- Quickdraw McLaw
- 28 Comments
- 208 Views
- Sandra Douglass Morgan will be named as Raiders’ new president. [RJ]
- Here are some articles on ACLU, Our Nevada Judges suing over court access. [This Is Reno; RJ]
- CCSD school board to vote on public comment changes. [RJ]
Good for Sandra, but that seems like an unusual hire considering she has no experience.
Heard she ran sub 4.5 at the hiring combine, you know the Raiders love speedsters
What do you mean she has no experience? She has a lot of executive and legal experience, which is what's actually relevant to her role. It's not like she's going to be drafting players or telling coach to play more cover 2.
OP here. I think it is great for her. I hope it goes well. Not insulting her at all. She worked for AT&T basically as a lobbyist, was a city attorney, and worked for athletic commission. I wouldn’t call that vast executive experience. No one is claiming she has to know football, but some experience is usually warranted or being a rockstar in another industry. I hope she succeeds as I think she is a great person.
She was the NV Gaming Control Board Chairperson – that's some pretty decent executive-level experience and a public-facing position. Seems like she's well qualified for team president, which is an executive job. She's not GM or scout like 11:42 mentioned so she doesn't really need football experience.
And, if you're the NFL looking to expand legal betting, hiring the former chair of the NV gaming commission is a GREAT way to get access to people, so it makes sense from the Raiders side too.
All that said, she seems great and hope she does a great job and the Raiders lose every game.
Also in a league rampant with racism and sexism, and an organization with a number of legal troubles in the front office, hiring Sandra is definitely a smart move.
Way to go,Sandra. I wish you the best!
I do have some concerns about children who might be impacted by the Our Nevada Judges case, but balancing that with the insanity that goes on in family court and I'm rooting for ONJ and the ACLU. I have a feeling some of the more severe cases of black robe disease are going to tone down their abusive behavior once there's a camera in the courtroom.
I am exactly on this page. I would CnP this, but will leave that to the new Thwack guy.
I am sure that He Who Must Not Be Named is anxiously awaiting a ruling on the "No Video" rule as well. He certainly agrees that Family Court proceedings need public scrutiny.
The difference between ONJ and Voldemort is that Voldemort has no problem putting kids names online. ONJ at least is willing to blue faces and leave parties out of the video and just focus on the case. Voldemort is a dirty grifter.
The small audience that follows divorce and custody cases through ONJ as though it were tabloid entertainment is unseemly. There are groupies that keep track of hearings and discuss them like they are around the cooler on Monday morning following a week of football. It's pathetic.
Valid concerns, which is why we blur and redact the family in domestic relations matters. 😊
Keep up the good work, good sir.
Falcony please publish your own case videos in its entirety as explanation how you managed to terminate parenting rights of biological mother of your son without dependency proceedings initiated by state before you continue publishing other people cases from family court
Falconi, how do you select which cases to cover? None of the cases you cover appear to have any public interest value whatsoever. I’ve litigated jaywalking cases with more interesting case facts.
It may be a coincidence, but I notice that every case OurNevadaJudges covers seems to have a connection to Voldemort, and again I’m sure it’s a complete coincidence, but ONJ always seems to selectively edit or editorialize against the party allegedly connected to Voldemort.
ONJ also seems to slob the knob of certain (allegedly corrupt) family law attorneys including those employing registered sex offenders.
I’m sure there is a reasonable explanation for all of this.
Considering the attorney who was recently suspended, and the media coverage concerning his purported sexual activities with female staff and clients, how come most of the entries on this blog, over the last few weeks, have far more to do with judges and lawyers who may have been his Facebook "friends" than they do with the actual conduct of the attorney?
Obviously, it's best for judges to simply avoid social media, and attorneys need to be careful as well. But why do some of the postings, on this blog, barbecue judges and others for merely being his Facebook "friends."? Were they reasonably expected to predict his behavior?
Again, judges should avoid "friending" lawyers, but being a Facebook friend is, of course, usually a casual connection, and is usually far from an actual friendship in the traditional sense of the word. Many people will accept a friend request, or send a friend request, but from thereon out never really communicate to the "friends'" Facebook, or post anything, etc.
