Judge Linda Marie Bell split her decision on $3 million in gambling debts. [RJ]
The US Supreme Court will hear a case on sports betting later this fall. [RJ]
Resorts World hired a construction manager and is getting one step closer to being a boon for construction defect and personal injury attorneys. [Fox5Vegas]
In the wake of the shootings, how will Las Vegas approach New Year’s Eve this year? [LasVegasNow]
The County has begun installation of bollards on the Strip. [RJ]
A law degree doesn’t insulate you from sexual harassment. [Above the Law]
I guess the good news is that they won't be able to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. Form 4473 Question 6 doesn't have an option other than 'Male' or 'Female'. That's a problem that those in Oregon ran into.
Homo sapiens as a species are binary-gendered. There are males, and there are females, and that is how the species reproduces. A very small percentage of people are born with genetic defects such that they are not male or female in the way most other people are. They have an extra X or extra Y chromosome or something. And a somewhat larger, though still very small, percentage of people are biologically male or female genetically but have hormonal and/or psychological abnormalities that give them objective traits of the opposite sex and/or make them want to be the opposite sex. Only the earlier group of people (the XXY or XYY chromosome people) can honestly say they are "non-binary gender." And even that may not be strictly true in all cases – XXY and XYY people may be able to reproduce as males or females. But the other groups of people–the XX or XY people with hormone imbalances or psychological issues–are binary gender. Not sure it's a good idea to permit someone to omit objectively true identifying information from a government ID based on the feelz. If it's such a big problem, just remove gender as a piece of information appearing on anyone's ID.
It's not quite that simple. There are many variations, for different reasons. Speaking in terms of "defects" or "abnormalities" is also harsh and unnecessary. There's more information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex or here: http://www.isna.org/. But I agree that removing gender as a piece of information when unnecessary should be done, and in cases where it is necessary, non-binary options should be included.
Those rare ones born with chromosome features of both genders are what we used to call hermaphrodites.
But these types of legislation are not generally based on strict medical/biological determinations, but are based on how the individual subjectively identifies themselves–in terms of life style, psychological identification, etc.
I'm not sure to what extent I agree or disagree with such approaches, but they seem to longer be based on strict biology. They are generally based on the way a person self-identifies.
Agreed, They no longer are based on genetic/biological determinations, but only on how someone subjectively declares that they perceive themselves.
And apparently how they declare themselves, in terms of gender identification, needs to be accepted as gospel even if there is no other support for such position, or even if the other information(such as psychological or therapy reports) contradict(or at least provide nuance to) the person's proclaimed self-identification.
I'm all for tolerating people who are different, but self-perception has no place on an ID form. 11:37, what 9:37 wrote wasn't simple. It was complex and particular, and it was based on objective, scientific reality, not social-political opinion like the links you provided.
What value does including gender on an ID card provide if you are not going to take subjective experience into account? If I dress and groom myself in a traditionally male fashion, wear a beard and speak in a deep voice that came after I started taking testosterone, and go by a masculine first name, forcing me to put "f" on my ID because of the genitals I have or was born with offers little to no useful identifying information–it certainly offers less than if you let me put "m," and less still than if you let me identify as something not traditionally male or female. As calling myself female on an ID would offer no useful information related to the purpose for which it is designed,(namely, identifying myself to relevant authorities) forcing me to do so isn't about pragmatism or even some devotion to objectivity, but rather about enforcing your own moral (and lets face it, probably religious) view on me. It is certainly your right to take that position, but own it. Don't try to couch your need for people to fit in categories that comport with your personal ontology (evidenced above by the common but mistaken equivocating of "sex" and "gender")as evidence of your detached objectivity.
Yeah, only it's no one's "personal ontology" whether someone is a male or female biologically, and it's certainly not a moral judgment. But I'm glad you got to use your $40,000 undergraduate degree for something, anyway, even it it was just an argument on the Internet.
Again, you seem to be confusing gender and sex. If you're right, and personal ontology doesn't come into play here, then you should not have any problem describing to me what are the mutually exclusive and exhaustive characteristics of binary categories of both gender and sex.
