The defense attorney for the future Raiders all star is who? Looks familiar.
Guest
Anonymous
January 11, 2024 11:33 am
Speaking of the cockup caucus, the Sun is reporting that the GOP may not have even secured the sites for their caucus. 32/18 of the sites are schools (and naturally, being the party of fiscal responsibility, they are paying fair market price for the use, right?) Most of the schools still show availability for that date, and at least a couple have games happening same time same place.
I wouldn’t put it past the current crop of NVGOP “leaders” thinking they can just show up to the schools and other sites the day of and conduct their caucus, all without having arranged for or secured the sites in any formal or legal way.
Our bar cards are now e-cards? We can download them to our cell phones and then hand our unlocked cell phones to law enforcement to enter the courthouse. The state bar can fuck all the way off.
Unless you’re coming to court on a near daily basis such that security remembers you as an attorney, even looking the part I routinely get asked to see my bar card. (I’m not the OP.)
I’m not assuming the gender of the OP or @8:56am – but when I show up to court in a suit and go through the attorney line at the RJC south entrance, or even the plebian entrance on the north side, and am carrying my leather laptop/shoulderbag/briefcase/whatever, I only occasionally get asked if I’m an attorney and saying ‘Yes’ solves that problem and I don’t get challenged. Same for the few times I’m in family court. Same for US BK and DC, however I have been asked my bar # at USDC entrance. Maybe that’s my “privilege” showing though – white, straight, male, natural hair color, slightly graying, etc.
Getting back to the OP’s point, if the bar seriously has decided no more physical bar cards, I agree it’s not a great look to be in the position of handing over an unlocked cell phone to LEO or security, and I’m not a criminal defense attorney who would have even more reason to be pretty upset about that.
There are plenty of work arounds. That doesn’t change the fact that we have some of the highest bar dues in the country and the bar is sitting on $6M, but we can’t get actual bar cards. But at least BoG gets to save a little money so they can spend it on their annual boondoggle.
Until some enterprising non-attorney figures out how to copy one. Or people get frustrated after having had rejected a self-printed paper copy that marshals or security won’t accept as genuine.
Granted, my courthouse visits are down to maybe 5-10 per year since Covid, but it has probably been a good 5-10 years since anyone has asked to see my bar card. I’m not even sure where mine is.
They’d probably have to pay to develop an app that’s hosted on iOS or AndroidOS, and that’d probably defeat the savings of not printing up the plastic cards.
i don’t know,, maybe i’m sentimental. I actually really enjoyed receiving the bar card at first. I know there are a lot of things to make it official but before i was an old jaded bastard i was proud to receive.
Not wanting to handle physical cards during COVID was the proffered reason for not doing them while we were under heavier pandemic mitigation measures.
Guest
Anonymous
January 12, 2024 9:20 am
This is my favorite line from the CCEA strike article “Tam Lester, a teacher at Del Sol High School and member of CCEA’s executive board, said data from a recent poll commissioned by the teachers union shows more than 70 percent of respondents are in favor of allowing teachers to strike. The majority of those respondents said they would not be affected by a strike if one were to occur.”.
That last part – where people who responded and said they’re in favor of the strikes, won’t be affected by it so why the hell are they even responding? That’s like politicians who vote for something to happen in someone else’s backyard, just not their own god forbid.
You can still support something in your community without it directly impacting you on a daily basis. I wholeheartedly support the teachers’ right to strike and I do not have children in CCSD. I believe teachers should be in charge of education (not politicians and bean counters) and they need to be paid more. At the end of the day, a strike would not impact me, but I believe it would have a long term positive impact on our community.
“they need to be paid more”
Sorry, therer is no money to do so because so many administrative personnel are getting $100k + and other admins are paid more than teachers.
This is a tired argument. Are teachers who have a classroom of kids to teach going to address labor or HR complaints? Create district policy? Defend lawsuits? Find locations for new schools? Build and repair schools?
The idea that the district needs to spend all its money on teachers only ignores the reality of running an organization.
