- Quickdraw McLaw
- 32 Comments
- 170 Views
- Seven judges have recused themselves from a defamation case against Steve Sanson. [RJ]
- A guardianship compliance manager has been appointed for the Nevada Guardianship Compliance Office. [Nevada Appeal]
- Judge Jim Crockett says the City of Las Vegas abused its discretion with regard to Badlands golf course redevelopment vote. [RJ]
- RIP Vicki Nelson. [RJ]
It's really embarrassing that judges continue to seek out and associate with Sanson.
Of those listed the article many have never contributed to his “organization “and refused to be on his show. So don’t lump them all together,some did the homework found out his “organization” was no longer a 501c entity and knew of investigationsohad to recuse.
Sanson is trying to take on the entire family court operation and expose the alleged rampant corruption. How is that working out for him so far?
People trying to change a system are never popular. Those trying to expose corruption are even less so. Look how long it took for the guardianship issue to finally start being taken seriously. For several years, those seeking to expose the crimes being committed under that system were called disgruntled, crazy or greedy…
Now we know that crimes were in fact occurring. 1 professional guardian already in prison, another (along with her co-defendants) well on her way to prison and an investigation still ongoing.
The legislature passed multiple bills (including a Bill of Rights) to address the issue and we now have a permanent Supreme Court Commission addressing Guardianship issues and problems.
It is never popular to be the person swimming upstream to change a system, but as a society we need the watchdogs willing to brave the slings and arrows to try to right perceived wrongs.
I understand where are you are coming from 1:20. However what does that have to do with Sanson who is not doing any of the things that you just described?
The obituary made me tear up. Did not know her but it sounds like she really was dearly loved.
I think it is important to mention the feature of this phrase, though: "withstood crushing professional pressure …"
We talk about it sometimes here but it never goes anywhere: if none of us want to have crushing professional pressure what are we really going to do about it for ourselves and our sister and brother attorneys? It's not just deadlines or big cases, it goes back to civility.
8:38 is dead on. He gives new life to the cliche "Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas." Every one of those judges should have known better. It's not like we didn't see him for what he is a long time ago.
I've never understood how Voldemort emerged. How does a guy like that even get to be somebody? Who are his supporters?
Sadly Las Vegas is a city of morons, thus Vodemort has many to pander to.
He is the titular pied piper. Extremely successful hubris. He told veterans that he speaks for them in a way that veterans wanted an advocate, even if he really did not speak for them. He told politicians that he wielded great power and influence while draped in the flag; to oppose him was to oppose veterans. He played a tune to which everyone agreed to dance without ever analyzing the truthfulness or foundation of the stories. Despite what JAM hypothesizes as the disqualification being based upon judges who have been in bed with Sanson, the issue is probably much more nuanced to being judges who do want the headache which a Sanson case entails.
As an aside, by posting the story above, I hope today is an exception to the recent policy that we do not discuss VIPI on this Board and that the discussion can remain focused on the issues and not degenerate into the name calling seen on FB.
The alleged group Sanson promotes is a for profit entity. He recently sent out an email blast asking for contributions.
He stalks the Family Court claiming to monitor litigation. That can be done be accomplished remotely by downloading the a copy of the Javs recording. He has aggressively and menicingly confronted litigants critical of him prior to hearings, begged (on his knees) for Judge Harter to come to work the day after his marshal died in a tragic accident, unnecessarily involved himself in proceedings so that Judge Duckworth recused himself from a long litigated matter due to Sanson's ex-parte communications, promoted the cause of a fellow vet who strangled his special needs son's service puppy in front of the child. This character also paid homeless vets $20 to appear at his recent Family Court "protest." The list goes on.
If you want to see Sanson's character, the Youtube video is Marshal Willick's appearance. Sanson put on a miserable appearance with his F bombs and by making a point, time after time, that vets are better people than those who haven't served.
This is only a partial recital of the Sanson VIPI transgressions. VIPI needs to crawl back under its rock.
I heard that broadcast.
Granted, much more should be done for vets, and they need strong, rational voices that place their needs above the shameless self-promotion of the self-proclaimed leaders of certain veteran's organizations.
Veterans are in great need of better services, stronger legislation, etc.
However, that broadcast in question indicated that veterans should be treated as a special class, and receive preferential treatment above all other citizens(which, at best, is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and at worst is simply irrational ramblings).
