Who knows exactly what is going on with the charges against Judge Stefany Miley? The latest is that it after AG Aaron Ford declined to act as special prosecutor, it was referred to Nye County to determine whether prosecution is appropriate. [RJ]
Governor Sisolak went into detail on some of his policies in a sit down interview with Jon Ralston. [TNI]
The US Supreme Court revived President Trump’s military transgender ban. [NY Times]
David Chesnoff is amazing. No prosecutor will touch this. By the end, someone will have Miley's kid convicted of domestic battery.
Guest
Anonymous
January 23, 2019 7:05 pm
This case against Judge Miley is dumb. From the limited info we have, her teenage son ran a yellow/red light, which upset her, as it would any of us. Some kind of dispute arose, and then that dispute was seized upon by opposing counsel in a divorce proceeding. But for the divorce proceeding and divorce counsel, none of this ever comes to public light. Someone yesterday posted that her career is over. If that's true, it's absolutely tragic. This whole thing is bullshit, a waste of resources and should be abandoned, and hopefully it has been.
Judge Miley is a good judge with some turbulent things going on in her personal life. This should be left alone and she should be able to keep doing a great job on the bench while her personal life sorts itself out.
I do not like you Donald Trump. I do not like this wall you hump.
Guest
Anonymous
January 23, 2019 7:51 pm
Jesus, Bruce Gale ratted her out?!?!
Guest
Anonymous
January 23, 2019 8:07 pm
Yup, he did, with the reasoning being that after he was contacted by the husband, he reviewed the rules of professional conduct and felt it was his duty to report it. Was in one of the earlier stories.
Did Bruce review the Bizarro Rules of Professional Conduct? I can't find a Nevada rule that says Bruce had a duty to call the police. Does Bruce represent Ed Miley in the divorce? That may be a reason to call the police.
She should have divorced Ed 10 years ago before the dog was strangled in 2009.
Yes, Bruce represents Ed aka Randy in the divorce. You are absolutely right, she should have divorced him a decade ago, but instead, had another baby by him.
These two people need to complete their divorce and then never see or speak to one another again, save for the custody transfer at McDonald's or wherever.
Guest
Anonymous
January 23, 2019 8:15 pm
He may have had an ethical duty to report it. We can have Andrew Craner weigh in on it.
Having once gone down this road re the ethical duty to report another lawyer, here are three rules I now follow in that situation: 1. Hear no evil; 2. See no evil; 3. Speak no evil.
@2:20pm – Why is that? Did you have a bad experience?
Guest
Anonymous
January 23, 2019 8:17 pm
To: 11:05. I basically agree with your observations, but there may be additional layers to all this that make things a little more problematic.
I agree that the boy speeding and running the light, and then exploding and cussing his mom when she reprimanded him, could push any parent to the limit.
But resorting to battering him, while he is driving a speeding car and indulging in an angry temper tantrum against his mom, only serves to endanger themselves and fellow motorists even further(if, in fact, that is what occurred. That all said, although I find the incident potentially somewhat more troubling than you do, I agree that if they were not a prominent couple involved in a divorce, it may never have seen the light of day. And I further agree that, although I think the incident may be a bit more serious than you feel it is, that it is important not to inflate the significance of the incident beyond all proportion.
Yet we must also keep in mind the context of all this. It is not totally isolated. There have been problems before wherein the family drew the attention of the criminal justice system(although admittedly that may have been almost a decade ago). Back then, I believe the husband was arrested for d.v., and there was also some incident where the judge had a dispute with a soccer mom, and it became public.
That all said, I don't think any of this spells an end to her career in any sense. What it does indicate is that the family may be well served in family counseling(even if they still intend to proceed with the divorce) and learn to handle disputes without being unduly reactive and emotional.
I think that her career appears safe for a couple reasons. The Commission, presumably, cannot use this arrest as a justification for significant discipline if the matter in fact remains dismissed, and is not revived by the Nye County D.A.(who is reviewing it in the role of as a potential conflict prosecutor, as our local D.A., as well as the AG, decline to pursue it), and does not result in a conviction for the original d.v. charge.
