Runnin’ Down A Dream

  • Law

  • In case you didn’t see it yet, there is a long read in the New Yorker about the elderly and guardianship, heavily featuring April Parks and Clark County. [New Yorker]
  • Two new record sealing laws went into effect. [Public News Service]
  • A CBS attorney was fired for her comments following the Las Vegas shooting. [Above the Law]
  • Is the shooting a good reason to delay the Bundy/Bunkerville trial? [RJ]
  • The Supreme Court heard oral argument about weed distribution at UNLV yesterday. [RJ]
  • Here’s a look at some of the victims from Sunday’s shooting. [Las Vegas Sun]
41 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 3:48 pm

I know this got covered in local media, but I can't help but feel after reading about the horrors in the New Yorker Story that it didn't get enough coverage. I did not realize it was this bad. And it seems incredible to me that nobody in Family Court is incurring any kind of consequences for this.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 4:38 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

THIS. The true travesty here isn't the "guardians," as blatantly evil as they were/are–it's that an entire system of so-called "justice" blatantly enabled them, from the attorneys who milked the work of forcing vulnerable people into involuntary guardianships for decades to the court officials who either directly benefited financially or indirectly, by not having to do the jobs they were/are elected/appointed/paid to do. At the very, very least… the true bad actors here are the ones who had so many reasons to know that fraud was occurring and intentionally stayed dumb and silent about it. One has to wonder, how do they sleep?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 6:49 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Agreed. I read the entire article and came away with a helpless feeling that turned to anger. How could so many people allow this to happen. Truly frightening.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 7:04 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Apparently the Supreme Court understood the gravity of the situation a while back and hence the guardianship commission?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 7:33 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

That depends. Is the guardianship commission looking into what happened and holding people accountable? Or is it just making changes to the laws and process? Because if it's just B, that's great, but only goes partway to solving the problem.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 7:48 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Its B. And the Supreme Court only understood the gravity because people giftwrapped it with a little bow.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 8:45 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

We can all thank Catherine Cortez-Masto for turning a blind eye to the whole guardianship abuse racket while she was acting as Attorney General, despite having received a plethora of complaints from families. But why should we be surprised? To investigate and prosecute these guardians would mean she would have to go after her godddaddy Jared Shafer.

And now, CCM has been promoted the U.S. Senate after she campaigned so hard claiming that she protected seniors.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 10:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

CCM's father, Manny Cortez, was close friends with Jared Shafer. Manny Cortez was on the Clark County Commission that created the position of Public Administrator/Public Guardian, and then appointed Shafer to it.

patty
Guest
patty
October 7, 2017 7:52 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

If we live long enough and can afford it, most of us will need to hire some kind of help. Looks like hiring the help opened the door to these people to come in and take your assets. Would it help to make signing a NDA a condition of employment?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 4:02 pm

The story is horrific. However the New Yorker story got quite a few facts wrong in the article.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 4:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You can't come here to point out inaccuracies in an article without stating what the inaccuracies are. We need details here.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 2:51 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Pull the dockets, it's public record. Apparently the author couldn't be bothered.

Not saying it isn't awful, it is worse, but I cringe at the lack of fact checking.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 3:48 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

No. If you're going to come in here and claim that there are inaccuracies it's on YOU to back up your claims. Although to be fair, I'm using the word "claims" loosely since you didn't even point out any specific errors. So now, I'm just going to assume that you're somebody who was involved in these scams or a negligent family court employee and you're now going online anonymously in order to try and spread lies and confusion about what actually happened in order to mitigate your own guilt.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 6:18 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

8:48– Did you not read it? Its WORSE than reported. Why would people involved say that it is WORSE than reported and that it mitigates guilt?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 7:15 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The public corruption units of the local, state and federal law enforcement community should be working overtime on this problem. At least at the U.S. Attorney's office, getting convictions on attorney's are a trophy.. bagging a judge or elected official is a big game trophy, much like getting the head of a lion.

This type of problem can't exist in the form as large and long lasting as this did without a significant number of people involved. As a taxpayer, I don't have a problem with paying whatever it costs to provide those involved with 3 hots (actually hasn't been 3 hots for many years) and a cot for the remainder of their lives.

The quickest and most efficient way to go after this problem is much like has been done for years against organized crime (think Capone)… follow the money, it doesn't lie…

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 5:43 pm

Off of the posted topics, but on-topic for law. Kinda.

Why, oh why, are folks throwing in multiple leading zeroes on their bar numbers? If you have a three or four-digit number, do you think that it needs those extra zeroes to look even lower than it does? Do you think people will assume you made a typo and could not even get your own damn bar number right? Does the quality of your writing give you enough pause to think that you live down to that expectation?