Or, you can continue to refuse to engage with the substance of the argument and just deflect with more hand-waiving.
Gender is a grammatical (and more recently a sociological) term. Sex is a biological term. A male has an X and a Y chromosome and creates sperm to reproduce. A female has two X chromosomes and creates eggs to reproduce. 99%+ of people are one of these, because if that were not the case, the species would quickly die out due to the way it reproduces. There are genetic exceptions, as I noted. In the case of exceptions, (XXY or XYY), male or female is probably best noted according to reproductive role, which would be male, even if sterile. Even XXY or XYY males who can reproduce will not typically pass on an extra X or Y chromosome (although there's a risk). I'm sure there are other genetic exceptions, but it doesn't matter to the rule. Your argument that there can be no exceptions to the rule in order for the rule to make sense ("mutually exclusive and exhaustive") is nonsense.
My argument was not that there can be no exceptions for a rule to make sense. My argument was that exceptions defeat the idea of a binary. If you don't see that you don't understand what one of those words means. More likely, accepting it causes you to undergo some cognitive dissonance and you need to deny it to maintain your personal beliefs.
Guest
Anonymous
October 17, 2017 4:04 pm
Note: The Page passed 3 Million Page Views last week. That is pretty impressive.
Mostly dead is slightly alive. So don't go through the blog's clothes looking for loose change quite yet.
Guest
Anonymous
October 17, 2017 4:50 pm
I started to read the RJ article about Judge Bell's decision in the gambling debt case. Tried to make heads or tails about what the hell is going on in the that case. Then I jumped to the article about a Florida woman who is running for Congress and was abducted by aliens when she was 7. She says that incident should not detract what she has done here on planet Earth since then. THAT IS F—— AWESOME! She would totally have my vote if I could vote there in Swampland USA. At least we can explain her behavior (abducted by aliens, duh?), unlike the hacks we have in DC now.
Fantastic! We finally have a possible explanation for behavior of the occupant of the highest office in the nation, possibly in the world. Abducted by aliens…
Had jury duty yesterday in Judge Bell's court. Not surprisingly, after voir dire I was eliminated by one side's peremptory challenge.
But I must note that I was extremely impressed with how Judge Bell conducted the entire process, and how she was very sincerely
concerned with the jurors, truly appreciative of the sacrifices they were making to be there, concerned that they would be comfortable throughout the proceedings, etc.
I have certainly heard other jurists offer similar observations in the past, but sometimes it seemed kind of rote and routine like they were simply reading from a script. In my experience,this was, to some degree of measure, the most sincere and truly caring a judge has been to a jury.
Based on my employment, there is zero chance I would ever be before Judge Bell to advocate a case, but those who do appear before her should be pleased with the level of preparation and courtesy that (I assume) is regularly exhibited. Had I been required to serve, I believe the jury experience would have been a lot better than I originally anticipated.
Judge Villani was also in the jury services room in the morning. I don't know if he was finally selected, but he did indicate that he had previously served on four occasions–so, major kudos to him as well.
Candidly, although there have been improvements, I still believe the initial part of the process, where everyone is processed in the jury services room, still has a bit too much of a cattle call atmosphere. But, again, even this aspect is a lot better than when I was required to report about six years ago, so credit should be given to our current Jury Commissioner.
I like Judge Bell as well. I had my first trial in front of her. She was well prepared and engaged throughout. She was respectful to my client and the opposing party as well as the witnesses. When I made evidentiary objections she listened to both of us and came to thoughtful conclusions, at one point going into recess so that she could do some quick legal research to get it right. One of our better jurists, IMO.
An loan of chips is not a gambling debt; it's a regular debt. I don't see how this can possibly be conceived as a gambling debt. A gambling debt is a lost wager that remains unpaid, as in, "I bet you $3 million the 49ers will win the Super Bowl. Oh, they didn't? No cash for you, anyway." That debt can't be enforced in Nevada, unless the wager is made on a casino marker. But a trade of chips for money is not a wager. The debt is not a gambling debt. It's no different than a written IOU for cash, except that the manifestation of intent is in a different form. WTF? Elected judges. SMH.