Last edited 8 months ago by Anonymous
Guest
Unimportant Attorney
January 12, 2024 12:19 pm
Are we including family court? Technically it is civil.
I’m positively sure the best I can do for any judge in the 8th is “meh” so please keep your toxic positivity to yourself. And no, I will not take the pay cut to run for judge myself.
The “ranking of the worst civil judges on our EJDC bench, weighing incompetence, apathy, laziness and demeanor” is absolutely not a “fair topic” nor is a constructive topic. Come on, man.
It is your blog. However there was and is nothing defamatory in discussing the manner in which our District Court judges are comporting themselves and conducting legal business, including failure to complete workloads, not reading pleadings before rendering decisions, rendering decisions in matters in which they have no competence, starting court late, not issuing decisions. They are elected officials whose performance seems to be central to our legal community. If those are not fair topics for this blog, then that is your decision. However they do appear to be within the scope and nature of the blog.
I concur with 5:14. It is a fair and constructive topic, Law Dawg, and an important one, to boot, not just to us lawyers but the public at large, since most voters know little to nothing about judges’ work performance. Moreover, it seems like there’s more incompetence and performance failures now than in recent prior years. It needs to be discussed, and the failures of the bench should be called out, names named. ALONG WITH praise for/recognition of the judges who are doing a good job. Worst judges and reasons why they are the worst, AND best judges and reasons why they are the best. You can thwack any comments that are personal attacks, not civil enough in their language, etc., go too far, but the
topic itself is absolutely valid.
“[I]f the defamatory communication imputes a ‘person’s lack of fitness for trade, business, or profession,” or tends to injure the plaintiff in his or her business, it is deemed defamation per se and damages are presumed.'” Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Virtual Educ. Software, Inc., 125 Nev. 374, 385, 213 P.3d 496, 503 (2009) (citing K–Mart Corporation, 109 Nev. 1180, at 1192, 866 P.2d 274, at 282 (1993)).
Are ya’ll even attorneys?
I agree that a respectful, constructive discussion about judges is appropriate, but discussing their alleged “incompetence, apathy, laziness” is certainly not.
You might be a lawyer but certainly are not a defamation lawyer.
In Nevada, the general elements of a defamation claim require a plaintiff to prove: ‘1 a false and defamatory statement by [a] defendant concerning the plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault, amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actual or presumed damages.” Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, 57 P.3d 82, 90 (Nev. 2002). Statements of opinion are generally not defamatory because “‘there is no such thing as a false idea.'” Pegasus, 57 P.3d at 87 (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 94 S. Ct. 2997 (1974)). . . . “[A] defendant [cannot] be held liable for damages in a defamation action involving a public official plaintiff unless ‘actual malice’ is alleged. [**16] ” Pegasus, 57 P.3d at 90 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964)). “Actual malice has been defined as ‘knowledge that it [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.'” Id. at 90 (alteration in original) (quoting New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 280. See Flowers v. Carville, 266 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1251-52 (D. Nev. 2003).
Discussions of competence necessary involve discussions of lack of competence and incompetence. Judges who show such a lack of care for their elected position so as to start court on time, rule on motions timely, read the pleadings before ruling on an issue demonstrate apathy for the requirements of the elected position and evince laziness. Are we only allowed to laud judges and not to take them to task for the damage that they are doing to clients and the entire system of justice?
I think the point is, discussions related to “incompetence” could be defamatory. If someone wanted to sue based on that discussion on this blog, there may or may not be defenses, but who is going to foot the bill for that litigation?
On the other hand, if we keep the discussion constructive, and not even arguably defamatory, we don’t have to worry about potential litigation, do we?
The point people keep missing here is that litigation is a pain in the ass and it is expensive. Regardless of who would ultimately prevail, it’s probably much smarter to just keep the discussion somewhere, where there is no potential for litigation.
Absolutely correct. Litigation is a pain in the ass; it is the field that we are in.
