I live in St. George (transitioning to retirement) and it is everything you could wish for in retirement. Instant healthcare, great community, close to entertainment if you do want a quick drive to Vegas, etc. I love it here! Welcome (just don't bring too many other attorneys haha)
"'I believe if I had a house in hell and a house in St. George, I'd rent out the one in St. George and live in hell. I really would." -J. Golden Kimball.
Truer now than ever. If that place floats your boat, great. But the pharisaical, conformist, materialistic citizenry up there is a bit much for me. Imagine a place that combines the self-righteousness of Utah County and the materialism of the Orange County coast. It's real. It exits. It's St. George.
Guest
Anonymous
September 18, 2023 5:30 pm
Don't harass journalists. But the RJ's headline was wrong and bad even without the video. Calling it a "bike crash" makes it sound like the bike caused the accident (and hides the fact, unless you read the article, that a car was involved at all). The headline should've said "killed by car," which is true and doesn't make any judgment about who was responsible for the incident.
In a vacuum that is a small mistake, but it part of a disturbing trend by newspapers to write headlines and stories in ways that implicitly absolve car drivers of responsibility, much like how their stories about cops tend to minimize cops' agency ("Man struck by bullet during police encounter").
The RJ has entirely made themselves the story and are trying to absolve themselves of the harassment that comes out of a news story. NEWSFLASH Review Journal people are harassed and threatened everyday after you fail to thoroughly investigate the facts.
RJ couldn't speak truth because the teens were black and they targeted an elderly white man on account of his race. Only the reverse is newsworthy.
Guest
Anonymous
September 18, 2023 7:39 pm
As far as the litigation contesting the Republican Governor's Primary, which Lombardo handily won, I don't wish to get sucked into the weeds on the details of that specific case, nor am I knowledgeable enough or qualified to do so.
But, speaking far more generally about such disputes, there seems to be a fairly reliable observation which is usually true: whenever one is arguing any election irregularity or errors(or, in the more extreme cases, actual fraud) it tends not to resonate with too many people unless the election was very close–like within like one, or two percentage points, at most.
Even if we accept various election fraud issues, they are based on very multi-layered and complex matters, which only change votes by a portion of one percent. Obviously, election fraud in case where someone loses by like 20%, would require a remarkable combination of many different alleged factors, but most of which could be relatively easy to debunk and reject.
In fact some so-called "specialists" in this area, maintain that the only election fraud argument which could make any theoretical sense, if someone loses by 20% or 30%, would be something like the voting machines counted one person's votes but assigned the other candidates name to such votes.
And those are just a few of the reasons why not many parties tend to litigate elections they lost by a significant margin. Most of these fights center around really, really close elections–like Trump/Biden in 2020, or, apparently even more excruciatingly close, Bush/ Gore in 2000.
12:49, since the inception, many have argued for straight popular vote in presidential elections, but no substantive progress has ever been achieved in making this happen. And that probably means that no matter what the media political pundits favor, or no matter what the majority of voters may favor, that those who control the democratic party and republican party wish to keep it the way it is.
And since those power brokers wish to maintain it the way it is, the Federal Court System will take no steps to scuttle the manner in which presidential elections have been conducted for like forever. Nor will the Senate seek to change it. So, we can't expect any legislative changes or federal judicial changes in this area, in my view, even though, yes, for years millions of people have been of the belief that presidential elections should be determined by raw popular vote totals.
Poly sci 101 there r very good reasons for electoral college one of which is don’t want overly populated area like ca to control – ANY area has own wants that could override another groups rights
1:09-And that's why there has been no real success with the movement 1:06 identifies, and why the "popular vote" faction gains no meaningful traction.
Both the Federal Court system, as well as the Senate, when confronted with proposals to convert to pure popular vote, would no doubt refer to what you identified–the disenfranchisement of less populous states(like our own state!).
And, in broader sense, that is why they balanced out representation with each state having a number of Congress members based on population, but each state receiving two Senators regardless of population.
1:06 is right that power brokers in the democrat and republican parties have no inclination to try to convert the system to pure popular vote, nor does the U.S Supreme Court or the Senate.
