- Quickdraw McLaw
- 16 Comments
- 148 Views
- Life with the possibility of parole for the killer a Lee’s liquor store clerk. [Las Vegas Sun; 8NewsNow]
- Tomorrow a judge will hear arguments about when survivors of Alpine Motel Apartments fire can get their stuff. [News3LV]
- The story of 24/7 private vaults. [RJ]
- Not Nevada, but check out this judge in North Carolina who takes years to enter orders. [WBTV]
People who want people to stop mentioning Trump here should ask him to stop doing stupid and illegal things. Can’t wait to follow the retaliation claims against the WH in the coming years.
Huh? 1) I have no idea what you're trying to say. It's like a triple negative wrapped around asking us to do something we cannot (speak to Trump). 2) I thought last week we agreed to omit national politics and name calling? In a weird sort of way, we are trying to make this blog great again.
1:08 is right. Although I get the general concept that people have the right to discuss whatever they want on the blog, that it might be more productive to exercise such right on the gazillion blogs that exist for political discussion, as well as indulging in name-calling to those of differing political beliefs.
And, yes, there was a discussion as to whether we could get this blog re-centered on what it is intended to be–a blog of local(and in some cases, national) legal matters.
The problem with starting any political discussion on this blog is that matters are so contentious that the comments become a runaway train, and before you know it there are two dozen comments wherein Pro-Trumpers and Anti-Trumpers call each other names–ignoring all nuance and details which should actually control political discourse.
It's like arguing firearm issues or the abortion issue–everything is so inflammatory and personal, no on convinces anyone of the slightest thing, and it all devolves into mutual mud-slinging.
And that's the problem with political discourse on this blog. There is no such thing as moderation. Once someone starts, it never ends at just three or four reasonably respectful remarks. Everyone is way too polarized, and can concede nothing. It is invariably a dozen or two dozen posts where people call each other morons based on their view of the impeachment hearings.
So, based on human nature, there is no middle-ground wherein a few political comments can flavor the legal ones. Seems we either have to agree that we won't discuss politics here, or that we will discuss it which means the blog will now be 95% comprised of people calling each other the most vile of names simply because their opinions differ. It's been proven repeatedly that it is foolish to expect any semblance of a middle ground.
Again, just because someone has a right to do something(in this case destroy the value of this blog by converting it purely into political name-calling) does not mean that such a right which is prudent to exercise.
I for one don't wish to express an opinion on the impeachment hearings because I don't wish to be repeatedly condemned as an idiot who was sired by two drooling, amoral morons.
Technically, 1:31 could only be sired by one drooling moron, not two, as being sired is(loosely speaking) the result of a male fertilizing a female's egg. But, I guess these days, as we have learned, all rules are out the window as to what we traditionally believed about sexual genetics(but 1:31 would suggest that even this topic should be avoided as it has political overtones).
Not sure I agree with 1:31.I believe that if someone has political commentary that they believe is provocative and will stimulate discussion that they should share it. But, I do agree with the one point made by 1:31,that a little restraint and respect goes a long way.
You Obammy clowns need to crawl back into mommy's basement and deal with another 4 years. #MAGA2020 #getjobs #4moreyears #nofreelunch #bideniscreepyandsleepy
At first I thought that 1:31 seemed a bit unreasonable and was trying to discourage political discussion.
But if 1:59 represents the level of political discussion that occurs on this blog, now I totally understand the concerns of 1:31.
To 1:59, all I can say is Wow!
Really? That's what you think of anyone who does not 100% agree with you 100% of the time? They deserve utter humiliation and condemnation?
Now, assuming for a minute you intended your post in a somewhat humorous manner, it is impossible to detect anything original, witty or humorous about what you wrote, not to mention a complete lack of maturity and restraint. I, for one, think you are not primarily motivated out of humor, but this is what you think of people, and how you treat people.
Seems like political discussion on this blog consists of condemning someone as a being utterly worthless depending on whether they are a Democrat or Republican.
And since that is what most so-called political discussion on this blog disintegrates into, I now agree with 1:31 and those who believe we should strive to focus the blog primarily on legal news and developments.
Judge "who takes years to enter orders." You mean Judge Delaney?
Lazy Sturman?
I have a legal question, if we can skip the politics for a moment. It is a question of jurisdiction, between the Justice Court and the District Court.
I am filing an interpleader action. I represented an injured driver. The medical liens total $30K. The insurance limits are $15K, which were tendered. I am asking the court to allocate the $10K (after my attorney lien of $5,000), and to wipe out $30K in medical liens.
The $15,000 being held looks like Justice Court jurisdiction, but doesn't the $30,000 in medical liens make it a District Court case? The amount in controversary from the medical providers' perspective is the $30,000. I can see both sides of the position.
Are there any published decisions that you know of that answer this issue?
Is Interpleader one of the specific forms of action allowed in Justices Court under NRS 4.370?
To 3:01: thank you, I had forgotten that the Justice Court is limited not just in the dollar amount. As you know from my question, my half-baked focus was on the $15,000 limit.
It's covered by JRCP 22.
Why did the Lee's case go to trial? Did the DA not offer Life Without as part of a proposed deal? Did the Defendant choose to roll the dice? Seems like a case that should have dealt.
He got like WITH parole. I don’t think Wolfson offered life without, but even if he did, he got parole and still has all his appellate rights.
Did he lose some of his appellate options by allocuting and apologizing?
Has anyone else noticed you can't see Judge Susan Johnson's calendar in Odyssey? I can see every other judge's calendar. When I have free time I like to watch trials and I look for them in the hearing search portion of the Court's website. Nothing between today and April 30.