A decision from the Nevada Supreme Court means that Danny Tarkanian’s libel suit against Senator Jacky Rosen is finished. [TNI]
The Court also heard oral argument about a Republican AG group trying to get bodycam footage of an incident involving the son of Nevada AG Aaron Ford. [TNI]
Marijuana is being removed from MLB’s tested-for list of drugs of abuse. [Fox5Vegas]
Video of cowboys assisting in an arrest in Vegas is going viral. [KTNV]
Just read Rosen v Tarkanian. The majority opinion is plain and simple politics and not justice. The Court concluded language in Rosen's political advertisements had the ‘gist or sting’ of truthfulness, and that Tarkanian’s issue with her ad accusing him of “setting up” the fraudulent charities were “substantially true.” Note: Similar statements were previously adjudicated as libelous. The majority inferred "good faith" to end the case. Rosen never presented an affidavit "good faith." There was contrary evidence a jury could have considered on the issue and the Court ignores it. This adds a new spin to Anti-SLAPP law in Nevada. And, now, every time a client uses and attorney to set up an entity, the attorney is complicit in whatever the entity does.
I voted for Jackie. I don't agree with the decision.
What a political hack job Hardesty did on this one. Since Gibbons usually cowers behind Nasty Jim, I was surprised he showed the legal acumen to actually read up on the issue. Gibbons and Pickering hit it exactly right. Anti-SLAPP is going to be a monster in this state going forward after this decision.
I'm sure 9:40 will be consistent in views and will be in favor of a fair trial of Trump's impeachment in the Senate and will condemn efforts by Senate Republicans to prejudge the case.
One should be careful about pre-judgments, particularly true in the Democratic House members actions. Just because you don't like someone's style, does not equate to the commission of a crime. Evan allowing for an argument about poor judgment, that is still not a crime.
Impeachable offenses encompass more than just violations of statutory criminal law, so an officeholder need not engage in criminal conduct to commit an impeachable offense.
Sorry Congress didn't have the foresight to codify that a sitting president can't withhold Congressionally-approved military aid earmarked to help an ally fighting against Russia until that ally interferes with our elections.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Of all the defenses, I have still yet to hear a single member of the GOP say that trump didn't endanger national security all for foreign help in next year's election. That is indefensible.
Full trial in the senate is the best thing that could happen for Trump. Zero evidence of any of the BS they are impeaching him over. Double jeopardy attaches and wham-o Dems are done in 2020 whether they won or lose.
I do think trump will be acquitted in the Senate even though I don't think he should be. If he is acquitted and is reelected in 2020 then the world has gone full Idiocracy and it will confirm we are now too stupid and too enamored with juvenile memes and name calling to successfully govern ourselves.
11:32 here. It's not just that people don't react negatively to his name calling (think "that face" Carly Fiorina, Lyin' Ted Cruz, Alfred E. Newman Buttigieg, Little George Stephanopolous, Slimeball Comey, Al Frankenstein, Crazy Nancy, Pencil Neck Schiff, Dumb Southerner Sessions, Failing Glenn Beck, Failing NYT, Wacky Nut Job Ann Coulter, "so-called" federal judges, and Low-IQ everybody), it's that people cheer it. We get the government we ask for. So if we're too in love with watching Ow My Balls and a Prez calling people names like a middle schooler, then god save us.
11:43, don't forget "Little" Marco Rubio, "Fat Jerry" Nadler, and "Washed Up Psycho" Bette Midler. That was my personal favorite. I personally demand to know what my President thinks of the actress who played CC Bloom, but have no interest in knowing if he's been funded by Russia or where the money went from the prestigious Trump University.
Instead of saying you hope a Justice wasn't involved in a decision you could have taken the 30 seconds to check the signature page of the opinion. But then you wouldn't get to imply violations of the canons when they obviously didn't happen, eh?
Cadish recused herself because of her friendship with Rosen. Right, I agree with that. Judges cannot hear cases that involve parties or interested parties who are friends. Why did Silver recuse herself?
I am in agreement with 11:25. The opinion, coming from Cadish's friends and her court absolve Rosen. Her made of honor at her weddung, Rosen. Nothing to see here.
As I read the papers, the plaintiffs contend their damages were $350,000, Allstate already paid out about $150,000, leaving $200,000 in dispute. The plaintiffs' attorney was making ever-increasing multi-million dollar demands. So where's the "real BS" in the handling of this claim?
The plaintiff's owned a high-end historic home. They obtained an estimate from a contractor specializing in such restorations. Allstate rejected and tried to submit a competing estimate from some fly by night outfit that restored some motels in San Bernardino. Have you ever been to San Bernardino?