•Resorts World hired a construction manager and is getting one step closer to being a boon for construction defect and personal injury attorneys. [Fox5Vegas]
Not really for construction defect lawyers… Commercial construction is not within the purview of Chapter 40 and those projects, especially things like hotel/casinos use an entirely different group of construction attorneys and experts. Typically, those cases are mechanic lien cases with breach of contract/defects alleged in defense and counter-claims.
Same comment was made about Fontainebleu when it had no CD attorneys per se involved in that litigation.
Guest
Anonymous
October 17, 2017 9:47 pm
How many hundreds of millions of years of evolution do u think separates humans from bugs? I recently saw a spider outside my window – it was working on a web and mostly just sitting there, waiting for food i guess. A few days later i saw what looked like the very same spider outside the same window, making another web and waiting again – for a moment I pitied that spider, doing the same stupid task every day until one day it would just die. I think about that spider every time I punch in my iPhone unlock code, every time I type "regards" in an email, every time I catch myself being proud of emailing a document to a partner that I 100% know is typo free because Iproofed it so many times. You know, that spider was looking at me through the window too.
Guest
Anonymous
October 17, 2017 9:57 pm
The question is posed that based on the shootings, how should the Strip approach New Year's this year.
Answer, IMO, is that they should cancel any such celebrations this year. They routinely close the Strip after a certain hour, and no one after such time can get in or out. It's jus a big, messy stressful zoo, even if all you are doing is driving past or through the Strip,or someplace near it, to reach your destination.
Simply celebrate at a friend's or relatives house, or your own, or choose from hundreds of other places not near the Strip.
The carnival-like absurdity of the Strip New Year's Celebration, or the Time's Square celebration for that matter, really is primarily geared to those who are under 25.
And yes, the recent shootings may give some psychos an idea, so why take a chance? If something happens, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
So, my cerebral, analytical, brilliantly-reasoned advice consists of "Stay the F*** home on New Year's, or, at the very least, avoid the Strip like the f***ing plague!"
I hope other posters will recognize that I must be a very intelligent, and handsome, man.
2:57 here again. I don't necessarily have to assume gender because I'm (reasonably) certain I'm a male.
But my remarks, about cancelling New Year's on the strip, are very valid and insightful, so I deserve kudos even if my gender is unknown. So, you can say I'm obviously a very intelligent and…take your pick…
The business of this town is business. Crazed whackjobs can take shots at Times Square, Rose Parade or the Super Bowl. Why take a chance? Because we take a chance every morning. It is no more probable that something will happen on New Years Eve than that someone would do what Paddock did on 10/1.
Perhaps it is no more probable. But once something like this occurs at something where it was by no means forseeable, if it happens on New Year's, with so many more people than the concert, and if safety precautions are not significantly enhanced over last year's New Year's based on the recent shootings, there will be many law suits and lawyers screaming their theory that New Year's security should have been enhanced greatly based on the recent shootings. And many jurors will agree with them.
So, even though you are probably right, it ultimately does not matter. Liability arguments and safety precaution arguments, will(perhaps wrongfully) be afforded a lot more credence due to the recent tragedy.
And, yes, New Year's on the Strip sucks, is for young drunks and partiers under 25, and everyone else would be well-served celebrating elsewhere–like anywhere else.
Admission: I did attend New Year's on the Strip to mark the new millennium in 20000, so I suppose on some level I'm a hypocrite.
The Nevada Supreme Court and Court of Appeals normally release ADVANCE OPINIONS only on Thursdays.
On the preceding Wednesday, a list will be posted here of opinions planned for release.
The appellate courts make no guarantee that every advance opinion listed as forthcoming will be published as indicated. On rare occasions, the publishing of an advance opinion may be delayed at the last minute for administrative reasons.
MOST WEEKS, the appellate courts will issue no opinions.
Most Supreme Court and Court of Appeals cases are decided by “Unpublished Orders,” which may be released on any day. The Supreme Court unpublished orders can be accessed here. The Court of Appeals unpublished orders can be accessed here.
Any opinions on California's new non-binary gender? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16/california-adds-non-binary-gender-option-on-state-licenses.html
I guess the good news is that they won't be able to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. Form 4473 Question 6 doesn't have an option other than 'Male' or 'Female'. That's a problem that those in Oregon ran into.