But to allege that this blog shall only keep discussion constructive is to ignore the entire tenor and tone of this Blog. For example there are attacks on GOP leadership above. Constructive? We have posts weekly about the idiots in the White House, Governor’s Mansion, County Commission, etc. We criticize vituperatively attorney performance on this Blog all of the time. It is LawDawg’s line to draw and I respect that, even if the line appears squiggly quite a bit of the time.
What are we going to do to address the shocking lack of diversity on the state bench? It’s almost all women. We need to encourage men to take the plunge and educate voters to sometimes pull the lever for a male name.
Judges are public figures who have voluntarily placed themselves under the scrutiny of the public. Defamation claims by these public figures require them to prove the typical elements of defamation plus that the defamatory statement was made with actual malice. Lawdawg should pass the torch if they do not have the courage to provide a forum on judicial incompetence.
You keep missing the point. Why should we have to potentially foot the bill and deal with the hassle of having to defend some anonymous commenters’ feelings about a judge?
It makes way more sense to just not play it close to the line, so we don’t have to deal with that potential nonsense.
Or, you could start your own blog, and do whatever you want on there.
LD, you are absolutely right that this is your Blog that puts you in the hot seat of having to make these subjective calls on a daily basis. To your credit, people feel an affinity for this Blog sufficient that they are invested in what goes on here.
However I think the point that the posters above are making was that these posts were not even close to any defamation line. Judicial evaluation of performance appears to be fair game. As you know the RJ used to publicly publish such anonymous evaluations. The second point that has not been addressed is that things far worse than discussion regarding problems with judicial performance occur here on a daily basis with far more venom than the comments which were taken down. Thank you for the time that you put into the Blog.
I find it shocking that people want to limit discussion about public figures. When people win election to public jobs, they are subject to discussion of their laziness and incompetence. We have such an absence of courageous lawyers. Most lawyers in this town are boot-kissers, plain and simple.
Anonymous at 3:07 pm. Typical gutless comment by some civil lawyer who probably has never done a trial. It’s funny how the civil lawyers who never do trials and don’t really know the judges are the ones who are so terrified of being sued in some baseless lawsuit. Public figures can be discussed.
Maggie. McLetchie. Does. Not. Work. For. Free.
(Dear Ms. McLetchie, I only call you out because of the yeoman’s work you did for Legal Eagle against a litigious attorney, and for your repeated support for the First Amendment. We’ve never met.)
Winning a lawsuit doesn’t guarantee you’ll get your attorneys fees back, even with the Anti-SLAPP provisions in the law.
None of the attorneys who filed to be appointed to Nancy Allf’s seat filed to appear on the ballot. Two candidates filed who did not apply to be appointed. Will the Governor appoint someone who will then be replaced in January, 2025?
This is really interesting, because the appointment application cites NRS 293.165 and claims there will be a special filing period for the seat in June.
However, NRS 293.165(2) says there is a special filing period only for nonpartisan openings which occur after the January filing deadline has ended. In this case, the Department 27 opening occurred before filing ended. So, the plain language of the statute would seen to imply no special filing period and that anyone who wanted to run needed to file by Friday.
Very curious if anyone reads it differently or I’m missing something.
The defense attorney for the future Raiders all star is who? Looks familiar.
Speaking of the cockup caucus, the Sun is reporting that the GOP may not have even secured the sites for their caucus. 32/18 of the sites are schools (and naturally, being the party of fiscal responsibility, they are paying fair market price for the use, right?) Most of the schools still show availability for that date, and at least a couple have games happening same time same place.
I wouldn’t put it past the current crop of NVGOP “leaders” thinking they can just show up to the schools and other sites the day of and conduct their caucus, all without having arranged for or secured the sites in any formal or legal way.
“When you’re a celebrity, they let you do it”
Looks like CCSD did not approve of any of the advertised sites. Also appears that they even denied use of the schools in some instances.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2024/jan/11/nevadas-gop-caucuses-set-for-feb-8-have-yet-to-win/
Our bar cards are now e-cards? We can download them to our cell phones and then hand our unlocked cell phones to law enforcement to enter the courthouse. The state bar can fuck all the way off.