But the main reason they have no such inclination is not necessarily based on political views of this issue. They wish to take no action because they are precluded from doing so.
Electoral college is directly linked to this concept of two senators per state, and a U.S. congress representative per proportionate population pocket.
And, considering that, there is only one constitutional provision which can NEVER be amended-this concept of two senators per state and a congressional representative per population pocket. And since that can never be amended(it is right in the constitution that it can never be amended) electoral college can likewise never be modified to pure popular vote.
Majority rule is tyranny. Our Founding Fathers recognized that. Big states with more population will ram down the throats things the smaller states don't want. Popular vote means the cities such as New York. LA and Chicago run and dictate everything.
The electoral college can be fixed with a simple law. Doesn't need a constitutional amendment. Uncap the house and watch as the absurd power imbalance of the senate's contribution to the EC gets wiped out. The house is only set at 435 because of a nearly-100 year old law. Before then, it regularly grew in size to account for increases in population. We ere never meant to have one representative for a million residents (as is the case in Delaware). I would prefer that my representative covered 100-200,000 people, maximum. With one representative for 200,000 people, we'd have a People's House of 1650 representatives. Compared to that, what's the 100 that the Senate adds to the EC?
Agree with 2:32. Much easier to fix. And while we are at it, fix the part that allows one knucklehead in Alabama, who doesn't even live in Alabama, to single-handedly hold up every important military promotion.
2:32-When you start out by saying "we don't need a constitutional amendment", as 1:43 points out even a constitutional amendment is impossible as it is right in the constitution that it is the one item which can NEVER be amended.
In theory, the only way to change a provision, which right in the constitution is designated as impossible to ever amend, would be to adopt a brand new constitution. Sounds like sacrilege in a sense, but the framers intended that such is the drastic action that would need to be taken in order for this provision to be eliminated.
2:16 – Majority rule isn't tyranny, per se. Tyranny is tyranny. Could be by the majority or the minority.
"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. "
The provision that can't be changed without a state's own consent is the equal representation in the Senate (see Article V). That's it. The Electoral college itself isn't eternal and unchangeable, see Amendment 12. The manner of selecting Senators isn't unchangeable, see Amendment 17. But that's really beside the point, because adding numbers to the EC by virtue of enlarging the House has happened 12 times. Each time the Senate's contribution to the EC was diluted without a Constitutional Crisis. The 1790 census gave us 1 Rep per 37k total people. The 1890 census gave us 1 Rep per 177k people. The 2020 census gives us 1 Rep per 757k people. Uncap the House, and all of a sudden the EC look a lot more like a popular election. Which it should be.
Why not eliminate the winner take all of the EC? If each state allocated their votes on a percentage basis, the larger states like CA, TX, NY wouldn't completely negate the sizeable percentage of voters that chose a different party than the historical winning party. This would keep intact the small advantage less populous states have while simultaneously creating a system much closer to a popular vote.
10:11, Saying we are are Republic, not a democracy, is like saying you have a Golden Retriever, not a dog. Clearly we are not a pure democracy. We are, however, a representative democracy in which the representatives are (or are supposed to be) elected democratically.
And speaking of the "rights of the individual," what of the right of the rural farmer in California to have his vote count equally, or near equal to that of the rural farmer in Iowa? Is there a individual right to an advantage for your vote for President? Is is still an individual right if it is lost by moving to a more populous state? Has the right been violated each of the 14 times that the House size has been changed from 1790 to 1913? How, precisely, is the right secured by arbitrarily limiting the House size to 435 (and thus the EL to 535)? Everyone has the right to equal representation in the Senate, and proportional representation in the House. Capping the house has made a solemn mockery of the proportionality of the House, and lessened the democratic election of of the President. There is no reason smaller states should be advantaged in the Presidential Election.
6:18 is on the right path but I would say allocating EC votes on a pure pro rata basis would be unwieldy and complex. A simpler method would be to allocate each state's delegates in a manner somewhat consistent with the idea of the EC.. Assign the Senator based delegates on a winner take all basis based on the statewide vote. The House based delegates are assigned to the winner in that House seat district. As a practical matter, it is likely most states EC vote would be split in various configurations forcing the candidates to campaign in far more states/districts rather than simply getting or writing off areas of the country that will predictably go to the same party election after election. Assembling 270 EC votes would get far more interesting.
