- Quickdraw McLaw
- 35 Comments
- 190 Views
- Suit seeks prison policy changes after chaplain accused of sexually abusing inmate. [TNI]
- A man faces a sex trafficking charge in what is a different contract/service agreement for sex case than the landlord one that has been in the news. [RJ]
- A month into 988, call volume is up, but state behavioral health infrastructure is not. [Nevada Current]
- What else is happening out there today?
TTHHWWWAAACCKK! and FIRST!
The chaplain's name is Donald Burse. His twitter handle, I swear to god, is @pastordong. I'm sure he's innocent of all these allegations.
Can anyone tell me which administrative orders started and ended the covid19 stay to the statute of limitations?
10:51: COVID-19 Declaration of Emergency Directive 009 issued by Governor Sisolak on April 1, 2020 (referenced in EJDC Administrative Order 20-17) tolled the statutes of limitations commencing on April 1, 2020. Subsequently, Governor Sisolak issued Emergency Directive 026 on June 29, 2020, which recommenced the statutes of limitations effective at 11:59 p.m. on July 31, 2020. Thus, the statutes of limitations were tolled for 121 days between April 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020.
Does anyone know what Admin Regs or statutes cover Continuing Care Retirement Communities, aka Life Care Communities (this is not long term care insurance). Some states have specific regs on these operations, but I haven't found any law on the subject (of course it's in plain sight, just like my car keys) Thanks for the assist.
Might start with NRS 449- https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-449.html
Thanks, but the CCRC is an independent living arrangement, no medical services.
They are governed by nac 449
Thank you, but the facility does not provide medical services in the CCRC. You must be healthly and able to live independently to qualify for residence.
Back to school.
Anyone know the backstory to the new pilot program that allows the unbundling of legal services for certain family law cases?
https://nvbar.org/pilot-program-re-unbundling-of-legal-services-for-some-family-law-case-types-to-begin-nov-1/
Probably trying to get some control over the shady unbundled attorneys who create chaos and havoc in family court with impunity. Doubtful that it will work because the exact attorneys it is aimed at are the same attorneys that don't follow the rules anyways and the judges won't enforce it.
Unbundled is often the only way the poor can get an attorney, the real reason 1:02 doesn’t like it is because it doesn’t fit into his worldview of only the rich hiring big firms.
"He" identifies (and was born) as a "she." She works at a small firm that offers very reasonably priced legal fees and that routinely takes on pro bono clients. She has also litigated for years against unbundled attorneys who do little more than obstruct and delay litigation, costing families thousands of dollars and immeasurable misery while trapped in the family court system. But by all means, 1:35, tell us about it.
Yas, drag him
Sure I will come to court today. I need $500 cash.
The new rule will cost my client's an extra hour of billable time.
Curious, not a family practioner. What is the problem that the ADK is trying to solve?
Unbundled attorneys basically create havoc. Oftentimes they don't let you know what they have been retained for so if you're in the middle of motion practice you don't know who to serve discovery on. They'll also claim you can't talk to their client, but then tell the court they are unbundled so they can't comment on issue X. If you're status checking an issue or asking for a trial date or something similar, they'll pop in, tell the judge they just got retained that morning and they need a continuance to get caught up on the case and then withdraw. They'll cobble together some stupid motion mid-litigation that you have to answer and then they aren't even on the case to argue it and you're arguing against an attorney who doesn't even know the case. It's a disaster. I know some litigants will intentionally hire attorney after attorney, all unbundled, for the sole purpose of dragging out litigation. An issue that should be resolved with a quick, limited evidentiary hearing turns into an endless hell of status checks and continuances with new attorneys at every hearing.
1:02 is right to suggest that we need to expand availability of legal services to those in financial need. But 8:22 is also directly on point that unbundled representation, as currently configured in Family Court, often accomplishes little or nothing for the person using such unbundled attorney, but greatly increase time, cost and aggravation to the opposing side , who responsibly retained at attorney of record for all purposes.
Yes, it's common for the unbundled attorney, at the hearing, to make it abundantly clear they are withdrawn once the hearing concludes and to not contact, absolutely do not serve them with anything, etc.
Then, when you follow those instructions to a T, and send some communication to the person they represented at that hearing, the attorney gets re-retained for the next hearing and then tears the bark of you in open court for being an unethical gremlin who dared to contact "my client."