Make it your lock screen
Who in the amateur, not looking the part, attorney poster is being asked for their bar card after 2017? Wow.
Unless you’re coming to court on a near daily basis such that security remembers you as an attorney, even looking the part I routinely get asked to see my bar card. (I’m not the OP.)
I’m not assuming the gender of the OP or @8:56am – but when I show up to court in a suit and go through the attorney line at the RJC south entrance, or even the plebian entrance on the north side, and am carrying my leather laptop/shoulderbag/briefcase/whatever, I only occasionally get asked if I’m an attorney and saying ‘Yes’ solves that problem and I don’t get challenged. Same for the few times I’m in family court. Same for US BK and DC, however I have been asked my bar # at USDC entrance. Maybe that’s my “privilege” showing though – white, straight, male, natural hair color, slightly graying, etc.
Getting back to the OP’s point, if the bar seriously has decided no more physical bar cards, I agree it’s not a great look to be in the position of handing over an unlocked cell phone to LEO or security, and I’m not a criminal defense attorney who would have even more reason to be pretty upset about that.
Right click > Save Image. Print. Done.
And I hate the Bar.
There are plenty of work arounds. That doesn’t change the fact that we have some of the highest bar dues in the country and the bar is sitting on $6M, but we can’t get actual bar cards. But at least BoG gets to save a little money so they can spend it on their annual boondoggle.
Until some enterprising non-attorney figures out how to copy one. Or people get frustrated after having had rejected a self-printed paper copy that marshals or security won’t accept as genuine.
Granted, my courthouse visits are down to maybe 5-10 per year since Covid, but it has probably been a good 5-10 years since anyone has asked to see my bar card. I’m not even sure where mine is.
To be fair, when I registered at the jail to visit inmates, they still ask for a Bar Card.
Really? I go to court once every two months if that and haven’t been asked for my bar card in over 5 years. I’m a 10 year attorney.
You think that the brain trust running the bar would make an e-card downloadable to my iPhone wallet – or the android equivalent.
They’d probably have to pay to develop an app that’s hosted on iOS or AndroidOS, and that’d probably defeat the savings of not printing up the plastic cards.
i don’t know,, maybe i’m sentimental. I actually really enjoyed receiving the bar card at first. I know there are a lot of things to make it official but before i was an old jaded bastard i was proud to receive.
I did too. I kept them all on my key ring like a badge of honor faded long ago from sun and taking a daily beat down in my bag.
It’s been like this since… 2020? Earlier?
Not wanting to handle physical cards during COVID was the proffered reason for not doing them while we were under heavier pandemic mitigation measures.
This is my favorite line from the CCEA strike article “Tam Lester, a teacher at Del Sol High School and member of CCEA’s executive board, said data from a recent poll commissioned by the teachers union shows more than 70 percent of respondents are in favor of allowing teachers to strike. The majority of those respondents said they would not be affected by a strike if one were to occur.”.
That last part – where people who responded and said they’re in favor of the strikes, won’t be affected by it so why the hell are they even responding? That’s like politicians who vote for something to happen in someone else’s backyard, just not their own god forbid.
You can still support something in your community without it directly impacting you on a daily basis. I wholeheartedly support the teachers’ right to strike and I do not have children in CCSD. I believe teachers should be in charge of education (not politicians and bean counters) and they need to be paid more. At the end of the day, a strike would not impact me, but I believe it would have a long term positive impact on our community.
“they need to be paid more”
Sorry, therer is no money to do so because so many administrative personnel are getting $100k + and other admins are paid more than teachers.
This is a tired argument. Are teachers who have a classroom of kids to teach going to address labor or HR complaints? Create district policy? Defend lawsuits? Find locations for new schools? Build and repair schools?
The idea that the district needs to spend all its money on teachers only ignores the reality of running an organization.
Are we including family court? Technically it is civil.
I think Family Court should have its own ranking.