The methods proposed by 6:18 and 5:21 would require a state-by-state determination of how to allocate the EC votes. Expanding the house would only take repealing the Reapportionment Act of 1929. In the process, you would get better and more local representation and make it effectively impossible to gerrymander one party into power permanently.
And even greater gridlock and pontificating by more than 1k representatives. Let's not forget the increase in operating costs (office expenses, salaries, pensions, etc.)
Guest
Anonymous
September 18, 2023 8:20 pm
The CCSD/CCEA dispute is going to be one for the ages. What’s funny is I bet none of the judges or justices have children that go to a ccsd school. I don’t see how anyone can be on the district’s side but I’m always amazed by people online.
Guest
Anonymous
September 18, 2023 9:41 pm
Whenever people ask me why I am so down on the long term prospects for East LA (my term for Las Vegas) I point to CCSD. What bigger and better FU to this city and its future than that colossal cesspool of stumbling douchebags (CCSD).
"It suffers" from too much money and too little accountability. Have you tried interviewing a CCSD graduate for an entry level job? They cannot form proper sentences! Illiterate and entitled. CCSD is just prepping the kids for CCDC instead of helping them become productive members of society. Maybe if the casino moguls were more focused on long term gains instead of short term fat cat checks, they'd wield some of their influence to change things.
Sadly, I agree with your general opinion. CCSD is a disaster. It is way too top heavy with too many administrators and too much testing. The teachers are some of the worst paid in the country and I think it was about 10 years ago that they gutted the health insurance program. Frankly, I'm surprised they can even get teachers to work there anymore.
It suffers because parents who care no longer send their children there. They send them all to charter schools leaving the public schools populated by a weaker parental supporting network and further exacerbating the divide between the haves and the have nots. Congratulations, school choice folks. You've played us all.
Guest
Anonymous
September 18, 2023 10:13 pm
Serious question please: Does anyone know how to change a business name with IRS but KEEP same EIN number and get proof of this quickly from IRS? Thank you.
We changed the entity name of our law firm and got it changed with the IRS, but we had our CPA handle that for us, so I would recommend you ask your CPA for help with it. That said, I don't think anyone is getting anything from the IRS quickly nowadays.
4:29 back again – I asked the Google machine "how do I change my business name with the irs" and got this link: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/business-name-change. Now, again, getting it back from the IRS quickly, can't help you there.
Speaking of elections, I'm surprised I haven't been inundated with judicial campaign garbage yet. I know judicial filings aren't until January but that's never stopped candidates from sending out an early email blast announcing their candidacy and listing dozens of supporters, followed by the email/phone call money grab. Doesn't the onslaught of money requests usually start by now for the June judicial primaries?
All of them. We gave up on staggered races years ago. So once again, voters will get the chance to weigh in on 50-plus races they know nothing about. If it is like the last race, they will just pick the woman in the race and move on.
Next cycle for DC is in 2026. This time it will only be the judges appointed since the last general election, some JC and MC judges, and the 3 SC judges.
Guest
Anonymous
September 19, 2023 4:44 pm
No news on Telles in a while. Does anyone know what is happening? Will trial go forward in November with him representing himself?
Assuming the passenger in the car was a minor, what is his potential criminal liability if any?
Regardless of age, the driver must be incarcerated for the rest of his life.
Passenger absolutely should have accessory liability for egging the driver on.
Driver has been caught. He's 17 years old and was booked into CC Juvenile Hall and charges upgraded to murder. Passenger is still on the loose.
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/09/plaintiff-tells-court-to-f-themselves/
I love that he edited the title to correctly reflect the contents of – Go F Yourself haha
When it comes time to retire, I want to file a "Motion to Go Fuck Yourself" before heading off to St. George. Bye, bitches!
I live in St. George (transitioning to retirement) and it is everything you could wish for in retirement. Instant healthcare, great community, close to entertainment if you do want a quick drive to Vegas, etc. I love it here! Welcome (just don't bring too many other attorneys haha)
Re: St. George.
