School is back in session. Please be aware of school zones and watch out for increased pedestrian traffic! [RJ]
A vote by the Clark County Commissioners on Tuesday to increase the recording fee would benefit LACSN. Also, shout to Kim Sinatra for her work on behalf of foster children.
Public attendees at the Department of Taxation’s meeting regarding marijuana distribution last week were required to produce identification to get into the meeting “for safety purposes.” [RJ]
A Carson City District Judge halted any efforts by the Department of Taxation to license additional distributors. [RJ]
Judge Gloria Navarro cut short a defendant’s testimony in the Bunkerville retrial. [RJ]
Adam Kutner donated $1,000 to Ronzone Elementary School to help with school supplies. [PRNewswire]
Easton Harris was disbarred in June and now faces felony theft charges. [KTNV]
How come the blog listing of topics does not list the Joel Henriod piece as a "fluff piece" or "puff piece", which is how such pieces are usually designated on this blog.
Perhaps, because, this one does not even actually constitute a piece or an article. There is no discussion, no interview questions, etc. It looks like the firm simply took his(of course, highly positive) resume material that was on the website for the firm, and sent it along to the publication.
This time, no one even bothered with the pretense of attempting to make it look like a stab at a legitimate article.
The Navarro things shocks me and does not shock me because she has so stacked the deck the second time around to make sure that the Defendants are not allowed to testify. The rulings in the case read like Myrhe is writing the Judge's decisions for her.
Updated August 10, 2017 – 9:31 pm
OMG a witness mentioned the First Amendment, how dare he! How dare a Defendant state that he was in fear of government overreach which lead people to assemble. But when a Defendant cannot even testify about what he personally saw and what he personally perceived, the die is cast. The prosecution could cross-examine and impeach and show that his perceptions were wrong, but that is apparently not good enough for the prosecution. No, we need to stop his ability to testify at all. And so they did, completely gagged a Defendant from being able to testify at all in his own defense. He "violated a court order by describing what he saw"? Unless you agree to say what the Government says that you are allowed to say, you are not allowed to testify at all.
I think the Bundys and their ilk are largely a bunch of lunatics; however it is hard to follow this trial and not see a little bit where the Bundys think that it is a preplanned persecution without honest prosecution.
Frankly it is a pretty good illustration of the mockery that federal criminal procedure has become in this district. The Federal judiciary (and Navarro specifically) have become lackies to the USAO and largely allow them to get away with pretty much anything that they want. I thought Navarro was going to be a pretty fair jurist when she was appointed but she has by and large become a nightmare.
To read the pretrial rulings, you could black out the "United States District Court" from the pleadings and you would think this is some kangaroo North Korean court.
(1) I'm not disagreeing, but it's hard to judge how belligerent the witness is being on paper. I've been in some pretty heated exchanges that were very tense, and then the transcript (and often the other side's recap) don't really bring out how tense the situation was.
(2) It's also a tough situation if the witness is ranting about what he incorrectly thinks the 4th Amendment and 1st Amendment say. He's not a lawyer or a judge or an expert witness. And I'm not sure how what this guy thinks the 1st A. says is relevant to his testimony.
(3) I'm shocked that the reference to the US sniper wasn't allowed. Was the problem the word sniper? That seems like relevant evidence regarding what I think the case is about (maybe I'm wrong), and he was a percipient witness. Maybe the presence of a government sniper isn't relevant? I don't get it.
(4) For what it's worth, I'm no fan of Navarro, I lean libertarian but I think the Bundys are clowns that give us a bad name, and though I think the USAO wields lots of power and can do so unfairly at times, I personally like some of the lawyers there that I've met.
(1) The Judge saw these witnesses in the first trial. The fact that she cut off a criminal defendant from testifying in his own defense screams due process violation. She has killed any chance of a fair trial. (2)The witness was not ranting about the First Amendment. He was indicating that he wished to exercise his right of assembly; seems pretty straightforward and relevant to this case. (3) Agreed. (4) At cocktail parties some of them are probably fine (although the ones involved in this trial, not so much) but it does not change the fact that unless you have seen what the USAO gets away with in criminal proceedings in this state you truly would not believe it.
11:20 here. You're probably right 11:45. I'm not in the courtroom for #2. I'm just trying to think of reasons it might be rational for a judge to cut of a criminal defendant that chose to testify at his trial.
The argument is that the presence of a government sniper isn't relevant, because it doesn't negate any element of the charged act. Basically, whether there was or wasn't a sniper on a hill doesn't legally give him license to point a gun at anyone unless he didn't know that was a BLM dude or there was excessive force going on. So because it's irrelevant, the argument is that the only reason to bring it up at all is to try and slip in jury nullification. Not saying I agree with any of that, but that's the argument that Navarro bought according to the MILs.
