Some people are just catching on to the little legislative move that enabled the Supreme Court of Nevada to not reducing the number of justices, despite the creation of a Court of Appeals. [TNI]
Richard Wright is defending now-former councilman Ricki Barlow. [TNI]
Here’s a piece on why injured workers hired attorneys and also a reminder for some firm in town that when you talk shop during lunch at your favorite Mexican restaurant, others may be listening. [Workerscompensation.com]
Hardesty needs to go. Needs to go immediately. He is a bully on the Court who I cannot believe the other justices have allowed themselves to kowtow. He is fine on business cases but is a nightmare as a Justice and has done great damage to our courts.
Had Hardesty as a settlement 15 judge years ago. He was a dick way back then. Just full of himself and not nearly as smart as he thought he was. He was frequently wrong, but never in doubt.
Rick Wright has been defending Barlow all the way along. This is not new news. The plea is new news.
Guest
Anonymous
January 23, 2018 11:23 pm
I don't really understand the factual scenario behind the charges.It is asserted that he accepted kickbacks from consulting firms to steer large amounts of donated campaign money to the very same consulting firms.
So, it is alleged that the consulting firms paid money to him so that he could turn around and pay larger amounts of money to them? So, they are paying him money so that in return he pays them a much larger amount of money in return?
Why bother? Why not simply pay the consulting firms with donated campaign money, and then list it on the required disclosures, and generically represent that the firms performed "consulting" work in return for such payments?
Perhaps the answer lies in the "kickback" issue and how that was handled. Did they pay him such money directly, and he did not declare it as contributions or anything else, and he then keeps the money for personal non-campaign matters, and then shows his gratitude by paying large amounts of validly donated campaign money to these firms for "consulting" purposes?
Barlow raises large amounts of campaign cash. Under the law, how he can spend such cash is restricted and must be reported (not for personal use).
He then retains favored vendors for services to be provided (consulting, advertising, printing, etc.) and uses the money raised for the campaign to pay for said services. The favored vendors, showing their gratitude for using their services / products then rebate a portion of their costs to him personally, effectively converting campaign funds to personal funds. He then pockets the rebates rather than returning them to the campaign.
This is such a common scenario. Incumbents often accumulate a large campaign war chest. When they get no opponent or token opposition, they have a pile of cash leftover. It used to be common for that money to be tapped for personal use after a certain amount of time. Judge Gates was admonished for using his unused campaign funds to donate to other campaigns. I suppose that the candidate is supposed to return the funds. I am not an expert on election law but fail to see how this got the feds attention and rose to the level of a felony plea. Barlow was a nice guy.
Because the USAO is sitting on a high-profile, politically charged loss. They need a quick politically-charged win. They need to get the taste of blood back in their collective mouth.
Guest
Jordan Ross, Principal, Ross Legal Search
January 24, 2018 12:59 am
I'm not opposed to leaving the court at seven justices. There are a number of reasons which I think the TNI article touched on that i concur with. It's true that no doubt there are several steps that could be taken to make the whole appeals process more efficient and I would encourage the court and it's administrators to look at the process from just that perspective – productivity. But with time that can be improved. Reducing the workforce will not reduce the workload.
But I think the primary reason I would like to see the court remain at seven is that I don't feel the supreme judicial power of the state should rest in the hands of just five people; that's just a bit too much concentration of power in my opinion.
Jordan– here is the problem with the view "with time that can be improved." They have had time; nothing has improved. In fact it is getting worse. I generally have no problem with keeping the Justices at 7, just serious issues with keeping the Court at these money-sucking unproductive 7.
We just had a case which took years for a Decision/Opinion, only to get a result which so clearly involved a Court which had not reviewed the record that the Appellant and Respondent upon the filing of a Petition for Rehearing both agreed that the Opinion/Decision crucial facts wrong.
Hardesty. Someone please run against him and the BOGs. Our lives will be happier.
Hardesty needs to go. Needs to go immediately. He is a bully on the Court who I cannot believe the other justices have allowed themselves to kowtow. He is fine on business cases but is a nightmare as a Justice and has done great damage to our courts.
Had Hardesty as a settlement 15 judge years ago. He was a dick way back then. Just full of himself and not nearly as smart as he thought he was. He was frequently wrong, but never in doubt.
The best judges are humble.
@10:44– What is a settlement 15?
"settlement judge 15 years ago"
Okay, just checking.
blog is dead. let's move to reddit.
Rick Wright has been defending Barlow all the way along. This is not new news. The plea is new news.
I don't really understand the factual scenario behind the charges.It is asserted that he accepted kickbacks from consulting firms to steer large amounts of donated campaign money to the very same consulting firms.
So, it is alleged that the consulting firms paid money to him so that he could turn around and pay larger amounts of money to them? So, they are paying him money so that in return he pays them a much larger amount of money in return?
Why bother? Why not simply pay the consulting firms with donated campaign money, and then list it on the required disclosures, and generically represent that the firms performed "consulting" work in return for such payments?
Perhaps the answer lies in the "kickback" issue and how that was handled. Did they pay him such money directly, and he did not declare it as contributions or anything else, and he then keeps the money for personal non-campaign matters, and then shows his gratitude by paying large amounts of validly donated campaign money to these firms for "consulting" purposes?
Is that how "kickbacks" were determined?
Here is how the scam (crime) works..
Barlow raises large amounts of campaign cash. Under the law, how he can spend such cash is restricted and must be reported (not for personal use).
He then retains favored vendors for services to be provided (consulting, advertising, printing, etc.) and uses the money raised for the campaign to pay for said services. The favored vendors, showing their gratitude for using their services / products then rebate a portion of their costs to him personally, effectively converting campaign funds to personal funds. He then pockets the rebates rather than returning them to the campaign.
This is such a common scenario. Incumbents often accumulate a large campaign war chest. When they get no opponent or token opposition, they have a pile of cash leftover. It used to be common for that money to be tapped for personal use after a certain amount of time. Judge Gates was admonished for using his unused campaign funds to donate to other campaigns. I suppose that the candidate is supposed to return the funds. I am not an expert on election law but fail to see how this got the feds attention and rose to the level of a felony plea. Barlow was a nice guy.
Because the USAO is sitting on a high-profile, politically charged loss. They need a quick politically-charged win. They need to get the taste of blood back in their collective mouth.
I'm not opposed to leaving the court at seven justices. There are a number of reasons which I think the TNI article touched on that i concur with. It's true that no doubt there are several steps that could be taken to make the whole appeals process more efficient and I would encourage the court and it's administrators to look at the process from just that perspective – productivity. But with time that can be improved. Reducing the workforce will not reduce the workload.
But I think the primary reason I would like to see the court remain at seven is that I don't feel the supreme judicial power of the state should rest in the hands of just five people; that's just a bit too much concentration of power in my opinion.
Jordan– here is the problem with the view "with time that can be improved." They have had time; nothing has improved. In fact it is getting worse. I generally have no problem with keeping the Justices at 7, just serious issues with keeping the Court at these money-sucking unproductive 7.
We just had a case which took years for a Decision/Opinion, only to get a result which so clearly involved a Court which had not reviewed the record that the Appellant and Respondent upon the filing of a Petition for Rehearing both agreed that the Opinion/Decision crucial facts wrong.
*had gotten crucial facts wrong.