- Quickdraw McLaw
- 26 Comments
- 245 Views
- A Nevada think tank is appealing a ruling on separation of powers. [RJ]
- Here’s the story of the inventor of the microprocessor who moved to Nevada and had to fight California over taxes…for over 24 years. [Las Vegas Sun]
- The City of Las Vegas may make a moratorium on golf course redevelopment. [RJ]
When did this become a blog about golf courses? Has E&P done anything interesting or scandalous lately? BK Hottie spotted? Alexis?
Golf courses, how boring.
In other Family Court news, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected Judge Harter's Application for Writ to make Lisa Brown keep a case. It was an interesting argument that Harter made but honestly wasted taxpayer dollars on a squabble between Judges over who can ditch cases.
The part that is infuriating is that this Writ was filed August 8th, 2017. The Supremes found a way to rule on it in 3 weeks while cases that do not involve judges squabbling have languished for years.
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=43876
I agree with 9:37 that on the surface it would seem like just a petty power play between a couple judges, but when you peel it away a little bit, you'll find that there are matters here of arguable merit. I do understand the NSC declining to grant the writ since I don't necessarily believe there is some critical emergency requiring immediate attention as to the particular case at issue. It may not be clearly erroneous if Harter is compelled to maintain the case rather than allowing him to return it to the original judge. But, looking at the much bigger picture, Harter is trying to seek clarification on some broader, far-reaching important policy matter. An emergency writ, involving a particular case and a particular client, may not be the way to proceed with the matter, but I believe that eventually the broader policy issues he raises, concerning a judge's duty to sit, should probably be addressed.
First, I think we would benefit from more clarity on this issue. Some believe that a judge can validly recuse based on a mere appearance of possible impropriety or implied bias, while others believe that Nevada now requires a much more stringent standard–like some actual conflict or likely prejudice needs to be asserted.
Second, the judge who was the subject of this writ originally kept a rather lengthy list of attorneys on a "conflict list", and this judge refused to hear any cases involving those attorneys, even though it appears that little or no explanation was offered as to why those attorneys were excluded from the department. Then about 10 or 12 years ago the NSC issued a decision which took a real dim view of judges maintaining arbitrary lists of attorneys who they refused to let practice in their department. Again, the names on the list, as well as the list itself, was deemed "arbitrary" in that no rationale was offered as to why any of these attorneys were excluded. Such NSC decision seems to have had a positive effect on discouraging the maintenance of such lists, and has also had the effect on judges almost always providing some reason for the recusal, but the reasons themselves are sometimes invalid or sketchy at best. And that is what was asserted in the writ–that this particular judge, who years ago maintained a conflict list until the NSC struck down the concept, may still have some challenges fully comprehending how extensive a judge's "duty to sit" is.This judge, before unilaterally transferring cases to colleagues, should probably seek the guidance of a Presiding or Chief Judge, to make certain that the reasons for the transfer are valid and/or rise to the level mandating a transfer.
Whether there is any bad blood between Harter and this judge, I can't speak to that. So, you may possibly be right when you imply that pride, ego and personality are the driving motivations here. But, regardless of what Harter's underlying motives may be, IMO he happens to be seeking guidance on a very legitimate policy matter.
The rule-making process or an ADKT would seem to be the better route.
If you review the filings, Harter filed a response to one of the litigants where he makes a relatively pointed jab at the AG, DA and Metro and his perception that none of them take parental abduction seriously.
To: 10:36: The approach you mention may not be too prudent of Harter from a political perspective(he is an elected official who will run again in a couple years), but the more important question is: do you think he raises some valid concerns when he asserts the AG, DA and Metro don't take these matters seriously enough?
For myself, I can't answer that. If it was a more perfect world, and if most of these requests for assistance in cases of purported abduction were clearly highly legitimate, then it would be a lot less difficult to analyze data to determine how many of these cases receive assistance from each agency, how long it takes, the results, etc.
