1.6 million for shooting a handcuffed prisoner? Hopefully it was an "accident" or there was some other mitigating circumstance otherwise that seems low.
Don’t forget that the rule about solos has an exception and that is that when they are forced too proceed they will ie Beasley, Telles etc, if the news makes them do it they will, but they will dismiss without a hearing almost every non solo meaning it never makes it out of screening – not a supposed thing but empirical fact – go check the bar magazine OBC reports
What about that one case where OBC went after an attorney for an offense and then OBC committed the same offense, but argued they should be allowed to commit that offense because (insert excuse here). Shouldn't OBC be going after themselves now? Who files complaints with OBC violates the rules?
"Don’t forget that the rule about solos has an exception and that is that when they are forced too proceed they will ie Beasley, Telles etc, if the news makes them do it they will". Actually not true. Many times OBC will state that where the violation was litigation abuse that the discipline is meted out by the Court and the only time the OBC will engage in discipline is if there is a referral from the court (see Scott MacDonald).
5:17, your post does not rebut the post it purports to, in fairness to you, reread it and then post another argument, not saying u don’t have one just that your argument does not rebut the original argument
It is not refuting the post; it is explaining the exception that OBC tends to make which is that it goes after attorneys in the news outside of the courtroom but often leaves sanctions for conduct in the courtroom to the judge presiding therein. So Beasley's conduct was in the news but not in the courtroom. Telles's conduct was in the news but not in the courtroom.
Jones was sanctioned by Youchah for arguably litigation conduct (I know he was wearing his commissioner hat unlike when Gonzalez sanctioned him while wearing his attorney hat). But the OBC tends to take a hands-off approach for sanctioning attorneys over what they have already been sanctioned by a court. For this reason, the OBC could very likely say that Jones has already been sanctioned and thus nothing left for us to do.
Guest
Anonymous
April 25, 2023 11:31 pm
Isn't this Justin Jones' 2nd substantial sanction? Him amd Peek were dinged for 25k by Betsy, if I recall…
Who are these poo people?
NICE!
I never knew Mr. Hankey had his driver's license.
SWEET!
poo people?
You mean Mr. Hankey is not alone?
1.6 million for shooting a handcuffed prisoner? Hopefully it was an "accident" or there was some other mitigating circumstance otherwise that seems low.
Yes, mitigating circumstance is "prisoner"
^^^^
I don't know if "prisoner" is good enough mitigation in today's ACAB climate.
So OBC should be going after Justin Jones given the magistrate's findings, right?
Not if nobody tells them.
When I read that article this morning, I thought this would be a good test of the allegation that OBC only goes after solos.
Me too.
@10:23: Not really. A case that makes the front page of the R-J isn't your run of the mill bar complaint.
Don’t forget that the rule about solos has an exception and that is that when they are forced too proceed they will ie Beasley, Telles etc, if the news makes them do it they will, but they will dismiss without a hearing almost every non solo meaning it never makes it out of screening – not a supposed thing but empirical fact – go check the bar magazine OBC reports
What about that one case where OBC went after an attorney for an offense and then OBC committed the same offense, but argued they should be allowed to commit that offense because (insert excuse here). Shouldn't OBC be going after themselves now? Who files complaints with OBC violates the rules?
I am reminded of the old political ad that said "You can do a whole lot better than Justin Jones".
"Don’t forget that the rule about solos has an exception and that is that when they are forced too proceed they will ie Beasley, Telles etc, if the news makes them do it they will". Actually not true. Many times OBC will state that where the violation was litigation abuse that the discipline is meted out by the Court and the only time the OBC will engage in discipline is if there is a referral from the court (see Scott MacDonald).
5:17, your post does not rebut the post it purports to, in fairness to you, reread it and then post another argument, not saying u don’t have one just that your argument does not rebut the original argument
It is not refuting the post; it is explaining the exception that OBC tends to make which is that it goes after attorneys in the news outside of the courtroom but often leaves sanctions for conduct in the courtroom to the judge presiding therein. So Beasley's conduct was in the news but not in the courtroom. Telles's conduct was in the news but not in the courtroom.
Jones was sanctioned by Youchah for arguably litigation conduct (I know he was wearing his commissioner hat unlike when Gonzalez sanctioned him while wearing his attorney hat). But the OBC tends to take a hands-off approach for sanctioning attorneys over what they have already been sanctioned by a court. For this reason, the OBC could very likely say that Jones has already been sanctioned and thus nothing left for us to do.
Isn't this Justin Jones' 2nd substantial sanction? Him amd Peek were dinged for 25k by Betsy, if I recall…
Here is the news story on Justin Jones $25K: https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/las-vegas-sands-candor-is-questioned/
and https://www.casinocitytimes.com/ed-vogel/article/nevada-supreme-court-sands-info-can-stay-confidential-63040
He was part of a group that deceived Judge Gonzalez and was not fined individually, but he did not tell the truth or correct the lie.
Don’t forget to vote for Ben for BoG!
Done
I voted for Nadig, Franco, Lambrose, and Kampschror
1:00 pm–You voted for continuation of diversity programs and business as usual.