Wow, some people are really nervous about Jerry Tao winning the election. The media is not covering the truth about Elissa Cadish. Look at her latest contributions, money from PACS. Money from current judiciary. Paying her husband, Howard Beckerman for campaign services. Paying Red Rock Dems for services when her husband is an officer. No media bias there.
She's permitted to accept money from PACS as far as I know. People can view it as a negative if they wish, but I don't believe it's a violation(even though perhaps it should be).
Paying her husband for campaign services is not, on its face a violation, but these matters invariably invite intense media scrutiny, and often ethical scrutiny as well. If her husband has no real substantive experience working as a campaign operative, she should be careful not to pay him thousands per month. If she is paying him some relatively small amounts to distribute literature or to appear at events on her behalf, then it is much less problematic. But overall it is simply a real bad idea because everyone knows all that money would go right back into the judge's household. Plus, it is always assumed that the spouse was significantly over-paid proportionate to the services rendered, and investigations often conclude that such is the case.
As for Tao, the problems go well beyond picking his daughter from school. He apparently spends very little time at work, and when he does pick up his daughter, he waits outside in his limo. for two hours until she is released from school. He says he spends those two hours campaigning. He should have said he spends those two hours working on cases.
I basically agree with 1:07, but need to add one thing. The part about taking money from judges, if that's true, could be viewed as those judges publicly endorsing her, which is not prohibited.
And, yes, Tao would be much better served saying that he works on cases for those two hours, twice per week, when he stays in his limo. waiting for his daughter's school day to end. Stating that he uses that time to campaign simply raises additional issues–such as he is not only running time-consuming personal errands during work hours, but is now also campaigning during work hours.
That all said, I'm fine with either of them winning. Could do a lot worse, and we have done a lot worse.
I don't think the first post is okay with unethical behavior. I think they are pointing out the uneveness of the level of scrutiny between Tao and Cadish. I agree that the negativity on Tao is nothing. I know Judge Cadish is mia as well during the work week.
Guest
Anonymous
October 29, 2018 5:20 pm
That is an absurd hit piece on Judge Tao. George Knapp and whoever pushed this story should be ashamed of themselves.
How is this "an absurd hit piece?" Or better question, how is this any different from Vega taking time to go watch her kid play soccer. We all know that judges, especially those campaigning take a lot of time to do that. It comes up every election year. A reporter pointing out truth doesn't make it an absurd hit piece.
Elissa Cadish is never on the bench, but yet there is only a piece on Judge Tao. She manages and decides her caseload to campaign. Where is the news piece on her? No absurd hit piece there.
Hit piece on Tao. This is a common tactic to accuse your opponent of not reporting to work. Every Judge that is campaigning for their seat or a new seat takes time off to campaign. In Judge Tao's case, he can take work with him because it is appellate work. The first hit piece was against Judge Sobel by former Judge Glass who took his seat.
Someone help me out. Is the article about Judge Tao allegedly not doing enough work supposed to be an argument in favor of or against his fitness for the Nevada Supreme Court?
Let's focus on just one aspect of this story: the reporting that Tao drives to his daughter's school twice a week (the days he admits he's responsible for picking her up from school) two hours before school gets out. No normal parent would leave work two hours early just to sit waiting outside of school.
So what does this say about Tao, especially when coupled with the other reporting in the story about how apparently infrequently Judge Tao goes to work? That he doesn't like being at work? That he doesn't like his colleagues? That his colleagues don't like him?
I get judges take time off from judicial duties to campaign. It's to be expected in a state where judges are elected. But this one bit about spending hours of time outside his daughter's school is reflective of something more than "I was campaigning."
The article should have looked into whether his being a dad and picking up his kid from school twice a week has affected the COA case load and other duties assigned to him in that court. Do we have any facts or evidence that his conduct has hindered his work load or his ability to his job? NO. The fact is that he is an elected official and he does not clock in and clock out of work. Its whether he is doing the work he was elected to do to the level that the voters would expect.
When you are elected as a public official you owe the public a fair day's work. Randomly showing up at the office and spending your afternoons lurking outside of your child's school were not part of his application process and he's not campaigning on those traits now. The public has every right to know how he spends his time when they are paying his salary.
