Robert Eglet’s latest multi-billion dollar quest (relative to the diabetes drug Actos) is back under way subject to a motion for mistrial. Defense attorneys (which include Dan Polsenberg) filed a motion for mistrial based on the RJ article this weekend which happened to mention Judge Kerry Earley, Robert Eglet, this trial, and David Thomas in the same sentence. Kerry said she had not read the article and planned to rule on the motion on Wednesday. [RJ]
Did anyone catch the interview with Randy Tindall on Ralston Reports last night? Probably not since it was on opposite the basketball game, but you can view video here (starting about 5 minutes in). Also invited to the interview, but “unavailable”: David Thomas, Rob Bare, and Robert Eglet. It includes Tindall’s bold accusation that Judge Rob Bare is making misleading statements. [Ralston Reports]
Also interviewed on Ralston Reports was Terry Coffing, who was plugging a new website called edjudicateclarkcounty.com which is intended to educate voters about candidates in the upcoming judicial election.
Don't know Tindall, but he comes off as somewhat credible. But then again, so does Rob Bare. Hard to know what to believe about this.
Guest
Anonymous
April 8, 2014 4:55 pm
I do know Tindall. I have gone against him in several cases. And he is an aggressive attorney, but he is also an absolutely straight shooter. He is absolutely credible. On the other hand, I have had nothing but positive dealings with Judge Bare, and would have no reason to doubt him. However, power does funny things to people. As far as the other players go … well, make up your own minds, I guess. Shoot, now that I am reading what I typed, I realize I added nothing to the conversation. Guess I'll go bill.
It is possible that both Tindall and Bare are being honest and it is really Thomas who is the scum in all of this. He could have totally mislead Bare regarding what efforts he was making on Bare's behalf and also never told him about Eglet's offer so that Bare would have plausible deniability.
I would agree that both were being honest. I know Tindall to be an honest person … but why did Bare decide to make such outlandish and ridiculous comments to the RJ? Wouldn't it have reflected better on his credibility had he refused to start calling Tindall names and swearing on his mother's life? I mean he doth protest too much …
Guest
Anonymous
April 8, 2014 5:03 pm
Absolutely no way Early grants a mistrial. Zero chance.
Not unless mistrials may be premised on "adding Judge Earley's name and picture to an article that has nothing to do with her." The Review Journal is a joke.
Guest
Anonymous
April 8, 2014 6:46 pm
Why are the family court departments not listed on the new website? The public needs to be educated about those candidates too!
Probably because Coffing does civil litigation, but good point. More of us are likely to be affected by a ruling in family court than in regular district court.
Guest
Anonymous
April 8, 2014 7:02 pm
Tindall is a petty, whiny, miserable prick to deal with. Does anyone like him? I've yet to meet anyone that can stand him.
Judge Bare is a straight shooter. I don't know enough about Dave Thomas to say whether he is a straight shooter, but I believe Judge Bare is being wrongly dragged through the mud.
The Thomas issue aside, if you're a judge in Nevada and you hear civil cases and you are directly or indirectly connected to Eglet, the public has a right to know. Nothing unfair has been written about Bare.
And Bare's comments about Tindall? Whether Tindall is an "oddball" or not, it was undignified for Bare to even make such comments.
As a professional attorney do you believe it is in anyway appropriate to call opposing counsel "petty", "whiny" or "miserable"? Those adjectives only reflect poorly on the person who is using them and in no way reflect upon the person who is being described. Mr. Tindall is an aggressive advocate for his clients, yet in my dealings with him I have never found him to be anything less than ethical.
More than likely your opinion of Mr. Tindall stems from a defense-oriented outcome of your case, one you might not have gotten had a lesser defense attorney been on the other side.
The public has the right to know how judicial campaigns are managed. Tindall has effectively opened the eyes of the public to the corruption that we, as attorneys, are all too familiar with.
The only things negative in the press about Judge Bare – Judge Bare's own comments. Enough said.
I do Plaintiff work and I have only known Tindall as a adversary. In the 4 or 5 cases I have had against him, I agree he was aggressive, but he was honest and straight. I agree with 2:26 — I suspect 12:02 got his ass handed to him by Tindall and now he is complaining. Honestly, in everyone's heart of hearts, do you really think Tindall is making this up? To what end? Throw his career in the toilet? We have a broken system and the people with the means take advantage of it. Good for Randy to bring light to what is going on. Sadly, at the end of the day, nothing will come of it, but it is interesting watching them circle their wagons.
