We’re upset that a legislator sought funding for an arbitration decision that found the state shorted state workers’ pay? The appropriation was to fund a backpay award, if I’m not mistaken. So we’re upset that the a legislator tried to get state workers paid what they were owed? This is a nothingburger.
You make good arguments, I was simply calling out what the more appropriate question was. But it goes back to the original claim that apparently framed the issue as she DID give the money (which is a misrepresentation). Then TNI “fact checked” and said said no, she
didn’t (another misrepresentation). I’m just calling attention to the fact that it’s not exactly the whole story.
What’s the TNI misrepresentation? It’s just rebutting a demonstrably false campaign statement.
Doesn’t the TNI article give more of the whole story?
>It refers to a bill Cannizzaro sponsored in 2023 to give about $25 million in raises to state worker unions, including the Nevada Police Union and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 4041 (AFSCME). Cannizzaro’s husband, Nathan Ring, is a lawyer who has represented AFSCME.
>The bill was meant to fund an earlier arbitration agreement negotiated between the unions and the state. However, the Legislature never appropriated money to fund that deal because it came after the legislative session had ended. AFSCME, represented by Ring, sued to force the funding, but the suit failed.
The ad claims Cannizzaro “gave her lobbyist husband’s client $26 million.” Ring didn’t lobby for AFSCME.
Guest
Anonymous
October 7, 2026 10:20 am
Raiders, ” the fastest $75 million giveaway in history.”
No oversight. Political insider deal. We, the taxpayers, have been “had” again by LV politics and self-interest.
I don’t even know to whom a complaint should be addressed. Is there an independent watch dog? But for TNI I would not have even heard about the giveaway.
I don’t want any government handouts. But if we’re going to do handouts, let’s at least give the handouts to poor people, not nepo baby billionaires like Mark Davis and John Fisher. FJF.
After the former employer paid AG’s $183,000 tax lien.
Guest
Anonymous
October 7, 2026 11:54 am
It is time to revisit the use of Zoom appearances in Court. As cheesy as this may sound, the architecture of our courthouses conveys unmistakable authority and solemnity, that in turn communicates to both attorneys and parties – this is a serious place, conduct yourselves accordingly.
When a person appears by zoom from their kitchen, with a half eaten bowl of Cheerios by the laptop, it isn’t a serious matter. It’s very casual. The judge is not a state official with authority, but just a small head on a screen.
Judges need to start revoking the right of pro se and some attorneys to appear by Zoom. In probate court, there is a parade of pro ses that feel emboldened to interrupt proceedings, get nasty and personal, talk down to the commissioners, insult other parties, etc. Their law degrees from the ChatGPT School of Law have emboldened many of them. There was a gentleman who appeared by Zoom today who deserves to have his Zoom privileges revoked.
Zoom is a privilege, but it is treated as a right. Zoom is the exception to the rule (in person appearances), but it is the default now. It’s time for this to come to an end.
Ok boomer. I get revoking the privilege for people causing problems, but don’t speak for the rest of us who do it right and save our own time and clients’ money.
I would agree with you if our Judges operated their court’s in a reasonable fashion. I will never forget in 2017ish when Judge Israel set a mandatory status check for one of my cases at 3 pm in the afternoon. No one has any idea why. The Attorneys involved in our case show up with the attorneys from about 10 other cases. No one has any idea why. He comes out and says that the reason he set the status check was because his docket assignment had been altered and it might effect the schedule of some of our cases. Might. It wasn’t even a sure thing. That was it. Could have been done in a minute order or even an email from chambers. But no, we had to go down for that. And my client got to pay for the time to drive, park, and wait, just for that.
Not to mention the judges who set hearings at a certain time but don’t start them at that time or the judges who insist on calling contested long matters for 2 hours before calling your status check that takes 3 minutes.
Zoom has completely changed the game on these issues and negated (to a point at least) our judge’s most annoying tendencies.
A zoom appearance is, at its core, a matter of efficient advocacy, not a grievance for Boyd ’13’s or 76 percenters who have offered cognitive surrender to our new AI overlords. This was something I mastered during the Reagan administration, when I gave four sold out CLE’s on AI and remote appearances. With AI agents, I can make eight simultaneous, disembodied AV-rated appearances in courtrooms all across North Pecos, and bill $800/hour for them before most of you have even figured out how to log on and mute your mics. Any practitioner who is my peer has already argued three writs in the time it took me to write this comment.
