Mandalay Bay security guard Jesus Campos has been staying in an MGM hotel, raising questions about MGM’s potential influence over him. Article includes comments from his attorney Frank Flansburg III, as well as Will Kemp and Robert Eglet. [RJ]
The banning of a school district trustee from district property is raising legal questions for the school district police. [RJ]
Not Las Vegas specific, but a reminder to take care no matter what practice area you are in: Kansas City lawyer shot on front porch after walking kids to school. [Fox5Vegas]
So police in the Kansas City shooting have talked to the owner of the "suspect vehicle," who just happens to be the defendant in a case the attorney handled. In that case, the defendant shot a homeless man who had broken into his warehouse. He argued self-defense, but a jury disagreed. But the police say he isn't even a person of interest after having interviewed him. So assuming the shooter used the van (which seems to be the case based on witness information) the suspect has to be someone else with access to the van, right? Family member or employee? Or could this be a red herring? Could someone with another motive (whether or not lawsuit related) have stolen this van on purpose to use during the crime and give the police a good but incorrect theory to investigate?
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2017 5:56 pm
Bless the victims and this city involving the massacre. It is a massacre, not a shooting. Don't minimize what happened. I am going to keep my thoughts to myself about the investigation and MGM, because the focus should be on the victims.
It was a rookie move. Unless there's some kind of protective order at a particular location or for a particular person, the super has no power to bad a trustee from school property.
The Trustee was banned because(supposedly) some teachers found him "weird" or "creepy." Was any of this reduced to a formal written complaint? Was there any internal investigation? Is there any administrative right to a hearing where the Trustee could have counsel question such witnesses?
I hope the Super consulted extensively with counsel for the school district. The contents of the letter suggests he did not, no specific are offered, only the vague, sweeping conclusion that the Super can essentially take whatever moves he believes are in the School District's best interest–which of course is not the standard, and his authority and discretion don't extend remotely that far.
It is impossible to believe that he could justify these moves by offering no meaningful explanation of why the moves were taken. Saying that someone found the trustee to be creepy or weird is the same as offering no meaningful reason. Did he touch someone? Did he say anything sexually inappropriate, either directly or by innuendo?
Nothing of this sort was offered. Even understanding that the framework here is administrative,and that protections may therefore differ to a degree from proceedings which are strictly in the civil litigation or criminal prosecution mode,there is no way in Hell the Super can restrict the Trustee to this degree merely by referring to the Super's supposed virtually unlimited authority, and the conclusion that a person or persons subjectively found the Trustee to be weird or creepy.
Now, at least with the part about the visits interfering with classes, the Super at least amplified something which could have arguable merit. But the main reason for the restrictions were that some teacher or teachers found him weird or creepy. I believe the district is going to have a lot of trouble justifying this, unless the Super offered reasons that the media did not report–such as he touched a teacher(s) or made clearly inappropriate remarks.
But the Super's letter makes no reference to any such specifics, and there is a strong inference that these teachers made their complaints in a verbal fashion, made no written statement, and did not want to be formally involved in any proceedings.
I, of course, could be wrong about that, but the totality of information we have, how it is being reported, and the actual language used by the Super suggests that most of these complaints were verbal, no formal internal investigation has been performed, there has been no formal hearing where the witnesses testify, etc. Now, again, all that may not be required for this particular administrative structure, but if no similar steps or protections are offered in their place, and they simply rest on the sweeping, arrogant pronouncement that the Super can do whatever he determines is best for the district, with no real specifics offered, I fear a good bite of our school budget revenue(which at this time apparently only enables us to be ranked like 49th of 50 states),will be spent defending these draconian actions.
So police in the Kansas City shooting have talked to the owner of the "suspect vehicle," who just happens to be the defendant in a case the attorney handled. In that case, the defendant shot a homeless man who had broken into his warehouse. He argued self-defense, but a jury disagreed. But the police say he isn't even a person of interest after having interviewed him. So assuming the shooter used the van (which seems to be the case based on witness information) the suspect has to be someone else with access to the van, right? Family member or employee? Or could this be a red herring? Could someone with another motive (whether or not lawsuit related) have stolen this van on purpose to use during the crime and give the police a good but incorrect theory to investigate?
Bless the victims and this city involving the massacre. It is a massacre, not a shooting. Don't minimize what happened. I am going to keep my thoughts to myself about the investigation and MGM, because the focus should be on the victims.
And F*ck the conspiracy theorists that claim it was staged and are harassing survivors.
I think Adam Levine has it right on this one– CCSD Police are in no position to remove a Trustee from District Property.
It was a rookie move. Unless there's some kind of protective order at a particular location or for a particular person, the super has no power to bad a trustee from school property.
Skorkowsky needs to go back to teaching kindergarten because his understanding of how a school district works is elementary at best.
The Trustee was banned because(supposedly) some teachers found him "weird" or "creepy." Was any of this reduced to a formal written complaint? Was there any internal investigation? Is there any administrative right to a hearing where the Trustee could have counsel question such witnesses?
I hope the Super consulted extensively with counsel for the school district. The contents of the letter suggests he did not, no specific are offered, only the vague, sweeping conclusion that the Super can essentially take whatever moves he believes are in the School District's best interest–which of course is not the standard, and his authority and discretion don't extend remotely that far.
It is impossible to believe that he could justify these moves by offering no meaningful explanation of why the moves were taken. Saying that someone found the trustee to be creepy or weird is the same as offering no meaningful reason. Did he touch someone? Did he say anything sexually inappropriate, either directly or by innuendo?
Nothing of this sort was offered. Even understanding that the framework here is administrative,and that protections may therefore differ to a degree from proceedings which are strictly in the civil litigation or criminal prosecution mode,there is no way in Hell the Super can restrict the Trustee to this degree merely by referring to the Super's supposed virtually unlimited authority, and the conclusion that a person or persons subjectively found the Trustee to be weird or creepy.
Now, at least with the part about the visits interfering with classes, the Super at least amplified something which could have arguable merit. But the main reason for the restrictions were that some teacher or teachers found him weird or creepy. I believe the district is going to have a lot of trouble justifying this, unless the Super offered reasons that the media did not report–such as he touched a teacher(s) or made clearly inappropriate remarks.
But the Super's letter makes no reference to any such specifics, and there is a strong inference that these teachers made their complaints in a verbal fashion, made no written statement, and did not want to be formally involved in any proceedings.
I, of course, could be wrong about that, but the totality of information we have, how it is being reported, and the actual language used by the Super suggests that most of these complaints were verbal, no formal internal investigation has been performed, there has been no formal hearing where the witnesses testify, etc. Now, again, all that may not be required for this particular administrative structure, but if no similar steps or protections are offered in their place, and they simply rest on the sweeping, arrogant pronouncement that the Super can do whatever he determines is best for the district, with no real specifics offered, I fear a good bite of our school budget revenue(which at this time apparently only enables us to be ranked like 49th of 50 states),will be spent defending these draconian actions.