- Quickdraw McLaw
- 33 Comments
- 116 Views
A year ago today, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. That same day, President Trump announced a European travel ban, the NBA cancelled a game and then the season, the NCAA announced so fans at March Madness, we learned Tom Hanks had it, and our world got flipped, turned upside down. Go back and look at the comments on this post from the following day if you are feeling nostalgic. Now we ask, one year later, how are you doing?
- Lawmakers begin tackling complex issue of jury trials for misdemeanor domestic violence cases. [TNI]
- The lawsuit to open the Legislature hit a road block. [TNI]
- A contract dispute is brewing between CCSD and Superintendent Jara over when exactly his contract ends. [Nevada Current]
- MGM Resorts facing lawsuit over use of resort fees. [RJ]
I'm no expert on the CCSD, but they seem like the gang that couldn't shoot straight when it comes to the hiring and firing of administrators.
I can never forgive the governor for what he did to Nevada. My family survived just fine, but I know many who suffered and continue to suffer for no good reason. Future historians — the honest ones at least — will likely look back at governmental responses to the COVID-19 outbreak and note that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis stands out for his responsible, measured, effective, and ultimately vindicated handling of the crisis.
Let's hope that Sisolak takes his corruption cash and retires sooner rather than later. It's impossible that there is a worse, lowlier, scummier cretin to take over. I'll even take that POS AG of ours. But for family, we'd be looking to move to Florida asap.
FLORIDA MAN WILL NOT VOTE TO RE-ELECT GOVERNOR SISOLAK
11:57 – we moved to Utah to get away from Nevada aka NewCali – never been happier
Bye! Florida won't even release the real number of covid deaths they've had. So much so that the governor (whose ball sac you apparently like the taste of) is prosecuting a data scientist who insisted on releasing the actual data. DeSantis has also been caught allocating vaccines to his rich donors instead of front line workers and seniors.
Meanwhile in Nevada our testing has been running great and vaccines are rolling out now that Biden is actually buying enough for all the states.
Nevada was always going to be hit hard by this pandemic. Our main industry is tourism and for the last year no one has been traveling. Sisolak is by no means perfect and he's made his share of mistakes, but don't go posting your fox news nonsense here. Have fun in Florida.
I am humbled by your brazen ignorance.
It's always odd to me when people complain about Vegas becoming more like California. CA is great. So many people want to live there, they've got the 2nd highest property values in the country. Their economy is the 5th largest in the world. What does Utah have? National parks and a bunch of white people…ahh…there it is.
Well have fun in Utah with your white neighbors. Maybe you can visit 11:57 in Florida. Stay away from Miami and Key West though. I have a feeling you wouldn't enjoy those places anyways.
Sorry folks, Sisolak is a weenie, constantly holding his finger in the wind and calculating who is likely a contributor. He is not an effective managing executive.
Sisolak….what the hell? Local folks in charge of the vaccines asked him yesterday to open up more categories because too many time slots were going unclaimed. He refused!!! Instead bitched about too many government employees getting shots. So did he. And his wife.
California is paradise! And Sisolak is working day and night to make sure we follow its path.
12:22 – What's with the race baiting? Can you lefties address anything without making it about race?
@ 12:22
CA is great if you live in wealthy county and have a great job. The regulatory environment is driving business out of the state and the tax rate is punitive. Social services are a wreck. The income inequality in CA is very high. You obviously haven't been to east or central LA, East Riverside, San Bernardino or any place along Hwy 99.
… and I second the white baiting crap comment. You are just as racist as a southern red neck.
I looked up "white baiting" on urban dictionary and I do not think that means what you think it means, but thank you for the laugh.
Oh, dear, I looked it up and wish I hadn't.
Well, that is going on my to do list for this evening. Any takers?
Sisolak destroyed Nevada – Las Vegas for sure. Anyone who disagrees is in denial. Vegas will come back, because we're strong. But Sisolak needs to go and the GOP need to find a candidate quick.
I am truly interested in what refugees from the asylum the two state parties are going to encourage to run. You've got the GQP, lead by non other than Michael McDonald, who happily performed Electoral College Theater on the steps of the state capitol. Then you have the Democratic Socialist-lead Democratic party, which are just as crazy.
12:22 CA is great hahaha omg – no words – when all you have to compare to it is Tijuana maybe it is great to you, and yes I love my neighbors up here – no crime – no drugs – no people like you – I love it – you can keep CA and your life
I bet 12:22 listens to NPR and watches MSNBC.
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, aka the "Utah Full Support Plan" is signed into law. Expect that sweet sweet Stimmy by this weekend, and those sweet sweet refundable child tax credits starting in July.
Is anyone a tiny bit upset that LA and SF are getting two billion dollars? Why does Miami have to pay for LA's stupidity?
Miami? Ha! CA pays way more in taxes to the federal govt than they get back.
Which judges are the most strutting, self-important prima donnas?
I'm not asking who are the worst judges, or the least prepared, or the least capable, or which ones have the most unpleasant, intemperate demeanors in court.
I am asking about which ones act like they are veritable celebrities on account that they are serving as a local judge.
By way of example, before live Bench Bars were suspended, a couple attorneys told me that had approached a certain judge, either before or after the Bench Bar, and the judge acted like rank-and-file attorneys should not assume they can approach them and be granted an audience. It happened to be a judge who myself, and these two attorneys, consider pretty decent, like at least in the top half of the pack as to judicial performance.