I would like you to list the best Top 5 now. Let’s add some positivity.
I’m positively sure the best I can do for any judge in the 8th is “meh” so please keep your toxic positivity to yourself. And no, I will not take the pay cut to run for judge myself.
The rate the judges seemed like a fair topic.
The “ranking of the worst civil judges on our EJDC bench, weighing incompetence, apathy, laziness and demeanor” is absolutely not a “fair topic” nor is a constructive topic. Come on, man.
It is your blog. However there was and is nothing defamatory in discussing the manner in which our District Court judges are comporting themselves and conducting legal business, including failure to complete workloads, not reading pleadings before rendering decisions, rendering decisions in matters in which they have no competence, starting court late, not issuing decisions. They are elected officials whose performance seems to be central to our legal community. If those are not fair topics for this blog, then that is your decision. However they do appear to be within the scope and nature of the blog.
I concur with 5:14. It is a fair and constructive topic, Law Dawg, and an important one, to boot, not just to us lawyers but the public at large, since most voters know little to nothing about judges’ work performance. Moreover, it seems like there’s more incompetence and performance failures now than in recent prior years. It needs to be discussed, and the failures of the bench should be called out, names named. ALONG WITH praise for/recognition of the judges who are doing a good job. Worst judges and reasons why they are the worst, AND best judges and reasons why they are the best. You can thwack any comments that are personal attacks, not civil enough in their language, etc., go too far, but the
topic itself is absolutely valid.
I concur with 7:57. Fascinating that no one applied to run and that unqualified judges were allowed to remain unopposed. https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-judicial-campaign-filings-close-many-unopposed-2981126/?utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=topnews&utm_source=homepage&utm_term=Nevada%20judicial%20campaign%20filings%20close%2C%20many%20unopposed
“[I]f the defamatory communication imputes a ‘person’s lack of fitness for trade, business, or profession,” or tends to injure the plaintiff in his or her business, it is deemed defamation per se and damages are presumed.'” Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Virtual Educ. Software, Inc., 125 Nev. 374, 385, 213 P.3d 496, 503 (2009) (citing K–Mart Corporation, 109 Nev. 1180, at 1192, 866 P.2d 274, at 282 (1993)).
Are ya’ll even attorneys?
I agree that a respectful, constructive discussion about judges is appropriate, but discussing their alleged “incompetence, apathy, laziness” is certainly not.
You might be a lawyer but certainly are not a defamation lawyer.
In Nevada, the general elements of a defamation claim require a plaintiff to prove: ‘1 a false and defamatory statement by [a] defendant concerning the plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault, amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actual or presumed damages.” Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, 57 P.3d 82, 90 (Nev. 2002). Statements of opinion are generally not defamatory because “‘there is no such thing as a false idea.'” Pegasus, 57 P.3d at 87 (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 94 S. Ct. 2997 (1974)). . . . “[A] defendant [cannot] be held liable for damages in a defamation action involving a public official plaintiff unless ‘actual malice’ is alleged. [**16] ” Pegasus, 57 P.3d at 90 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964)). “Actual malice has been defined as ‘knowledge that it [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.'” Id. at 90 (alteration in original) (quoting New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 280. See Flowers v. Carville, 266 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1251-52 (D. Nev. 2003).
Discussions of competence necessary involve discussions of lack of competence and incompetence. Judges who show such a lack of care for their elected position so as to start court on time, rule on motions timely, read the pleadings before ruling on an issue demonstrate apathy for the requirements of the elected position and evince laziness. Are we only allowed to laud judges and not to take them to task for the damage that they are doing to clients and the entire system of justice?
I think the point is, discussions related to “incompetence” could be defamatory. If someone wanted to sue based on that discussion on this blog, there may or may not be defenses, but who is going to foot the bill for that litigation?
On the other hand, if we keep the discussion constructive, and not even arguably defamatory, we don’t have to worry about potential litigation, do we?
The point people keep missing here is that litigation is a pain in the ass and it is expensive. Regardless of who would ultimately prevail, it’s probably much smarter to just keep the discussion somewhere, where there is no potential for litigation.
