Super Seal

  • Law

  • Federal prosecutors got in trouble with US Magistrate Cam Ferenbach over their use of “super seal” to seize assets without giving notice. [RJ]
  • Can you get a summons through email? [8NewsNow]
  • The Miller v. Laxalt race for Attorney General is heating up. [RGJ]
14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2014 8:23 pm

I voted today, and used this blog as my second to last backstop where I couldn't find intel on a candidate. #1 was my knowledge, #2 was info I could ge from trusted friends, #3 was this blog, and #4 was newspaper endorsements. Hopefully I don't regret my votes.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2014 8:25 pm

Why is channel 3 news at Lewis & Roca?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2014 9:57 pm

I am shocked – SHOCKED I SAY! – that Dean White is now a "finalist" for the UNLV President position.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2014 10:28 pm

Um, channel 3 was there, because Lewis and Roca have FBI quality security safeguards to protect client and employment records?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2014 10:32 pm

Channel 3 is there, because Lewis and Roca are fans of Wake up with the Wagners!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2014 11:09 pm

Anybody else having major problems with the new Las Vegas Justice Court e-filing system? My firm has only been able to access the website two days out of this month, and it's supposed to be mandatory on Friday. I'm afraid this will be a clusterfuck that will make the WizNet rollout seem like a walk in the park.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 20, 2014 11:36 pm

Had problems with wiznet today and Friday.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 21, 2014 2:39 am

Interesting story on Judge Tobaission and an order that clearly shouldn't have been issued

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/26834247/i-team

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 21, 2014 6:31 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Okay. You tell me who has jurisdiction over a ancillary proceeding to a divorce action that wasn't filed in Nevada concerning a marriage that could not be recognized in Nevada

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 21, 2014 5:59 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Maybe a family court judge?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 21, 2014 6:45 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Take a look at the jurisdiction of the family court judge as set out in NRS 3.223.

(a) Is the most likely, because it deals with dissolution of marriage. But until very recently, Nevada courts were forbidden from recognizing same-sex marriage. Now, if the two registered as a domestic partnership, family court can preside over that. But there's nothing to suggest that occurred here. In fact, in 2011, the one suing Judge Tobaission sued for divorce in Family Court, and the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they hadn't registered. It was appealed, but settled before briefing. The rest of the jurisdictional sub-parts are clearly not applicable.

Now, there may be issue with notice, and an evidentiary hearing, etc. But that doesn't matter, because those aspects fall within the court's jurisdiction, and if Judge Tob was acting within her jurisdiction, she is absolutely immune, and this case goes nowhere.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 21, 2014 7:25 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

When looking at the jurisdiction of the Justice Court under NRS 4.370, there isn't a single section that would allow for a JOP to issue an Order like this. Unless there's some other statute I'm not aware of, I just don't see how she would have any jurisdiction to order something like this.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 22, 2014 1:36 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Good Lord. This just shows how terrible Judges are here. I can't believe she would issue this order when she clearly had no jurisdiction to do so.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 21, 2014 6:20 pm

To 11:31, 7:39pm here. Granted this is a non-typical case in that there are proceedings occurring in a different country (Canada) which is seeking an order from a US court with a finding regarding the level of cooperation of a party (who if the story is correct had no idea of said Canadian legal proceeding) in the context of a dissolution proceeding. As I am unfamiliar with Canadian dissolution law and procedures I suspect the unreasonable cooperation requirement is tied in to some granting of a default divorce decree by a Canadian court.

For what it is worth, I can recall a case a while ago where Judge Elliot over in Family Court granted a same-sex couple a divorce despite a lack of jurisdiction (the couple as I recall was married in CA but ended up here in NV which at the time didn't recognize the marriage). As 10:59am stated, I suspect that a party could get a Family Court judge to make such a ruling on unreasonable cooperation if need be (even prior to the Ninth Circuit ruling).

Let us assume that by some avenue Justice Court is an acceptable place to go to seek a finding on a party about whether they refused to cooperate in another court/state/country's divorce proceeding. One of the huge problems (jurisdiction argument aside) here is how the judge went about it. The order was done with a lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard. To make a finding for that type of order you are going to need to have a full on evidentiary hearing; the parties will need to testify, other necessary witness will need to testify, documentary evidence will need to be submitted to show just how a spouse had unreasonably refused to cooperate in divorce proceedings.