Family Court Judge Jennifer Elliott announced her retirement from the bench. [eighthjdcourt blog; RJ]
Video of officers waiting a floor below the October 1 shooter raise questions about Metro training and liability with attorney Louis Schneider weighing in. [RJ]
Another community is reeling from the shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected. [GoFundMe]
I struggle with this because it is ridiculous to keep saying it, but at the same time I am thinking about those people. I don't want it to be forgotten. It's only been 9 months since the shooting here and it feels like people (outside Vegas) have forgotten. There are still people recovering and spending time in hospitals. They are going to have to deal with PTSD this week with all the fireworks.
at the risk of getting attacked today on this blog I'll say something that's not politically correct. I'm all for "thoughts and prayers." @ 8:23 – "thoughts and prayers" are a sentiment offered with an intent to comfort and convey that person or situation is in their thoughts and prayers. Why do we need to retire that? I've seen this lots – people assume that "thoughts and prayers" means that is all being offered. Many of us actually do pray – but we also donate money, protest, etc. Action is ideal, but there is nothing wrong with additionally offering "thoughts and prayers." I've also been on the receiving end of "thoughts and prayers" after an exceptionally tragic event and it brought me comfort. It's politically correct at this time to say – action, not "thoughts and prayers." What's wrong with both? Also- some people are unable to offer anything other than their prayers.
Simple communication, a person hears something bad, saying nothing is poor form, must say something, what would you have them say "f$%# you"?
Also, some people are very religious and do believe in the power of Prayer, so let them express their sentiments as they wish. 9:31 much more articulate but just a quick vote for continuing the usage
That's just not true, 9:31 AM. When a politician or public figure conveys "thoughts and prayers" publicly following a shooting, it is nothing more than peacocking and preening. It is the ultimate political whited sepluchre, and very much worthy of our derision and scorn. If these politicians really cared (they don't), they would, in the immediate moments after a shooting, be making personal calls and offering personal assistance in those calls. Then, they would take concrete steps in public policy to reduce the frequency of these incidents. But that's not what they do. They want to use the shooting to impress all of us about how compassionate (and religious) they are.
I am religious, but I say, with righteous indignation, to every politician who tweets or press releases "thoughts and prayers" – FUCK YOUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS.
9:50 you are arguing as though Prayer is doing nothing or not "concrete" or "nothing more than peacocking." The point of some is that Praying IS doing something and that it IS "concrete." To convince the other side of an argument or make your point better, you must understand their position. Perhaps your argument should start with your underlying premise that Prayer is doing "nothing," and proceed from there.
9:50 AM here. I never said that about prayer. I believe in prayer, which is part of why these fake "thoughts and prayers" are so offensive. They are blasphemous. Imagine a man sitting on the side of the road, starving. You could walk up to him and offer him food and provide a solution to his crisis. Instead, you walk up to him and do nothing more than say, "You are in my thoughts and prayers, dear sir!" You say it loudly enough for everyone nearby to hear and then nod in self-assurance and walk away. That is fake religion, and fake Christianity, just like the bullshit "thoughts and prayers" from politicians after shootings.
God expects us to do more than passively have "thoughts and prayers." That politicians don't actually do anything substantive or concrete betrays their true insincere motive when offering "thoughts and prayers."
9:50 Thank you, 10:01 here, I have thought for awhile that the blog has become a series of people writing snarky little comments toward each other and not using the blog for real discourse. Your response was polite, civil, and to the point. I actually do see what you're saying and yes God does expect us to do more. Thanks for uplifting the blog and I am recommitting myself to not just make snarky comments (I have a few times) but to try to be more productive among people that, were I to see them face to face, I would surely act politely.
Why is it so horrible (other than the fact it is politically fashionable) to demonize someone's sincere statement that thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families of this tragedy? I get that people think "thoughts and prayers" somehow stops people from taking further concrete action. But, in this case, we are simply dealing with an evil person. No gun control law would have stopped this. There is no concrete action to take. It was a legally purchased pump-shotgun. So, rather than twist this into something it isn't, maybe pull the indignation back a skosh.
