David Olson, the Boulder City city attorney who was designated as an expert witness for his son in a suit against the City for unlawful arrest, entered into a stipulated agreement with the Nevada Commission on Ethics listing out all the things he did wrong and fining him $1500. [Nevada Commission on Ethics]
Here are more details on that office building shooting in Vegas the other day where the victim was a hearing advocate for a law firm. Attorney Jason Mills expressed concern about security in and round the building which houses the Nevada Department of Administrative Hearings. [RJ; Fox5Vegas; KTNV]
Upgrades at the Clark County Detention Center means in about six months they’ll start offering HD video visitation of inmates, among other things. [RJ]
A reality show pilot about the Clark County Coroner’s office premieres tonight. [8NewsNow]
So Lucy got spanked in the fundraising race. Not really surprising since, looking through her disclosures, her major donors appear to be out-of-state folks and other candidates from the Democratic party.
Guest
Anonymous
October 15, 2014 5:22 pm
In judicial races Steve Smith has raised $3,750 since January 1, consisting of three $250 contributions and $3,000 from himself.
No to be outdone on the pathetic fundraising front, Michael Root has raised $950, which includes $600 from himself.
Are these guy running simply as a form of advertising? At this level of fundraising they certainly are not serious about running for the position.
@ 10:22 a.m. Who has the time or the motivation to read judicial campaign expense reports except those associated with a campaign or the candidate? Who has the ax to grind about the campaign expenses of a particular candidate or the money raised?
Guest
Anonymous
October 15, 2014 5:52 pm
Maybe they're not comfortable taking money from people they may have before them in Court.
Scalia is lice. Not much positive to say about Marquis. This race sucks!
Guest
Anonymous
October 16, 2014 7:01 am
In our competitive world where size matters, let us please vote in huge integrity and massive practical skills bases …. never mind the size of their contrived and meaningless billboards.
There it is. We pay them and so they should not be burdened with, you know, actually having to raise money and spend time and effort to convince the voters that they deserve to keep getting paid. After all, the lawyers that appear in the courtrooms know the judges are working and the ones running against an incumbent judge are simply ambitious and had the filing fee burning a hole in their pocket (or Prada bag, take your pick). Yep…I'm convinced. I'm only voting for incumbents so we can keep on having them do what they are doing.
Guest
Anonymous
October 16, 2014 2:13 pm
When a challenger raises more money than an incumbent, it is a clear sign that the incumbent should probably be replaced.
This is a great metric for determining who we vote for. Obviously, if Judge John Doe gives rulings in favor of the little guy, he should be replaced. How dare little guy believe the system will give him a fair shake. Justice does not grow on trees. /s
So Lucy got spanked in the fundraising race. Not really surprising since, looking through her disclosures, her major donors appear to be out-of-state folks and other candidates from the Democratic party.
In judicial races Steve Smith has raised $3,750 since January 1, consisting of three $250 contributions and $3,000 from himself.
No to be outdone on the pathetic fundraising front, Michael Root has raised $950, which includes $600 from himself.
Are these guy running simply as a form of advertising? At this level of fundraising they certainly are not serious about running for the position.
No I would prefer to appear before a Judge/candidate who raised $100K to $300K and pretend I am going to get a fair hearing against a large donor.
I would rather appear in front of a guy that won with $3,000 in contributions, because you know he has an ax to grind.
@ 10:22 a.m. Who has the time or the motivation to read judicial campaign expense reports except those associated with a campaign or the candidate? Who has the ax to grind about the campaign expenses of a particular candidate or the money raised?
Maybe they're not comfortable taking money from people they may have before them in Court.
Here, here, Friedberg.
Really Scalia, you sent out an email entitled "OPEN THIS – YOU WON'T GET EBOLA! The best email yet!"
Good e-mail and makes a great point. Trial judges should have trial experience and Family Law Judges must have experience in that area.
I agree the email makes a good point … but what's up with the title.
Scalia is lice. Not much positive to say about Marquis. This race sucks!
In our competitive world where size matters, let us please vote in huge integrity and massive practical skills bases …. never mind the size of their contrived and meaningless billboards.
The poster boy for why judges should be appointed returns from the pasture to give his views on why incumbents should be re-elected and why it's wrong to challenge them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVkVX5s5cZ0&feature=share
There it is. We pay them and so they should not be burdened with, you know, actually having to raise money and spend time and effort to convince the voters that they deserve to keep getting paid. After all, the lawyers that appear in the courtrooms know the judges are working and the ones running against an incumbent judge are simply ambitious and had the filing fee burning a hole in their pocket (or Prada bag, take your pick). Yep…I'm convinced. I'm only voting for incumbents so we can keep on having them do what they are doing.
When a challenger raises more money than an incumbent, it is a clear sign that the incumbent should probably be replaced.
This is a great metric for determining who we vote for. Obviously, if Judge John Doe gives rulings in favor of the little guy, he should be replaced. How dare little guy believe the system will give him a fair shake. Justice does not grow on trees. /s