#freeccdc
#freebonniebulla
#freeccsd
#freeccandrs
Thanks for the bonus one today!
I just got a court date in a probate matter for December 30th. What a joke. This is unacceptable.
The Mormon church (aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) is currently fighting with the AP over the AP's reporting of the church's abuse reporting hotline and the application of Arizona's priest/penitent confessional privilege.
Original AP article: https://apnews.com/article/Mormon-church-sexual-abuse-investigation-e0e39cf9aa4fbe0d8c1442033b894660
Mormon Church's critique of the article: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case
Jesus' thoughts about little kids: https://biblehub.com/matthew/18-6.htm
(warning on the AP link – there are horrific details of child sex abuse in there)
Think you meant to post this at https://arizonaslaw.blogspot.com/
Catholics, SBC, LDS…it's almost like there's something they all have in common. Yay jesus!
Sounds like the LDS church has issued a clear and detailed response to the AP article, pointing out its "flaws" from the Church perspective.
Doesn't seem like they are hiding anything or that the Church let anything happen, either by affirmative cover up or omission, like the Catholic church. Seems like they are limited on what they can do by the Clergy/Congregant privilege.
Just trying to look at it objectively.
Well, the church's response was factually wrong, as it claimed that the abuser made "a limited confession to his bishop about a single past incident of abuse of one child"
Contradicting this, the DHS agent who investigated the case testified that the bishop told him that he met with the abuser multiple times, that the abuser told the bishop that he was raping his kid and filming it.
The church also points out that the abuser didn't give permission to the bishop to reveal his confession – which has absolutely zero bearing on a mandatory reporter. It's just there to muddy the water and make it seem like the bishop couldn't report the rape of a child.
The privilege "may" be invoked by the priest/bishop and he “may withhold” that information from authorities if the clergy determine it is “reasonable and necessary” under church doctrine. If any member of the LDS church would like to opine that it is "reasonable and necessary" under church doctrine to not report ongoing child rape to the police, go for it.
Back to the legal issues, the Bishop claims the church's help line told him he was "required" to keep the abuse confidential. That's incorrect. It's permissive, not mandatory. (There's potentially a malpractice/UPL issue here too, if they're staffing the line with attorneys who are not licensed in AZ giving legal advice on AZ law)
And if lawyers from Kirton McConkie (who staff the help line) told the bishop he was required to keep it confidential, the church (and its law firm) should be held liable.
Aside from the legal aspect of this, it's just sad. The church 100% could have taken the position that it reports child abuse, every time, unless it is absolutely prohibited. The abuse line exists to legally protect the church, not victims. That's why it's housed within the Department of Risk Management, not LDS Family Services. For a church that claims moral superiority over the world, it has seriously fallen short of what it claims to be. Disappointing. And tragic that kids were abused after it absolutely could have been stopped.
First, the way that I remember it from law school, the privilege is sacrosanct, which addresses both the Az law and the church's position.
Second, the two "facts" you cite (1 from AP and 1 from the church) do not appear to be mutually exclusive. It seems to me that a single limited confession could take place in one of "multiple" meetings. Undoubtedly, this particular incident of abuse was discussed more than once, which could clarify the purported discrepancy.
Third, if the confessor declines to give permission, then the bishop is "required" to keep it confidential, as the church stated. As for the Az law, its clearly subjective to the bishop and the confessor.
Finally (and again), the privilege is sacrosanct.
Are you advocating the abrogation of the privilege in cases such as MJs father?
The whole thing leaves me needing a shower and the father shouldn't have gotten decades in prison. He should have been slowly fed into a wood chipper.
@11:43 – Good Ol' Joe Smith covered up his sexual abuse of children like Fanny Alger and Helen Mar Kimball, his polyandrous marriages to other men's wives, and his polygamy in general when he ordered to the Nauvoo Expositor printing press destroyed. So while it might not be doctrinal (unless you are going to read a lot in Doctrine and Covenants 132), there is certainly some institutional precedent to justify it.
Well that is a dick comment. With absolutely zero evidence. And you call yourself a lawyer.
So the Eglets are 17 on the list of residential water users https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/a8/04/47f1f2114a0589b422fbf86a2045/2021-water-use-all-providers.pdf
Have you seen there house? There is a lot of grass, so it takes a lot of water.