As for whether the voters would remove her if she gets an opponent next year, seems unlikely. The opponent would need to be well-funded to the point that he/she could consistently blanket the air waves and remind voters of these problems. Otherwise, by the election it will be a story almost two years old, and there would be no further significant free media coverage of it–except in the requisite article or two about the race, and the solitary editorial endorsement(which assumes the opponent receives the endorsement, which could be a safe bet).
I think it's all quite unfortunate, and the family has some real work to do.
But for Miley supporters, the good news is that I simply don't believe she will receive serious discipline from the Commission, and I don't think the voters will remove her, unless she attrcats a candidate who has $300,000. to $500,000. to spend to consistently remind the voters of the family's past personal and legal problems. It's just not important enough of an arrest to justify the media continuing to focus on it during the 2020 election–not when we have a gazzillion far more important races, including the presidential election, etc. In a much smaller community, this would be a much bigger deal.
True. But the Commission might be hard pressed to pursue her based on the facts leading to a misdemeanor criminal charge that was eventually dismissed. They would need to reconstruct the facts to the point where they are satisfied as to what occurred.
Certainly, it appears the boy, who would not even speak to the police or provide any sort of statement, would not be testifying before the commission.If neither the police, nor the prosecuting authorities(and that issue is still in limbo), saw fit to compel the boy to cooperate, I really doubt there will ever be a scenario where he appears before the Commission.
I suppose the Commission could try to reconstruct the incident based on the police report and other so-called evidence, but it seems highly unlikely. Any statement by the boy, if he does not appear before the Commission, would be double, or even triple, hearsay, and the boy is the only real witness to the actual occurrence.
Guest
Anonymous
January 23, 2019 8:20 pm
Brevity is your enemy.
Guest
Anonymous
January 23, 2019 9:03 pm
It may be too long, but seems like a reasonable analysis, except for a couple important distinctions. First, the media may pound on this, during next year's election, to a greater extent than 12:17 thinks it will. Also, the Commission may in fact be quite concerned about it, unless of course, it remains dismissed , or, in the alternative, Chesnoff does his magic and beats it.
You, of course, can post whatever you want, but why take the time merely to post a wise-ass observation that someone's post is too long, when in the same amount of time you could have at least skimmed the post and even formulate some thoughts of your own?
Problem is, like a lot of issues, the choice is to either say nothing or instead break it down in some detail. Most important issues, if dealt with in just a sentence of two, result in snarkiness or a simple conclusion which shows an absence of thought or analysis.
If brevity is all that matters to you, I bet we would be surprised to learn that you probably file 30 page motions with highly repetitive and irrelevant material.
Guest
Anonymous
January 23, 2019 9:07 pm
True enough, but brevity in a blog is different than brevity in legal briefs. Brevity in blogs should be the goal. I guess being as brief and direct as possible in legal briefs and arguments is also advisable, but it is seldom accomplished.
I knew a few real good attorneys who filed great six page motions, and argued effectively in court within a two minute window. But most attorneys cannot do so
Guest
Anonymous
January 23, 2019 11:46 pm
What do I pay a $1000 for, I cannot log in to pay my bar dues. When will the website be back up?
There was apparently an email that went around on November 30 that gave you a new temporary sign-in password. I never saw that and couldn't find it when I went back and looked for it either. I then contacted the membership person and she emailed me a new temporary password. At that point I was able to renew online. This may be what your issue is.
If you are using Chrome, you still can't log in on the Bar's website (why, I don't know). Try using Firefox, Safari, or, God forbid, Internet Explorer. Firefox worked for me.
1. Because they want to go to law school that bad and will go wherever will take them out of desperation rather than admit that you are not capable of admission (see other facts).