As someone who 1) works almost exclusively with Latinos, 2) speaks spanish fluently, and 3) eats at many of my client’s unlicensed locations I can tell you the reason why most people don’t have licenses. They are not particularly hard to get and the requirements make logical sense. In fact, the first one that was issued was issued to like a 17 year old kid who sells aguas frescas.
Anyway, the reason why people don’t get them is because they don’t want to. Enforcement is low and so why go through the effort to get one when you don’t have to? People respond to incentives, and there is no incentive to get licensed. Get serious about enforcement and people will get the license(s).
People often tell me the same kind of sob story contained in the article and when I ask “Have you tried to get the license?” They almost always say no.
Also, once you’re licensed you’re taxed. None of them want to pay the piper, they just want to inconvenience the rest of us by blocking a public sidewalk for their personal profit motives.
Guest
Anonymous
October 7, 2026 3:58 pm
Why so much hate towards our EJDC judges all the time? They work hard have crazy caseloads and are just trying to get through the day like the rest of us. And doing job that not many want. Given Bluth is retiring, wonder how many of you will step up and seek the appointment. The pay bump should help generate a bit more interest but let’s see.
Guessing anyone running who doesn’t win in. November is putting in. DeMonte/Tarmu, Quagge/Reynolds, Hibbet/Batisxh, Kishner/Mcleod, Beaumont/Peterson, who else? I won’t count on Hubert, Guilliumiummm, or Villani. Don’t think any of those guys actually want it.
Ok so the more appropriate question is: did Cannizzaro TRY to give 26 million in taxpayer dollars to her husband’s client?
We’re upset that a legislator sought funding for an arbitration decision that found the state shorted state workers’ pay? The appropriation was to fund a backpay award, if I’m not mistaken. So we’re upset that the a legislator tried to get state workers paid what they were owed? This is a nothingburger.
You make good arguments, I was simply calling out what the more appropriate question was. But it goes back to the original claim that apparently framed the issue as she DID give the money (which is a misrepresentation). Then TNI “fact checked” and said said no, she
didn’t (another misrepresentation). I’m just calling attention to the fact that it’s not exactly the whole story.
Just like every fake intellectual in a freshman dorm: I’m just asking questions man!
What’s the TNI misrepresentation? It’s just rebutting a demonstrably false campaign statement.
Doesn’t the TNI article give more of the whole story?
>It refers to a bill Cannizzaro sponsored in 2023 to give about $25 million in raises to state worker unions, including the Nevada Police Union and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 4041 (AFSCME). Cannizzaro’s husband, Nathan Ring, is a lawyer who has represented AFSCME.
>The bill was meant to fund an earlier arbitration agreement negotiated between the unions and the state. However, the Legislature never appropriated money to fund that deal because it came after the legislative session had ended. AFSCME, represented by Ring, sued to force the funding, but the suit failed.
what is up with the TNI defense force on this blog. Is that you, Jon?
11:10 here, just bored and there’s people are the internet who are wrong!
(xkcd #386)
[Witty insider comment here.] GO BILLS!
The ad claims Cannizzaro “gave her lobbyist husband’s client $26 million.” Ring didn’t lobby for AFSCME.
Raiders, ” the fastest $75 million giveaway in history.”
No oversight. Political insider deal. We, the taxpayers, have been “had” again by LV politics and self-interest.
I don’t even know to whom a complaint should be addressed. Is there an independent watch dog? But for TNI I would not have even heard about the giveaway.
I don’t want any government handouts. But if we’re going to do handouts, let’s at least give the handouts to poor people, not nepo baby billionaires like Mark Davis and John Fisher. FJF.
I mean the AG handing over Opioid litigation money hand over fist to the his former employer and benefactor certainly warrant merit.
After the former employer paid AG’s $183,000 tax lien.
It is time to revisit the use of Zoom appearances in Court. As cheesy as this may sound, the architecture of our courthouses conveys unmistakable authority and solemnity, that in turn communicates to both attorneys and parties – this is a serious place, conduct yourselves accordingly.