But the problem is that a lot of these requests are manipulations of the process, and for wrongful motive.And this is true even for cases where the paperwork, of the requesting party, is validly in order.
There are cases where an highly abusive parent, who has never been held accountable for their actions, and who has not even seen the children for years or paid any support, obtains a custody order, against the parent who has been raising the children for years, by claiming they mailed the motion when they did not or by mailing it to a stale address, etc.
Sometimes the motivation of such parents is power and control, as the break up the parties is recent and very raw. In other cases, the parties have been divorced or apart for years, and the noncustodial parent, who in some cases was even a spousal abuser, is brought to child support court and now owes a huge amount of back support. It is not uncommon for such individuals to think the cure for their problem is to obtain a custody order(for children they may not have seen for years and made no attempt to see)as well as an order eliminating the ongoing support obligation.
If the AG, Metro or DA or some other agency is asked to enforce such order, should they not have the discretion to decline to do so if they determine that the above type of scenario occurred?
Should they really exert their resources to transfer custody to an abusive dead-beat who only wants custody to escape responsibility and obligations and/or to torture the other parent? Or should such agencies make no inquiry, conduct no investigation, and merely enforce the orders without question if it appears to be a duly entered District Court Order? Opinions differ.
By the way, admittedly,for every irresponsible and diabolical parent who manipulates the system as described above, there is an equal or greater number who do in fact seek to conceal children from a solid, loving parent.
But shouldn't these agencies have some discretion to investigate and decide which orders are worthy of these very limited resources? My colleague says no. He insists that if the judge issued the order, the agency should enforce it and not conduct it's own investigation in order to gather information to justify not enforcing it. If he's right, is it acceptable for the agency, once they locate the parent who has the children, to advise such parent that they should seek emergency relief to reverse the recent order or that the agency will effectuate such transfer if such motion not filed by a certain date? Or should the agency immediately enforce the order they are asked to enforce, and transfer the children to an individual who may endanger them and who may only want custody on paper in order to avoid support and/or torture the other parent?
Again, opinions really differ on all this.
Go crap in someone else's sandbox.
Cry baby 😢😢😢
law.dawg is the one who would have to pay someone to defend against assholes (dare I say, douchebags?) who have nothing better to do than claim slander in an attempt to silence criticism. His/her house, his rules.
I was one of the posters who posted in the now-deleted thread. I get it. It doesn't matter where the line of legally defendable is when the easiest path is to simply avoid having to defend against trolls. Not my blog. I am a guest. I respect the decision.
Thanks NMA. This is exactly the point. I'd rather not risk getting pulled into a b.s. lawsuit over a b.s. topic (and for the most part, b.s. comments). I think this blog serves a noble purpose, and I'd like to keep it around so it can continue to do so.
OBLIVIATE!
Marisa Border
Grahams appearance Tuesday I here deal is done and it's going to cost us all
Give the details please
12:39– Cost us all from a Client Security perspective? That ship has sailed. There are millions missing. Client Security does not have millions to give. State Bar is not going to go raise millions from the members just to create a Rob Graham slushfund.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
As some engaged in the discussion earlier, don't do this right here right now. Take it to that page.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You do know that using Obliviate too often addles the mind, don't you?
Stipulation to Public Reprimand of Judge Kephart
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=44112
"We just present what we have to the jury and give the jury an opportunity to decide."
lol, this is the party line but yeah … no
He rules on cases now. Blockhead. I just remember the Walsh v. Kephart race thinking I could not figure out which one had a lower judicial IQ.
Atenciones! The AG's office is expected to make a major announcement, tomorrow at 10am!
Sometimes I don't blame dems for thinking all republicans are morons. While it's untrue, republicans keep running (and electing) their worst. Hopefully Nevada doesn't give Elizabeth Halseth another chance.
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/former-republican-state-senator-who-resigned-during-difficult-divorce-to-run-again-in-2018
Your going to pay anyway
2 1/2 auditing
2 1/2 insurance