Showing up work at your place of work only 55 days as of October 29th is a big deal. Read the comments (or lack of support) from Gibbons and Silver. If he thinks sitting outside of his daughter's school for 2 hours before the bell is going to win support, Tao is not only derelict in not showing up for work but is dumber than his verbose decisions indicate.
1.Even if not strictly prohibited in accepting money from an organization that can be viewed as a PAC, better process is to avoid it completely.
2. Since her husband is not a professional campaign manager, make certain he is not paid large sums for campaign work, as it is obvious all that money goes back into the judge's household. If he is being paid, make certain it is for modest amounts and that it is reasonable compensation for time spent. Best approach, by far, is to pay him nothing. Any money, from contributors, that goes back into a candidate's household for personal use, often attracts the strictest of media and ethical scrutiny.
3. Not permitted to accept contributions from judges as that could be viewed as judicial endorsements, which are not permitted.
4. It's probably okay to accept a donation from Red Rock Democratic party even though her husband is an officer. No real harm as it is assumed that she would have received the donation even if her husband had no involvement, as she is the only democrat in the race. But a much more interesting issue would be if both candidates are democrat. But, still, as to this issue there is no ethical violation.
Tao:
1. Even though elected judges should not necessarily be viewed as time-clock 9 to 5 employees, the actual time on premises does seem to have reached concerning proportions, particularly when considering the direct evidence of where he is for the entire afternoons of Tuesday and Thursday. Still, doubtful any of this is an ethical violation if he is addressing the demands of his calendar.
2. But it becomes a little more dicey once it is proven that he is definitely addressing personal concerns during large chunks of the work hours.
3. And he then compounds the problem by saying that not only is he addressing personal matters during work hours, but that he is also spending substantial time campaigning during work hours. He customarily arrives at his daughter's school at 1:00, and waits in his limo. till she is released at 3:00. Rather than saying he spends those two hours working on cases, he says he is campaigning during that time. A most unwise admission.
But neither of them would make a bad judge, and none of this will probably rise to the level of ethical violations being found. But the media can pound them on these issues, and the opponent can use it against them, and it can all be used in future elections against them.
And even though I said I don't think either of them is in ethical trouble, I could be wrong in that Cadish paying her husband(with the contribution funds thus coming directly to her personal household), could be a problem. And if she accepts contributions from judges, that is a problem. And Tao admitted not just personal use of work hour time, but also campaign use of work hour time. That could be a problem.
I just watched the Knapp story. I concur with some of the posters, this is all you have? Key card swipes. That proves nothing. You are picking on a father picking up his daughter at work. Sounds like a good dad to me. I will be voting for him as well.
I used to work in the SCT building in LV. No key cards to leave, only to enter, and people walk in together oftentimes. This is a tempest in a teapot. It would be one thing if Tao and the COA weren't productive but they are very productive — there are only 3 of them and it takes 3 to decide a case. Tao's a principled guy and hard worker. He won't even use his court phone to take a campaign call – insists on cell phone.
Guest
Anonymous
October 29, 2018 6:10 pm
Re the Leavitt/Graham piece – this statement says it all "Leavitt said he could not point to specific cases where a contribution to Graham’s campaign resulted in a favorable deal from the prosecutor…" So…He specifically claims that she received a campaign contribution and then the person that gave the funds received favorable treatment; yet he can't actually point to a specific case where that happened? Sounds like he just admitted that he lied.
I thought the same thing 11:10. He went pretty quick from "she aggressively soliciting [sic] contributions from lawyers with whom she has active cases, and then reduces charges against these defendants after receiving the contributions" to "well, I can't point to any specific instances" and "my concern is with the practice and the reality of political contributions. People often get favorable treatment when they make donations."
Wow, some people are really nervous about Jerry Tao winning the election. The media is not covering the truth about Elissa Cadish. Look at her latest contributions, money from PACS. Money from current judiciary. Paying her husband, Howard Beckerman for campaign services. Paying Red Rock Dems for services when her husband is an officer. No media bias there.