"'I believe if I had a house in hell and a house in St. George, I'd rent out the one in St. George and live in hell. I really would." -J. Golden Kimball.
Truer now than ever. If that place floats your boat, great. But the pharisaical, conformist, materialistic citizenry up there is a bit much for me. Imagine a place that combines the self-righteousness of Utah County and the materialism of the Orange County coast. It's real. It exits. It's St. George.
Don't harass journalists. But the RJ's headline was wrong and bad even without the video. Calling it a "bike crash" makes it sound like the bike caused the accident (and hides the fact, unless you read the article, that a car was involved at all). The headline should've said "killed by car," which is true and doesn't make any judgment about who was responsible for the incident.
In a vacuum that is a small mistake, but it part of a disturbing trend by newspapers to write headlines and stories in ways that implicitly absolve car drivers of responsibility, much like how their stories about cops tend to minimize cops' agency ("Man struck by bullet during police encounter").
It also seems like the RJ is making the story about them now too. Isn't one of the first rules of journalism was to not become part of the story?
The RJ has entirely made themselves the story and are trying to absolve themselves of the harassment that comes out of a news story. NEWSFLASH Review Journal people are harassed and threatened everyday after you fail to thoroughly investigate the facts.
RJ's Attorney Thinks Public Agencies Should be more Transparent.
METRO didn't give us everything we asked for so we asked our own lawyer if he agreed they should give more. He agreed.
Like Metro isn'y paying out their collective asses in attorneys fees and sanctions for doing, you know, exactly what the RJ reported.
Screw the RJ. Whatever value it had was pulverized by its now deceased casino magnet owner.
RJ couldn't speak truth because the teens were black and they targeted an elderly white man on account of his race. Only the reverse is newsworthy.
As far as the litigation contesting the Republican Governor's Primary, which Lombardo handily won, I don't wish to get sucked into the weeds on the details of that specific case, nor am I knowledgeable enough or qualified to do so.
But, speaking far more generally about such disputes, there seems to be a fairly reliable observation which is usually true: whenever one is arguing any election irregularity or errors(or, in the more extreme cases, actual fraud) it tends not to resonate with too many people unless the election was very close–like within like one, or two percentage points, at most.
Even if we accept various election fraud issues, they are based on very multi-layered and complex matters, which only change votes by a portion of one percent. Obviously, election fraud in case where someone loses by like 20%, would require a remarkable combination of many different alleged factors, but most of which could be relatively easy to debunk and reject.
In fact some so-called "specialists" in this area, maintain that the only election fraud argument which could make any theoretical sense, if someone loses by 20% or 30%, would be something like the voting machines counted one person's votes but assigned the other candidates name to such votes.
And those are just a few of the reasons why not many parties tend to litigate elections they lost by a significant margin. Most of these fights center around really, really close elections–like Trump/Biden in 2020, or, apparently even more excruciatingly close, Bush/ Gore in 2000.
Can't we just get rid of the electoral college and let Americans elect their president the same way they elect every other official?
12:49, since the inception, many have argued for straight popular vote in presidential elections, but no substantive progress has ever been achieved in making this happen. And that probably means that no matter what the media political pundits favor, or no matter what the majority of voters may favor, that those who control the democratic party and republican party wish to keep it the way it is.
And since those power brokers wish to maintain it the way it is, the Federal Court System will take no steps to scuttle the manner in which presidential elections have been conducted for like forever. Nor will the Senate seek to change it. So, we can't expect any legislative changes or federal judicial changes in this area, in my view, even though, yes, for years millions of people have been of the belief that presidential elections should be determined by raw popular vote totals.
Poly sci 101 there r very good reasons for electoral college one of which is don’t want overly populated area like ca to control – ANY area has own wants that could override another groups rights
And can always read fed papers for great explanation
1:09-And that's why there has been no real success with the movement 1:06 identifies, and why the "popular vote" faction gains no meaningful traction.
Both the Federal Court system, as well as the Senate, when confronted with proposals to convert to pure popular vote, would no doubt refer to what you identified–the disenfranchisement of less populous states(like our own state!).
