I agree that it's time to move to primary elections in NV. I participated in the last two caucuses and the state convention in 2016. The Bernie supporters were justifiably pissed at the rules committee. It was shady. Sen Boxer didn't help when she told everyone to shut up and sit down. Long story short, it's a hot mess. Primaries would be an improvement.
Caucuses suck because you have to show up in person. I had a baby birthing class a few years back scheduled on caucus day (I know, how dare I not have caucus day saved in my calendar) and wouldn't have been able to reschedule. So, no caucus for me. People have stuff going on. Some people work that day. Some people have vacations planned. If you want public participation then use the option that allows people to vote early or by absentee ballot so they can show up to work that day. Especially in Nevada where so many people work weekends.
I participated in the 2020 caucus in Summerlin (first time ever for me) and truly enjoyed the experience. You get to meet your neighbors and actually talk about the issues. The only downside is you'll be there for awhile. Biden supporters were few and far between at the time vastly outnumbered by Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg supporters. You can't caucus early or from afar although I suppose you could join via Zoom.
I also caucused for the first time in 2020 in Summerlin and I thought it was great. It felt like old-school local politics where normal people from the community talk about what issues are important to them and why they support certain people and policies. That probably doesn't outweigh the unfairness of making people show up in person, but there's something to be said for an activity that forces you to go out and actually meet your neighbors – something that doesn't happen that often in LV.
The caucuses did allow for early voting this year. I believe those voters got to rank their top 2 choices. If the top choice was not viable the vote went to the 2nd. I however participated on caucus day and found it a very rewarding experience to meet my Democratic neighbors and talk to them about our political concerns. I'd be in favor of keeping that hybrid model.
Guest
Anonymous
February 9, 2021 6:40 pm
Someone please explain something to me like I'm a ten-year-old, since I'm obviously stupid and simply don't "get it.'
There have been judges who can mercilessly, and with some consistency, abuse and belittle attorneys and parties in open court, and there is little or no accountability.
But a few female judges raise their voice in the area of chambers(to staff and/or other judges) and it's some big ethical violation warranting prosecution by the Commission.
A District Judge just received a reprimand wherein the main complaint was that she raised her voice to the Chief Judge, after learning the Chief Judge, with no advance consultation or notice, shifted such judge to an all civil calendar. The exact content of what was said was neither alleged nor revealed, and it is not alleged that there was any threats, vile profanity, or personal name-calling. Arguably, a Chief Judge should be quite thick-skinned, should be accustomed and willing to deal with disgruntled judges who act entitled and have temper flare ups from time-to-time. I don't see why reporting this was necessary.
Likewise, we have the two female JPs who are facing proceedings centered around conduct that in or around chambers(and not near the general public or in court) they used salty language, and raised their voices, including to support staff, etc.
As to the first one discussed–the District Court Judge, it's possible that the situation is worse than it appears. After all, they don't reveal what the judge actually said when venting on the Chief Judge. I also recognize that the charges also include that the District Judge in question raised her voice to her own JEA and others. But, even with those qualifiers, it all seems to be like something of an over-reaction by the Commission as well as disproportionate punishment and miss-placed priorities(as mentioned, judges who habitually act abusive and demeaning in court are seldom held accountable).
BTW, I am not taking up for, or directly defending, any of these three judges in question. I don't know any of them well-enough, nor do I have enough exposure to any of them, to formulate any strong opinions for or against.
I am merely commenting on the process and seemingly miss-placed priorities, and lack of proportionality.
Also, although I am a male, I must be diligent not to be oblivious to any gender-based issues, so I will raise that question directly. Would a male District Court Judge, venting on a male Chief Judge, be more likely to avoid scrutiny and consequences in a situation such as this?
11:44-yes, and toward the later stages of his career Judge Carl Christensen's patience had been worn paper thin from his years of service.
Judge Jack Lehman(a brilliant man) also did not hesitate to let you know, in a most expressive manner, the negative view he held toward your arguments and/or the overall merits of your case. But the good news was that if he was favorably disposed toward your case in general, and your current argument in particular, he quite effectively advanced it to the other side, so it was best to then shut up, get out of his way, and let him argue your points to opposing counsel
Judge Earle White was no angel either.
In Justice Court, Justices Bill Jansen and Danny Ahlstrom could be quite animated at times, and not always in a pleasant way. But, good judges both.
Practitioners who got licensed this millennium have no idea who any of these people are who we are discussing. But the good news is that attorneys of today insist on far greater accountability than we ever did, and bad and intemperate judges often receive well-supported challengers in re-election, plus afar greater likelihood of attracting ethical scrutiny.
That was never the case back then, so perhaps the younger attorneys are braver than we old-timers were, or perhaps it is simply that the system is now far more receptive to demand accountability from intemperate jurists.
