The Republican AG Association filed suit against Metro seeking to obtain bodycam footage of an interaction Metro had with AG candidate Aaron Ford last fall. [TNI]
While in Vegas to endorse Steve Sisolak, former US AG Eric Holder discussed justice reform. [Nevada Current]
The Nevada Commission on Ethics and Metro are investigating the misuse of public funds by the LVCVA. [RJ]
CWNevada, one of the state’s largest cannabis company faces six separate lawsuits. The CEO of CWNevada is attorney Brian Padgett. CWNevada’s attorney for these matters is Todd Bice. [RJ]
I'm not sure it helps Sisolak to have Eric Holder's endorsement.
If people have already decided either to vote for you or against you, endorsements don't change their mind. Endorsements can only help with undecided voters, and then only if the endorsement is from someone held in high esteem, at least by one of the two major parties.
I could not imagine an undecided voter, whether they lean democrat or republican, being impressed with an Eric Holder endorsement. Republicans have no use for him, and very few democrats are particularly impressed with him by this point. Also, only people who follow the news real closely over the last decade will even know much about Holder. To most others, at best they simply recognize the name.
Hardly a sexy, high profile endorsement. In fact, quite lame. I has assumed Sisolak would be able to at least get endorsements from some prominent, middle-of-the-road democratic politicians–ones who are held in high esteem by the democratic base and are at least marginally respected by Republicans for being reasonably moderate.
But if EH is the best he can get in terms of a marquee endorsement, that does not bode well for his campaign.
Locally or nationally? You'd have to show me a prominent Dem who reaches across the aisle on a regular basis. Like a Dem John McCain. I honestly can't think of any. Maybe Joe Manchin out of WV?
To:9:38. I agree with your point that 8:36 may be a little unreasonable in expecting the Sisolak camp to locate an endorsing politician who fits that definition of being loved by the democratic base, as well as being largely respected by republicans. Such a creature may not really exist.
But all this ignores 8:36's broader point that EH is a really lame endorsement, which I think will impress hardly anyone. There is no fence sitter who will now commit to Sisolak because he has Holder's endorsement. However, there may be a few fence sitters who will now decide to NOT vote for Sisolak due to such endorsement. But even if not, just a really lame, and pointless endorsement.
AnonymousSeptember 7, 2018 at 9:38 AM – Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb is held in very high esteem by Republicans. He got further pro-military cred when as a Democrat and as Navy Secretary for Reagan he resigned because Reagan wouldn't spend more on the Navy.
As a Senator Webb focused on economic disparities for the average American worker in relation to their employers and the shareholders who own corporate America. He spoke out against tax cuts out of control and corporate salaries that were the highest in the world, as well as the deteriorating situation with health care costs several years before many other Democratic legislators did.
Endorsements aren't just about undecided voters, though. Sometimes endorsements are more for fundraising purposes, where the endorsee (not actually a word? I'm not sure?) gets access to the endorser's network of donors, or it signals to donors that a person is actually a serious candidate and they should invest in a race. Or endorsements can be aimed at riling up the base, getting people who are already voting for a candidate to take the next step and volunteer, etc.
Also, Joe Biden and JoeManchin might be respected across the aisle now, but if you think the Republican Party wouldn't pivot to calling them out as ISIS loving, baby killing, tofu eating communists in ten sconds flate, than you haven't been paying attention to FOX News for the last twelve years.
9:38 here. I think the attempts prove my point. Jim Webb is not held in high esteem by the base – the base was pissed when he was named as the VP nom. I think in today's climate it is impossible to be a progressive politician (which is prerequisite to support from the dem. base) and be anything other than loathed by Republicans.
I agree with 10:08, but I would say endorsements are kind of pointless generally.
@12:51 – I agree with what you're saying, but as a factual note Tim Kaine was the milquetoast centrist Virginia senator who pissed off the Democratic base when he got the VP nod. Jim Webb was a different centrist Virginia senator who was more vocal about his center-right policy stances. Kaine actually took over Webb's seat when he retired.
Holder is mainly a lawyer for banks, right? That's what he did before he was AG, and then he went back to it afterwards. A Holder endorsement probably helps shake some of that sweet Wall Street money loose. And we know that Sisolak is willing to sell out his constituents to rich jerks, so it's a natural policy fit as well.
Good catch 1:07. I thought Webb sounded wrong but was too lazy to confirm. Also, I appreciate being called out for saying something dumb and lazy on the internet in a way that wasn't snarky or condescending.
Who is picking the candidates for the Dems? What a bunch buffoons. I am a member of the party, and I am not voting for these candidates. You gave me a long list of people I will not be voting for.