Absolutely correct. Litigation is a pain in the ass; it is the field that we are in.
But to allege that this blog shall only keep discussion constructive is to ignore the entire tenor and tone of this Blog. For example there are attacks on GOP leadership above. Constructive? We have posts weekly about the idiots in the White House, Governor’s Mansion, County Commission, etc. We criticize vituperatively attorney performance on this Blog all of the time. It is LawDawg’s line to draw and I respect that, even if the line appears squiggly quite a bit of the time.
What are we going to do to address the shocking lack of diversity on the state bench? It’s almost all women. We need to encourage men to take the plunge and educate voters to sometimes pull the lever for a male name.
Judges are public figures who have voluntarily placed themselves under the scrutiny of the public. Defamation claims by these public figures require them to prove the typical elements of defamation plus that the defamatory statement was made with actual malice. Lawdawg should pass the torch if they do not have the courage to provide a forum on judicial incompetence.
You keep missing the point. Why should we have to potentially foot the bill and deal with the hassle of having to defend some anonymous commenters’ feelings about a judge?
It makes way more sense to just not play it close to the line, so we don’t have to deal with that potential nonsense.
Or, you could start your own blog, and do whatever you want on there.
LD, you are absolutely right that this is your Blog that puts you in the hot seat of having to make these subjective calls on a daily basis. To your credit, people feel an affinity for this Blog sufficient that they are invested in what goes on here.
However I think the point that the posters above are making was that these posts were not even close to any defamation line. Judicial evaluation of performance appears to be fair game. As you know the RJ used to publicly publish such anonymous evaluations. The second point that has not been addressed is that things far worse than discussion regarding problems with judicial performance occur here on a daily basis with far more venom than the comments which were taken down. Thank you for the time that you put into the Blog.
I find it shocking that people want to limit discussion about public figures. When people win election to public jobs, they are subject to discussion of their laziness and incompetence. We have such an absence of courageous lawyers. Most lawyers in this town are boot-kissers, plain and simple.
Go open your own blog homie and we’ll do all the shit-talking there.
Then when you get sued for a (baseless) defamation claim, you can enjoy all the peace and stress-free feelings that come with defending a lawsuit.
Anonymous at 3:07 pm. Typical gutless comment by some civil lawyer who probably has never done a trial. It’s funny how the civil lawyers who never do trials and don’t really know the judges are the ones who are so terrified of being sued in some baseless lawsuit. Public figures can be discussed.
In all seriousness, if I could donate to the blog, I sincerely would. Because there is not enough money in the world to put up with you whiny fucks.
We all know why the Wild Wild Law shut down and why our blawgmasters here Thwack with enthusiasm.
For the last time and in the timeless words of Eddie Murphy’s father: “This is my house and if you don’t like it, you can get the fuck out.”
Maggie. McLetchie. Does. Not. Work. For. Free.
(Dear Ms. McLetchie, I only call you out because of the yeoman’s work you did for Legal Eagle against a litigious attorney, and for your repeated support for the First Amendment. We’ve never met.)
Winning a lawsuit doesn’t guarantee you’ll get your attorneys fees back, even with the Anti-SLAPP provisions in the law.
TL:DR
–EDC Judge
Why didn’t you file?
None of the attorneys who filed to be appointed to Nancy Allf’s seat filed to appear on the ballot. Two candidates filed who did not apply to be appointed. Will the Governor appoint someone who will then be replaced in January, 2025?
This is really interesting, because the appointment application cites NRS 293.165 and claims there will be a special filing period for the seat in June.
However, NRS 293.165(2) says there is a special filing period only for nonpartisan openings which occur after the January filing deadline has ended. In this case, the Department 27 opening occurred before filing ended. So, the plain language of the statute would seen to imply no special filing period and that anyone who wanted to run needed to file by Friday.
Very curious if anyone reads it differently or I’m missing something.
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/attorney-generals-office-fails-to-fulfill-records-request