She's permitted to accept money from PACS as far as I know. People can view it as a negative if they wish, but I don't believe it's a violation(even though perhaps it should be).
Paying her husband for campaign services is not, on its face a violation, but these matters invariably invite intense media scrutiny, and often ethical scrutiny as well. If her husband has no real substantive experience working as a campaign operative, she should be careful not to pay him thousands per month. If she is paying him some relatively small amounts to distribute literature or to appear at events on her behalf, then it is much less problematic. But overall it is simply a real bad idea because everyone knows all that money would go right back into the judge's household. Plus, it is always assumed that the spouse was significantly over-paid proportionate to the services rendered, and investigations often conclude that such is the case.
As for Tao, the problems go well beyond picking his daughter from school. He apparently spends very little time at work, and when he does pick up his daughter, he waits outside in his limo. for two hours until she is released from school. He says he spends those two hours campaigning. He should have said he spends those two hours working on cases.
I basically agree with 1:07, but need to add one thing. The part about taking money from judges, if that's true, could be viewed as those judges publicly endorsing her, which is not prohibited.
And, yes, Tao would be much better served saying that he works on cases for those two hours, twice per week, when he stays in his limo. waiting for his daughter's school day to end. Stating that he uses that time to campaign simply raises additional issues–such as he is not only running time-consuming personal errands during work hours, but is now also campaigning during work hours.
That all said, I'm fine with either of them winning. Could do a lot worse, and we have done a lot worse.
Nice 8:59, the ol' you can't report on X even if it's bad because Y is also bad.
I don't think the first post is okay with unethical behavior. I think they are pointing out the uneveness of the level of scrutiny between Tao and Cadish. I agree that the negativity on Tao is nothing. I know Judge Cadish is mia as well during the work week.
That is an absurd hit piece on Judge Tao. George Knapp and whoever pushed this story should be ashamed of themselves.
How is this "an absurd hit piece?" Or better question, how is this any different from Vega taking time to go watch her kid play soccer. We all know that judges, especially those campaigning take a lot of time to do that. It comes up every election year. A reporter pointing out truth doesn't make it an absurd hit piece.
Elissa Cadish is never on the bench, but yet there is only a piece on Judge Tao. She manages and decides her caseload to campaign. Where is the news piece on her? No absurd hit piece there.
Hit piece on Tao. This is a common tactic to accuse your opponent of not reporting to work. Every Judge that is campaigning for their seat or a new seat takes time off to campaign. In Judge Tao's case, he can take work with him because it is appellate work. The first hit piece was against Judge Sobel by former Judge Glass who took his seat.
Someone help me out. Is the article about Judge Tao allegedly not doing enough work supposed to be an argument in favor of or against his fitness for the Nevada Supreme Court?
Let's focus on just one aspect of this story: the reporting that Tao drives to his daughter's school twice a week (the days he admits he's responsible for picking her up from school) two hours before school gets out. No normal parent would leave work two hours early just to sit waiting outside of school.
So what does this say about Tao, especially when coupled with the other reporting in the story about how apparently infrequently Judge Tao goes to work? That he doesn't like being at work? That he doesn't like his colleagues? That his colleagues don't like him?
I get judges take time off from judicial duties to campaign. It's to be expected in a state where judges are elected. But this one bit about spending hours of time outside his daughter's school is reflective of something more than "I was campaigning."
The article should have looked into whether his being a dad and picking up his kid from school twice a week has affected the COA case load and other duties assigned to him in that court. Do we have any facts or evidence that his conduct has hindered his work load or his ability to his job? NO. The fact is that he is an elected official and he does not clock in and clock out of work. Its whether he is doing the work he was elected to do to the level that the voters would expect.
@1128 exactly! If I sat outside my kid's school for two hours, security would be tapping on my window.
I see a nothing burger on Jerry Tao. He is entitled to a lunch break. This sounds desperate by Judge Cadish's camp.
When you are elected as a public official you owe the public a fair day's work. Randomly showing up at the office and spending your afternoons lurking outside of your child's school were not part of his application process and he's not campaigning on those traits now. The public has every right to know how he spends his time when they are paying his salary.