Or are they? I heard that those who claim their comments are being removed are really paid actors who never actually posted comments and this is just a big false flag.
That's funny. I love the outrage then the self-preserving pause hoping someone else will be the sacrificial lamb.
There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.
It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.
I am close to retirement and have never been disciplined and therefore fear nothing (including retribution) from the NSB (not that I ever have), I might consider being a Plaintiff, how would you envision the process? I will add, I would only do it if the goal is to build something positive and improve the NSB, I have no interest in vendettas, revenge, negativity, etc.
I don't see it as revenge, rather the remedy would be to cull out the functions that are necessary to regulate the practice-admissions, discipline and CLE Board and mandatory dues would only be used for those functions. Bar conventions (in Vail next year), fancy buildings, even the magazine would have to be supported by those who want to join that volunteer organization.
Historically, the staff have been very helpful, proactive and always friendly. But with the recent changes posted on their website, those customer-friendly days may have come and gone. Since the board transitioned to paperless, it is now on each lawyer to check the board website for compliance. No more hand holding or mailed courtesy alerts. See the rule change: "(a) At least thirty (30) days prior to the annual reporting date, the board shall provide a transcript of completed educational credits to each active attorney by posting transcripts online. To avoid being delinquent and in compliance with these rules, the attorney must report additional credits, corrections, or changes to the transcript to the board prior to the annual reporting date. (b) The attorney whose transcript indicates compliance with the CLE requirements may assume he or she is in compliance." https://www.nvcleboard.org/pdfs/1_1_17_Supreme_Court_Rule_Changes.pdf
So in other words, they aren't going to notify you. If you forget — TS. The noncompliance late fee has jumped from $100 to $250. Not to mention that on top of the annual $40 fee, if you take coursework from a "Non-accredited provider," you have to pay an extra $5 per credit hour. https://www.nvcleboard.org/index.asp
Plus the fact that the annual credit requirement is now 13 total credits, which includes two (2) hours of ethics and one (1) hour of substance abuse. And excess substance abuse credits can't be applied toward an attorney's ethics requirement.
Finally, further blurring the lines between the SBN and the CLE Board is the fact that the SBN now collects the $40 fee on the annual fee invoice.
So thank the BOG for screwing up what was working fine before AND for increasing our costs to practice.
When a Las Vegas Justice Court JP makes more than a District Court judge, and only $5K less than a NV Supreme Court Justice, something is way out of wack.
While I am not taking a position on whether a raise is warranted, the timing makes sense and if it also covers District Judges, is the only chance they will have for a raise until 2025 (if they don't ask this session). Their last raise was in the 2007 legislature.
Under the Nevada Constitution, a sitting judge (District, COA or Supreme) can not have their salary changed (up or down) during their term of office. Every District Judge, 2 Supreme Court Justices and If I remember correctly all 3 COA judges will start new terms in January 2019.
That means if they don't at least ask this session, it will have been 18 years without a raise for them before they get another chance to ask. Whether they deserve a raise may be a different discussion but I can't fault them for at least raising the issue for discussion.
Hardesty is dead right that lawyers employed by the state (AG, NVSC, state boards & commissions) aren't paid enough. And no, I don't work for the state.
There were a number of posts that got taken down that appeared redundant and from the same person(s).
You are correct in that there were a number of arguably non-objectionable posts which were casualties of the purge. There were some thought-provoking posts which appeared to offer fair commentary. But it is not my Blog. Those of us who are not admins are free to set up (y)our own Blog and rail against whomever you/I/we wish.
I'm not sure it helps Sisolak to have Eric Holder's endorsement.
If people have already decided either to vote for you or against you, endorsements don't change their mind. Endorsements can only help with undecided voters, and then only if the endorsement is from someone held in high esteem, at least by one of the two major parties.
I could not imagine an undecided voter, whether they lean democrat or republican, being impressed with an Eric Holder endorsement. Republicans have no use for him, and very few democrats are particularly impressed with him by this point. Also, only people who follow the news real closely over the last decade will even know much about Holder. To most others, at best they simply recognize the name.
Hardly a sexy, high profile endorsement. In fact, quite lame. I has assumed Sisolak would be able to at least get endorsements from some prominent, middle-of-the-road democratic politicians–ones who are held in high esteem by the democratic base and are at least marginally respected by Republicans for being reasonably moderate.
But if EH is the best he can get in terms of a marquee endorsement, that does not bode well for his campaign.
I would love to see you name a prominent Democrat, held in high esteem by the base, who is respected, even marginally, by Republicans.