So, obviously there must be much more to this than I am aware, such as: were some of these judges and lawyers actually "liking" and/or offering supportive comments, to profane or improper photos this lawyer may have been posting on his Facebook?
Details please.
I second this. I have over a thousand FB friends. Mass majority of these people are people I vaguely know, haven't talked to in years, people I am aware of in the community but haven't actually met. If one of my FB ends up engaging in some unprofessional behavior, am I implicated by association? It is different if I engage with obviously incriminating posts, pics, etc., but is merely being a FB friend implicating me?
And before someone gives me the "well you should only be friends with people you know well on FB, I can 100% assure you that the mass majority of people on here are in a similar boat as me.
Having practiced against said individual I can offer the following: His facebook page makes it pretty clear that he was purchasing services that are not legal to purchase in Clark Co. It also makes it pretty clear that his behavior as documented in the police investigation is not a surprise. If you've been paying any sort of attention, you knew all along what he was up to. Then go look at his political contributions. He spent a lot of money – and that is just what was reported. I believe there is a lower threshold under which you can make contributions and they are reported under a general amount, not by specific person. Regardless, anyone with eyes could see what he was doing. Then when you litigate against him and there is a discretionary issue and you are constantly losing on discretionary issues, the dots start to connect. Provable? Certainly not. But we all know how it works and nobody reading this blog was born yesterday. I get it that facebook and social media in general is not necessarily indicative of an actual friendship or connection, but in this case, I think the point is that we could all see what he was doing and it didn't stop any of them from taking his money.
What’s really interesting to me is how predictive social media is like with the last couple mass shooters, this lawyer, etc – like a true self comes out – we had a custody case where we looked at social media and female was at strip clubs, making some gang signs, etc I said I bet she’s doing drugs – I kno that doesn’t make me a genius but we found a couple people to corroborate and was enough for drug test was pos n we won , my point is how reflective they are of people with problems, if u look at mine I’d think I was a saint but somehow crazy gets thru
I judge them for being on Facebook in the first place. What a cesspool. Connect with industry associations on LinkedIn and get off Facebook entirely.
How does Doug Crawford get clients? He stole 500k plus all his other foibles. Any judge with a brain cell knows that he is a convicted felon? Aren't judges supposed to keep record of bar discipline? Then there is the additional info of his disgusting posts on Facebook that are now deleted. Then you have the third layer of taking campaign contributions from him? Yeah, keep making excuses.
@3:17 I'm sure that was part of his motivation in posting so many pictures of himself with judges and friending so many judges on facebook. When potential clients looked him up they'd find his website with a big story about how he paid restitution and then they'd see him with all those judges. They gave him credibility in exchange for campaign donations. I also agree with 2:31. Anyone who even glanced at his facebook knew exactly what he was up to.
12:56-I haven't seen the Facebook page and don't intend to look. Besides, perhaps it can be assumed that any potentially incriminating or profane material may have already been deleted.
That said, I think the problem some posters are having with the situation is precisely what you suggest-that there are judges, as well as attorneys and others, who "liked" and/or otherwise reacted favorably to disturbing photos and postings of a sexual nature, or at least with clear sexual implications.
1256, seconded.
#freethecolonel
#freebebonniebulls
#freetherjcelevators
Our Nevada Judges is monetary organization.. posting domestic dispute cases on youtube about private drama between husband and wife always attracts attention and monetary opportunities in Youtube… Just based on that it should be prohibited, families should be protected from public humiliations and embarrassments. I have seen cases where Our Nevada Judges portrayed mother Julie Hammer as child kidnapper… when if you read the currently pending Appeal before Nevada Supreme you will easily realize that Gayle Nathan entered paternity order giving unrelated third party parenting rights to other woman without a single hearing but solely based on filed pleadings. Our Nevada Judges will have a lot of work to do to fix a damage to this mother who they made public to believe is criminal child kidnapper. https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=61649
What really happened in this case is without subject jurisdiction without personal jurisdiction Gayle Nathan assisted a child trafficking … So if ACLU wants a real civil rights case that the one and not an attempt to represent a party who lost no rights in prohibition to put its nose in each private case on the docket…