But the judge acted like they were on the red carpet. The attorneys don't want me to identify who the judge is, as one of the attorneys made a smart remark at the time(perhaps something like "sorry I bothered you") when they were ignored by the judge. So, they fear if the judge is identified that he/she will know the attorney who is now complaining about them–probably not a really valid concern if this judge is in the habit of blowing off the unwashed masses when they approach him/her. Such judge will not remember a specific blow off.
Now if some of these "celebrity" judges also happen to have some of those above negative traits I mentioned(poor performance on the bench, poor preparation, plays favorites, intemperate demeanors, etc.), so be it.
But, again, I'm not necessarily asking for the worst judges. I am asking about the ones who believe someone should pay $125 to receive their autograph. That type of attitude.
Dawn Throne acts pretty high-handed in court. She doesn't listen to anything you're telling her, won't consider arguments, pretty dictatorial. Not sure how she acts in person now that she's a judge since everything has been remote. I'm sure I'll have that pleasure soon enough.
1:11. I have mixed feelings about those types of complaints about judges.
On the one hand, I strongly agree that judges should be courteous and respectful at hearings, and provide ample time for argument.
On the other hand, on motion calendar, a lot of what occurs at the hearing is just window dressing, and perhaps more important as a performance piece for the clients.
The reason I feel that way is that the emphasis, on motion calendar, should be on really effective briefing. If you did a solid and thorough job on your motion, and then availed yourself of the opportunity to prepare a Reply once you reviewed the Opposition, there really should be not much to discuss at a hearing unless something really new and important occurred since the Reply was filed(and if it did, that perhaps opens up notice issues as to the other side not being adequately informed of this "new development" and then ambushed in court).
So, ideally, a Motion hearing should be for the purpose of receiving the judge's rulings–needing substantive time to be heard is often no longer important. All of which suggests that many more hearings should be vacated and resolved by minute entry.
That all understood, 1:11 is discussing a Family Court Judge. So, yes, in that arena, putting on the "show" for the client may have some importance, plus those matters are so red hot and fast moving from an emotional and behavioral standpoint, that often one or both parties may have done something outrageous since the close of filing that merits some discussion.
1:11 here. I'm trying to take your comment with a grain of salt, but you come across as very pompous. I'm sure your briefings are perfect and there is never a question as to what anything you say means, there is no room for misunderstandings, etc.
Family court is more than putting on a "show" for clients. You are correct in that oftentimes things change significantly from the time of filing to the time of hearing. Judges don't always get things right and sometimes, no matter how thoroughly you brief, the judges just miss key points.
No judge should get on the bench and start barking orders. They need to listen, review the arguments and evidence, and issue an order that considers all of the above. A little politeness never hurt them either.
2:46 and 1:11–1:34 here.Forgive me, but I think you are being a little thin-skinned. Attacking someone, and calling them disparaging names, when they are agreeing with most of what you are saying is a little concerning. It makes me imagine how you may treat people who actually strongly disagree with you on a subject.
That said, I myself need to avoid being too thin-skinned and acknowledge that I've been called a lot worse than "very pompous".
So, please re-read my remarks. When it comes to Family Law matters,I acknowledged that we need to view such matters, due to the emotions and critical children issues in operation, somewhat differently than other civil matters, and recognize the need for attorneys to be able to have adequate leeway to present, and to be respected when doing so, on motion calendar.
When I examined the flip side of the issue, those observations were more in the realm of other Civil, Non-Family matters. On Civil calendar at the RJC the focus should really be on full and adequate briefing. There should not really be critical material omitted from the briefs that then needs to be discussed at length at the hearing.
If I ever ascend to the bench, I will have as few live hearings as possible. Everything submitted on the briefs. This would free up time for evidentiary hearings and trials. Sure, it would reduce my chances of reelection, but who the fuck would want that job for more than one term?
I pretty much agree with the comments on this thread.
I do believe that many hearings should essentially be resolved on the briefings, without the necessity of much verbal argument, and perhaps even without the necessity of hearings in some cases.
But, yes, Family Court matters are a bit different. There is often a need for catharsis, or at least to be validated and heard. So,even if an attorney has fully briefed the matter, some ability to verbally present the case is critical, and no Family Court Judge should react the way that one poster is describing them as acting.
I hope that was just a bad day for the judge, but the way the poster describes it sounds like it may be more of an ongoing problem.
1:04–not so sure as to the current crop as I no longer do much about attending luncheons or events wherein there would be an opportunity to approach judges.
Over the last few years, my exposure to judges is limited to court hearings.
However, if the level of arrogance you describe is now fairly prevalent, I am saddened to learn that.
I am a relatively older practitioner who remembers when there were no metal gates(or at least attorneys were not required to go through the metal gates) at the old court house(200 S. Third) and you could simply drop by chambers and visit a judge or two when you had the time and if they were in chambers. They tended to be much more accessible and approachable in those days.
But in recent years, with greatly heightened security concerns and no ability of lawyers to get through to chambers without pre-approved access, and with greater concerns that casual conversations with judges increases the risk of ex parte communications occurring concerning cases assigned to the judge, such liberal access no longer exists.
In fact it's all now tighter than a drum, and none of my attorney friends seem to ever visit a judge in chambers.
Anyone follow any judges on social media? Anyone think judges should keep their opinions to themselves?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/zaon-collins-indictment-dismissed-over-absence-of-dui-charge-2300276/
Blog going to an every-other-day posting schedule?