Showing up work at your place of work only 55 days as of October 29th is a big deal. Read the comments (or lack of support) from Gibbons and Silver. If he thinks sitting outside of his daughter's school for 2 hours before the bell is going to win support, Tao is not only derelict in not showing up for work but is dumber than his verbose decisions indicate.
Lmfao, lurking and derelict. Tell us how you really feel about Tao.
Here's my score card:
Cadish:
1.Even if not strictly prohibited in accepting money from an organization that can be viewed as a PAC, better process is to avoid it completely.
2. Since her husband is not a professional campaign manager, make certain he is not paid large sums for campaign work, as it is obvious all that money goes back into the judge's household. If he is being paid, make certain it is for modest amounts and that it is reasonable compensation for time spent. Best approach, by far, is to pay him nothing. Any money, from contributors, that goes back into a candidate's household for personal use, often attracts the strictest of media and ethical scrutiny.
3. Not permitted to accept contributions from judges as that could be viewed as judicial endorsements, which are not permitted.
4. It's probably okay to accept a donation from Red Rock Democratic party even though her husband is an officer. No real harm as it is assumed that she would have received the donation even if her husband had no involvement, as she is the only democrat in the race. But a much more interesting issue would be if both candidates are democrat. But, still, as to this issue there is no ethical violation.
Tao:
1. Even though elected judges should not necessarily be viewed as time-clock 9 to 5 employees, the actual time on premises does seem to have reached concerning proportions, particularly when considering the direct evidence of where he is for the entire afternoons of Tuesday and Thursday. Still, doubtful any of this is an ethical violation if he is addressing the demands of his calendar.
2. But it becomes a little more dicey once it is proven that he is definitely addressing personal concerns during large chunks of the work hours.
3. And he then compounds the problem by saying that not only is he addressing personal matters during work hours, but that he is also spending substantial time campaigning during work hours. He customarily arrives at his daughter's school at 1:00, and waits in his limo. till she is released at 3:00. Rather than saying he spends those two hours working on cases, he says he is campaigning during that time. A most unwise admission.
But neither of them would make a bad judge, and none of this will probably rise to the level of ethical violations being found. But the media can pound them on these issues, and the opponent can use it against them, and it can all be used in future elections against them.
And even though I said I don't think either of them is in ethical trouble, I could be wrong in that Cadish paying her husband(with the contribution funds thus coming directly to her personal household), could be a problem. And if she accepts contributions from judges, that is a problem. And Tao admitted not just personal use of work hour time, but also campaign use of work hour time. That could be a problem.
I am still voting for Tao, although I appreciate Knapp's story. It is completely ordinary that judges dodge early. This is a non issue for me.
I just watched the Knapp story. I concur with some of the posters, this is all you have? Key card swipes. That proves nothing. You are picking on a father picking up his daughter at work. Sounds like a good dad to me. I will be voting for him as well.
I used to work in the SCT building in LV. No key cards to leave, only to enter, and people walk in together oftentimes. This is a tempest in a teapot. It would be one thing if Tao and the COA weren't productive but they are very productive — there are only 3 of them and it takes 3 to decide a case. Tao's a principled guy and hard worker. He won't even use his court phone to take a campaign call – insists on cell phone.
Re the Leavitt/Graham piece – this statement says it all "Leavitt said he could not point to specific cases where a contribution to Graham’s campaign resulted in a favorable deal from the prosecutor…" So…He specifically claims that she received a campaign contribution and then the person that gave the funds received favorable treatment; yet he can't actually point to a specific case where that happened? Sounds like he just admitted that he lied.
Truthiness.
Come on… It's not a lie, as we have all been taught, it is merely alternate facts.
I thought the same thing 11:10. He went pretty quick from "she aggressively soliciting [sic] contributions from lawyers with whom she has active cases, and then reduces charges against these defendants after receiving the contributions" to "well, I can't point to any specific instances" and "my concern is with the practice and the reality of political contributions. People often get favorable treatment when they make donations."
Way to out-kick your coverage.