@ 11:44
Agree for the Toyota drive and family. I note that the NFL in general, and the Raiders in particular, have a history of drugged, drunk, wife beater players. Great role models.
Are you listening Davis and Goodell?
"Ruggs' attorneys, David Chesnoff and Richard Schonfeld tell TMZ Sports, 'On behalf of our client Henry Ruggs III we are conducting our own investigation as of this writing and ask everyone to reserve judgment until all the facts are gathered.'"
Pee Wee and his pals, aka Hardesty and Nevada Supreme Court will allow the "innocent" alleged dui driver off with a slap on the wrist, because they like dui drivers who kill.
David and Richard are great lawyers. This is a rear ender at a high rate of speed under the influence. Zayn Collins you had an argument. This one is much more Scott Gragson than Zayn Collins.
HAVING further reviewed and considered the parties' filings and the argument of counsel pertaining to Defendant's "Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. sec. 41.660 (ANTI-SLAPP)," heard and taken under advisement on October 25, 2021, and being fully advised in the premises, and being persuaded that such Motion is meritorious regarding all aspects of Defendant's substantive contentions, the Court GRANTS such Motion IN PART regarding dismissal and attorneys' fees/costs pursuant to NRS 41.670)(1)(a), but DENIES the Motion IN PART relative to NRS 41.670(1)(b) without prejudice to the bringing of a separate action pursuant to NRS 41.670(1)(c). Counsel for Defendant is directed to submit a proposed order consistent herewith and with supportive briefing/argument following submission of the same to opposing counsel for signification of approval/disapproval, leaving blanks for attorney's fees and costs. In addition, Defendant's counsel is directed to serve and file a Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements and an affidavit or declaration setting forth the attorney's fees incurred in litigating the Motion and the requisite support for the same. Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 455 P.2d 31 (1969). Instead of seeking to clarify or litigate meaning or any disapproval of the within rulings through correspondence directed to the Court, or to counsel with copies to the Court, any such clarification or disapproval should be the subject of appropriate motion practice. IT IS SO ORDERED. CLERK'S NOTE: This Minute Order was electronically served by Courtroom Clerk, Madalyn Kearney, to all registered parties for Odyssey File & Serve. /mk 11/1/21
I went down the rabbit hole this afternoon. I read the entire file of Tammy Keating vs. Michael Keating. The work was sloppy, shoddy, and lacked any substantive arguments in fact and law. I am not exactly sure how much Ms. Keating paid Mr. Mann, but the Court Order from the last hearing states that Ms. Keating's FDF stated $12,000 had been paid to Mann as and for attorney's fees. However, at the hearing Mann told the Court a story about how he was representing Ms. Keating Pro Bono. Ms. Keating's daughter, Ms. Markle's, public posts on her facebook page were professional, civil, and did not mention Mann by name. Mann you should be ashamed of your work product. Show some integrity and refund Ms. Keating ALL of her money. Your suggestion of an apology post on Ms. Markle's Facebook group page was exceptionally tasteless, tactless, and telling of your character. Take your paper thin skinned self back to Utah. At the end of the day Ms. Markle maintained her integrity. If you had done my mom as wrong as you did Ms. Keating, I would not have been as polite as Ms. Markle. Can't wait to read your losing appellate decision.
Without getting into any discussion or consideration of this particular case and those involved, society(and in particular, technology) have changed to the point where it is usually senseless, and usually highly counterproductive, to pursue people about what they posted on internet sites, social media, etc.
No good ever comes of it, seldom is anyone ever mandated to remove anything they posted, and the time and resources attorneys expend on such enterprise really damages their practice and greatly reduces the time they can expend on legitimate, billable, cases.
And 4:13 alludes to some of the senselessness of all this, and how these days attorneys need to be thick-skinned, ignore some negative material as some is bound to be posted from time-to-time about virtually all attorneys, even the better ones.
And it seems that when attorneys get upset about such material, they actually sought it out after someone alerted them to it. Otherwise, they never would have known. And proving damages is virtually impossible as most of these posts are largely opinion-based, and generic name-calling and shots at the attorney, but not too often a really specific assertation of false and outrageous fact.
No attorney is ever able to prove damage to reputation to the extent that it can be demonstrated that great-paying clients would have hired said attorney but for the negative material posted.
It's all just so senseless. And if a court order is actually obtained for someone to remove something, that only causes the same material to crop up six times greater in quantity, under different identities, or identities which can never truly be determined, or if determined are not within the arm of the state court, etc.
And, of course, the overwhelming majority of people who spend time on the internet blasting a certain attorney is quite likely judgement proof.
