Prime, But With Human Beings

  • Law
  • Federal lawsuit filed over killing of Brandon Durham by Las Vegas officer. [RJ]
  • Prosecutors expected to drop charges against wife of “Ghost Adventures” star. [RJ]
  • Adam Solinger, attorney for Las Vegas Tesla fire suspect, pushes for release. [RJ]
  • Federal appeals court dismisses lawsuit challenging Nevada’s election worker protection law. [TNI]
  • Nevada board investigates horse-kicking video as search continues for missing veterinarian. [Fox5Vegas]
  • Las Vegas police pay over $13.5 million in civil rights claims from 2020-2023. [News3LV]
  • ICE director envisions Amazon-like mass deportation system. [Nevada Current]
administrator
17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 10:19 am

Amazon prime deportations. Yes, this is what we voted for. Mass immigration is contrary to the idea of nations, states, and peoples. Your ancestors knew this or you wouldn’t be here today.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 10:36 am
Reply to  Anonymous

U just made the argument for the opposite of what u were trying to. Yes, mass IMMIGRATION is contrary. Thx for joining the good side.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 12:48 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

most of our ancestors also walked across open borders

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 12:55 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Not technically true. When they walked there were few borders. The borders by definition were meant to contain and separate and keep out. If you’re for one world just say it. I happen to like language, borders, culture for all.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 1:00 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

There were imaginary lines on the ground, yes. There were mostly no impediments to immigration and one could just walk in from anywhere without much trouble and it wasn’t illegal

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 1:42 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

This is a silly take, at best.
85% of all legal immigrants from 1820-1940 came in through New York, New Orleans and either Boston of Philadelphia. Meaning that they came by boat. So “walked” is a misnomer, again at best.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 1:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

12:55 agreeing with you. Also, “open borders” at least for a few thousand years is a silly concept. People were extremely closed off and protective. On a micro scale people rarely escaped the clan etc. I knew someday my prehistory class would come in handy!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2025 3:31 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

My ancestors came to the U.S. from Europe by boat, and were off-loaded at Ellis Island, where they were examined and processed by the federal government before being released into the U.S.

No walking across open borders. No sneaking in.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2025 6:04 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

What’s your point. My ancestors did too. They also crossed a border into a foreign sovereign country and set up shop without permission.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 10:41 am

Secured borders. Mass deportations. Zero tolerance for illegals, aliens, migrants, etc. All of this is part of national security.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 10:42 am

Prime Deportations, brought to you by Bozos.

Anon
Guest
Anon
April 9, 2025 11:54 am

Happy Liberation Day! Can’t wait to check my 401k later.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 1:19 pm
Reply to  Anon

How did it do?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 1:49 pm

Catching up on the news from yesterday and saw someone say that you need to file an answer in response to a pro se informal brief. To hopefully save our question-asker some time: You don’t actually need to file an answering brief in pro se appeals unless the Court orders a response. (RIP your billables) See NRAP 46A(c) (“An opposing party is not required to respond to documents, including briefs, filed by a party appearing pro se unless ordered to do so by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals.”); NRAP 31 (d)(2) (“A respondent who fails to timely file an answering brief will not be heard at oral argument unless the court grants permission, and such failure may be treated as a confession of error. Unless the court has ordered the respondent to file an answering brief as provided in Rule 46A(c), this Rule does not apply to appeals in which the appellant is not represented by counsel.”)

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 1:51 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

If the court does order an answering brief, then yes, you still need to do everything required under NRAP 28(b).

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 1:57 pm

I heard an Alien v. Predator theory that was pretty interesting. If illegal aliens want to stay in America, they have to sucessfully track and detain 5 child predators.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2025 4:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Then what do we do when half of Congress in in prison?