- law dawg
- 24 Comments
- 2001 Views
- Robert Telles sentenced to life in prison plus an additional 8-20 years. He is eligible for parole after 28 years with credit for 2 years already served. [Fox5Vegas; KTNV]
- New security upgrades coming to Southern Desert Correctional Facility after high-profile escape. [Fox5Vegas]
- A’s ballpark agreements headed to Las Vegas Stadium Authority. [RJ]
>Robert Telles sentenced to life in prison “plus an additional 8-20 years”
Rob is furiously working on his brief arguing that “8-20 years” is actually a math equation (8-20=X) that equals -12, so the judge must reduce the sentence by 12 years.
And since that is so, Hooge is furiously sanctioning the Judge for unclear communication that prejudices the administration of justice.
Has Hooge moved to Judicial Discipline Commission?
In his mind he runs that, the bar, dodge city, and the 7 kingdoms.
In Rob Logic, he would take that to mean that the Court has to give him back 12 years of his life
Someone asked about Telles’s statement at sentencing. https://www.courttv.com/title/robert-telles-addresses-court-i-did-not-kill-mr-german/
Hopefully Rob can win his appeal then help the family hunt for the real killer.
Killers, killers – it’s a conspiracy so wide that it boggles the mind.
Maybe he could use the investigators OJ used.
Wouldn’t that be some Twilight Zone shit if he was telling the truth. I remember the Menendez trial and being 200% sure they weren’t molested. Now there is some compelling evidence they were. Of course, not sure that excuses shooting the mother.
Has anyone heard of a case in the Arbitration program with low medical bills which was exempted from the ARB program because the Plaintiff paid money to the court? Someone just said a client paid $1,000 to the court and the case was exempted even though the Plaintiff had less than $15,000 in meds.
I think the $1000 gets you a short trial AFTER arbitration, basically paying jury fees, so that could be it. I’m not aware of any mechanism to buy your way out of arb.
I agree
Of course not. They’ve confused a trial de novo with an exemption.
I agree
They are either thinking of the TDN short trial program or went through the court-annexed mediation program and skipped arbitration, going straight to short trial program.
I think this is referring to removal from the Short Trial Program pursuant to Short Trial Rule 5, which removes the $50,000 cap.
Not Alan Lafevra calling Judge Talim a DEI candidate in Sunday’s review journal.
Is this the man who wrote an article critical of the LGBTQ community and claiming Nevada was a DESERET state? His DEI remark shows he is biased against Asians and women too. And he is going to be an impartial judge?
I was against that LGBTQ article in 2014. However his commentary regarding how and why Talim was appointed is fair game. If she can tout in articles and ads her heritage, he can comment on the same. The problem is that he is not going to get much traction since she was appointed by a Republican governor and was the only candidate.
I disagree. Representation matters and when people talk about their background and heritage, it matters. Just like Rick Harris films those cheesy Nevada commercials acting like he’s some salt of the earth, cowboy type, Talim can talk about her background. If he wanted to argue that she was not prepared for a civil calendar or something, that would be one thing. But denigrating her credentials based solely on her not being a white man (and therefore being a DEI candidate) is ugly. It’s a cheap shot.
The LGBT+/Deseret article disqualified him in my eyes, but this is ugly pandering to the lowest of the low.
I understand your perspective. But this is politics. You err in saying that he denigrated her “based solely on her not being a white man (and therefore being a DEI candidate).” Not what he said. You acknowledge that stating that “she was not prepared for a civil calendar or something” is fair game. He denigrated her professional experience and performance and stated her appointment/retention could not have been made solely upon professional experience but instead was based on other factors because her professional experience is thin.
100 PERCENT AGREED! #bringbackcivilbench
Selectively the “only” candidate. Department 27 had six candidates. He could’ve had other candidates but selectively decided otherwise.
Besides, prior to this past year, please find where she ever identified her heritage. In fact, she tried hard not to ever acknowledge it until it suited her. DEI is fair game.