Wasn't any of this(and mush more that there was no time or room to discuss here)ever considered before attorneys decide to vindicate the supposedly noble "principle" of protecting their great reputation. And while we're on this topic, before getting sucked onto this abyss, make certain you have a sterling reputation which can in fact be blemished or harmed.
Good attorneys should concentrate ont heir practice, be the best and most ethical attorney they can, an dndertand that we can nevr control the internet universe.
Well, 5:42, there may be an occasional case(and I have seen a few) where it made sense for the attorney to pursue it, but if what you are suggesting is that over 90% of the time it is senseless to pursue, I would agree.
5:42, bad grammar, spelling and sloppiness toward the end, but basically agree,.
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2021 8:07 pm
Queation – law firm domesticates a foreign judgment, executes on real property, which is auctioned by the constable. But the real property was not owned by the judgment debtor. Now the real owner wants to unwind. What rights do the purchasers have?
There's a case similar to this where one of the big real estate trustees / mortgage companies screwed up big time about 10-15 years ago and did exactly this, although it was a regular non-judicial foreclosure. Marquis Aurbach represented them and got them over a million. From what I recall, they represented them on appeal and it held up with the Supremes.
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2021 8:45 pm
Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice James Hardesty will not seek re-election and will retire from the state Supreme Court at the end of 2022 when his term expires.
Hardesty brings both the good and the bad. On balance, NSC and the state will be better off upon his retirement. I assumed he would run again and stay on until he died. I genuinely hope he enjoys the years he has left.
https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1455595101523173377/photo/1
That's the Raiders team I know!
Horrible tragedy for the family of the deceased 🙁
@ 11:44
Agree for the Toyota drive and family. I note that the NFL in general, and the Raiders in particular, have a history of drugged, drunk, wife beater players. Great role models.
Are you listening Davis and Goodell?
Ruggs will get off.
Nothing good has ever happened at 3:30 in the morning.
Juiced lawyer needed on South Rainbow Boulevard, stat! Paging Mr. Chesnoff; Mr. Chesnoff please.
Some things are predictable.
"Ruggs' attorneys, David Chesnoff and Richard Schonfeld tell TMZ Sports, 'On behalf of our client Henry Ruggs III we are conducting our own investigation as of this writing and ask everyone to reserve judgment until all the facts are gathered.'"
https://www.tmz.com/2021/11/02/las-vegas-raiders-henry-ruggs-involved-in-serious-car-accident/?adid=social-twa
This picture broke my heart. The Toyota driver never had a chance. RIP
?quality=90&strip=all
https://people.com/crime/henry-ruggs-raiders-wide-receiver-facing-charge-dui-resulting-death/
Pee Wee and his pals, aka Hardesty and Nevada Supreme Court will allow the "innocent" alleged dui driver off with a slap on the wrist, because they like dui drivers who kill.
Oh goodie. The Nevada Supreme Court loves and wants to marry all DUI drivers and have a million of their babies guy is back.
2:44, huh?
David and Richard are great lawyers. This is a rear ender at a high rate of speed under the influence. Zayn Collins you had an argument. This one is much more Scott Gragson than Zayn Collins.
Marisa Border
https://www.8newsnow.com/sports/lasvegas-raiders/ruggs-crash-more-bad-news-for-las-vegas-raiders-on-top-of-gruden-jacobs-incidents/
I prefer not to think of it as more "bad" news but simply more "Raiders" news.
Haha Mann…couldn't have happened to a more deserving fella
Anyone have a link to the minute order?
I was referred to to him by Gina Bongiovi. Both jokes.
HAVING further reviewed and considered the parties' filings and the argument of counsel pertaining to Defendant's "Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. sec. 41.660 (ANTI-SLAPP)," heard and taken under advisement on October 25, 2021, and being fully advised in the premises, and being persuaded that such Motion is meritorious regarding all aspects of Defendant's substantive contentions, the Court GRANTS such Motion IN PART regarding dismissal and attorneys' fees/costs pursuant to NRS 41.670)(1)(a), but DENIES the Motion IN PART relative to NRS 41.670(1)(b) without prejudice to the bringing of a separate action pursuant to NRS 41.670(1)(c). Counsel for Defendant is directed to submit a proposed order consistent herewith and with supportive briefing/argument following submission of the same to opposing counsel for signification of approval/disapproval, leaving blanks for attorney's fees and costs. In addition, Defendant's counsel is directed to serve and file a Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements and an affidavit or declaration setting forth the attorney's fees incurred in litigating the Motion and the requisite support for the same. Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 455 P.2d 31 (1969). Instead of seeking to clarify or litigate meaning or any disapproval of the within rulings through correspondence directed to the Court, or to counsel with copies to the Court, any such clarification or disapproval should be the subject of appropriate motion practice. IT IS SO ORDERED. CLERK'S NOTE: This Minute Order was electronically served by Courtroom Clerk, Madalyn Kearney, to all registered parties for Odyssey File & Serve. /mk 11/1/21
I went down the rabbit hole this afternoon. I read the entire file of Tammy Keating vs. Michael Keating. The work was sloppy, shoddy, and lacked any substantive arguments in fact and law. I am not exactly sure how much Ms. Keating paid Mr. Mann, but the Court Order from the last hearing states that Ms. Keating's FDF stated $12,000 had been paid to Mann as and for attorney's fees. However, at the hearing Mann told the Court a story about how he was representing Ms. Keating Pro Bono. Ms. Keating's daughter, Ms. Markle's, public posts on her facebook page were professional, civil, and did not mention Mann by name. Mann you should be ashamed of your work product. Show some integrity and refund Ms. Keating ALL of her money. Your suggestion of an apology post on Ms. Markle's Facebook group page was exceptionally tasteless, tactless, and telling of your character. Take your paper thin skinned self back to Utah. At the end of the day Ms. Markle maintained her integrity. If you had done my mom as wrong as you did Ms. Keating, I would not have been as polite as Ms. Markle. Can't wait to read your losing appellate decision.