Guest
Anonymous
April 8, 2014 8:33 pm
Well I think judge bare is an absolute dunce, so much so I would prefer anyone else
Are you kidding me???? I couldn't disagree more with your incorrect and inaccurate statement. Judge Bare has been one of the most professional and straight shooting judges I have ever dealt with at the state level. His opinions and conclusions are well thought out and his rational and reasoning in court demonstrate that he is very familiar with the pleadings and papers he is ruling upon. Not to mention the rating system where 80% of the attorneys that responded to the judging the judges survey seem to disagree with you as well.
I was on the fence about Bare, but with latest developments on him, I am not voting for him. My vote is important to me. My relatives fought and died in wars and "conflicts" to ensure and protect my right to vote. I am going to be damned if I am going to let some political hack select judges on my behalf.
I am not so sure 1:33 p.m. is incorrect. I actually like Judge Bare, because I think he tries hard and has an even temperament, but trying hard does not make one right for the job (think Judge Israel). I once had Judge Bare grant summary judgment without prejudice. Stop and think about it. He granted judgment in favor of my client but couched it in terms of without prejudice. As if the plaintiff could then refile.
For me, at the end of the day, even though I generally like Judge Bare, I do not think he should have called Tindall names. It really does reflect poorly on the judiciary (which does not need anymore help looking bad).
Just out of curiosity, despite what Judge Bare called it, why would you think that issue and claim preclusion wouldn't act to prevent plaintiff from refiling?
@ 1:07, I should have given you more background. In the case I referred to, the pro se plaintiff filed an opposition to our msj but did not attend the hearing. Judge Bare indicated that because she had filed, but not appeared, and because the opposition had no merit, he would grant the motion for summary judgment without prejudice.
If our judges don't know what the hell they are doing, why would I believe that a pro se litigant would understand the doctrines of collateral estoppel? There is nothing that prevents a plaintiff from refiling the same meritless complaint. The point was that despite his good intentions, Judge Bare may not be right for the job.
I have known Judge Bare for over 20 years & believe me,he has good reason for everything he does….maybe he is simply smarter than 2:36….or maybe you just do not see the practical fairness in his decision!
Guest
Anonymous
April 8, 2014 10:12 pm
Does anyone know anything about the George Wallace verdict, with respect to whether defense counsel did a decent job, whether the judge excluded good evidence etc? In other words, the dirt.
Did anybody see tonight's Ralston Report? Alan Lefebvre, our State Bar President, is so full of Shi*
He looks like a liar up there. "Attorneys donate to campaigns because they want to see a better judiciary." Maybe a few do, but if you are offering $150,000 to a candidate to run or not to run, it is to influence the Judge. Not to better the judiciary.
I like Lefebvre–I think he's a good guy. This is too bad.
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2014 4:17 am
Oh yeah, and in the middle of his interview, Lefebvre discloses that he is on Judge Bare's election committee. LOL!! Our State Bar is a joke. He didn't even know the campaign limit. Ralston had to tell him
The most embarassing thing I've witnessed as an attorney. Thank you State Bar for making us all look like fools. Great to know Mr. Lefebvre that you are on Bare's campaign … where does this cycle end?
Agreed. That was painful, sad, and embarrassing. Reminds of me of the tale of the fox guarding the hen house. The fact our State Bar President is on a judge's re-election campaign just creates such a bad image of a good old boys club without any of this other stuff that is alleged to have occurred.
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2014 4:50 am
Lefebvre embarrassed the entire bar tonight! The State Bar won't investigate this matter because they have no "evidence" (because it is pure hearsay). What??! Isn't it the State Bar's responsibility to investigate and determine whether rules were violated? Isn't their mission to discover the evidence, if it exists? Doesn't the State Bar have tools at their disposal (which other authorities don't have) to get to the bottom of issues like these. I also like how he doesn't even know the maximum donations allowed for a judicial candidate ($10,000). So if Eglet did offer $150,000 or to fully fund Tindall's campaign, then he violated campaign finance laws. This is why so few people are willing to stick their necks out and report violations. Our State Bar is gutless and inept.
I'm not entirely familiar with the judicial campaign finance laws, but from what I understand if quoted number of $150,000 is an accurate number it can be distributed in a variety of ways i.e. PACs, candidates, etc., in order to get the desired outcome. If the money is available there are plenty of legal ways to distribute it.
The State Bar is worthless they get valid complaints everyday and do nothng
Guest
Anonymous
April 9, 2014 5:52 am
Here, here. Gutless, spineless whimp asses. State bar is joke. Hey..
Bare is former bar counsel.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2014 12:58 am
so…..if it is legit maybe this edjudicate site is a possible step if fixing this nonsense? if we get responsible information pro/con can we get the public to vote responsibly?