2. That is what years and years of law school and failure to pass the bar exam causes.
I have tutored law grads who are unable to pass the exam. My best students have been UNLV Boyd grads. Don't see many of them anymore. Folks fail the exam for a variety of reasons but it simply boils down to they do not achieve a passing score. Many repeaters should have been washed out in law school but that seldom happens. Many should not have been in law school but there is a law school if you want to attend law school that will accept marginal candidates. I have seen students submit an answer that was simply an outline of the question and this has been almost a passing score. Right now I believe the examiners are ahead of the bar review courses. I suspect that law schools are not preparing students for the exam. On top of that the bar review courses are not doing a good job.
Passage rate at Boyd went way up when they started to teach you take the bar as part of the curriculum. I did not pass the first time, while others in my class did. It is a test, not iq.
Guest
Anonymous
January 24, 2019 10:33 pm
Just paid my bar dues. Happy I have the money to pay my bills.
Guest
Anonymous
January 25, 2019 7:31 pm
I have absolutely no idea why my post asking for who people think are the worst Bailiffs/Marshals are would be taken down. I know its your blog, but to leave up a comment to it when it had nothing out of bounds (other than the name of a previous bailiff who could be difficult to deal with) is truly puzzling.
Speaking of bailiffs or JEAs, is the wonder Tim Kelley still around?
Guest
Anonymous
January 25, 2019 10:41 pm
God entrusts the welfare of children with the parents – a man and a woman. With this great responsibility comes great discretion. Beating down a disrespectful child is a parental right and responsibility. It is unfortunate that the husband/father was not available to deliver the beating. Set her free!
I hope her and the husband work out their differences. Children need a mommy and a daddy.
Leaving aside the troll-y question begging and homophobia in this post, the victim was an adult. You don't get to domestic violence other adults because you think it makes Jesus smile.
Maybe in the land of cross-eyed children this logic would fly. Punching an adult in the face is battery. Punching a child in the face in any manner "[b]eating down a disrespectful child" is not only not a parental right and responsibility but is grounds that CPS is legitimately called. If you want to leave your telephone number below, I can have a case worker call you or meet you at your home to discuss how the law works.
David Chesnoff is amazing. No prosecutor will touch this. By the end, someone will have Miley's kid convicted of domestic battery.
This case against Judge Miley is dumb. From the limited info we have, her teenage son ran a yellow/red light, which upset her, as it would any of us. Some kind of dispute arose, and then that dispute was seized upon by opposing counsel in a divorce proceeding. But for the divorce proceeding and divorce counsel, none of this ever comes to public light. Someone yesterday posted that her career is over. If that's true, it's absolutely tragic. This whole thing is bullshit, a waste of resources and should be abandoned, and hopefully it has been.
Judge Miley is a good judge with some turbulent things going on in her personal life. This should be left alone and she should be able to keep doing a great job on the bench while her personal life sorts itself out.
thanks, Stefany
Build the wall and crime will fall! Trump 2020!
I cannot, Will Not build This Wall. I Cannot Build with Hands so Small.
I do not like you Donald Trump. I do not like this wall you hump.
Jesus, Bruce Gale ratted her out?!?!
Yup, he did, with the reasoning being that after he was contacted by the husband, he reviewed the rules of professional conduct and felt it was his duty to report it. Was in one of the earlier stories.
Did Bruce review the Bizarro Rules of Professional Conduct? I can't find a Nevada rule that says Bruce had a duty to call the police. Does Bruce represent Ed Miley in the divorce? That may be a reason to call the police.
She should have divorced Ed 10 years ago before the dog was strangled in 2009.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2009/oct/02/judges-lawyer-husband-accused-domestic-battery/
Yes, Bruce represents Ed aka Randy in the divorce. You are absolutely right, she should have divorced him a decade ago, but instead, had another baby by him.
Should I mention here that it is Stefany who has the money? Money and alleged bad conduct are never used as bargaining chips in a divorce.
These two people need to complete their divorce and then never see or speak to one another again, save for the custody transfer at McDonald's or wherever.
He may have had an ethical duty to report it. We can have Andrew Craner weigh in on it.
I guess I have an ethical duty to report some of the more unsavory things I know about Bruce.