Locally or nationally? You'd have to show me a prominent Dem who reaches across the aisle on a regular basis. Like a Dem John McCain. I honestly can't think of any. Maybe Joe Manchin out of WV?
To:9:38. I agree with your point that 8:36 may be a little unreasonable in expecting the Sisolak camp to locate an endorsing politician who fits that definition of being loved by the democratic base, as well as being largely respected by republicans. Such a creature may not really exist.
But all this ignores 8:36's broader point that EH is a really lame endorsement, which I think will impress hardly anyone. There is no fence sitter who will now commit to Sisolak because he has Holder's endorsement. However, there may be a few fence sitters who will now decide to NOT vote for Sisolak due to such endorsement. But even if not, just a really lame, and pointless endorsement.
AnonymousSeptember 7, 2018 at 9:38 AM – Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb is held in very high esteem by Republicans. He got further pro-military cred when as a Democrat and as Navy Secretary for Reagan he resigned because Reagan wouldn't spend more on the Navy.
As a Senator Webb focused on economic disparities for the average American worker in relation to their employers and the shareholders who own corporate America. He spoke out against tax cuts out of control and corporate salaries that were the highest in the world, as well as the deteriorating situation with health care costs several years before many other Democratic legislators did.
So there, I named one.
I'm sure this will cause a backlash but, former V.P. Biden would also seem to fit the bill.
Like McCain, former Sen. Lieberman would regularly cross party lines.
Endorsements aren't just about undecided voters, though. Sometimes endorsements are more for fundraising purposes, where the endorsee (not actually a word? I'm not sure?) gets access to the endorser's network of donors, or it signals to donors that a person is actually a serious candidate and they should invest in a race. Or endorsements can be aimed at riling up the base, getting people who are already voting for a candidate to take the next step and volunteer, etc.
Also, Joe Biden and JoeManchin might be respected across the aisle now, but if you think the Republican Party wouldn't pivot to calling them out as ISIS loving, baby killing, tofu eating communists in ten sconds flate, than you haven't been paying attention to FOX News for the last twelve years.
9:38 here. I think the attempts prove my point. Jim Webb is not held in high esteem by the base – the base was pissed when he was named as the VP nom. I think in today's climate it is impossible to be a progressive politician (which is prerequisite to support from the dem. base) and be anything other than loathed by Republicans.
I agree with 10:08, but I would say endorsements are kind of pointless generally.
@8:36: "But if EH is the best he can get in terms of a marquee endorsement, that does not bode well for his campaign."
I think you missed this bit:
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/obama-endorses-sisolak-in-governors-race
@12:51 – I agree with what you're saying, but as a factual note Tim Kaine was the milquetoast centrist Virginia senator who pissed off the Democratic base when he got the VP nod. Jim Webb was a different centrist Virginia senator who was more vocal about his center-right policy stances. Kaine actually took over Webb's seat when he retired.
Holder is mainly a lawyer for banks, right? That's what he did before he was AG, and then he went back to it afterwards. A Holder endorsement probably helps shake some of that sweet Wall Street money loose. And we know that Sisolak is willing to sell out his constituents to rich jerks, so it's a natural policy fit as well.
I vote for no one who is pro Bank.
Good catch 1:07. I thought Webb sounded wrong but was too lazy to confirm. Also, I appreciate being called out for saying something dumb and lazy on the internet in a way that wasn't snarky or condescending.
Sisolak doesn't need any better endorsement than to say Adam Laxalt is his opponent.
4:26,
Sadly, the reverse is true for Laxalt. How did we get stuck with these two idiots as our gubanatorial candidates?
I feel that way about Aaron Ford, but we got him as a candidate as Eglet.
Ford is as Eglet they come. Ford will lose.
Who is picking the candidates for the Dems? What a bunch buffoons. I am a member of the party, and I am not voting for these candidates. You gave me a long list of people I will not be voting for.
Dems I am not voting for:
Ford
Elissa Cadish
Disco, I mean Sisolak
Comments are being removed.
Or are they? I heard that those who claim their comments are being removed are really paid actors who never actually posted comments and this is just a big false flag.
News:
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2018/08/two_oregon_lawyers_sue_state_b.html
(looks at Kim Farmer and winks)
So what do you think? Does Janus provide a basis for splitting the bar? Anybody interested in being a plaintiff?
That's funny. I love the outrage then the self-preserving pause hoping someone else will be the sacrificial lamb.
There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.
It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.
Thank you to the Student Council / BOG stooge @ 11:00 AM for your keen observation. Fear not there is a plaintiff out there.
Why not you, 11:05?