It was generally conceded that the Bundy supporters crossed the line and pointed guns at federal agents and the police. That being said, the general rule is you allow the defense to make their case or their defense and then allow the government to rebut it. In this case, the defense is being severely restricted. It is likely that if there are convictions they will be overturned on appeal but only after the defendants rot in jail a few more years. The government has clearly made their point–don't threaten the government even if no one got hurt or no shots were fired.
The government has clearly made their point– don't try to put on a defense, even if we pretend that the system is to allow a verdict by a trial of one's peers.
From what I have heard, the jurors have had quite a few questions. The government approach could backfire if they get the sense that they aren't being allowed to hear all the facts. One or more of them could hang the case again based on nullification, and then they'll be back in a few months doing this all over again.
I had heard the same– that jurors were looking at each other quizzically when he was being not allowed to say anything. I also heard a rumor that one of the jurors had been threatened if a guilty verdict was not returned. The whole thing smells bad. Even if you think one or more of the Defendants is guilty, you want the system to be fair. It was like when the Patriots were accused of cheating (taping or deflated balls). They would have won anyway yet the whole affair feels tarnished by the fake that the government cheats.
The only part that I disagree with 1:29 about is that I think it will be a couple of years while the case makes a round trip to the 9th before these defendants get a retrial.
Part of me wonders if Navarro is just raping this first set of Defendants to send a message to the Second Phase guys that they might want to start cutting deals because she has no intention of letting them get close to putting on a defense and risking chaos in her courtroom. The only problem with that theory is that she is not smart enough to really put together a plan like that.
I believe that Navarro also did this sua sponte, there was no motion on filed on behalf of the government. That makes it incredible egregious IMO because she is cutting the defense off at the knees without any prompting from the state. I am curious as to how she will justify this on appeal and/or writ. She is lucky that this batch of defense attorneys is somewhat motion-work averse because I don't see the subsequent defense attorneys letting these rulings go unchallenged.
Really? Have you seen the group of yahoos who are on as the subsequent defense attorneys? Lets just say that the guys who are the most in the crosshairs did not draw the strongest counsel either in this case. That's the problem with CJA– you get who you get. The next group will get boat raced just as badly.
Lol, I'm not talking about the quality of the next batch. I like 90% of the guys in this group, they just don't do motion work. If you filed a bare bones motion you could get a smackdown from the 9th Circuit on these rulings.
The CJA Panel is pure fellatio artists. But they are getting hooker wages too at government rates. You see the posers who are just posturing for judgeships later and then the people who couldn't keep their practice open but for the CJA Panel.
Guest
Anonymous
August 14, 2017 4:18 pm
9:11 here again. Sorry, I'm wrong. When I first clicked it on it just included a listing of his practice area and accomplishments–apparently from the firm website. But now it does include an interview with him, and a discussion of his practice, etc. So, my bad.
It's still not really a piece of probing, balanced journalism, but appears to be the latest in a long, endless line of business/professional type publications providing professionals an opportunity to gain exposure for their business. However, since it is substantially more than a reciting of his resume, and does include an interview and discussion, my initial characterization is no longer accurate.
Guest
Anonymous
August 15, 2017 2:40 pm
The law school sent out this "request for help" from a CA attorney. The names are redacted to protect the retarded.
" ATTORNEY (little experience is OK) TO CO-DIRECT A CHAPTER 11 FILING where I propound skeleton filing for you to take in SOON and 2 weeks later the full schedules–you (1) appear AT COURT and Creditor Meeting and interact w/ any opposing counsel, clerk etc. It will be in Vegas fed court I have done many BKs and this is an 11 that should not go distance as 20-yr client, a Trucker, can earn out well before a Plan must be submitted, but needs 'restraint' on creditors. He has 6 trucks to be working again by 23rd or so. SOME OF PAY is deferred(!) but you will be compensated fully after $1,000 downstroke (file fee is $1717) and he is right in Vegas (89101 zip) to meet w/ you as needed. PLEASE call Fool Attorney, Esq. (a So Calif attorney) at (111) 222-3333 and between 9 am and 6:45 pm on TU or WED. Thank You.
Yeah. This was sent out by someone who, instead of merely working in an administrative position, actually attended law school and passed enough classes to graduate. Think about that for a moment, and ponder what that means for our profession.
ok so? does that mean the school or other alumni are similarly stupid? no. your rational is stupid. there are plenty of fucktards from all walks of life, and from all schools..harvard down to good ol Cooley. "One bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch."