And, in broader sense, that is why they balanced out representation with each state having a number of Congress members based on population, but each state receiving two Senators regardless of population.
1:06 is right that power brokers in the democrat and republican parties have no inclination to try to convert the system to pure popular vote, nor does the U.S Supreme Court or the Senate.
But the main reason they have no such inclination is not necessarily based on political views of this issue. They wish to take no action because they are precluded from doing so.
Electoral college is directly linked to this concept of two senators per state, and a U.S. congress representative per proportionate population pocket.
And, considering that, there is only one constitutional provision which can NEVER be amended-this concept of two senators per state and a congressional representative per population pocket. And since that can never be amended(it is right in the constitution that it can never be amended) electoral college can likewise never be modified to pure popular vote.
1:43 we’ll said , I was texting so thx for the thorough explanation
Majority rule is tyranny. Our Founding Fathers recognized that. Big states with more population will ram down the throats things the smaller states don't want. Popular vote means the cities such as New York. LA and Chicago run and dictate everything.
The electoral college can be fixed with a simple law. Doesn't need a constitutional amendment. Uncap the house and watch as the absurd power imbalance of the senate's contribution to the EC gets wiped out. The house is only set at 435 because of a nearly-100 year old law. Before then, it regularly grew in size to account for increases in population. We ere never meant to have one representative for a million residents (as is the case in Delaware). I would prefer that my representative covered 100-200,000 people, maximum. With one representative for 200,000 people, we'd have a People's House of 1650 representatives. Compared to that, what's the 100 that the Senate adds to the EC?
2:32 has a point.
Agree with 2:32. Much easier to fix. And while we are at it, fix the part that allows one knucklehead in Alabama, who doesn't even live in Alabama, to single-handedly hold up every important military promotion.
2:32-When you start out by saying "we don't need a constitutional amendment", as 1:43 points out even a constitutional amendment is impossible as it is right in the constitution that it is the one item which can NEVER be amended.
In theory, the only way to change a provision, which right in the constitution is designated as impossible to ever amend, would be to adopt a brand new constitution. Sounds like sacrilege in a sense, but the framers intended that such is the drastic action that would need to be taken in order for this provision to be eliminated.
2:16 – Majority rule isn't tyranny, per se. Tyranny is tyranny. Could be by the majority or the minority.
"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. "
The provision that can't be changed without a state's own consent is the equal representation in the Senate (see Article V). That's it. The Electoral college itself isn't eternal and unchangeable, see Amendment 12. The manner of selecting Senators isn't unchangeable, see Amendment 17. But that's really beside the point, because adding numbers to the EC by virtue of enlarging the House has happened 12 times. Each time the Senate's contribution to the EC was diluted without a Constitutional Crisis. The 1790 census gave us 1 Rep per 37k total people. The 1890 census gave us 1 Rep per 177k people. The 2020 census gives us 1 Rep per 757k people. Uncap the House, and all of a sudden the EC look a lot more like a popular election. Which it should be.
Why not eliminate the winner take all of the EC? If each state allocated their votes on a percentage basis, the larger states like CA, TX, NY wouldn't completely negate the sizeable percentage of voters that chose a different party than the historical winning party. This would keep intact the small advantage less populous states have while simultaneously creating a system much closer to a popular vote.
What is the democracy-centered reason for providing smaller states with advantages in the presidential election?
8:18, we are a Republic, not a democracy. Therefore, the rights of the individual supersede majority vote.
10:11, Saying we are are Republic, not a democracy, is like saying you have a Golden Retriever, not a dog. Clearly we are not a pure democracy. We are, however, a representative democracy in which the representatives are (or are supposed to be) elected democratically.
And speaking of the "rights of the individual," what of the right of the rural farmer in California to have his vote count equally, or near equal to that of the rural farmer in Iowa? Is there a individual right to an advantage for your vote for President? Is is still an individual right if it is lost by moving to a more populous state? Has the right been violated each of the 14 times that the House size has been changed from 1790 to 1913? How, precisely, is the right secured by arbitrarily limiting the House size to 435 (and thus the EL to 535)? Everyone has the right to equal representation in the Senate, and proportional representation in the House. Capping the house has made a solemn mockery of the proportionality of the House, and lessened the democratic election of of the President. There is no reason smaller states should be advantaged in the Presidential Election.