While she thought she was entertaining, you did not want to wind Sally up. She was going to do what she was going to do and didnt care what you thought about how she was going to express herself.
One of my first trials was in front of "Mad Jack." it was a bench trial and he gave me a pretty favorable decision. Then I appeared in front of him for an MSJ hearing a month or two later and he all but threatened to have me disbarred for filing a "frivolous motion."
"Mad Jack" could be your best friend or your worst enemy, it depended on the day. Don't forget the most irrational one of them all–Tom Foley.
Just so his kids know, Myron Leavitt was always a gentleman, as was Bob Rose. Those were the days, my friends.
Had to show it to the kids. Oh, the joy. Thank you.
Guest
Anonymous
February 9, 2021 6:46 pm
10:40. I saw that Complaint and had somewhat the same reaction, as well as some of the same questions, that you pose.
But the judge in question eventually stipulated to the reprimand, rather than insisting on a hearing. So, it could well be the situation is worse, and more involved, than it appears.
Guest
Anonymous
February 9, 2021 7:22 pm
10:40 I agree with you. It seems bizarre that a judge is reprimanded for something that happened in chambers, but on the bench they can apparently act like tyrants. There's a judge in family court that has been mentioned here before and she yells constantly during hearings. It's an embarrassment to the court to have a judge acting like that in front of litigants/the public and apparently nothing is being done about it. I would think the commission would be more concerned about the public and litigants than judge's offending each other behind closed doors, but what do I know?
Guest
Anonymous
February 9, 2021 8:12 pm
Notes from the Bench bar: Jay Young is new discovery commissioner with Truman. Nancy Allf has had botox or something?
Hardesty and Bell talked and really need trials going that is why they started criminal trial which you can watch the stream for.
Guest
Anonymous
February 9, 2021 8:12 pm
11:22–Does this(relatively new)judge behave as badly as that Family Court Judge, who was stationed at the RJC and declined to run for re-election last year(and who also attracted ethical problems due to demeanor issues, etc.)?
Who is the judge? Lets name names instead of guessing. For example I know Forsberg gets referenced here alot. She is fine in my opinion and not a screamer. I am but one attorney with 5-6 cases with her but she is fine in my estimation.
1:06–I think Judge Forsberg is the one being referenced, as she has been named before on this blog when discussing intemperate judicial demeanors.
But, in fairness to 11:22 as well as in fairness to the judge, I pose this inquiry so that we can get a much fuller sense of what we are discussing: Is 11:22's opinion of Judge Forsberg based primarily on an isolated case or two that 11:22 had before the judge, or is there a much broader dissatisfaction brewing among Family Court practitioners?
So, was it just a bad hearing 11:22 experienced, or is this something far more prevalent?
This is 11:22. It's not just a bad hearing. I've had multiple cases in front of her since she got on the bench. She did appear to be better in person, but not by much. She does okay on uncontested matters, but cannot control the courtroom or herself in contested/high conflict cases. There's an attorney in my building who does family cases once in a while and I've been in their office when they had a bluejeans appearance with her and it was more of the same. I don't see her improving. If anything, she's gotten worse with time.
Sounds like they're going to do a more in depth presentation on that next month. They spent a lot of time discussing proposed rule changes to ADR program. Also pitching use of the short-trial program.
Very extensive covid trial plan available on the court website. Consulted with CEO of UMC to come up with. Also pulled in other community partners. When jurors come in, they are screened with covid questions and temperature checks. If there is any issue, the juror is not seated. Jury services is socially distanced. They also have dry hydrogen machines that disinfect the air. Protocol in place if someone becomes symptomatic during trial. They have contacts with UMC and health department. Unlikely there will be an issue in short trial program because it is one day and there are only 4 jurors. If you have questions, feel free to email Judge Bell.
What is clear from this is the narcissistic black robe syndrome that some of these judges suffer from. Compare Judge Bell to Erin Truman for example.
I agree that it's time to move to primary elections in NV. I participated in the last two caucuses and the state convention in 2016. The Bernie supporters were justifiably pissed at the rules committee. It was shady. Sen Boxer didn't help when she told everyone to shut up and sit down. Long story short, it's a hot mess. Primaries would be an improvement.
Caucuses suck because you have to show up in person. I had a baby birthing class a few years back scheduled on caucus day (I know, how dare I not have caucus day saved in my calendar) and wouldn't have been able to reschedule. So, no caucus for me. People have stuff going on. Some people work that day. Some people have vacations planned. If you want public participation then use the option that allows people to vote early or by absentee ballot so they can show up to work that day. Especially in Nevada where so many people work weekends.
