Let me see if I understand the issues with Norheim. He should be fired because he does not monitor the work and expenses of guardians? Of course, Nevada Judicial Cannon 2.9 specifically states there is to be no ex parte communication with the court. Then, it's apparently Norheim's fault because the County has not allocated the resources for the Court to monitor the work of private guardians. If you are not concerned about the knee jerk reaction to "fire" Norheim, you should be. Norheim is competent and follows the law. Regrettably, he is blamed when the law if flawed. If you aren't concerned about the calls to fire Norheim, you should be. Next it will be probate, discovery, and who knows what. We'll be left with a group of rubes who make decisions based on "feelings" rather than the law. In other-words, we'll have Halverson 2.0. Enjoy.
I have appeared before Norheim on multiple occasions, and although I have not always liked the result, he has always been prepared and fair to the parties before him. As the above poster said, it is the law that is flawed, not the commissioner.
Might try reading 5.02 again. It applies when dealing with divorce, spousal support, custody, and hookers. Not much there about closing the court when dealing with guardianship issues.
PS: Quick Draw Mclaw, what the hell is going on with the verification system? Just had to pick out the picture of sushi out of a lineup that included a vacuum cleaner.
Re: sushi verification–that's Google's new way of making sure you're not a robot. We don't have any control over that unless you are willing to log in to comment.
@ 12:41. Read EDCR 5.01(a) and 5.02(b) together. Private hearings permitted. Don't like it? Change the Rules. Of course you participated in all the recent meetings and sessions regarding the proposed overhaul of EDCR 5 et se1, didn't you?
What on earth are you going on about? 5.01(a) permits the family court to devise their own rules for paternity, juvenile, and reciprocal support act cases with the approval of NSC. Other family court cases follow the rules in EDCR 5. 5.02(a) specifies which types of cases must be closed to the public upon request of a party. Hint: Guardianships? Ain't in that list. And then 5.02(b) provides the exception – where closing the court is appropriate (i.e. it's allowed under 5.02(a)), the court still has to allow the expert to remain if its in the BIC. If it's not a case where the party can demand the hearing be private, like a guardianship hearing, the hearing master / court should tell someone making that request exactly where they can stick it. Professionally and courteously, of course.
Follow the campaign contributions of Schafer and his companies. Guardianship attorneys Trent, Tyrell and Associates are the resident agent for Signs of Nevada.
Although records show that some politicians sent their payments to Signs of Nevada in care of Professional Fiduciary Services, several candidates said they were unaware their checks went into Shafer’s account.
Many Signs of Nevada clients were running for judicial office — jobs that could put them in the position to hear lawsuits involving Shafer brought by guardians, wards and families of wards. At least one candidate, District Judge Rob Bare, reported receiving $7,500 in in-kind contributions from Signs of Nevada to his 2014 re-election campaign.
First? Blog is dead!!
Randazza is impressive.
Let me see if I understand the issues with Norheim. He should be fired because he does not monitor the work and expenses of guardians? Of course, Nevada Judicial Cannon 2.9 specifically states there is to be no ex parte communication with the court. Then, it's apparently Norheim's fault because the County has not allocated the resources for the Court to monitor the work of private guardians. If you are not concerned about the knee jerk reaction to "fire" Norheim, you should be. Norheim is competent and follows the law. Regrettably, he is blamed when the law if flawed. If you aren't concerned about the calls to fire Norheim, you should be. Next it will be probate, discovery, and who knows what. We'll be left with a group of rubes who make decisions based on "feelings" rather than the law. In other-words, we'll have Halverson 2.0. Enjoy.
5:31 PM,
Pray tell, dear colleague, what law was Commissioner Norheim following when he followed Jared Shafer's orders and closed his court to the public?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee8XnR56gow
I have appeared before Norheim on multiple occasions, and although I have not always liked the result, he has always been prepared and fair to the parties before him. As the above poster said, it is the law that is flawed, not the commissioner.
@ 5.31. See EDCR 5.01 and 5.02.
Might try reading 5.02 again. It applies when dealing with divorce, spousal support, custody, and hookers. Not much there about closing the court when dealing with guardianship issues.
PS: Quick Draw Mclaw, what the hell is going on with the verification system? Just had to pick out the picture of sushi out of a lineup that included a vacuum cleaner.
Re: sushi verification–that's Google's new way of making sure you're not a robot. We don't have any control over that unless you are willing to log in to comment.
@ 12:41. Read EDCR 5.01(a) and 5.02(b) together. Private hearings permitted. Don't like it? Change the Rules. Of course you participated in all the recent meetings and sessions regarding the proposed overhaul of EDCR 5 et se1, didn't you?
typo! Change EDCR 5 et se1 to et seq
What on earth are you going on about? 5.01(a) permits the family court to devise their own rules for paternity, juvenile, and reciprocal support act cases with the approval of NSC. Other family court cases follow the rules in EDCR 5. 5.02(a) specifies which types of cases must be closed to the public upon request of a party. Hint: Guardianships? Ain't in that list. And then 5.02(b) provides the exception – where closing the court is appropriate (i.e. it's allowed under 5.02(a)), the court still has to allow the expert to remain if its in the BIC. If it's not a case where the party can demand the hearing be private, like a guardianship hearing, the hearing master / court should tell someone making that request exactly where they can stick it. Professionally and courteously, of course.
Follow the campaign contributions of Schafer and his companies. Guardianship attorneys Trent, Tyrell and Associates are the resident agent for Signs of Nevada.
Although records show that some politicians sent their payments to Signs of Nevada in care of Professional Fiduciary Services, several candidates said they were unaware their checks went into Shafer’s account.
Many Signs of Nevada clients were running for judicial office — jobs that could put them in the position to hear lawsuits involving Shafer brought by guardians, wards and families of wards. At least one candidate, District Judge Rob Bare, reported receiving $7,500 in in-kind contributions from Signs of Nevada to his 2014 re-election campaign.
Bare could not be reached for comment.