If someone will do the work on the complaint, I'll be a plaintiff and I'm a former BOG
@2:04 Thanks Ryan.
2:04 here. Not Ryan. I’m much older than that.
I am close to retirement and have never been disciplined and therefore fear nothing (including retribution) from the NSB (not that I ever have), I might consider being a Plaintiff, how would you envision the process? I will add, I would only do it if the goal is to build something positive and improve the NSB, I have no interest in vendettas, revenge, negativity, etc.
Ah, darn it. Settling scores and being negative is half the fun.
I don't see it as revenge, rather the remedy would be to cull out the functions that are necessary to regulate the practice-admissions, discipline and CLE Board and mandatory dues would only be used for those functions. Bar conventions (in Vail next year), fancy buildings, even the magazine would have to be supported by those who want to join that volunteer organization.
Discipline? Vicki Greco is still practicing law while she suspended. I liked the WWII Europe analogy used earlier.
CLE Board is not part of the State Bar. It is an independent entity.
It is now but someone would have to oversee CLE. Because the new SB would not be putting on CLE for profit, the Board would not have to be separated.
And that is why the CLE Board people are incredibly nice and efficient if you ever talk to them.
Which partially explains why they have a $600k surplus.
Who's got a $600 surplus? The CLE Board or the SB?
$600K
Historically, the staff have been very helpful, proactive and always friendly. But with the recent changes posted on their website, those customer-friendly days may have come and gone. Since the board transitioned to paperless, it is now on each lawyer to check the board website for compliance. No more hand holding or mailed courtesy alerts. See the rule change: "(a) At least thirty (30) days prior to the annual reporting date, the board shall provide a transcript of completed educational credits to each active attorney by posting transcripts online. To avoid being delinquent and in compliance with these rules, the attorney must report additional credits, corrections, or changes to the transcript to the board prior to the annual reporting date. (b) The attorney whose transcript indicates compliance with the CLE requirements may assume he or she is in compliance." https://www.nvcleboard.org/pdfs/1_1_17_Supreme_Court_Rule_Changes.pdf
So in other words, they aren't going to notify you. If you forget — TS. The noncompliance late fee has jumped from $100 to $250. Not to mention that on top of the annual $40 fee, if you take coursework from a "Non-accredited provider," you have to pay an extra $5 per credit hour. https://www.nvcleboard.org/index.asp
Plus the fact that the annual credit requirement is now 13 total credits, which includes two (2) hours of ethics and one (1) hour of substance abuse. And excess substance abuse credits can't be applied toward an attorney's ethics requirement.
Finally, further blurring the lines between the SBN and the CLE Board is the fact that the SBN now collects the $40 fee on the annual fee invoice.
So thank the BOG for screwing up what was working fine before AND for increasing our costs to practice.
The CLE Board had $600,000 in "reserves," according to a filing in ADKT 0499.
Check out BDR 500 for next session. The Supremes and the Appeals Court judges are asking for a raise.
Leave it to Hardesty.
https://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/government/lawmakers-told-some-nevada-supreme-court-salaries-out-of-balance/
When a Las Vegas Justice Court JP makes more than a District Court judge, and only $5K less than a NV Supreme Court Justice, something is way out of wack.
Nevada judges are just shy of the national salary mean. Still doing far better than a lot of solos and small firm NV lawyers not to mention PERS, better hours etc. I'm not shedding any tears for them.
https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/Judicial%20Salaries/Judicial-Salary-Tracker-Jul-2018.ashx
While I am not taking a position on whether a raise is warranted, the timing makes sense and if it also covers District Judges, is the only chance they will have for a raise until 2025 (if they don't ask this session). Their last raise was in the 2007 legislature.
Under the Nevada Constitution, a sitting judge (District, COA or Supreme) can not have their salary changed (up or down) during their term of office. Every District Judge, 2 Supreme Court Justices and If I remember correctly all 3 COA judges will start new terms in January 2019.
That means if they don't at least ask this session, it will have been 18 years without a raise for them before they get another chance to ask. Whether they deserve a raise may be a different discussion but I can't fault them for at least raising the issue for discussion.
Hardesty is dead right that lawyers employed by the state (AG, NVSC, state boards & commissions) aren't paid enough. And no, I don't work for the state.
Laughing.
I miss Burt Reynolds
I saw nothing wrong with the posts.
There were a number of posts that got taken down that appeared redundant and from the same person(s).
You are correct in that there were a number of arguably non-objectionable posts which were casualties of the purge. There were some thought-provoking posts which appeared to offer fair commentary. But it is not my Blog. Those of us who are not admins are free to set up (y)our own Blog and rail against whomever you/I/we wish.