Without getting into any discussion or consideration of this particular case and those involved, society(and in particular, technology) have changed to the point where it is usually senseless, and usually highly counterproductive, to pursue people about what they posted on internet sites, social media, etc.
No good ever comes of it, seldom is anyone ever mandated to remove anything they posted, and the time and resources attorneys expend on such enterprise really damages their practice and greatly reduces the time they can expend on legitimate, billable, cases.
And 4:13 alludes to some of the senselessness of all this, and how these days attorneys need to be thick-skinned, ignore some negative material as some is bound to be posted from time-to-time about virtually all attorneys, even the better ones.
And it seems that when attorneys get upset about such material, they actually sought it out after someone alerted them to it. Otherwise, they never would have known. And proving damages is virtually impossible as most of these posts are largely opinion-based, and generic name-calling and shots at the attorney, but not too often a really specific assertation of false and outrageous fact.
No attorney is ever able to prove damage to reputation to the extent that it can be demonstrated that great-paying clients would have hired said attorney but for the negative material posted.
It's all just so senseless. And if a court order is actually obtained for someone to remove something, that only causes the same material to crop up six times greater in quantity, under different identities, or identities which can never truly be determined, or if determined are not within the arm of the state court, etc.
And, of course, the overwhelming majority of people who spend time on the internet blasting a certain attorney is quite likely judgement proof.
Wasn't any of this(and mush more that there was no time or room to discuss here)ever considered before attorneys decide to vindicate the supposedly noble "principle" of protecting their great reputation. And while we're on this topic, before getting sucked onto this abyss, make certain you have a sterling reputation which can in fact be blemished or harmed.
Good attorneys should concentrate ont heir practice, be the best and most ethical attorney they can, an dndertand that we can nevr control the internet universe.
Well, 5:42, there may be an occasional case(and I have seen a few) where it made sense for the attorney to pursue it, but if what you are suggesting is that over 90% of the time it is senseless to pursue, I would agree.
5:42, bad grammar, spelling and sloppiness toward the end, but basically agree,.
Queation – law firm domesticates a foreign judgment, executes on real property, which is auctioned by the constable. But the real property was not owned by the judgment debtor. Now the real owner wants to unwind. What rights do the purchasers have?
There's a case similar to this where one of the big real estate trustees / mortgage companies screwed up big time about 10-15 years ago and did exactly this, although it was a regular non-judicial foreclosure. Marquis Aurbach represented them and got them over a million. From what I recall, they represented them on appeal and it held up with the Supremes.
Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice James Hardesty will not seek re-election and will retire from the state Supreme Court at the end of 2022 when his term expires.
Darn, so who will be the next egomaniac to rake over the NDC?
Take NSC
1:45, I'm surprised.
Even up till now he is heavily involved in spear-heading committees, projects, etc. He always has so much on his plate.
That does not seem like someone who intends to ride off into the sunset 14 months from now.
But if he announced he's not running for re-election, then that's the case.
Hardesty brings both the good and the bad. On balance, NSC and the state will be better off upon his retirement. I assumed he would run again and stay on until he died. I genuinely hope he enjoys the years he has left.
6:13, that remark is (presumably unintentionally) ambiguous.
When you say the NSC, and the state, will be better off upon his retirement, does that mean…
1. He left his mark in a positive way, or;
2. The net effect of his involvement is more negative than positive, so it's better if he's no longer on the court.
I suspect you intended #2, but I cant be certain.
As bad as you think this legal profession is, it is even worse than that.