- Quickdraw McLaw
- 39 Comments
- 118 Views
- The Nevada Supreme Court ruled against TitleMax prohibiting grace periods that extend loans and interest rates. [TNI; RJ]
- Attorney Jerry Gillock delivered a shovelful of feces to the steps of City Hall. [KTNV]
- The Nevada Taxicab Authority voted to implement flat rate zones between the airport and areas of the Strip. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Two whistleblower complaints filed against the SNHD. [I-Team]
- Here’s more on the battle between the RJ and the Sun. [New To Las Vegas]
You should all be aware that you have been sued and called incompetent.
Joey Kadmiri
v.
All Nevada Attorneys Practicing Law in Nevada; Eighth Judicial District Court
9/26/2019 A-19-802619-C Gonzalez
Well some process server's children will have a nice Christmas this year.
@10:34 I think you just got served by alternative means under the new rule.
Fun. Kadmiri is the guy who was beaten up by male strippers from the "Thunder from Down Under" show at the Trop a few years ago when he was burglarizing their dressing room and trying to steal underwear.
Surprisingly, the complaint is only 3 pages long and is nicely hand-written. Such a nice change from the usual nutter filings.
Post a link to the Complaint please.
Here's a copy of the complaint: https://bit.ly/2mtai14
Good for Jerry Gillock. The City has been completely ineffective on the problem of vagrancy. There is an infestation of dangerous disease-carrying bums downtown and the City's plan thus far has been to make them more comfortable. The City has, in effect, invited the hobos to dig in. Would someone do that if his house was infested with rats or cockroaches?
Just wait until the first time this pestilence visits Eglet's palace.
And by the way, let's hope Olivia Diaz watches that video of herself and somehow realizes what a clueless doubletalking bureaucratic moron she really is. What's worse; the excrement Gillock shoveled or the excrement flowing from Olivia Diaz's pie hole?
Cities run by Demohacks with their spend, tax and spend policies: Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Baltimore, Newark, Cleveland, Buffalo, Stocton, Memphis, Houston, etc. The top 10 homeless cities are led by Demohacks. The top 10 most dangerous are led by Demohacks. All of these shining examples of municipal government pursue inconsistent policies and encourage the cycle of dependence, crime, crap on front porches, suffocating taxes, poverty, etc. The demohacks will remain in controal as long as people are dependent on the government.
Who reopened the RJ comment section?
10:42, please read the City of Boise 9th Circuit decision. Cities have two options now: build a ton of beds/shelters so that you can enforce vagrancy/camping laws on the streets, or don't spend anything on beds/shelters and be prohibited from enforcing vagrancy/camping laws. It seems like you're arguing for a don't spend anything on beds/shelters and enforce vagrancy/camping laws approach, which is plainly unconstitutional under current 9th Circuit precedent.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio used tent cities as housing. Why can't the same privilege be provided to the demohack constituents who poo on front porches?
That's going to be a big tent city.
"Just over half of California’s registered voters have considered leaving the state, with soaring housing costs cited as the most common reason for wanting to move, according to a new poll." https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-27/who-wants-to-leave-california-berkeley-igs-poll
Sheriff Joe's tent cities were for their jail inmate population, not the homeless.
1:49, the homeless don't need to be put in jail. The idea of a tent city makes sense. Eventually we could erect walls around the tent city and keep those people inside it. We could throw scraps of food over the wall too. A complex such as this would be an excellent deterent to being homeless— especially homeless kids.
Where is Snake Plissken when you need him? Call me Snake.
11:33, should the S. Ct. grant cert in City of Boise, affirmance seems very unlikely as the 9th Circuit's reasoning appears manifestly erroneous.
3:02, that's awful speculative and it doesn't mean it's not the law at this time, which is probably why 11:33 said it is unconstitutional under CURRENT 9th Circuit precedent.
3:28, correct, but 9th Circuit precedent is barely worth the paper on which it's printed.
You gonna advise your client to take action adverse to binding precedent? Have fun with that.
1. Build a tent-type facility out near Apex. It has a cafeteria, medical facility, a courthouse/police station, classrooms, mental health services, a store, etc. Residents are assigned jobs to maintain the facility. It has no fence – you can just walk off.
