties, and what honest lefty could resist the chance to control the entire world? The chief claim of the globaloney crowd is that a few high priests get to tell everyone in the world how much energy they are allowed to consume and what cost.
You can imagine tents being pitched in the collective pants of these schemers. Heilbronner would be Heil-boning the bent over world.. "Oh, little staving third wold person, you would like a kilowatt of energy, yes? No!!!!!! A precious polar bear might keel over and die if I granted your wish. However, if you let me feast on your soul, then perhaps an arrangement can be made."
11/19 @4:36 here. Wow, I take a cheap shot at the Great and Powerful Gore then go away for a few days and the thread turns into a full on furball of spaztastic proportions. Some fun information dug up by all the players for sure, with some of it actually relevant (H/T 11/21 @2:52) rather than prattling on about how many shut in scientists (ALL of who are reliant on outside funding to exist and absolutely dependent on group think to advance in their career -think publish or perish) do or don't parrot the company line. As an aside, I called 100 of my closest friends, who are all expert conservatives, and 97 of them (97%, get it?) think Al Gore is a bigger joke now that his holy grail crusade, radio and television empire (now Al-Jazera America, viewership 18) and waist line have all exploded, than he was as the sorest loser of all time. I promise they are all highly reputable (hardly a lawyer in the bunch) and can be taken at their word even though no one is allowed to review their methodology and we have not yet been able to replicate their study.
Guest
Anonymous
November 19, 2014 10:29 pm
Judge Kishner and Judge Weiss said they volunteered to take assignments on the CD docket.
Judge Johnson said that when she and Judge Williams were asked to do CD cases, they were told that if they didn't do it, it would be assigned to Judge Halverson. So basically, Johnson & Williams took one for the CD team.
Regardless of whether he forged the person's name, if Stubbs' admission is correct, he violated his notary oath and notarized a document without personally witnessing the signature.
Stubbs admits he did it. What more do you want? Stubbs also filed it with the court. Even if his client isn't "credible" it doesn't matter……..Stubbs had his name on it. Did he really think that his "biker" clients at some point weren't going to turn on him? Did he really think he could trust a client like Green to conspire to defraud the court? I have a feeling that STUBBS has a lot of trouble coming his way. It couldn't happen to a bigger ass.
Kephart had a senior judge covering this morning's calendar. I wonder if he's just on an early vacay or already checking out.
Marcek should have won that election…Go Cliff!
Yeah, I was bummed about that one. I thought Cliff might have an advantage because so many other lawyers (and non-lawyers) know him from the community service program. Guess not.
Me, three. Wish Marcek had won.
Guess those people don't vote.
I wish ross perot had won.
I wish Hubert Humphrey had won.
I wish George McGovern had won
I wish Romney had won……………………
I wish the British had won.
Go back to Canada!
The world would be a lot different place if Al Gore had won.
He invented the internets.
Tough 5-4 vote.
Yep, he would have kicked global warming, um…global cooling…ah, Climate Change's ass by now! And taken the initiative to invent fully self aware AI AND land a little robot on a comet.
Wow. Climate change deniers are for real.
Not 4:36 here. You have to admit calling it Climate Change is moving the goal posts. Of course the environment is going to change, its been constantly changing for millions of years. The question is not "Is the climate changing?," it's "Is mankind the driver of the change." However, asking questions like that get you labeled a "Denier." A denier even though the leading models that predicted we would see X heat increase in the 1990s and 2000s have come up wrong. Actual temperatures are coming in far below estimates, despite there being greater concentrations of the offending particulates in the atmosphere. It's logical to ask "Could we be wrong?" …..why did I write this? Back to my MSJ.
No. It's not logical to ask, "could we be wrong?" When the overwhelming majority (97%) of climate scientists agree that humans are driving climate change, there is no debate to be had. That's the same strategy believers in creationism deploy: try to legitimize their position by saying there is a debate to be had. There is no debate there and there is none with climate change.
@ 3:31 PM -Okay, so there is climate change ("deniers" accpet this, just as they recognized that there has been significant climate changes throughout the billions of years the planet has been around), but you never addressed 2:42 PM's point. The models were wrong… that needs an explanation, not jsut a flippant comment about how religious people are illogical just like deniers.
Just making a point, I'm a Al Gore believer, but comments like that of 3:31PM bug me.
The 97% figure is complete fiction. Maybe read a little.
Yeah really, 3:31, it's a BS argument that "X%" of whoever believes whatever. First, the Gramscians made sure to remove, dismiss and harass anyone who questioned the data and conclusions therefrom. Second, all scientific progress — hey, focus and follow me on this one — comes from the minority of those who dared to question dicta. It's precisely because the science is so shallow that dissenters are harassed and ridiculed. "What, you dare question the sun revolves around the earth?! Blaspheme! Off to the clink with you!"
