city screwing up? The Nevada Supreme Court held that there was no other use for the land other than housing. Has to be the worse court decision in a while, only reason to make it is if they are totally corrupt and on the take from the developers.
the DMV article has the DMV director citing to federal law as basis for privacy protection, and states that it trumps the Nevada law for access. With my basic understanding of federal pre-emption, i believe the DMV position is correct. can anyone educate me otherwise?
As a non-attorney, “community organizer,” member of the “Mass Liberation Project,” tell me you have no business sponsoring legislation that impacts the courts without telling me you have no business sponsoring legislation that impacts the courts. Enjoy your single session, Javon.
@6:41 is a nut job.
Checking out the “Mass Liberation Project” website, you will find that its objective is :
“One of the first steps to get there is abolition of the criminal legal system.”
I think you missed the point of his post… the sponsor of the “court attire legislation” is a first-term assemblyperson who is a member of a group that wants to abolish the criminal legal system. I think the point was this person shouldn’t be sponsoring court-based legislation with such a radical and ridiculous background. I also remember the Dallas Harris “homeless bill of rights” stuff. That was ridiculous.
I looked at the website very briefly – it doesn’t say its purpose is to “abolish the criminal legal system.” It says the purpose is to “abolish the criminal legal system as we know it.” I don’t know anything about the organization but leaving off the “as we know it” part of the sentence is intentionally misleading.
It is funny that no one is held accountable for the city screwing up so bad, other than tax payers.
What did you have in mind? Keeping in mind that the only real remedy against an elected official is at the voting booth.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
No lube necessary
show up and protest at the Nevada Supreme Court Justice’s houses, they are fine taking tax money and giving it to rich property owners
Some experts say the Nevada Supreme Court got it wrong finding there was a taking and damages.
And I think Jordan pushed off. But the Bulls are still 1998 World Champions.
I just watched this like 5 times. He didn’t even touch him much less push off.
Well, then I guess it really was a taking with damages then.
And the taxpayers were paying $130,000.00 per day in interest? Unbelievable.
Statutory interest rate. Big damages generate big interest.
city screwing up? The Nevada Supreme Court held that there was no other use for the land other than housing. Has to be the worse court decision in a while, only reason to make it is if they are totally corrupt and on the take from the developers.
Yeah. It is not funny at all.
the DMV article has the DMV director citing to federal law as basis for privacy protection, and states that it trumps the Nevada law for access. With my basic understanding of federal pre-emption, i believe the DMV position is correct. can anyone educate me otherwise?
No, sorry I cannot.
As a non-attorney, “community organizer,” member of the “Mass Liberation Project,” tell me you have no business sponsoring legislation that impacts the courts without telling me you have no business sponsoring legislation that impacts the courts. Enjoy your single session, Javon.
It worked out well for Senator Harris and her “Homeless Bill of Rights.” GTFO.
@6:41 is a nut job.
Checking out the “Mass Liberation Project” website, you will find that its objective is :
“One of the first steps to get there is abolition of the criminal legal system.”
I think you missed the point of his post… the sponsor of the “court attire legislation” is a first-term assemblyperson who is a member of a group that wants to abolish the criminal legal system. I think the point was this person shouldn’t be sponsoring court-based legislation with such a radical and ridiculous background. I also remember the Dallas Harris “homeless bill of rights” stuff. That was ridiculous.
I looked at the website very briefly – it doesn’t say its purpose is to “abolish the criminal legal system.” It says the purpose is to “abolish the criminal legal system as we know it.” I don’t know anything about the organization but leaving off the “as we know it” part of the sentence is intentionally misleading.
The primary website, not Nevada’s, says: “One of the first steps to get there is abolition of the criminal legal system.”
Your argument that the prior post is intentionally misleading is intentionally misleading. That, or we can disagree, Javon.
Also, if defendants are allowed to show up in flip flops and a polo, then I demand the same…
The Defendants will continue to show up to Court in pajamas, slippers, and shower caps. Things will be the same.
Dang. A boy can dream… until then, I’ll settle for Zoom and gym shorts with and a button down and tie.
Or nothing at all… giggity giggity.