6:18 is on the right path but I would say allocating EC votes on a pure pro rata basis would be unwieldy and complex. A simpler method would be to allocate each state's delegates in a manner somewhat consistent with the idea of the EC.. Assign the Senator based delegates on a winner take all basis based on the statewide vote. The House based delegates are assigned to the winner in that House seat district. As a practical matter, it is likely most states EC vote would be split in various configurations forcing the candidates to campaign in far more states/districts rather than simply getting or writing off areas of the country that will predictably go to the same party election after election. Assembling 270 EC votes would get far more interesting.
I like your intent, 5:21, but I fear that would be an even worse system given how ridiculous House seats are gerrymandered.
The methods proposed by 6:18 and 5:21 would require a state-by-state determination of how to allocate the EC votes. Expanding the house would only take repealing the Reapportionment Act of 1929. In the process, you would get better and more local representation and make it effectively impossible to gerrymander one party into power permanently.
And even greater gridlock and pontificating by more than 1k representatives. Let's not forget the increase in operating costs (office expenses, salaries, pensions, etc.)
The CCSD/CCEA dispute is going to be one for the ages. What’s funny is I bet none of the judges or justices have children that go to a ccsd school. I don’t see how anyone can be on the district’s side but I’m always amazed by people online.
Whenever people ask me why I am so down on the long term prospects for East LA (my term for Las Vegas) I point to CCSD. What bigger and better FU to this city and its future than that colossal cesspool of stumbling douchebags (CCSD).
Like every school district it suffers from too many administrators and too much testing.
"It suffers" from too much money and too little accountability. Have you tried interviewing a CCSD graduate for an entry level job? They cannot form proper sentences! Illiterate and entitled. CCSD is just prepping the kids for CCDC instead of helping them become productive members of society. Maybe if the casino moguls were more focused on long term gains instead of short term fat cat checks, they'd wield some of their influence to change things.
Sadly, I agree with your general opinion. CCSD is a disaster. It is way too top heavy with too many administrators and too much testing. The teachers are some of the worst paid in the country and I think it was about 10 years ago that they gutted the health insurance program. Frankly, I'm surprised they can even get teachers to work there anymore.
It suffers because parents who care no longer send their children there. They send them all to charter schools leaving the public schools populated by a weaker parental supporting network and further exacerbating the divide between the haves and the have nots. Congratulations, school choice folks. You've played us all.
Serious question please: Does anyone know how to change a business name with IRS but KEEP same EIN number and get proof of this quickly from IRS? Thank you.
We changed the entity name of our law firm and got it changed with the IRS, but we had our CPA handle that for us, so I would recommend you ask your CPA for help with it. That said, I don't think anyone is getting anything from the IRS quickly nowadays.
4:29 back again – I asked the Google machine "how do I change my business name with the irs" and got this link: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/business-name-change. Now, again, getting it back from the IRS quickly, can't help you there.
Thank you I do appreciate it!
Speaking of elections, I'm surprised I haven't been inundated with judicial campaign garbage yet. I know judicial filings aren't until January but that's never stopped candidates from sending out an early email blast announcing their candidacy and listing dozens of supporters, followed by the email/phone call money grab. Doesn't the onslaught of money requests usually start by now for the June judicial primaries?
How many seats will be up this time? I know there were a couple of open seats in Family Court that were filled recently.
NSC has three up – Stiglich, Cadish, and Lee
All of them. We gave up on staggered races years ago. So once again, voters will get the chance to weigh in on 50-plus races they know nothing about. If it is like the last race, they will just pick the woman in the race and move on.
Really? All judges? That means there will be no men left on the bench at all.
Next cycle for DC is in 2026. This time it will only be the judges appointed since the last general election, some JC and MC judges, and the 3 SC judges.
No news on Telles in a while. Does anyone know what is happening? Will trial go forward in November with him representing himself?