- Quickdraw McLaw
- 17 Comments
- 217 Views
- A jury decided that Harry Reid was unable to prove that the Defendant company made the exercise band because Reid’s son had disposed of the band. [NBC News]
- Nevada SPCA is under investigation by the Nevada AG. [KTNV]
- Are drones being used to case homes? [KTNV]
Of course drones are being used to case homes. While it would be nice to think of people being tech savvy enough and genuinely wanting to just invent a device that takes aerial pics of properties, it really was invented to invade other people's privacy and space without them knowing it.
Drones were invented to blow up brown people in the forever war. Their ability to invade people's privacy is just a happy little accident.
Ironic that Channel 13 would do a story on drones invading peoples' privacy when Channel 13 has been using its helicopter to invade peoples' privacy for years. Go back and see how often Channel 13 has had no concept of privacy when it comes to them. That is truly rich Channel 13. What a bunch of hacks.
Which channel was doing the story?
KTNV Channel 13. Same one that flies their helicopter and scans down into backyards. Shameless hypocrites.
Harry's first big mistake was hiring an out of state lawyer. Next big mistake was not hiring Eglet. Eglet wins that trial without breaking a sweat.
Without knowing if the NBC article has a bias or agenda, and taking it at face value, it sure seems like a shitty PI case. I'm a PI attorney and I think the case, as presented in the article, sucks on multiple levels.
Where was that case venued? If Federal court, even Eglet probably can't save it. If EJDC, Eglet wins easily.
EJDC and Hardy was over it.
That SPCA article is practically incoherent. It makes it sounds like the AG is taking some kind of action, but later in the article it mentions just the complaint.
People file complaints with the AG's office everyday. That doesn't mean the AG is doing anything with them. It would be something if the AG actually was doing something with it.
Anybody know how the preservation of evidence argument progressed during discovery? If you've got a product liability case and the plaintiff destroyed the specific product in question, it seems like something you could put a bullet in well before trial. Nevada has pretty solid case law on this point as well.
And given that, what the hell was the PI attorney doing taking this to trial? That loss was as predetermined as Trump taking to Twitter every morning.
Agree with 11:13 that it sounds like a shitty P.I. case, but also agree with 11:01 that it may have been a mistake to hire out-of-state counsel, and that Eglet, or some other real solid Nevada attorneys, may well have reached a different result. Several problems right off the bat:
1. Most people don't really like Reid. Many democrats don't even like him but voted for him out of party loyalty, and in recognition of his high leadership positon in the Senate.
2. Many people may believe it's unseemly for the former Senate Majority Leader to very publicly seek a P.I. judgement via public trial. Some of them may also believe that he is worth tens of millions already, which also adds to them viewing this all as unseemly.
3. It appears he encountered some credibility issues with the jury. One example is that he insisted that the injury was a main reason for him not seeking re-election, and then the defense played a video wherein he proclaimed that although he was retiring, the injury played no role whatsoever in his decision.
4. The jury may be put off that once he testified, it was clear he would not be there for any of the remainder of the trial–including receipt of verdict. While recognizing that he is injured and not too ambulatory, they may have figured that if he could be wheeled in for his testimony, that he could be wheeled in for the subsequent proceedings, including the jury verdict. They may figure that if he did not care enough to endure that sacrifice, inconvenience, and discomfort, that they also don't care enough to go out of their way to award him any money.
5. (This one is a biggie). The Reids disposed of the equipment, so there is no conclusive proof of what apparatus he was using or who manufactured it.
6. And,(an outgrowth of #5), if we don't even know what he was using, he cannot be found to be particularly credible as to his testimony that he was properly using the device.
And, others can identify many other problems with the case and how it was presented. There is no doubt he was seriously injured, but if he can't prove what device he was using, and thus cannot prove he was using it properly, it looks like the jury made the right call. Reid was not even close to meeting a preponderance standard.
@ 1:30 p.m. You are incorrect on # 4. Reid was there for most of the trial. The only time that he wasn't was during the reading of the verdict.
My info. is that neither 1:03 or 1:18 is entirely correct.
1:03 is possibly not correct as to the statement that he was only present for his own testimony, and I think 1:18 is perhaps being a little too generous. I was informed that he missed part of the proceedings.
However, I don't know. This is just what I am told. So, perhaps quite unreliable–which is why hearsay is inadmissible(unless you practice before certain Family Court judges).
Does anyone, who was actually present for the trial, know to what degree he was there? I, for one, believe that as former Nevada Senator, and in fact former Senate Majority Leader, that he should have made an absolute point of showing respect for the jury by being present for the verdict. I realize he's ill, but if he could have attended all the rest of it(if in fact he did) he should have been present for the brief hearing for issuance of the verdict. But of course I also recognize the frustrating logistics that it is never known when a verdict will be reached, which is compounded when one is ill and injured.
The only reason the case went to trial is to further the lie that it wasnt Reid's brother (or some deep state goon) that whipped Pinky's ass. Dont underestimate the latter.
Pinky knows where all the deep state bones are buried, and may have needed to be tightened up. The ass whuppin did the trick, but when alt media ran with the other story, a cover up needed to be planted. The trial w out of state counsel (give me a break) and the disposal of the evidence should make this theory apparent.
How do you keep your tin foil hat from blowing away? Chin-strap, or glue?
I thought only lawyers post on here.