@ 9:50 – your comments make the leap that "politicians" aren't making calls or trying to effectuate changes. You presume that all that is being offered is a pointless "thoughts and prayers" comment. Yes, without doubt some people make that comment and it's empty. But, have you ever actually said or written "my thoughts and prayers are with you"? If you have you know how hard it is to say those words – they typically come from the heart and in the face of tragedy. They are an immediate response. Many of us that act don't broadcast our actions – we don't indicate where we donate funds, what meals we deliver to families, what our vote is on policy laws. To condemn everyone for using that phrase is misplaced logic. It's probably true that many politicians are overusing the phrase – but politicians in general should not be the example of the moral high ground. So to use a politician as your example already assumes the comment regarding "thoughts and prayers" comes from a selfish place.
1:14– I hear your point that presuming that "thoughts and prayers" is necessarily hollow is premature and presumtuous. With that said, I understand the sentiment that "thoughts and prayers" has become an almost autoreply without any thought or uniqueness to its application. It has become cliché. Heartfelt thoughts and prayers can and arguably should be the beginning of any response to such tragedies; however it should not and cannot be the end of our sentiments and response.
Do you do dishes in the sink? Do you like to suds up the sink? How many bubbles are in a sudsy sink? That's what the universe is: bubbles. Millions of them. Millions of bubbles–films of matter surrounding vast voids of nothing. These films of matter are made of superclusters of galaxies, which in turn are made of clusters of galaxies. And our galaxy, which alone has over 100 billion stars and several smaller galaxies orbiting it, isn't even part of a cluster. The point: your average person cannot comprehend how BIG the universe is and how insignificant we are. And THAT explains why THERE IS NO GOD! No "god" could possibly exist that could isolate and attend to our insignificance. And religion is nothing more than an exercise of one's own EGO: "It's all about ME. God cares about ME just like he does a sparrow." Religion is also a great tool to manipulate people, which is just what is being done when "prayers" are substituted for action–political, vengeful, or otherwise . . . .
Ignoring all Spiritual arguments, there are two big problems with your arguments: 1) it is not logical, you have not tied size in any way to the possibility of "comprehension" about "insignificant" people and 2) your conception of God is childlike i.e., the big guy in the sky. Think of it this way, gravity affects everything (we think) in the universe and there are no known items that are far away or insignificant enough to be out of its grip. (For chatting purposes I'm ignoring quantum mechanics and the integrated theories.) You have the right to believe as you wish and post as you wish but saying the universe is too big for God to attend to the smallest is a very poor argument structurally, IMO.
9:26 again, Must be a boring Friday night huh? Me too haha, I'm just saying that conclusory statements are fun on a blog but sometimes it's great to really form a strong argument kind of like playing blog chess. Anyway have a great weekend friend, I'm off to the strip for some food.
@ 9:26 I am the individual whose paragraph you dispute, and I am writing to respond to you. By following your reasoning, I could not refute the existence of the Tooth Fairy. But the existence of the Tooth Fairy is as improbable as the existence of God. I cannot deductively prove that there is no God any more than I cannot deductively prove that there is no Tooth Fairy. One cannot prove a negative. But my inductive reasoning, fundamentally grounded in probabilities and common sense, remains strong. Also, when people send their "prayers," they aren't sending them to "gravity," quantum entanglement, or some metaphysical energy; they're sending them on the premise that there is a "conception of God [that] IS childlike" (caps emphasis added), so your criticism of me strays from the topic of discussion. In other words, you missed the point. Signed "The Tooth Fairy Agnostic" (someone who is an agnostic about Tooth Fairies b/c their existence cannot be disproved)
For all of you who are getting upset with each other based on the comments on this thread, be assured my thoughts and prayers are with you.
Guest
Anonymous
June 29, 2018 3:55 pm
Amen.
Guest
Anonymous
June 29, 2018 3:58 pm
Since Judge Elliott's resignation is effective tomorrow, and most of us are only hearing it for the first time today, does anyone happen to know how much notice she gave?
After reading yesterday's NVSCT superpriority lien decision, I wonder how 7 justices and a dozen law clerks don't know the difference between a legal claim and an equitable defense. How can you prove valid title in yourself if you can't show that the sale was properly conducted. Read the Turner case they cited; No statutory violation. Only balance equities in an equitable defense.