Guest
Anonymous
April 12, 2014 5:36 pm
Family Court does not count it is a circus for lying lawyers to perform in where the audiance are clowns
Guest
Anonymous
April 15, 2014 5:29 pm
Was watching the Eglet interview on Ralston and Eglet claimed to have read an order from Judge Tao. I made some calls and found out there indeed was an Order denying Tindall's motion for summary judgment. It is interesting to note that Tao admonished Tindall that his affidavit verged upon fraud and Tindall was ordered to review the rules. Tindall admits he went down to file against Tao. I wonder if the December 18, 2013 Order basically implying Tindall was taking excessive liberties with his affidavits was a motivating factor?? (Case No. A687521 – Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment). Was Tindall's affidavit to the RJ of the same caliber as the affidavit to Tao? Something to think about.
Don't know Tindall, but he comes off as somewhat credible. But then again, so does Rob Bare. Hard to know what to believe about this.
I do know Tindall. I have gone against him in several cases. And he is an aggressive attorney, but he is also an absolutely straight shooter. He is absolutely credible. On the other hand, I have had nothing but positive dealings with Judge Bare, and would have no reason to doubt him. However, power does funny things to people. As far as the other players go … well, make up your own minds, I guess. Shoot, now that I am reading what I typed, I realize I added nothing to the conversation. Guess I'll go bill.
It is possible that both Tindall and Bare are being honest and it is really Thomas who is the scum in all of this. He could have totally mislead Bare regarding what efforts he was making on Bare's behalf and also never told him about Eglet's offer so that Bare would have plausible deniability.
I would agree that both were being honest. I know Tindall to be an honest person … but why did Bare decide to make such outlandish and ridiculous comments to the RJ? Wouldn't it have reflected better on his credibility had he refused to start calling Tindall names and swearing on his mother's life? I mean he doth protest too much …
Absolutely no way Early grants a mistrial. Zero chance.
Not unless mistrials may be premised on "adding Judge Earley's name and picture to an article that has nothing to do with her." The Review Journal is a joke.
Why are the family court departments not listed on the new website? The public needs to be educated about those candidates too!
Probably because Coffing does civil litigation, but good point. More of us are likely to be affected by a ruling in family court than in regular district court.
Tindall is a petty, whiny, miserable prick to deal with. Does anyone like him? I've yet to meet anyone that can stand him.
Judge Bare is a straight shooter. I don't know enough about Dave Thomas to say whether he is a straight shooter, but I believe Judge Bare is being wrongly dragged through the mud.
The Thomas issue aside, if you're a judge in Nevada and you hear civil cases and you are directly or indirectly connected to Eglet, the public has a right to know. Nothing unfair has been written about Bare.
And Bare's comments about Tindall? Whether Tindall is an "oddball" or not, it was undignified for Bare to even make such comments.
As a professional attorney do you believe it is in anyway appropriate to call opposing counsel "petty", "whiny" or "miserable"? Those adjectives only reflect poorly on the person who is using them and in no way reflect upon the person who is being described. Mr. Tindall is an aggressive advocate for his clients, yet in my dealings with him I have never found him to be anything less than ethical.
More than likely your opinion of Mr. Tindall stems from a defense-oriented outcome of your case, one you might not have gotten had a lesser defense attorney been on the other side.
The public has the right to know how judicial campaigns are managed. Tindall has effectively opened the eyes of the public to the corruption that we, as attorneys, are all too familiar with.
The only things negative in the press about Judge Bare – Judge Bare's own comments. Enough said.
I do Plaintiff work and I have only known Tindall as a adversary. In the 4 or 5 cases I have had against him, I agree he was aggressive, but he was honest and straight. I agree with 2:26 — I suspect 12:02 got his ass handed to him by Tindall and now he is complaining. Honestly, in everyone's heart of hearts, do you really think Tindall is making this up? To what end? Throw his career in the toilet? We have a broken system and the people with the means take advantage of it. Good for Randy to bring light to what is going on. Sadly, at the end of the day, nothing will come of it, but it is interesting watching them circle their wagons.
Well I think judge bare is an absolute dunce, so much so I would prefer anyone else
Are you kidding me???? I couldn't disagree more with your incorrect and inaccurate statement. Judge Bare has been one of the most professional and straight shooting judges I have ever dealt with at the state level. His opinions and conclusions are well thought out and his rational and reasoning in court demonstrate that he is very familiar with the pleadings and papers he is ruling upon. Not to mention the rating system where 80% of the attorneys that responded to the judging the judges survey seem to disagree with you as well.
I was on the fence about Bare, but with latest developments on him, I am not voting for him. My vote is important to me. My relatives fought and died in wars and "conflicts" to ensure and protect my right to vote. I am going to be damned if I am going to let some political hack select judges on my behalf.