Better still, why do people add enough leading zeroes to accommodate six digit bar numbers? We aren't even up to 20,000 yet. There are no six digit bar numbers, and won't be for a very long time to come at this rate. Don't worry, people will still understand that you meant "1X,XXX" instead of "1XX,XXX" when you omit the pointless leading zero.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 5:57 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Might as well ask why James T. Kirk's destruct code wasn't just "Destruct – Zero". It's just one of those things.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 6:00 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Some lawyers like extra formality.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 7:10 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Some lawyers crave external validation.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 10:50 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I like it! My bar number is in the 11,000's but still feels too high. So I'll add a couple of zeros to the beginning to make me feel more experienced. On second thought, would the bar allow me to buy a lower number off a retiring attorney?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 12:12 am
Reply to  Anonymous

If so, I've got a 2 digit number for sale.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 12:15 am
Reply to  Anonymous

And my 2 digit number should have more value than a 3 digit. Unless it would make you sound way too old.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 3:53 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Funny.. and some of the newbies might actually believe that there is an experience difference between a 2 digit, 3 digit or even low 4 digit bar number. To our 2 digit friend… congrats on being so quick in paying your bar dues the year they issued the numbers. The procrastinators received 4 digit numbers.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 7:20 pm

Say what you will about Trump, but I think it really says something about the guy that he came out hear and spend the amount of time he did at the hospital. He didn't have to do that and it doesn't change anything, but it's a good thing.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 9:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Seriously? We are commending him for visiting a city that was the scene of the most deadly shooting in modern US history? We are praising the fact that, for once, he wasn't a giant douche nozzle when responding to a crisis situation? You're right, he doesn't have to do anything, but as the President of the United States I think what he did is the least he could do and should be expected.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 9:36 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Given his recent responses, he could have shown up, tossed out some tourniquet kits, and complained about how the shooting has really thrown a wrench into his legislative agenda.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 9:46 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I'm indifferent on him coming, although I think it was the politic thing to do.

However, it sure screwed up my commute this morning.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 10:00 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Grateful he treated us much better and much faster than he treated Puerto Rico.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 10:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Wait, is 12:20 DJT himself? The misspellings, grammatical errors, and 4th grade vocabulary all point to . . . maybe? But 12:20 is correct, he didn't have to come out hear.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 1:02 am
Reply to  Anonymous

12:20,

I agree. It was a decent thing to do, especially away from the cameras.

Trump appears to respond productively to praise. So, people, for the sake of the world, please do not withhold positive reinforcement when he listens to his better angels.

Just give it to him. “Attaboy,” Mr. President.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 8:10 pm

Seven new published opinions coming out tomorrow.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 10:01 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Let's make certain that we don't put emphasis on quantity over quality.

There has been some degree of clamoring on this blog that the S.Ct. should issue more decisions.

Greater productivity, in terms of a greater number of decisions being issued, is not necessarily always a positive dynamic.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 10:15 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

But the problem still remains. One of the decisions for tomorrow had oral argument February 11, 2016. It took the Court 20 months from the time that the case was fully briefed and argued to issue an Opinion. That is and remains ridiculous.

01/12/2016 Notice/Outgoing Issued Notice Scheduling Oral Argument. Argument is scheduled for Thursday, February 11, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. for 30 minutes in Las Vegas. 16-00982

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 12:01 am
Reply to  Anonymous

One of the cases is a foreseeability of criminal conduct at a casino matter. Unfortunate coincidence.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 11:21 pm

Anybody attaching this asshole shooter's so-called millions before his gf spends it all?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 11:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

64, got one home in Mesquite, another in Reno, and liquid assets to send $100k to buy another one in the Philippines. He staked out his position. Established cameras in the hallway. Prepared magazines, arranged in nice orderly columns. You really think he left anything to chance in preparing his estate?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 11:41 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

4:40 PM,

His meticulous planning for the shooting is evidence that any transfers he made prior to death are fraudulent and thus void.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 12:11 am
Reply to  Anonymous

But it also evidences that that money is long gone other than the homes maybe. This guy left nothing to chance.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 12:27 am
Reply to  Anonymous

5:11,

Nah. I litigate these cases all the time. People aren't as clever as they think when it comes to stuff like this. The key though, is acting quickly to recoup the fraudulent transfer and to get an injunction in place.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 1:37 am
Reply to  Anonymous

If the motivation was gambling debt, his net worth is probably negative. Doesn't mean he doesn't have liquid assets, but he probably has no shortage of creditors coming for it even before the WD suits get filed.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 2:28 am
Reply to  Anonymous

We are (mostly) all lawyers here. Let's not pretend the shooter and his assets will be anywhere close to being the primary litigation target.