Guest
Anonymous
August 15, 2017 7:51 pm
The law school DID send it out. It was sent on behalf of a non-Boyd alum who was reaching out for help from Boyd alums. He probably sent this spam email to every law school on the west coast. Boyd thought it was serious and sent it out to alum.
Puff pieces galore.
How come the blog listing of topics does not list the Joel Henriod piece as a "fluff piece" or "puff piece", which is how such pieces are usually designated on this blog.
Perhaps, because, this one does not even actually constitute a piece or an article. There is no discussion, no interview questions, etc. It looks like the firm simply took his(of course, highly positive) resume material that was on the website for the firm, and sent it along to the publication.
This time, no one even bothered with the pretense of attempting to make it look like a stab at a legitimate article.
Why do you care so much, 9:11 AM?
The Navarro things shocks me and does not shock me because she has so stacked the deck the second time around to make sure that the Defendants are not allowed to testify. The rulings in the case read like Myrhe is writing the Judge's decisions for her.
Updated August 10, 2017 – 9:31 pm
OMG a witness mentioned the First Amendment, how dare he! How dare a Defendant state that he was in fear of government overreach which lead people to assemble. But when a Defendant cannot even testify about what he personally saw and what he personally perceived, the die is cast. The prosecution could cross-examine and impeach and show that his perceptions were wrong, but that is apparently not good enough for the prosecution. No, we need to stop his ability to testify at all. And so they did, completely gagged a Defendant from being able to testify at all in his own defense. He "violated a court order by describing what he saw"? Unless you agree to say what the Government says that you are allowed to say, you are not allowed to testify at all.
I think the Bundys and their ilk are largely a bunch of lunatics; however it is hard to follow this trial and not see a little bit where the Bundys think that it is a preplanned persecution without honest prosecution.
Agreed. I don't support them. I think their ideas about federal land ownership, etc. are largely hogwash, but this doesn't seem like a fair trial.
Frankly it is a pretty good illustration of the mockery that federal criminal procedure has become in this district. The Federal judiciary (and Navarro specifically) have become lackies to the USAO and largely allow them to get away with pretty much anything that they want. I thought Navarro was going to be a pretty fair jurist when she was appointed but she has by and large become a nightmare.
To read the pretrial rulings, you could black out the "United States District Court" from the pleadings and you would think this is some kangaroo North Korean court.
A few thoughts, in no particular order:
(1) I'm not disagreeing, but it's hard to judge how belligerent the witness is being on paper. I've been in some pretty heated exchanges that were very tense, and then the transcript (and often the other side's recap) don't really bring out how tense the situation was.
(2) It's also a tough situation if the witness is ranting about what he incorrectly thinks the 4th Amendment and 1st Amendment say. He's not a lawyer or a judge or an expert witness. And I'm not sure how what this guy thinks the 1st A. says is relevant to his testimony.
(3) I'm shocked that the reference to the US sniper wasn't allowed. Was the problem the word sniper? That seems like relevant evidence regarding what I think the case is about (maybe I'm wrong), and he was a percipient witness. Maybe the presence of a government sniper isn't relevant? I don't get it.
(4) For what it's worth, I'm no fan of Navarro, I lean libertarian but I think the Bundys are clowns that give us a bad name, and though I think the USAO wields lots of power and can do so unfairly at times, I personally like some of the lawyers there that I've met.
(1) The Judge saw these witnesses in the first trial. The fact that she cut off a criminal defendant from testifying in his own defense screams due process violation. She has killed any chance of a fair trial. (2)The witness was not ranting about the First Amendment. He was indicating that he wished to exercise his right of assembly; seems pretty straightforward and relevant to this case. (3) Agreed. (4) At cocktail parties some of them are probably fine (although the ones involved in this trial, not so much) but it does not change the fact that unless you have seen what the USAO gets away with in criminal proceedings in this state you truly would not believe it.
11:20 here. You're probably right 11:45. I'm not in the courtroom for #2. I'm just trying to think of reasons it might be rational for a judge to cut of a criminal defendant that chose to testify at his trial.
The argument is that the presence of a government sniper isn't relevant, because it doesn't negate any element of the charged act. Basically, whether there was or wasn't a sniper on a hill doesn't legally give him license to point a gun at anyone unless he didn't know that was a BLM dude or there was excessive force going on. So because it's irrelevant, the argument is that the only reason to bring it up at all is to try and slip in jury nullification. Not saying I agree with any of that, but that's the argument that Navarro bought according to the MILs.
It was generally conceded that the Bundy supporters crossed the line and pointed guns at federal agents and the police. That being said, the general rule is you allow the defense to make their case or their defense and then allow the government to rebut it. In this case, the defense is being severely restricted. It is likely that if there are convictions they will be overturned on appeal but only after the defendants rot in jail a few more years. The government has clearly made their point–don't threaten the government even if no one got hurt or no shots were fired.