Having once gone down this road re the ethical duty to report another lawyer, here are three rules I now follow in that situation: 1. Hear no evil; 2. See no evil; 3. Speak no evil.
@2:20pm – Why is that? Did you have a bad experience?
To: 11:05. I basically agree with your observations, but there may be additional layers to all this that make things a little more problematic.
I agree that the boy speeding and running the light, and then exploding and cussing his mom when she reprimanded him, could push any parent to the limit.
But resorting to battering him, while he is driving a speeding car and indulging in an angry temper tantrum against his mom, only serves to endanger themselves and fellow motorists even further(if, in fact, that is what occurred. That all said, although I find the incident potentially somewhat more troubling than you do, I agree that if they were not a prominent couple involved in a divorce, it may never have seen the light of day. And I further agree that, although I think the incident may be a bit more serious than you feel it is, that it is important not to inflate the significance of the incident beyond all proportion.
Yet we must also keep in mind the context of all this. It is not totally isolated. There have been problems before wherein the family drew the attention of the criminal justice system(although admittedly that may have been almost a decade ago). Back then, I believe the husband was arrested for d.v., and there was also some incident where the judge had a dispute with a soccer mom, and it became public.
That all said, I don't think any of this spells an end to her career in any sense. What it does indicate is that the family may be well served in family counseling(even if they still intend to proceed with the divorce) and learn to handle disputes without being unduly reactive and emotional.
I think that her career appears safe for a couple reasons. The Commission, presumably, cannot use this arrest as a justification for significant discipline if the matter in fact remains dismissed, and is not revived by the Nye County D.A.(who is reviewing it in the role of as a potential conflict prosecutor, as our local D.A., as well as the AG, decline to pursue it), and does not result in a conviction for the original d.v. charge.
As for whether the voters would remove her if she gets an opponent next year, seems unlikely. The opponent would need to be well-funded to the point that he/she could consistently blanket the air waves and remind voters of these problems. Otherwise, by the election it will be a story almost two years old, and there would be no further significant free media coverage of it–except in the requisite article or two about the race, and the solitary editorial endorsement(which assumes the opponent receives the endorsement, which could be a safe bet).
I think it's all quite unfortunate, and the family has some real work to do.
But for Miley supporters, the good news is that I simply don't believe she will receive serious discipline from the Commission, and I don't think the voters will remove her, unless she attrcats a candidate who has $300,000. to $500,000. to spend to consistently remind the voters of the family's past personal and legal problems. It's just not important enough of an arrest to justify the media continuing to focus on it during the 2020 election–not when we have a gazzillion far more important races, including the presidential election, etc. In a much smaller community, this would be a much bigger deal.
Whether the Commission elects to pursue the issue or not, it is not limited to anything that occurs within the criminal justice system.
Under the Commission rules, it can open an investigation because of a formal complaint, a self report or even something reported in the media.
True. But the Commission might be hard pressed to pursue her based on the facts leading to a misdemeanor criminal charge that was eventually dismissed. They would need to reconstruct the facts to the point where they are satisfied as to what occurred.
Certainly, it appears the boy, who would not even speak to the police or provide any sort of statement, would not be testifying before the commission.If neither the police, nor the prosecuting authorities(and that issue is still in limbo), saw fit to compel the boy to cooperate, I really doubt there will ever be a scenario where he appears before the Commission.
I suppose the Commission could try to reconstruct the incident based on the police report and other so-called evidence, but it seems highly unlikely. Any statement by the boy, if he does not appear before the Commission, would be double, or even triple, hearsay, and the boy is the only real witness to the actual occurrence.
Brevity is your enemy.
It may be too long, but seems like a reasonable analysis, except for a couple important distinctions. First, the media may pound on this, during next year's election, to a greater extent than 12:17 thinks it will. Also, the Commission may in fact be quite concerned about it, unless of course, it remains dismissed , or, in the alternative, Chesnoff does his magic and beats it.
You, of course, can post whatever you want, but why take the time merely to post a wise-ass observation that someone's post is too long, when in the same amount of time you could have at least skimmed the post and even formulate some thoughts of your own?