2. Start assigning cops to spend more time walking neighborhood "beats" like the good old days. One of the jobs of the "beat" cops is to arrest people in the neighborhoods for repeated vagrancy. Some neighborhoods will be worse than others.
3. Vagrants are transported to the Apex facility and go through the court system there. A DA and PD are permanently assigned to the facility. Also a mental health staff and an MD are permanently assigned. Private charities also have a presence.
4. Vagrants "convicted" by the onsite judge are required to stay in the camp until the judge sees fit to release them on whatever grounds — getting an apartment, a job, some medication, etc. The purpose is not to punish vagrants, but rather to mitigate vagrancy. Those required to stay in the facility also are fitted with an ankle bracelet.
5. If anyone "walks off" the Apex site without permission, police just bring them back if they are caught for vagrancy again. The ankle bracelet helps. Plus it is a long walk from Apex to anywhere. Repeat walk-offs and criminal behavior in the camp can result in confinement.
Sure this isn't a perfect solution and sure it will cost money, but isn't that true of most things that need fixing? It is a simple cost-benefit analysis: do I want people living on the street and crapping on my doorstep or do I want to pay something to put a stop to it?
I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
5:20, For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. There are so many problems with your solution I don't know where to start, but I guess I'll try. The facility you describe sounds like a county facility in that it would serve the entire valley. But vagrancy related crimes (trespassing, public urination, illegal camping, etc.) are misdemeanors that are often heard before each city's muni court. So the simple assigning of a DA and PD won't address a huge number of cases. Are Las Vegas, Henderson, and North LV all going to have their own court facilities in Apex? Are the city attorneys and public defenders from each of those cities going to have to travel up to Apex to deal with these cases? Doesn't sound too administratively efficient.
I also can't tell if you're trolling because #4 is so asinine. Do you think it's legal for a judge to require someone to stay in your tent city indefinitely until they get a job? So, in other words, judge says I find you guilty of the illegal camping in a park, a misdemeanor, and I sentence you to what could be a year-long incarceration at tent city?
5:20 here. I see lotsa criticizing, not alotta brainstorming. Do you really want to quibble over jurisdiction? Instead of just bashing me for what I said like the troll YOU are, offer a better solution or STFU.
Would you rather homeless people continue to die on the street? May God have mercy on YOUR soul.
Why should treating chronic vagrancy be so different than involuntary civil commitment? Someone out of a job and down on their luck and living on the street is one thing, but that is not your typical vagrant. The majority of the people living on the street suffer from serious mental illness and addiction. I see no way to help many of them with their initial cooperation or consent. I know that if I had a family member living on the street addicted to meth and/or suffering from a mental disorder because they refuses to take their meds, their civil rights would take a distant back seat while I nabbed them and forced them into a treatment center.
11:46, I think the criticism is warranted when posters before you explained the bind cities are in after the 9th's recent decision and you proceeded to float a clearly illegal and unworkable solution. So highlighting why your proposal was simply not doable helped rein in the discussion to focus on the law. Also, a person's civil rights to not terminate because people don't like certain people hanging out in their neighborhood. That's where this blog is supposed to elevate above political rantings into what can actually legally be done.
I agree that Olivia Diaz' approach is problematic, and that the city should do its best to reduce vagrancy rather than coddle to vagrants.
But I don't believe that homeless bums, who most of us don't remotely come into close and consistent contact with, put us at any real risk of being infected by them, nor do I believe they pose some major public health crisis.
At worst, they are quite annoying by pan handling at an increasing number of street corners. But I am infinitely more likely to catch an illness from a family member or co-worker than I am to catch an illness from some hobo.
The bums who live on the sidewalks and alleys inflict upon us their wastes and diseases. I try to avoid the bums and their waste products, but someone has to power-wash the sidewalk to remove the feces and urine and vomit and dirty needles and other debris. The power-washing causes splatter and spray. How much of a risk is there from this?
I have not seen rats and other rodents, but that is probably because of my lack of skill as a hunter. I am sure they are there. And that means fleas. Which can get on my dogs and otherwise endanger me.
I wish I believed that the bums do not create a risk of public health issues. But just read the stories out of Los Angeles.