Homo sapiens as a species are binary-gendered. There are males, and there are females, and that is how the species reproduces. A very small percentage of people are born with genetic defects such that they are not male or female in the way most other people are. They have an extra X or extra Y chromosome or something. And a somewhat larger, though still very small, percentage of people are biologically male or female genetically but have hormonal and/or psychological abnormalities that give them objective traits of the opposite sex and/or make them want to be the opposite sex. Only the earlier group of people (the XXY or XYY chromosome people) can honestly say they are "non-binary gender." And even that may not be strictly true in all cases – XXY and XYY people may be able to reproduce as males or females. But the other groups of people–the XX or XY people with hormone imbalances or psychological issues–are binary gender. Not sure it's a good idea to permit someone to omit objectively true identifying information from a government ID based on the feelz. If it's such a big problem, just remove gender as a piece of information appearing on anyone's ID.
It's not quite that simple. There are many variations, for different reasons. Speaking in terms of "defects" or "abnormalities" is also harsh and unnecessary. There's more information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex or here: http://www.isna.org/. But I agree that removing gender as a piece of information when unnecessary should be done, and in cases where it is necessary, non-binary options should be included.
Those rare ones born with chromosome features of both genders are what we used to call hermaphrodites.
But these types of legislation are not generally based on strict medical/biological determinations, but are based on how the individual subjectively identifies themselves–in terms of life style, psychological identification, etc.
I'm not sure to what extent I agree or disagree with such approaches, but they seem to longer be based on strict biology. They are generally based on the way a person self-identifies.
Agreed, They no longer are based on genetic/biological determinations, but only on how someone subjectively declares that they perceive themselves.
And apparently how they declare themselves, in terms of gender identification, needs to be accepted as gospel even if there is no other support for such position, or even if the other information(such as psychological or therapy reports) contradict(or at least provide nuance to) the person's proclaimed self-identification.
I'm all for tolerating people who are different, but self-perception has no place on an ID form. 11:37, what 9:37 wrote wasn't simple. It was complex and particular, and it was based on objective, scientific reality, not social-political opinion like the links you provided.
What value does including gender on an ID card provide if you are not going to take subjective experience into account? If I dress and groom myself in a traditionally male fashion, wear a beard and speak in a deep voice that came after I started taking testosterone, and go by a masculine first name, forcing me to put "f" on my ID because of the genitals I have or was born with offers little to no useful identifying information–it certainly offers less than if you let me put "m," and less still than if you let me identify as something not traditionally male or female. As calling myself female on an ID would offer no useful information related to the purpose for which it is designed,(namely, identifying myself to relevant authorities) forcing me to do so isn't about pragmatism or even some devotion to objectivity, but rather about enforcing your own moral (and lets face it, probably religious) view on me. It is certainly your right to take that position, but own it. Don't try to couch your need for people to fit in categories that comport with your personal ontology (evidenced above by the common but mistaken equivocating of "sex" and "gender")as evidence of your detached objectivity.
Yeah, only it's no one's "personal ontology" whether someone is a male or female biologically, and it's certainly not a moral judgment. But I'm glad you got to use your $40,000 undergraduate degree for something, anyway, even it it was just an argument on the Internet.
Again, you seem to be confusing gender and sex. If you're right, and personal ontology doesn't come into play here, then you should not have any problem describing to me what are the mutually exclusive and exhaustive characteristics of binary categories of both gender and sex.
Or, you can continue to refuse to engage with the substance of the argument and just deflect with more hand-waiving.
Gender is a grammatical (and more recently a sociological) term. Sex is a biological term. A male has an X and a Y chromosome and creates sperm to reproduce. A female has two X chromosomes and creates eggs to reproduce. 99%+ of people are one of these, because if that were not the case, the species would quickly die out due to the way it reproduces. There are genetic exceptions, as I noted. In the case of exceptions, (XXY or XYY), male or female is probably best noted according to reproductive role, which would be male, even if sterile. Even XXY or XYY males who can reproduce will not typically pass on an extra X or Y chromosome (although there's a risk). I'm sure there are other genetic exceptions, but it doesn't matter to the rule. Your argument that there can be no exceptions to the rule in order for the rule to make sense ("mutually exclusive and exhaustive") is nonsense.
