- Quickdraw McLaw
- 30 Comments
- 130 Views
- Prolific, witty, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner is retiring from the bench. [KNPR]
- An October trial date is set for Cliven Bundy. [RJ]
- Last week, Deputy Public Defender Kathleen Hamers was struck by her client in court. [RJ]
Anyone know how many acquittals a DA on the murder team can get before he is booted back to a track. Asking for a friend.
Ask Judge Kephart
The saddest thing about the PD Hamers story is… the 80-year old victim who was STILL WORKING. Ugh. Was he an attorney with student loan debt, I wonder? (crying softly to myself)
A ghost just walked over my grave.
As far as I know, Sam Lionel is still working and he's at least 96 years old. That said, I think he actually likes practicing whereas I will leave this profession in my dust as soon as I have enough money to retire.
That includes Jeff Silver…Gerry Gordon….ATMS partners….Hemo..
When any of those named law firm leaders don't show up for work, however, the masses assume they are on their private yachts in San Diego Bay, not potentially murdered in their apartments by crackheads. Which version is more likely to be representative of the average Las Vegas attorney's (end of) life? *sniffles*
If you're still working at 80 years old and the only reason is that you have student loan debt, then either you didn't do adequate estate/asset protection planning to keep any lender, federally insured or not, from touching your stuff; or you're broke enough that you should request a discharge of the debt. Or just let them do a 15% garnishment (if it is a federally backed loan), or be judgment proof (if it is a private lender) and have them try unsuccessfully to garnish your SSI.
On an unrelated topic, I wish to provide a basic grammar lesson to all advocate groups and others who scream for court reform in large banner headlines. This error which I will point out might be relatively unimportant if simply included in the content of a website, but it undermines credibility of such website if this error occurs in the large banner title or headline of such website–which it always seems to.
The error is this–large headlines which screams "Judge X is Bias."
It is possible for Judge X to harbor bias, but he is not bias. Instead, he is biased.
Since this usage occurs more often inaccurately than it does accurately, and since even lawyers often make this error, here's examples of correct usage:
1. Judge X is biased against my client.
2. Judge X harbors bias against my client.
3. Judge Z should seek to avoid the appearance of bias.
4. If Judge Z continually demonstrates the appearance of bias, perhaps that means he is actually biased.
5. Some believe the only way to ultimately remove bias from the judicial system is to remove all biased judges.
Grammar lesson over. Now, I will wait while bloggers tell me, that in addition to behaving in a pompous fashion, I myself have dreadful grammar, spelling and diction.
Very true. But at least I know one thing, that even seems to escape many prominent lawyers when they prepare briefs–a person can demonstrate bias, but they are never bias. If they demonstrate bias, they are biased. Please remember to add that "ed" at the end of the word "bias."
You're main problem is that your bias against proper punctuation.
At first I thought 2:50 was a twit for lecturing us about this point.
Actually, I still think he is something of a twit. However, I must say that when I see this particular error, which I see often, it does(on some unconscious level) adversely affect the credibility of the message being conveyed–perhaps in large part because screeching headlines that a judge is "Bias!" is usually accompanied by a multitude of other grammatical errors, as well as wretched spelling and diction.
2:50 what about that Oxford comma tho, bro?
True. So, is he bias against using the Oxford comma, or biased
against it.
BTW, it is true that groups screaming for the removal of public officials almost never say the office holder is "biased". It's always that he/she is "bias."
And yes, this error is often made by lawyers as well.
The reason I don't criticize 2:50 is that 2:50 fully criticizes himself/herself.
He/she concedes his grammar and spelling my be bad, but only wants to make this point about the "bias" issue. Since almost no one on this blog ever concedes anything , and no one here ever engages in self-criticism, I'd rather not pile on against the one person who actually does so.
Or perhaps this is also kind of a pet peeve of mine as well based on that the last two motions I had to defend which involved the request to remove a judge from a case, it was repeatedly asserted that the judge is "bias", not "biased."
For reasons which are not clear, it seems to be a common error, even in legal writings. Another real common error is to confuse "to" with "too".
Perhaps 2:50 can opine on that some day.
I have no idea who these "advocate groups and others who scream for court reform in large banner headlines" are of whom you speak. Please tell us more.
That was quite a tortuous comment.
I must not get out enough. I've never seen someone put this in writing. And the follow-up comments state that attorneys — as in, people with college and post-graduate degrees — also do this?! Amazing. I cannot "tsk tsk" hard enough.
Back to school! All of you idiots!
We should avoid taking 3:51 up on the offer to clarify which groups are screaming for the removal of judges.
To do so may encourage certain factions that we do not wish to encourage.
I am 3:51. I was being entirely facetious in my invitation.
I realize that of course, but He Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned, will take any opportunity to angrily join the dialogue and launch into a diatribe, even when the initial remarks are intended as lampoonery.
Just call him Voldemort (or voldemort since he does not deserve capitalization). A Google search on voldemort yields 8.26 million results which will keep anyone busy.
Congratulations to the Nevada Supreme Court on making it a full month since they managed to put out a published opinion. Truly a Peter Gibbonsesque effort at unproductivity and futility.
Keep up the good work. I love that there's somebody out there willing to continually shame the NVSC on this blog. I really hope they read it. But something tells me they really don't care.
The productivity of the Court is down in the last year. The delays in various types of cases to be expedited have actually increased in the last year. The entire ruse about the Court of Appeals reducing the backlog is a farce. Maybe now that Posner is out of his judicial job he would be interested in cleaning up this cesspool of a court.
NSC sucks.
The NSC and CoA kick out plenty of unpublished orders, which we all know can be cited for persuasive value.
http://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Unpublished_Orders/
Except they do not. In the last month, they have kicked out virtually no citeable orders because they are all Orders Dismissing Appeal or denying writs under their discretion. Those have no persuasive value.
The NSC used to read wild wild law. They mentioned it at my sweating in ceremony. Thanks to somebody, we no longer have the pleasure of WWL, which was infinitely better than LVLB in every aspect.
U lawyers so stupid graham appearance
2/1/2%insurance
2/1/2% auditing
Are you going to figure out
Probably not, since I can't even figure out what your post says.
This comment has been removed by the author.