Chapman case from 2013 says Quiet Title claims don't have any particular elements, but each party must plead and prove his or her own claim to the property in question. Sounds like should be balancing any time QT is plead.
Interesting point about the NVSCT use of prejudice in response to legal issues. They also did this in the Southern Capital order (Mar 2018) which overturned a jury verdict (!) because no evidence of prejudice. If sale is bad as a matter of law, evidence of prejudice is not needed. Alternatively, prejudice would be presumed because how can you possibly know who may have bid.
Guest
Anonymous
June 29, 2018 6:31 pm
10:48 To get to QT, you have to prove you actually have interest based on a valid sale. District court properly found that the sale was not valid. End of story.
The West Sunset opinion is a veritable mess. I am really starting to belief that the NVSCT has no idea what it is doing on these superpriority cases and is just alternating one for the bank, one for the investor, one for the bank, one of the investor.
Guest
Anonymous
June 29, 2018 9:04 pm
All HOA foreclosure cases are fraud sales and Nevada Supreme Court is cleaning its own mess SFR decision from 2014
2:14 is part of a troubling trend–attorneys who think a judge is a disaster in a certain court, so in order to get rid of such judge it is suggested we vote them to a higher court.
8:05 has a point. Tell me at least 4:01, 4:09, 4:13, and 4:17 aren't the same person. If you want to manufacture conversation on a given viewpoint you should try to make it less obvious. Do better.
Can we retire "thoughts and prayers" please?
I struggle with this because it is ridiculous to keep saying it, but at the same time I am thinking about those people. I don't want it to be forgotten. It's only been 9 months since the shooting here and it feels like people (outside Vegas) have forgotten. There are still people recovering and spending time in hospitals. They are going to have to deal with PTSD this week with all the fireworks.
But I agree we need more than thoughts and prayers–if you haven't heard it yet and can stomach it, listen to the CNN interview from one of the reporters at the paper yesterday: https://deadline.com/2018/06/newspaper-shooting-cnn-allows-expletive-taped-interview-witness-1202419414/
at the risk of getting attacked today on this blog I'll say something that's not politically correct. I'm all for "thoughts and prayers." @ 8:23 – "thoughts and prayers" are a sentiment offered with an intent to comfort and convey that person or situation is in their thoughts and prayers. Why do we need to retire that? I've seen this lots – people assume that "thoughts and prayers" means that is all being offered. Many of us actually do pray – but we also donate money, protest, etc. Action is ideal, but there is nothing wrong with additionally offering "thoughts and prayers." I've also been on the receiving end of "thoughts and prayers" after an exceptionally tragic event and it brought me comfort. It's politically correct at this time to say – action, not "thoughts and prayers." What's wrong with both? Also- some people are unable to offer anything other than their prayers.
Simple communication, a person hears something bad, saying nothing is poor form, must say something, what would you have them say "f$%# you"?
Also, some people are very religious and do believe in the power of Prayer, so let them express their sentiments as they wish. 9:31 much more articulate but just a quick vote for continuing the usage
That's just not true, 9:31 AM. When a politician or public figure conveys "thoughts and prayers" publicly following a shooting, it is nothing more than peacocking and preening. It is the ultimate political whited sepluchre, and very much worthy of our derision and scorn. If these politicians really cared (they don't), they would, in the immediate moments after a shooting, be making personal calls and offering personal assistance in those calls. Then, they would take concrete steps in public policy to reduce the frequency of these incidents. But that's not what they do. They want to use the shooting to impress all of us about how compassionate (and religious) they are.
I am religious, but I say, with righteous indignation, to every politician who tweets or press releases "thoughts and prayers" – FUCK YOUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS.
9:50 you are arguing as though Prayer is doing nothing or not "concrete" or "nothing more than peacocking." The point of some is that Praying IS doing something and that it IS "concrete." To convince the other side of an argument or make your point better, you must understand their position. Perhaps your argument should start with your underlying premise that Prayer is doing "nothing," and proceed from there.
9:50 AM here. I never said that about prayer. I believe in prayer, which is part of why these fake "thoughts and prayers" are so offensive. They are blasphemous. Imagine a man sitting on the side of the road, starving. You could walk up to him and offer him food and provide a solution to his crisis. Instead, you walk up to him and do nothing more than say, "You are in my thoughts and prayers, dear sir!" You say it loudly enough for everyone nearby to hear and then nod in self-assurance and walk away. That is fake religion, and fake Christianity, just like the bullshit "thoughts and prayers" from politicians after shootings.