How does the amount of money at issue justify or provide a defense to plaintiffs' counsel's conduct? Even assuming the plaintiffs' valuation was correct at $350,000, there's quite a bit of distance between $350,000 and $300+ million. Really, the amount of money at issue is irrelevant, except perhaps to show how grossly out of line plaintiffs' counsel was here.
12:33/1:42 here. What I was attempting to say is that what sounds to me like an otherwise meritorious claim of bad faith against Allstate is now in danger of being ruined by the childish and insane behavior of this attorney.
The statements allegedly made by attorney Hook do seem extreme, but there is still a little thing called the First Amendment. CA's ethics rule requiring civility has always struck me as a violation of the First. (The "I know where you live" might have crossed the line, though.)
The attorney hasn't yet clearly denied making the statements, despite having opportunity to do so in his response to the OSC (in my view, he implicitly acknowledges the statements when he argues they were privileged or protected speech), so saying these are "alleged" statements is splitting the hairs a little too finely, no?
Guest
Roger David
January 20, 2020 6:27 am
Call SBCglobal.net Email Customer Service Number +1-805-4382911 for fix apple sbcglobal email issue like login, sign in, register, forget password, reset, recovery password, server setting etc.
Dial ATT BellSouth Email Contact Number +1-805-438-2911. We resolve BellSouth Email Problems like Sign in, Password, Email not send, receive etc, Call BellSouth Contact Number.
Just read Rosen v Tarkanian. The majority opinion is plain and simple politics and not justice. The Court concluded language in Rosen's political advertisements had the ‘gist or sting’ of truthfulness, and that Tarkanian’s issue with her ad accusing him of “setting up” the fraudulent charities were “substantially true.” Note: Similar statements were previously adjudicated as libelous. The majority inferred "good faith" to end the case. Rosen never presented an affidavit "good faith." There was contrary evidence a jury could have considered on the issue and the Court ignores it. This adds a new spin to Anti-SLAPP law in Nevada. And, now, every time a client uses and attorney to set up an entity, the attorney is complicit in whatever the entity does.
I voted for Jackie. I don't agree with the decision.
What a political hack job Hardesty did on this one. Since Gibbons usually cowers behind Nasty Jim, I was surprised he showed the legal acumen to actually read up on the issue. Gibbons and Pickering hit it exactly right. Anti-SLAPP is going to be a monster in this state going forward after this decision.
I voted for Jackie says it all!
Welcome to the NSC where we ignore evidence and make rulings for our friends. Scary times we live in. Consider this when you vote.
I'm sure 9:40 will be consistent in views and will be in favor of a fair trial of Trump's impeachment in the Senate and will condemn efforts by Senate Republicans to prejudge the case.
One should be careful about pre-judgments, particularly true in the Democratic House members actions. Just because you don't like someone's style, does not equate to the commission of a crime. Evan allowing for an argument about poor judgment, that is still not a crime.
Impeachable offenses encompass more than just violations of statutory criminal law, so an officeholder need not engage in criminal conduct to commit an impeachable offense.
Sorry Congress didn't have the foresight to codify that a sitting president can't withhold Congressionally-approved military aid earmarked to help an ally fighting against Russia until that ally interferes with our elections.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Of all the defenses, I have still yet to hear a single member of the GOP say that trump didn't endanger national security all for foreign help in next year's election. That is indefensible.
Full trial in the senate is the best thing that could happen for Trump. Zero evidence of any of the BS they are impeaching him over. Double jeopardy attaches and wham-o Dems are done in 2020 whether they won or lose.
"Double jeopardy attaches." Clearly, we're dealing with true constitutional scholars here, folks.
9:48, lol no.
I do think trump will be acquitted in the Senate even though I don't think he should be. If he is acquitted and is reelected in 2020 then the world has gone full Idiocracy and it will confirm we are now too stupid and too enamored with juvenile memes and name calling to successfully govern ourselves.
President Camacho in 2024 yall!
11:32 here. It's not just that people don't react negatively to his name calling (think "that face" Carly Fiorina, Lyin' Ted Cruz, Alfred E. Newman Buttigieg, Little George Stephanopolous, Slimeball Comey, Al Frankenstein, Crazy Nancy, Pencil Neck Schiff, Dumb Southerner Sessions, Failing Glenn Beck, Failing NYT, Wacky Nut Job Ann Coulter, "so-called" federal judges, and Low-IQ everybody), it's that people cheer it. We get the government we ask for. So if we're too in love with watching Ow My Balls and a Prez calling people names like a middle schooler, then god save us.
11:43, don't forget "Little" Marco Rubio, "Fat Jerry" Nadler, and "Washed Up Psycho" Bette Midler. That was my personal favorite. I personally demand to know what my President thinks of the actress who played CC Bloom, but have no interest in knowing if he's been funded by Russia or where the money went from the prestigious Trump University.