I participated in the 2020 caucus in Summerlin (first time ever for me) and truly enjoyed the experience. You get to meet your neighbors and actually talk about the issues. The only downside is you'll be there for awhile. Biden supporters were few and far between at the time vastly outnumbered by Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg supporters. You can't caucus early or from afar although I suppose you could join via Zoom.
I also caucused for the first time in 2020 in Summerlin and I thought it was great. It felt like old-school local politics where normal people from the community talk about what issues are important to them and why they support certain people and policies. That probably doesn't outweigh the unfairness of making people show up in person, but there's something to be said for an activity that forces you to go out and actually meet your neighbors – something that doesn't happen that often in LV.
The caucuses did allow for early voting this year. I believe those voters got to rank their top 2 choices. If the top choice was not viable the vote went to the 2nd. I however participated on caucus day and found it a very rewarding experience to meet my Democratic neighbors and talk to them about our political concerns. I'd be in favor of keeping that hybrid model.
Someone please explain something to me like I'm a ten-year-old, since I'm obviously stupid and simply don't "get it.'
There have been judges who can mercilessly, and with some consistency, abuse and belittle attorneys and parties in open court, and there is little or no accountability.
But a few female judges raise their voice in the area of chambers(to staff and/or other judges) and it's some big ethical violation warranting prosecution by the Commission.
A District Judge just received a reprimand wherein the main complaint was that she raised her voice to the Chief Judge, after learning the Chief Judge, with no advance consultation or notice, shifted such judge to an all civil calendar. The exact content of what was said was neither alleged nor revealed, and it is not alleged that there was any threats, vile profanity, or personal name-calling. Arguably, a Chief Judge should be quite thick-skinned, should be accustomed and willing to deal with disgruntled judges who act entitled and have temper flare ups from time-to-time. I don't see why reporting this was necessary.
Likewise, we have the two female JPs who are facing proceedings centered around conduct that in or around chambers(and not near the general public or in court) they used salty language, and raised their voices, including to support staff, etc.
As to the first one discussed–the District Court Judge, it's possible that the situation is worse than it appears. After all, they don't reveal what the judge actually said when venting on the Chief Judge. I also recognize that the charges also include that the District Judge in question raised her voice to her own JEA and others. But, even with those qualifiers, it all seems to be like something of an over-reaction by the Commission as well as disproportionate punishment and miss-placed priorities(as mentioned, judges who habitually act abusive and demeaning in court are seldom held accountable).
BTW, I am not taking up for, or directly defending, any of these three judges in question. I don't know any of them well-enough, nor do I have enough exposure to any of them, to formulate any strong opinions for or against.
I am merely commenting on the process and seemingly miss-placed priorities, and lack of proportionality.
Also, although I am a male, I must be diligent not to be oblivious to any gender-based issues, so I will raise that question directly. Would a male District Court Judge, venting on a male Chief Judge, be more likely to avoid scrutiny and consequences in a situation such as this?
Some of appeared before Mendoza, O'Donnell and Goldman, when "in court" screaming and insults were a daily occurrence.
add "us"
11:44-yes, and toward the later stages of his career Judge Carl Christensen's patience had been worn paper thin from his years of service.
Judge Jack Lehman(a brilliant man) also did not hesitate to let you know, in a most expressive manner, the negative view he held toward your arguments and/or the overall merits of your case. But the good news was that if he was favorably disposed toward your case in general, and your current argument in particular, he quite effectively advanced it to the other side, so it was best to then shut up, get out of his way, and let him argue your points to opposing counsel
Judge Earle White was no angel either.
In Justice Court, Justices Bill Jansen and Danny Ahlstrom could be quite animated at times, and not always in a pleasant way. But, good judges both.
Practitioners who got licensed this millennium have no idea who any of these people are who we are discussing. But the good news is that attorneys of today insist on far greater accountability than we ever did, and bad and intemperate judges often receive well-supported challengers in re-election, plus afar greater likelihood of attracting ethical scrutiny.
That was never the case back then, so perhaps the younger attorneys are braver than we old-timers were, or perhaps it is simply that the system is now far more receptive to demand accountability from intemperate jurists.
Judge
While she thought she was entertaining, you did not want to wind Sally up. She was going to do what she was going to do and didnt care what you thought about how she was going to express herself.
One of my first trials was in front of "Mad Jack." it was a bench trial and he gave me a pretty favorable decision. Then I appeared in front of him for an MSJ hearing a month or two later and he all but threatened to have me disbarred for filing a "frivolous motion."
"Mad Jack" could be your best friend or your worst enemy, it depended on the day. Don't forget the most irrational one of them all–Tom Foley.
Just so his kids know, Myron Leavitt was always a gentleman, as was Bob Rose. Those were the days, my friends.
Let's give a hand to Lloyd George. Always a true professional.
1:42 here. Can't forget I forgot to mention Tom Foley.
But 3:31 reminds us, and he sure got grumpy as the years wore on.