When a person appears by zoom from their kitchen, with a half eaten bowl of Cheerios by the laptop, it isn’t a serious matter. It’s very casual. The judge is not a state official with authority, but just a small head on a screen.
Judges need to start revoking the right of pro se and some attorneys to appear by Zoom. In probate court, there is a parade of pro ses that feel emboldened to interrupt proceedings, get nasty and personal, talk down to the commissioners, insult other parties, etc. Their law degrees from the ChatGPT School of Law have emboldened many of them. There was a gentleman who appeared by Zoom today who deserves to have his Zoom privileges revoked.
Zoom is a privilege, but it is treated as a right. Zoom is the exception to the rule (in person appearances), but it is the default now. It’s time for this to come to an end.
Your beef may be with ADKT 0581.
Ok boomer. I get revoking the privilege for people causing problems, but don’t speak for the rest of us who do it right and save our own time and clients’ money.
I would agree with you if our Judges operated their court’s in a reasonable fashion. I will never forget in 2017ish when Judge Israel set a mandatory status check for one of my cases at 3 pm in the afternoon. No one has any idea why. The Attorneys involved in our case show up with the attorneys from about 10 other cases. No one has any idea why. He comes out and says that the reason he set the status check was because his docket assignment had been altered and it might effect the schedule of some of our cases. Might. It wasn’t even a sure thing. That was it. Could have been done in a minute order or even an email from chambers. But no, we had to go down for that. And my client got to pay for the time to drive, park, and wait, just for that.
Not to mention the judges who set hearings at a certain time but don’t start them at that time or the judges who insist on calling contested long matters for 2 hours before calling your status check that takes 3 minutes.
Zoom has completely changed the game on these issues and negated (to a point at least) our judge’s most annoying tendencies.
Well that would have been solved by neutering Israel rather than neutering ZOOM.
these hippie lazy millenials need to be forced back into the office and back into zoom! i’m tired of the lack of decorum
A zoom appearance is, at its core, a matter of efficient advocacy, not a grievance for Boyd ’13’s or 76 percenters who have offered cognitive surrender to our new AI overlords. This was something I mastered during the Reagan administration, when I gave four sold out CLE’s on AI and remote appearances. With AI agents, I can make eight simultaneous, disembodied AV-rated appearances in courtrooms all across North Pecos, and bill $800/hour for them before most of you have even figured out how to log on and mute your mics. Any practitioner who is my peer has already argued three writs in the time it took me to write this comment.
Bluth is retiring!
good riddance
tired of a judge you cannot buy?
oh ya big meanie. I have not always agreed with Judge Bluth, but she has proven herself to be a capable and fair-minded jurist.
From an exclusively civil practitioner, she is a well above average civil judge.
Any idea on reasons why?
She’s going to JAMS to make big arbitration money
As someone who 1) works almost exclusively with Latinos, 2) speaks spanish fluently, and 3) eats at many of my client’s unlicensed locations I can tell you the reason why most people don’t have licenses. They are not particularly hard to get and the requirements make logical sense. In fact, the first one that was issued was issued to like a 17 year old kid who sells aguas frescas.
Anyway, the reason why people don’t get them is because they don’t want to. Enforcement is low and so why go through the effort to get one when you don’t have to? People respond to incentives, and there is no incentive to get licensed. Get serious about enforcement and people will get the license(s).
People often tell me the same kind of sob story contained in the article and when I ask “Have you tried to get the license?” They almost always say no.
Also, once you’re licensed you’re taxed. None of them want to pay the piper, they just want to inconvenience the rest of us by blocking a public sidewalk for their personal profit motives.
Why so much hate towards our EJDC judges all the time? They work hard have crazy caseloads and are just trying to get through the day like the rest of us. And doing job that not many want. Given Bluth is retiring, wonder how many of you will step up and seek the appointment. The pay bump should help generate a bit more interest but let’s see.
Guessing anyone running who doesn’t win in. November is putting in. DeMonte/Tarmu, Quagge/Reynolds, Hibbet/Batisxh, Kishner/Mcleod, Beaumont/Peterson, who else? I won’t count on Hubert, Guilliumiummm, or Villani. Don’t think any of those guys actually want it.
Tough for an incumbent who was voted out to get appointed to go back in
One can only hope, amirite
I wish Thunell would put back in. I’ve been impressed with him in the few months he’s been a judge.