- Quickdraw McLaw
- 39 Comments
- 470 Views
- One of our readers tipped us off about a recent 9th Circuit opinion finding the Nevada Supreme Court in error and retelling the fascinating facts of the case involving a bank robbery, Mexico, torture, FBI agents, Judge Jack Lehman, an intolerable risk of bias, and [then] attorney David Wall.
- Any other tales of old Las Vegas you want to share?
Lehman should have recused himself. There was no need to ask the prosecutor or defense attorney if they wanted him to recuse himself, he should have just bowed out.
Did anyone see the recent decision in Bankruptcy Court on SFR?
No. What is the SFR BK case number?
https://www.nvb.uscourts.gov/downloads/opinions/mkn-11-19593-myong-leeds.pdf
Did you see David Rosenberg now lists his office address at the same address as Kim Gilbert Ebron? He should be on the slow boat back to Russia.
The Order states that Rosenberg is effectively affiliated with KGE in representing SFR. Dirty bird.
"There is evidence, of course, that SFR served Rosenberg with the Annulment Motion. Combined with SFR’s acknowledgement that Rosenberg actually represented SFR at the time of the very sale in question, however, that evidence gives new and virtually literal meaning to the adjective 'self-serving.'"
Ha.
Wait – so Rosenberg formed SFR with his wife, pursued acquisition of massive amounts of properties while he was a panel trustee in BK Court, breached multiple duties as an attorney and BK panel trustee, and the BK judge didn't refer him to the NV Bar for investigation?
I first heard this stuff was going on at least five years ago. Hopefully they go back and look at other cases as well.
Smells like they should be looking at ALL of his former cases. And if you search for appeals involving the Rosenberg Trust, you'll discover Barbara is his mother's name.
A referral to the SBN may be the least of his problems. I'm wondering if anyone has the line yet on the timing of the indictments and the number of charges.
Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up…..
Judges have such an ego, they do not understand what bias is. Refusing to recuse yourself is bias.
THIS
@9:41– I'm not understanding you post. "THIS" meaning what?
9:36–"refusing to recuse yourself is bias". That assumes a lot. It assumes there is some clear conflict or other clear basis for recusal. If there is, then you are right. If there is not, then you are not right.
9:36 is dead wrong. Take a look at NCJC 2.7.
9:36 is dead right. Thank you, Judge.
@12:13, I was co-signing the comment above when I said "THIS" – it is a habit from Reddit. Sorry!
Yes, Lehman had quite an ego.
Lehman may have wanted the publicity. It was a high profile case.
Great work by the FPD
Out of curiosity, how many of you work at firms that outright refuse to reimburse you for mileage and parking when traveling to in-town depositions, hearings, etc? My previous firms always paid for this, but my current one does not. It's to the point where they will even ask employees to hand deliver things to avoid incurring fees from a runner service, by example, but still refuse to reimburse that employee's mileage. Any other firms out there doing this?
No. If you have to pay for parking for a hearing or deposition, the firm should pay for it or pass the cost along to the client.
My firm (large regional) will reimburse parking fees, but not in-town travel to hearings and depos. Asking employees to hand-deliver things is a bit much, but I wouldn't expect them to pay for depo travel.
From an employment perspective, the employer should either reimburse the expenses (or provide a company owned vehicle for that purpose). The employee is responsible for the expenses of travel to/from home to their place of business, but then once they are at their station, the cost becomes a deductible business expense.
The employer should be reimbursing and then deciding if they wish/can pass it on to their clients or absorb the cost and deduct it as a business expense.
Of course, the record keeping necessary to account for the expense properly may not be worth the effort by either the employer or the employee. It is not unreasonable for the employer to require full documentation of the expense from the employee so that they can justify it to the IRS (date and time travel started, address travel began, beginning odometer reading, end time, address of destination, end odometer reading, etc.)
Yeah, 11:15, that's some penny-pinching bullshit.
I remember an old time Vegas law story from about the late 80'. A District Judge had a past law clerk, by then in private practice, who got arrested for pot possession. The judge subsequently had a lunch date with the District Attorney, at which time the topic of the law clerk's arrest was mentioned by the judge.
What the judge did not know was that the D.A. was wired for sound, and the conversation was recorded. Apparently, when the lunch was arranged, the D.A. and his advisers believed that the purpose of the judge reaching out to arrange lunch was so that the law clerk's arrest and prosecution could be discussed.
I remember myself and many other attorneys being quite surprised by the D.A. wearing a wire, as this time period was still the remnants of old time Vegas quid pro quo, and we also assumed all these prominent players in the legal community valued their continued professional relations with each other, etc.
We were not aware of any bad blood between the judge and the D.A. It may very well be that there never was any, but that the D.A.'s people, and/or perhaps even another agency, suggested the recording as a protective measure, as it was assumed that the judge was going to ask for a favor concerning the former law clerk.