Nice one 9:46. Way to switch the positions around. I'm pretty sure it was the conservatives who considered it blasphemy to question whether the Sun revolves around the Earth, you know the same people pushing the drivel that humans are not causing climate change. And 6:09, how about you read a little of the following:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/20/97-of-active-climatologists-ag/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
This is the article that says the 97% is fiction. And even if it isn't, didn't 97% of scientists once believe that consuming mercury would cure depression? Since when does consensus equal truth? It also used to be the consensus that the earth was warming. And since it is now known that the earth hasn't been warming for 20 years, we now have "climate change."
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Yes. The Wall Street Journal's "Opinion" piece is gospel and NASA's information is debatable. And the argument that the Earth hasn't been warming the last 20 years is fiction. 2014 is on pace for the hottest year on record. 1995, 1997, 1998, 2005 and 2010 all set new records too.
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-planet-hottest-september.html
"There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 2000 and 2009 as the hottest since modern records began more than a century ago. Temperatures in the 2010s have been running slightly warmer still."
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
So is it global warming again or are we going to stick with climate change for a few more years?
This is another classic myth perpetuated by the deniers.
"[A]lthough the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth 'they changed the name from global warming to climate change.'"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
11/20@2:42 in their first sentence said nearly everything that needs to be said or debated about on this topic. Climate does change. Global warming occurs and so does global cooling. While not wholly irrelevant, the question of whether or not current changes in global climate are man-made, were it to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, would not solve *any* problems posed by climate change, and would open an argument, not close one.
Climate changes, and in the past it has sometimes changed quickly. The arguments we should be having are not "How do we stop this" but "How do we build a society that can adapt to change economically, fairly, and with a minimum destruction of human lives."
1:31: well said. The environmental movement was taken over by the lefties, and what honest lefty could resist the chance to control the entire world? The chief claim of the globaloney crowd is that a few high priests get to tell everyone in the world how much energy they are allowed to consume and what cost.
You can imagine tents being pitched in the collective pants of these schemers.
Heilbronner would be Heil-boning the bent over world.. "Oh, little staving third wold person, you would like a kilowatt of energy, yes? No!!!!!! A precious polar bear might keel over and die if I granted your wish. However, if you let me feast on your soul, then perhaps an arrangement can be made."
11/19 @4:36 here. Wow, I take a cheap shot at the Great and Powerful Gore then go away for a few days and the thread turns into a full on furball of spaztastic proportions. Some fun information dug up by all the players for sure, with some of it actually relevant (H/T 11/21 @2:52) rather than prattling on about how many shut in scientists (ALL of who are reliant on outside funding to exist and absolutely dependent on group think to advance in their career -think publish or perish) do or don't parrot the company line. As an aside, I called 100 of my closest friends, who are all expert conservatives, and 97 of them (97%, get it?) think Al Gore is a bigger joke now that his holy grail crusade, radio and television empire (now Al-Jazera America, viewership 18) and waist line have all exploded, than he was as the sorest loser of all time. I promise they are all highly reputable (hardly a lawyer in the bunch) and can be taken at their word even though no one is allowed to review their methodology and we have not yet been able to replicate their study.
Judge Kishner and Judge Weiss said they volunteered to take assignments on the CD docket.
Judge Johnson said that when she and Judge Williams were asked to do CD cases, they were told that if they didn't do it, it would be assigned to Judge Halverson. So basically, Johnson & Williams took one for the CD team.
Halverson died March 1 this year. Not so funny.
She took one for the team.
Unrelated but it looks like Stubbs may have another problem.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/biker-lawyer-under-investigation-over-forgery-allegation
No fan of Stubbs here. But a client who went into warrant because he didn't do requirements should not be a credible source
Regardless of whether he forged the person's name, if Stubbs' admission is correct, he violated his notary oath and notarized a document without personally witnessing the signature.
Stubbs admits he did it. What more do you want? Stubbs also filed it with the court. Even if his client isn't "credible" it doesn't matter……..Stubbs had his name on it. Did he really think that his "biker" clients at some point weren't going to turn on him? Did he really think he could trust a client like Green to conspire to defraud the court? I have a feeling that STUBBS has a lot of trouble coming his way. It couldn't happen to a bigger ass.
Rule #1 – Never trust a client.
Never trust a lawyer
Hey law.dawg why is it okay to bash Stubbs and Sanson on your blog and not Stoffel and Kazel.
Because those two are family court lawyers they are expected to act like bozo's