Yeah, @ 1:33! Your personal thoughts on Judge Bare are categorically incorrect and inaccurate!!! Chill pill, @ 4:19.
I am not so sure 1:33 p.m. is incorrect. I actually like Judge Bare, because I think he tries hard and has an even temperament, but trying hard does not make one right for the job (think Judge Israel). I once had Judge Bare grant summary judgment without prejudice. Stop and think about it. He granted judgment in favor of my client but couched it in terms of without prejudice. As if the plaintiff could then refile.
For me, at the end of the day, even though I generally like Judge Bare, I do not think he should have called Tindall names. It really does reflect poorly on the judiciary (which does not need anymore help looking bad).
Just out of curiosity, despite what Judge Bare called it, why would you think that issue and claim preclusion wouldn't act to prevent plaintiff from refiling?
@ 1:07, I should have given you more background. In the case I referred to, the pro se plaintiff filed an opposition to our msj but did not attend the hearing. Judge Bare indicated that because she had filed, but not appeared, and because the opposition had no merit, he would grant the motion for summary judgment without prejudice.
If our judges don't know what the hell they are doing, why would I believe that a pro se litigant would understand the doctrines of collateral estoppel? There is nothing that prevents a plaintiff from refiling the same meritless complaint. The point was that despite his good intentions, Judge Bare may not be right for the job.
I have known Judge Bare for over 20 years & believe me,he has good reason for everything he does….maybe he is simply smarter than 2:36….or maybe you just do not see the practical fairness in his decision!
Does anyone know anything about the George Wallace verdict, with respect to whether defense counsel did a decent job, whether the judge excluded good evidence etc? In other words, the dirt.
Wallace received 1.3 million.
Did anybody see tonight's Ralston Report? Alan Lefebvre, our State Bar President, is so full of Shi*
He looks like a liar up there. "Attorneys donate to campaigns because they want to see a better judiciary." Maybe a few do, but if you are offering $150,000 to a candidate to run or not to run, it is to influence the Judge. Not to better the judiciary.
I like Lefebvre–I think he's a good guy. This is too bad.
Oh yeah, and in the middle of his interview, Lefebvre discloses that he is on Judge Bare's election committee. LOL!! Our State Bar is a joke. He didn't even know the campaign limit. Ralston had to tell him
The most embarassing thing I've witnessed as an attorney. Thank you State Bar for making us all look like fools. Great to know Mr. Lefebvre that you are on Bare's campaign … where does this cycle end?
Agreed. That was painful, sad, and embarrassing. Reminds of me of the tale of the fox guarding the hen house. The fact our State Bar President is on a judge's re-election campaign just creates such a bad image of a good old boys club without any of this other stuff that is alleged to have occurred.
Lefebvre embarrassed the entire bar tonight! The State Bar won't investigate this matter because they have no "evidence" (because it is pure hearsay). What??! Isn't it the State Bar's responsibility to investigate and determine whether rules were violated? Isn't their mission to discover the evidence, if it exists? Doesn't the State Bar have tools at their disposal (which other authorities don't have) to get to the bottom of issues like these. I also like how he doesn't even know the maximum donations allowed for a judicial candidate ($10,000). So if Eglet did offer $150,000 or to fully fund Tindall's campaign, then he violated campaign finance laws. This is why so few people are willing to stick their necks out and report violations. Our State Bar is gutless and inept.
I'm not entirely familiar with the judicial campaign finance laws, but from what I understand if quoted number of $150,000 is an accurate number it can be distributed in a variety of ways i.e. PACs, candidates, etc., in order to get the desired outcome. If the money is available there are plenty of legal ways to distribute it.
The State Bar is worthless they get valid complaints everyday and do nothng
Here, here. Gutless, spineless whimp asses. State bar is joke. Hey..
Bare is former bar counsel.
so…..if it is legit maybe this edjudicate site is a possible step if fixing this nonsense? if we get responsible information pro/con can we get the public to vote responsibly?
Family Court does not count it is a circus for lying lawyers to perform in where the audiance are clowns
Was watching the Eglet interview on Ralston and Eglet claimed to have read an order from Judge Tao. I made some calls and found out there indeed was an Order denying Tindall's motion for summary judgment. It is interesting to note that Tao admonished Tindall that his affidavit verged upon fraud and Tindall was ordered to review the rules. Tindall admits he went down to file against Tao. I wonder if the December 18, 2013 Order basically implying Tindall was taking excessive liberties with his affidavits was a motivating factor?? (Case No. A687521 – Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment). Was Tindall's affidavit to the RJ of the same caliber as the affidavit to Tao? Something to think about.
Tao is a boob.