My argument was not that there can be no exceptions for a rule to make sense. My argument was that exceptions defeat the idea of a binary. If you don't see that you don't understand what one of those words means. More likely, accepting it causes you to undergo some cognitive dissonance and you need to deny it to maintain your personal beliefs.
Note: The Page passed 3 Million Page Views last week. That is pretty impressive.
BLOG IS DEAD *snort*
Blog's condition has been upgraded to Mostly Dead.
Time to call Miracle Max!
Mostly dead is slightly alive. So don't go through the blog's clothes looking for loose change quite yet.
I started to read the RJ article about Judge Bell's decision in the gambling debt case. Tried to make heads or tails about what the hell is going on in the that case. Then I jumped to the article about a Florida woman who is running for Congress and was abducted by aliens when she was 7. She says that incident should not detract what she has done here on planet Earth since then. THAT IS F—— AWESOME! She would totally have my vote if I could vote there in Swampland USA. At least we can explain her behavior (abducted by aliens, duh?), unlike the hacks we have in DC now.
Yeah, that article does a pretty crappy job of relating the relevant facts.
Fantastic! We finally have a possible explanation for behavior of the occupant of the highest office in the nation, possibly in the world. Abducted by aliens…
From the planet "Cheeto"?
11:05: Or rather we finally have an explanation for the behavior of late night talk show hosts and the entire talent lineup over at MSNBC.
See this article for more info
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/3m-exchange-in-las-vegas-poker-game-at-center-of-lawsuit/
Also – this is a very interesting decision.
Planet Cheeto. Awesome. I love Cheetos! Can't just eat one…
Had jury duty yesterday in Judge Bell's court. Not surprisingly, after voir dire I was eliminated by one side's peremptory challenge.
But I must note that I was extremely impressed with how Judge Bell conducted the entire process, and how she was very sincerely
concerned with the jurors, truly appreciative of the sacrifices they were making to be there, concerned that they would be comfortable throughout the proceedings, etc.
I have certainly heard other jurists offer similar observations in the past, but sometimes it seemed kind of rote and routine like they were simply reading from a script. In my experience,this was, to some degree of measure, the most sincere and truly caring a judge has been to a jury.
Based on my employment, there is zero chance I would ever be before Judge Bell to advocate a case, but those who do appear before her should be pleased with the level of preparation and courtesy that (I assume) is regularly exhibited. Had I been required to serve, I believe the jury experience would have been a lot better than I originally anticipated.
Judge Villani was also in the jury services room in the morning. I don't know if he was finally selected, but he did indicate that he had previously served on four occasions–so, major kudos to him as well.
Candidly, although there have been improvements, I still believe the initial part of the process, where everyone is processed in the jury services room, still has a bit too much of a cattle call atmosphere. But, again, even this aspect is a lot better than when I was required to report about six years ago, so credit should be given to our current Jury Commissioner.
I like Judge Bell as well. I had my first trial in front of her. She was well prepared and engaged throughout. She was respectful to my client and the opposing party as well as the witnesses. When I made evidentiary objections she listened to both of us and came to thoughtful conclusions, at one point going into recess so that she could do some quick legal research to get it right. One of our better jurists, IMO.
An loan of chips is not a gambling debt; it's a regular debt. I don't see how this can possibly be conceived as a gambling debt. A gambling debt is a lost wager that remains unpaid, as in, "I bet you $3 million the 49ers will win the Super Bowl. Oh, they didn't? No cash for you, anyway." That debt can't be enforced in Nevada, unless the wager is made on a casino marker. But a trade of chips for money is not a wager. The debt is not a gambling debt. It's no different than a written IOU for cash, except that the manifestation of intent is in a different form. WTF? Elected judges. SMH.
To the author of the gambling debt article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=41&v=Pfwor712Yg8
•Resorts World hired a construction manager and is getting one step closer to being a boon for construction defect and personal injury attorneys. [Fox5Vegas]
No bias in the blog here.