As an example, in the broadcast it was made clear that veterans, in divorce proceedings, should never be compelled to have their service pension divided. Now, they were not merely stating that a disability pension should not be divided, but also that the standard military retirement should not be divided–even if the spouse was married to the service member for the entire duration of the member's military service.
The rationale for this stunning premise? Apparently, the "danger" the service members encounter. But cops, firemen, telephone linemen, and those in a multitude of other professions can encounter real danger, but there is no discussion that their pensions should be insulated from division.
Also, it appears that even if a service member never faced combat and never encountered the "dangers" that the service member is still apparently justified in essentially stealing the share of the other spouse.
Now, not to defend the person being discussed in this blog, but it was not him who offered this preposterous view during the broadcast. As mentioned, he was too busy attacking Willick with "F" bombs. It was a regular "guest host"–some guy who indicates he never served in the military, but wishes to fervently advance the causes of military personnel. Even Vodemort was not attaching himself to the co-host's rants about veterans needing to essentially be established as exalted royalty who are not bound by the rules and laws that we of the unwashed masses mush comply with.
Now, it is great that the co-host, who never served in the military, wishes to advance veteran's causes. But he should make certain to advance arguments that do not make him appear to be somewhere on the continuum between woefully ignorant and clinically insane.
Sanson never saw combat, just wanted to mention that.
I got screwed by a VIP vip, judge, and I am a child of a veteran.
Sanson saw action with knee pads and pallets. He was a clerk. That is a fact.
Actually, Sanson also was arguing for preferential treatment–but more in line with insisting that courts, although prohibited from specifically dividing military disability pensions, should not even be allowed to note all such tax free income flowing to the military member when considering the issue of alimony against the military member.
But, yes, in general, Sanson was more focused on arguing that Willick in general cannot understand military matters(including PTSD of members) because he did not serve, while it was the co-host who insisted on the eradication of the Equal Protection Clause.
Even though Willick repeatedly and succinctly pointed out that Equal Protection was one of the core principles that military members serve and fight to protect, and that military members wish to make certain that they are in fact fully protected by the clause, the co-host felt the clause should have no applicability to military members.
The co-host, who never served in the military, was insisting that the military members should receive rights far in excess of Equal protection, and that such clause should have no applicability to them.But this decidedly less than cerebral co-host never explained what proposed laws and proposed constitutional amendments, should be enacted in order to have service members considered like feudal royalty in old Europe–wherein they need not comply with any civil law, criminal statute, etc.
It would be quite comical and entertaining to watch that co-host actually testify before a legislative body.
Not voting for anyone affiliated with VIP, including those who recused themselves. Do your homework.
Agree w this in concept, but it seems like they've all beaten a path to VIPI. It's shameful. Wonder how bad it has to get before they stop appearing on his show and begging for his endorsement. If they'd stood up to him in the first place maybe they could've starved the troll.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Check your sources some of those judges never gave his organization a penny or went on his show. They refused themselves because they knew they could not be unbiased against him because of his tactics. Check your sources.
12:43 am is correct. Those judges recused not because they are pro-VIPI but because they are concerned that they would be anti-VIPI and would like to avoid this circus and these monkeys.
http://news3lv.com/news/local/fbi-investigates-las-vegas-city-councilmans-campaign-contributions
Just a passerby – saw mention of Willick's name – I am a big fan – worked for him for about a year and he is extremely honest and the most knowledgeable person I know in family law – no real point here, just felt like acknowledging who I see as a great person and a great lawyer.
Anybody worked for Resnick & Lewis? Is it a good firm to work for? Good pay? I've done insurance defense my entire short legal career.
Thanks in advance.
I heard people are unhappy and don't stay long.
I have heard the same thing and have talked to former R&L attorneys who indicate that it is a dreadful place to work except for a short stint until you can find something better.
Expect to work weekends, deal with impatient out of state partners, and be micromanaged onsite by Randy Tindall.
Randy "pouty lips" Tindale. The most hateful attorney I have ever met.
Barlow pleading to fraud, is that the above link?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/las-vegas/barlow-to-plead-guilty-to-fraud-resigns-from-las-vegas-city-council/
Yes, read the related articles. Barlow's campaign has some interesting connections to some very well known people.