The government has clearly made their point– don't try to put on a defense, even if we pretend that the system is to allow a verdict by a trial of one's peers.
Uncle always get their man………
From what I have heard, the jurors have had quite a few questions. The government approach could backfire if they get the sense that they aren't being allowed to hear all the facts. One or more of them could hang the case again based on nullification, and then they'll be back in a few months doing this all over again.
I had heard the same– that jurors were looking at each other quizzically when he was being not allowed to say anything. I also heard a rumor that one of the jurors had been threatened if a guilty verdict was not returned. The whole thing smells bad. Even if you think one or more of the Defendants is guilty, you want the system to be fair. It was like when the Patriots were accused of cheating (taping or deflated balls). They would have won anyway yet the whole affair feels tarnished by the fake that the government cheats.
The only part that I disagree with 1:29 about is that I think it will be a couple of years while the case makes a round trip to the 9th before these defendants get a retrial.
Part of me wonders if Navarro is just raping this first set of Defendants to send a message to the Second Phase guys that they might want to start cutting deals because she has no intention of letting them get close to putting on a defense and risking chaos in her courtroom. The only problem with that theory is that she is not smart enough to really put together a plan like that.
12:23: My understanding is that Navarro prohibited them from talking about excessive force also.
I believe that Navarro also did this sua sponte, there was no motion on filed on behalf of the government. That makes it incredible egregious IMO because she is cutting the defense off at the knees without any prompting from the state. I am curious as to how she will justify this on appeal and/or writ. She is lucky that this batch of defense attorneys is somewhat motion-work averse because I don't see the subsequent defense attorneys letting these rulings go unchallenged.
Really? Have you seen the group of yahoos who are on as the subsequent defense attorneys? Lets just say that the guys who are the most in the crosshairs did not draw the strongest counsel either in this case. That's the problem with CJA– you get who you get. The next group will get boat raced just as badly.
Lol, I'm not talking about the quality of the next batch. I like 90% of the guys in this group, they just don't do motion work. If you filed a bare bones motion you could get a smackdown from the 9th Circuit on these rulings.
Federal criminal is all about motion practice
Seriously who do you have to blow to get on the CJA panel? Not all of course, but some of the attorneys are pure garbage. Especially in habeas.
The CJA Panel is pure fellatio artists. But they are getting hooker wages too at government rates. You see the posers who are just posturing for judgeships later and then the people who couldn't keep their practice open but for the CJA Panel.
9:11 here again. Sorry, I'm wrong. When I first clicked it on it just included a listing of his practice area and accomplishments–apparently from the firm website. But now it does include an interview with him, and a discussion of his practice, etc. So, my bad.
It's still not really a piece of probing, balanced journalism, but appears to be the latest in a long, endless line of business/professional type publications providing professionals an opportunity to gain exposure for their business. However, since it is substantially more than a reciting of his resume, and does include an interview and discussion, my initial characterization is no longer accurate.
The law school sent out this "request for help" from a CA attorney. The names are redacted to protect the retarded.
" ATTORNEY (little experience is OK) TO CO-DIRECT A CHAPTER 11 FILING where I propound skeleton filing for you to take in SOON and 2 weeks later the full schedules–you (1) appear AT COURT and Creditor Meeting and interact w/ any opposing counsel, clerk etc. It will be in Vegas fed court I have done many BKs and this is an 11 that should not go distance as 20-yr client, a Trucker, can earn out well before a Plan must be submitted, but needs 'restraint' on creditors. He has 6 trucks to be working again by 23rd or so. SOME OF PAY is deferred(!) but you will be compensated fully after $1,000 downstroke (file fee is $1717) and he is right in Vegas (89101 zip) to meet w/ you as needed. PLEASE call Fool Attorney, Esq. (a So Calif attorney) at (111) 222-3333 and between 9 am and 6:45 pm on TU or WED. Thank You.
the law school didnt send this out, but rather the alumni listserv of the law school, where alumni can email each other. big difference.
Yeah. This was sent out by someone who, instead of merely working in an administrative position, actually attended law school and passed enough classes to graduate. Think about that for a moment, and ponder what that means for our profession.
ok so? does that mean the school or other alumni are similarly stupid? no. your rational is stupid. there are plenty of fucktards from all walks of life, and from all schools..harvard down to good ol Cooley. "One bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch."
The law school DID send it out. It was sent on behalf of a non-Boyd alum who was reaching out for help from Boyd alums. He probably sent this spam email to every law school on the west coast. Boyd thought it was serious and sent it out to alum.