Lets not wax poetic that screaming and loony contempt have gone away. Pomrenze was on the bench not that long ago.
Sounds like Mayor McManus is giving Boulder City the enema it so desperately needed.
Please take 30 seconds and go watch this video of an (older) attorney who has a zoom filter on that makes him look like a cat in a hearing. LOL
https://twitter.com/lawrencehurley/status/1359207169091108864?s=21
I want one! Except Rottweiler, not kitty.
That's great LOL!!!
Thank you. That made my day.
If your lawyer says "I'm prepared to go forward with it, I'm here live I'm not a cat," then you going to jail.
Had to show it to the kids. Oh, the joy. Thank you.
10:40. I saw that Complaint and had somewhat the same reaction, as well as some of the same questions, that you pose.
But the judge in question eventually stipulated to the reprimand, rather than insisting on a hearing. So, it could well be the situation is worse, and more involved, than it appears.
10:40 I agree with you. It seems bizarre that a judge is reprimanded for something that happened in chambers, but on the bench they can apparently act like tyrants. There's a judge in family court that has been mentioned here before and she yells constantly during hearings. It's an embarrassment to the court to have a judge acting like that in front of litigants/the public and apparently nothing is being done about it. I would think the commission would be more concerned about the public and litigants than judge's offending each other behind closed doors, but what do I know?
Notes from the Bench bar: Jay Young is new discovery commissioner with Truman. Nancy Allf has had botox or something?
Hardesty and Bell talked and really need trials going that is why they started criminal trial which you can watch the stream for.
11:22–Does this(relatively new)judge behave as badly as that Family Court Judge, who was stationed at the RJC and declined to run for re-election last year(and who also attracted ethical problems due to demeanor issues, etc.)?
Different behavior, but overall just as bad IMO. It's becoming very problematic. I know some attorneys are perempting her as a matter of course now.
Who is the judge? Lets name names instead of guessing. For example I know Forsberg gets referenced here alot. She is fine in my opinion and not a screamer. I am but one attorney with 5-6 cases with her but she is fine in my estimation.
1:06–I think Judge Forsberg is the one being referenced, as she has been named before on this blog when discussing intemperate judicial demeanors.
But, in fairness to 11:22 as well as in fairness to the judge, I pose this inquiry so that we can get a much fuller sense of what we are discussing: Is 11:22's opinion of Judge Forsberg based primarily on an isolated case or two that 11:22 had before the judge, or is there a much broader dissatisfaction brewing among Family Court practitioners?
So, was it just a bad hearing 11:22 experienced, or is this something far more prevalent?
This is 11:22. It's not just a bad hearing. I've had multiple cases in front of her since she got on the bench. She did appear to be better in person, but not by much. She does okay on uncontested matters, but cannot control the courtroom or herself in contested/high conflict cases. There's an attorney in my building who does family cases once in a while and I've been in their office when they had a bluejeans appearance with her and it was more of the same. I don't see her improving. If anything, she's gotten worse with time.
Was a ball gag involved? Maybe said family court judge needs one?
Anyone willing to provide a synopsis of the bench bar meeting? Specifically in regards to any updates on civil jury trials? Thanks
Sounds like they're going to do a more in depth presentation on that next month. They spent a lot of time discussing proposed rule changes to ADR program. Also pitching use of the short-trial program.
Very extensive covid trial plan available on the court website. Consulted with CEO of UMC to come up with. Also pulled in other community partners. When jurors come in, they are screened with covid questions and temperature checks. If there is any issue, the juror is not seated. Jury services is socially distanced. They also have dry hydrogen machines that disinfect the air. Protocol in place if someone becomes symptomatic during trial. They have contacts with UMC and health department. Unlikely there will be an issue in short trial program because it is one day and there are only 4 jurors. If you have questions, feel free to email Judge Bell.
What is clear from this is the narcissistic black robe syndrome that some of these judges suffer from. Compare Judge Bell to Erin Truman for example.
12:51–I'm unclear as to which of those two is suffering Black Robe Fever(although I think I know the answer, opinions can differ).
So, which one is it?
1:28 is a Judge wondering how many attorney's shitlist he/she is on
It is NOT Erin Truman. She's awesome
It is most definitely Erin Truman.
Glad I caught the Nancy Allf comment, made me laugh.
Attorney must convince judge that he is not a cat.
https://twitter.com/MikaelThalen/status/1359209202292428800?s=20&fbclid=IwAR3WhRAmAlemBrizejb7hewO-H4gmVXUiQmNAHTTpCiMRfWOPd_tOpb1-M4
And I graciously acknowledge the redundancy award. Sorry.
@ 1:01 — 🙂
thats ok, this post is worth a repost. This is hilarious. Even my non-lawyer family thinks its hilarious.