Not really for construction defect lawyers… Commercial construction is not within the purview of Chapter 40 and those projects, especially things like hotel/casinos use an entirely different group of construction attorneys and experts. Typically, those cases are mechanic lien cases with breach of contract/defects alleged in defense and counter-claims.
Same comment was made about Fontainebleu when it had no CD attorneys per se involved in that litigation.
How many hundreds of millions of years of evolution do u think separates humans from bugs? I recently saw a spider outside my window – it was working on a web and mostly just sitting there, waiting for food i guess. A few days later i saw what looked like the very same spider outside the same window, making another web and waiting again – for a moment I pitied that spider, doing the same stupid task every day until one day it would just die. I think about that spider every time I punch in my iPhone unlock code, every time I type "regards" in an email, every time I catch myself being proud of emailing a document to a partner that I 100% know is typo free because Iproofed it so many times. You know, that spider was looking at me through the window too.
The question is posed that based on the shootings, how should the Strip approach New Year's this year.
Answer, IMO, is that they should cancel any such celebrations this year. They routinely close the Strip after a certain hour, and no one after such time can get in or out. It's jus a big, messy stressful zoo, even if all you are doing is driving past or through the Strip,or someplace near it, to reach your destination.
Simply celebrate at a friend's or relatives house, or your own, or choose from hundreds of other places not near the Strip.
The carnival-like absurdity of the Strip New Year's Celebration, or the Time's Square celebration for that matter, really is primarily geared to those who are under 25.
And yes, the recent shootings may give some psychos an idea, so why take a chance? If something happens, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
So, my cerebral, analytical, brilliantly-reasoned advice consists of "Stay the F*** home on New Year's, or, at the very least, avoid the Strip like the f***ing plague!"
I hope other posters will recognize that I must be a very intelligent, and handsome, man.
why assume gender?
2:57 here again. I don't necessarily have to assume gender because I'm (reasonably) certain I'm a male.
But my remarks, about cancelling New Year's on the strip, are very valid and insightful, so I deserve kudos even if my gender is unknown. So, you can say I'm obviously a very intelligent and…take your pick…
a. handsome man.
b. beautiful women.
c. very attractive non-binary.
The business of this town is business. Crazed whackjobs can take shots at Times Square, Rose Parade or the Super Bowl. Why take a chance? Because we take a chance every morning. It is no more probable that something will happen on New Years Eve than that someone would do what Paddock did on 10/1.
Perhaps it is no more probable. But once something like this occurs at something where it was by no means forseeable, if it happens on New Year's, with so many more people than the concert, and if safety precautions are not significantly enhanced over last year's New Year's based on the recent shootings, there will be many law suits and lawyers screaming their theory that New Year's security should have been enhanced greatly based on the recent shootings. And many jurors will agree with them.
So, even though you are probably right, it ultimately does not matter. Liability arguments and safety precaution arguments, will(perhaps wrongfully) be afforded a lot more credence due to the recent tragedy.
And, yes, New Year's on the Strip sucks, is for young drunks and partiers under 25, and everyone else would be well-served celebrating elsewhere–like anywhere else.
Admission: I did attend New Year's on the Strip to mark the new millennium in 20000, so I suppose on some level I'm a hypocrite.
Judge Susan Johnson for Trump Nevada 2020 Campaign Chair: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/las-vegas-judge-tells-felons-if-they-meet-probation-requirements-they-likely-can-vote-for-trump-in-2020
Forthcoming Opinions
The Nevada Supreme Court and Court of Appeals normally release ADVANCE OPINIONS only on Thursdays.
On the preceding Wednesday, a list will be posted here of opinions planned for release.
The appellate courts make no guarantee that every advance opinion listed as forthcoming will be published as indicated. On rare occasions, the publishing of an advance opinion may be delayed at the last minute for administrative reasons.
MOST WEEKS, the appellate courts will issue no opinions.
Most Supreme Court and Court of Appeals cases are decided by “Unpublished Orders,” which may be released on any day. The Supreme Court unpublished orders can be accessed here. The Court of Appeals unpublished orders can be accessed here.