Problem is, like a lot of issues, the choice is to either say nothing or instead break it down in some detail. Most important issues, if dealt with in just a sentence of two, result in snarkiness or a simple conclusion which shows an absence of thought or analysis.
If brevity is all that matters to you, I bet we would be surprised to learn that you probably file 30 page motions with highly repetitive and irrelevant material.
True enough, but brevity in a blog is different than brevity in legal briefs. Brevity in blogs should be the goal. I guess being as brief and direct as possible in legal briefs and arguments is also advisable, but it is seldom accomplished.
I knew a few real good attorneys who filed great six page motions, and argued effectively in court within a two minute window. But most attorneys cannot do so
What do I pay a $1000 for, I cannot log in to pay my bar dues. When will the website be back up?
Their site isn't down.
There was apparently an email that went around on November 30 that gave you a new temporary sign-in password. I never saw that and couldn't find it when I went back and looked for it either. I then contacted the membership person and she emailed me a new temporary password. At that point I was able to renew online. This may be what your issue is.
If you are using Chrome, you still can't log in on the Bar's website (why, I don't know). Try using Firefox, Safari, or, God forbid, Internet Explorer. Firefox worked for me.
8 times a failure.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2019/01/24/law-school-graduate-has-failed-bar-exam-8-times-keeps-trying/2599037002/
Doesn't Nevada 86 you if you fail three times?
Also:
1. Goes to private, for-profit law school with a terrible bar passage rate.
2. Accrues $285,000 in student loan debt.
WTF? Why the hell do people do this? Talk about terrible decision making.
Not any longer.
1. Because they want to go to law school that bad and will go wherever will take them out of desperation rather than admit that you are not capable of admission (see other facts).
2. That is what years and years of law school and failure to pass the bar exam causes.
He's doubling down. He won't ever be able to recover his tuition money if he doesn't chase his losses for a big win.
There are people who have taken and failed the bar over 12 times here. Look at Nevada Supreme Court case 61833 for one example.
I have tutored law grads who are unable to pass the exam. My best students have been UNLV Boyd grads. Don't see many of them anymore. Folks fail the exam for a variety of reasons but it simply boils down to they do not achieve a passing score. Many repeaters should have been washed out in law school but that seldom happens. Many should not have been in law school but there is a law school if you want to attend law school that will accept marginal candidates. I have seen students submit an answer that was simply an outline of the question and this has been almost a passing score. Right now I believe the examiners are ahead of the bar review courses. I suspect that law schools are not preparing students for the exam. On top of that the bar review courses are not doing a good job.
Passage rate at Boyd went way up when they started to teach you take the bar as part of the curriculum. I did not pass the first time, while others in my class did. It is a test, not iq.
Just paid my bar dues. Happy I have the money to pay my bills.
I have absolutely no idea why my post asking for who people think are the worst Bailiffs/Marshals are would be taken down. I know its your blog, but to leave up a comment to it when it had nothing out of bounds (other than the name of a previous bailiff who could be difficult to deal with) is truly puzzling.
Speaking of bailiffs or JEAs, is the wonder Tim Kelley still around?
God entrusts the welfare of children with the parents – a man and a woman. With this great responsibility comes great discretion. Beating down a disrespectful child is a parental right and responsibility. It is unfortunate that the husband/father was not available to deliver the beating. Set her free!
I hope her and the husband work out their differences. Children need a mommy and a daddy.
Leaving aside the troll-y question begging and homophobia in this post, the victim was an adult. You don't get to domestic violence other adults because you think it makes Jesus smile.
Even if the recipient of "parental discretion" is a minor, parental discretion doesn't include punches to the face. That's domestic violence. #hottake
Maybe in the land of cross-eyed children this logic would fly. Punching an adult in the face is battery. Punching a child in the face in any manner "[b]eating down a disrespectful child" is not only not a parental right and responsibility but is grounds that CPS is legitimately called. If you want to leave your telephone number below, I can have a case worker call you or meet you at your home to discuss how the law works.