@ 11:43 am…we're all in love with watching "Ass" as well…
Number 1 movie in America, 12:22! I hear it's up for best screenplay.
I hope Elissa Cadish was not involved in the decision with her bestie, Jackie Rosen. That is a judicial canon violation.
She was not.
Instead of saying you hope a Justice wasn't involved in a decision you could have taken the 30 seconds to check the signature page of the opinion. But then you wouldn't get to imply violations of the canons when they obviously didn't happen, eh?
Thanks, 10:25, Elissa. Awful defensive.
Breslow & Stockard, both democrats, were specially appointed by democrat Gov. Tubby Sisohack. Move along here, nothing to see.
Danny Tarkanian got screwed the Jackie Rosen pooch. I did vote for the two above, Rosen and Cadish. I am rethinking my support.
11:07 for the win!
Cadish recused herself because of her friendship with Rosen. Right, I agree with that. Judges cannot hear cases that involve parties or interested parties who are friends. Why did Silver recuse herself?
Why would reading an opinion NOT authored or joined in by Cadish cause you to rethink your support of her?
I am in agreement with 11:25. The opinion, coming from Cadish's friends and her court absolve Rosen. Her made of honor at her weddung, Rosen. Nothing to see here.
Maid
If I had to guess as to the reason that Silver recused, I would venture to say it has to do with a friendship with Tarkanian or his wife Amy.
Has anyone heard anything more about the Judicial Ethics Commission hearing against the LVJC JPs? Is that still going?
Telling Big Insurance Defense where to eat it.
Follow this link from an ABA site. PI lawyer tells unreasonable defense firm where to…
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer-who-told-biglaw-lawyers-to-eat-a-bowl-of-dicks-faces-possible-sanctions?utm_source=salesforce_148805&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=salesforce_148805&sc_sid=02226345&utm_campaign=&promo=&utm_content=&additional4=&additional5=&sfmc_j=148805&sfmc_s=45495658&sfmc_l=1527&sfmc_jb=64&sfmc_mid=100027443&sfmc_u=5170791
The relevant papers are available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16206729/baker-v-allstate-insurance-company/
This is crazy. The unfortunate part is that it looks like Allstate potentially will get away with some real BS on the handling of this claim.
As I read the papers, the plaintiffs contend their damages were $350,000, Allstate already paid out about $150,000, leaving $200,000 in dispute. The plaintiffs' attorney was making ever-increasing multi-million dollar demands. So where's the "real BS" in the handling of this claim?
The plaintiff's owned a high-end historic home. They obtained an estimate from a contractor specializing in such restorations. Allstate rejected and tried to submit a competing estimate from some fly by night outfit that restored some motels in San Bernardino. Have you ever been to San Bernardino?
How does the amount of money at issue justify or provide a defense to plaintiffs' counsel's conduct? Even assuming the plaintiffs' valuation was correct at $350,000, there's quite a bit of distance between $350,000 and $300+ million. Really, the amount of money at issue is irrelevant, except perhaps to show how grossly out of line plaintiffs' counsel was here.
12:33/1:42 here. What I was attempting to say is that what sounds to me like an otherwise meritorious claim of bad faith against Allstate is now in danger of being ruined by the childish and insane behavior of this attorney.
1:36 / 2:13 here. That sounds better. At least we agree about the attorney.
The statements allegedly made by attorney Hook do seem extreme, but there is still a little thing called the First Amendment. CA's ethics rule requiring civility has always struck me as a violation of the First. (The "I know where you live" might have crossed the line, though.)
The attorney hasn't yet clearly denied making the statements, despite having opportunity to do so in his response to the OSC (in my view, he implicitly acknowledges the statements when he argues they were privileged or protected speech), so saying these are "alleged" statements is splitting the hairs a little too finely, no?
Call SBCglobal.net Email Customer Service Number +1-805-4382911 for fix apple sbcglobal email issue like login, sign in, register, forget password, reset, recovery password, server setting etc.
SBCglobal Email Customer Service Number
SBCglobal.net Forget Password Recovery
SBCglobal Email Not Working Fix issue
SBCglobal.net Email Server Setting
Fix SBCglobal Email Login issue
SBCglobal.net Email Support Number
Dial ATT BellSouth Email Contact Number +1-805-438-2911. We resolve BellSouth Email Problems like Sign in, Password, Email not send, receive etc, Call BellSouth Contact Number.
BellSouth.net Email Contact Number
BellSouth Email Customer Service Number
BellSouth Forget Password Number
BellSouth.net Email Login Sign in Support Number
Fix BellSouth.net Email Not Working
BellSouth.net Email smtp Server Setting Help Number