The comments about the homeless are sad. Those are people and a lot of them did not choose to be where they are. Criminalizing the situation is not going to improve things…we'll just have to build more jails. Jail is more expensive than housing. Cops and corrections officers are not trained to deal with homeless issues – they're law enforcement, not social workers. We need more low income housing and we need to get these people the services they need to get off the streets. Housing First was working in Utah until they de-funded it. The City, the County, and the various non-governmental agencies need to get their act together, stop wasting money on staff/admin, and start housing these people.
In tent cities!
Who knew Sheriff Joe frequented our humble blog?
Buy them a bus ticket to San Francisco.
South Park did a perfect episode of this 'Night of the Living Homeless'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdJQMnuYH9o
"The comments about the homeless are sad. Those are people and a lot of them did not choose to be where they are."
Hell yes it is sad, because many able body CHOOSE to be on the streets. Others, less able bodies could do some sort of light work, but CHOOSE not to do so. Vagrancy is a crime, but some like jail (3 hots and cot). Use alternate sentencing to do public service work. (Oh, my back hurts, I have blood pressure issues, etc) In that case the work would be sitting in a chair counting, sorting, folding laundry.
The bottom line, the too soft attitude and lack of policy does harm the community.
The City should at least install some public restrooms downtown. Not for the homeless to sleep in but for them and others to use. They can be mostly metal like in parks and don't need to be big but it would be humane thing to do and might help. Also drinking fountains. And attend to them several times a day both with police checks and janitorial.
You might want to give Jerry Walker a ring and ask him for the pictures of what the Parks have found in the public drinking fountains, and the water parks, and and and …. despite patrols the parks that the children should be playing in are full of urine, feces, needles, condoms … for those who have private parks and a backyard, bravo, keep saying it's not a problem, for the poor and lower middle class, their kids can't play at local parks most days.
7:25 is wrong. The solution lies not in making living on the streets easier and more comfortable. The solution instead lies in enforcing vagrancy and public camping laws and making living on the streets untenable.
If living on the streets becomes difficult and uncomfortable, some vagrants will leave and some will do what it takes to get off the streets. But if the City continues to tolerate and coddle the vagrants, the situation will spiral even further out of control.
Enforce the law.
9th Circuit says you can't "enforce the law" unless you have beds available. So I hope you're supporting the use of public funds to build more shelters.
The homeless problem is quite complex. That complexity is something that many of us are unwilling to engage. It is much easier to think the problem solved through blanket condemnations of laziness or implementation of simple, well-intended programs. Homelessness in Las Vegas is particularly acute because we are a transient city, many people who live here have few family nearby and/or a frail personal social net, the relatively mild weather 8 months a year is also a magnet.
I don't have an easy solution. But I do know this: (1) Homeless people deserve to be treated with the dignity and respect afforded to all persons; (2) the causes of homelessness are complex; (3) persistent homelessness creates problems for society as a whole. Who isn't sympathetic to a downtown business owner whose property is constantly covered in feces and urine?
I was walking by Family Court (had a hearing) and saw a guy dropping deuce in broad daylight at the end of the parking lot. After the hearing, I walked back by toward my car; and thought, His business actually improved the property.
Anonymous September 29, 2019 at 6:41 AM 5:20, you said "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." Very well said and if you don't mind I intend to use that comment liberally on so very many current events. Homelessness, like most public policy issues, cannot be solved with a bumper sticker slogan, 30 second sound bite, or 280 character comment.
Anonymous September 27, 2019 at 11:20 AM, your observation of cities governed by Democrats is simplistic and faulty. You're espousing a supposition that constitutes several logical fallacies related to cause and effect. The fact that our society governs most poor people in large cities with limited per capita resources while allowing wealthier citizens to retreat to smaller municipalities with much higher resources and fewer poor in need of them should be the first thing you look at. The large cities tend to vote for a polity that favors their interests no differently than a small rich one would. The disparity of resources is not something a local city or county can do much about. I grew up in Newport Beach; not much discussion about the need to expand social services there; the people who perform most of the lower paid jobs don't live there, so, out of sight out of mind.
I don't pretend to have all the answers but criminalizing poverty seems a poor solution.