As it all turned out, the judge did not say anything on the tape that anyone considered particularly incriminating, or that could be used against him. In fact, he in no sense asked for preferential treatment as to the charges brought against the law clerk. He seemed instead to imply that the law clerk receive the same considerations as any other first time offender with a small amount for personal use. He simply wanted the law clerk to hopefully receive the same deal as others in the same situation, and not be held to some higher standard because the offender is an attorney.
So, his message was that he was clearly not asking for preferential treatment or for the law clerk to be treated more favorably than others in the same situation. He simply did not want the law clerk treated worse than others in a similar situation, and be made an example of.
Granted, he should not have intervened in the first place, but once he did he was real careful about how he phrased everything. Perhaps he was years ahead of his time. These days we assume any and all conversations have the potential to be recorded. Back then, the concept hardly occurred to us. But it may possibly have occurred to the judge.
As an aside, I've never been a big fan of prosecutors holding a criminal defendant to a "higher standard" because the defendant is a lawyer, a police officer, etc. Is that even constitutional? Do we have any statutes or case authority indicating that such is appropriate? Usually, this concept is generally confined to negotiations, but have any of you heard a prosecutor in open court advancing the "higher standard" argument? If so, how was it received?
I had a then-sitting District Court Judge (now a sitting Senior Judge) call me at 5 pm one night and identified him/herself as Judge _____________________ (Judge you know who you are because I am not the only one I later learned who received calls like this from you) and that she/he was calling on behalf of her/his neighbor, who is really a good guy but who just discovered that a Judgment had been entered against him about a year previously, and wouldn't we consider the humanitarian thing of setting aside the Judgment and just dropping the matter because Judgment Debtor really did not have much (despite apparently living in a neighborhood where this Judge lavishly lived).
I would like to tell you that as a 3rd year Associate I put the judge on notice of the impropriety of this phone call. But I froze and said nothing. Afterwards I went to my Managing Partner in a tizzy at this telephone call and was calmly told that this was no big deal and to discuss with the client the merits of attempting to settle the Action in light of the extenuating factors.
It used to be called, "The Good Ol' Boy Network."
My take: The judge should not have discussed his law clerk's arrest at all, and yes, an attorney, police officer, etc. should not be punished more harshly than a regular citizen. Tell that to Carolyn Ellsworth, who should have demonstrated some compassion when she sentenced a former deputy district attorney to jail for an offense which warranted probation.
I think that judge runs district court drug court and, if so, is not that an irony? I went to law school with that DDA. What happened was awful.
I felt bad for David, but Judge Ellsworth treated him like a typical defendant in her court. She's tough and nobody will accuse her of giving somebody a cush deal, she blows deals up with regularity. I don't think it was out of the norm for her at all.
Maybe not out of the norm, but her "norm" is not the standard for propriety.
At sentencing, Ellsworth called David Schubert, “a disgrace to his oath as a prosecutor and a lawyer.” He happened to have a drug problem and deserved some empathy. Many attorneys in this town will never forgive Ellsworth for her cruelty.
Ellsworth is a Dem. I was shell shocked. She is a piece of work.
I'm one of those lawyers. I'm glad others share this sentiment. I was also disappointed in Herndon's grandstanding through that ordeal before recusing himself.
Even as a deputy DA Ellsworth was arrogant and judgmental. The NSC scolded her in Collier v. State, 747 P.2d 225 (Nev. 1987, for her "over the top" comments:
"PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Collier has, once again, directed this court to alleged prosecutorial misconduct. We note two statements made by the prosecutor (Ellsworth) during closing argument which merit our attention.
"In justifying a sentence of death, the prosecutor stated of Gregory Collier:
'He is a killer. Society has the right to protect itself from its enemies and Greg Collier is certainly an enemy. We have the right to kill our enemies as we have the right to kill mad dogs or to kill disease or plague or pestilence.'
"Although we do not consider this statement to have been prejudicial under the facts of this case, we disapprove of the manner in which the prosecution equated Gregory Collier with mad dogs, disease, plague or pestilence in its recommendation that the death penalty be imposed. Pacheco v. State, 82 Nev. 172, 179, 414 P.2d 100, 103-104 (1966).
"Additionally, the prosecutor retorted during rebuttal:
'Mr. Jackson tells you, quote, I'm biased. And ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to tell you the same thing. The essayist and philosopher Goeth [sic] said many years ago, 'I can promise you to be sincere but not impartial.' And I tell you I am sincere, but I'm not impartial. I don't like murder.'
"While we understand that this comment may have been intended simply as an oratorical device, we direct all counsel to be mindful that they are officers of the court 'whom juries have a right to regard as unprejudiced, impartial, and nonpartisan, and bent only on seeing justice done and the law vindicated in accordance with the rules of law… .' State v. Rodriguez, 31 Nev. 342, 346, 102 P. 863, 864 (1909)."
I believe she also would not look favorably on any of you using legal marijuana.