God expects us to do more than passively have "thoughts and prayers." That politicians don't actually do anything substantive or concrete betrays their true insincere motive when offering "thoughts and prayers."
9:50 Thank you, 10:01 here, I have thought for awhile that the blog has become a series of people writing snarky little comments toward each other and not using the blog for real discourse. Your response was polite, civil, and to the point. I actually do see what you're saying and yes God does expect us to do more. Thanks for uplifting the blog and I am recommitting myself to not just make snarky comments (I have a few times) but to try to be more productive among people that, were I to see them face to face, I would surely act politely.
Why is it so horrible (other than the fact it is politically fashionable) to demonize someone's sincere statement that thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families of this tragedy? I get that people think "thoughts and prayers" somehow stops people from taking further concrete action. But, in this case, we are simply dealing with an evil person. No gun control law would have stopped this. There is no concrete action to take. It was a legally purchased pump-shotgun. So, rather than twist this into something it isn't, maybe pull the indignation back a skosh.
Statements of absolute certainty about the affects of gun legislation when none have been tested is why thoughts and prayers ring hollow.
@ 9:50 – your comments make the leap that "politicians" aren't making calls or trying to effectuate changes. You presume that all that is being offered is a pointless "thoughts and prayers" comment. Yes, without doubt some people make that comment and it's empty. But, have you ever actually said or written "my thoughts and prayers are with you"? If you have you know how hard it is to say those words – they typically come from the heart and in the face of tragedy. They are an immediate response. Many of us that act don't broadcast our actions – we don't indicate where we donate funds, what meals we deliver to families, what our vote is on policy laws. To condemn everyone for using that phrase is misplaced logic. It's probably true that many politicians are overusing the phrase – but politicians in general should not be the example of the moral high ground. So to use a politician as your example already assumes the comment regarding "thoughts and prayers" comes from a selfish place.
1:14– I hear your point that presuming that "thoughts and prayers" is necessarily hollow is premature and presumtuous. With that said, I understand the sentiment that "thoughts and prayers" has become an almost autoreply without any thought or uniqueness to its application. It has become cliché. Heartfelt thoughts and prayers can and arguably should be the beginning of any response to such tragedies; however it should not and cannot be the end of our sentiments and response.
Do you do dishes in the sink? Do you like to suds up the sink? How many bubbles are in a sudsy sink? That's what the universe is: bubbles. Millions of them. Millions of bubbles–films of matter surrounding vast voids of nothing. These films of matter are made of superclusters of galaxies, which in turn are made of clusters of galaxies. And our galaxy, which alone has over 100 billion stars and several smaller galaxies orbiting it, isn't even part of a cluster. The point: your average person cannot comprehend how BIG the universe is and how insignificant we are. And THAT explains why THERE IS NO GOD! No "god" could possibly exist that could isolate and attend to our insignificance. And religion is nothing more than an exercise of one's own EGO: "It's all about ME. God cares about ME just like he does a sparrow." Religion is also a great tool to manipulate people, which is just what is being done when "prayers" are substituted for action–political, vengeful, or otherwise . . . .
Ignoring all Spiritual arguments, there are two big problems with your arguments: 1) it is not logical, you have not tied size in any way to the possibility of "comprehension" about "insignificant" people and 2) your conception of God is childlike i.e., the big guy in the sky. Think of it this way, gravity affects everything (we think) in the universe and there are no known items that are far away or insignificant enough to be out of its grip. (For chatting purposes I'm ignoring quantum mechanics and the integrated theories.) You have the right to believe as you wish and post as you wish but saying the universe is too big for God to attend to the smallest is a very poor argument structurally, IMO.
Santa clause better give me something good. That is childlike. It is also make believe like God.
9:26 again, Must be a boring Friday night huh? Me too haha, I'm just saying that conclusory statements are fun on a blog but sometimes it's great to really form a strong argument kind of like playing blog chess. Anyway have a great weekend friend, I'm off to the strip for some food.
@ 9:26 I am the individual whose paragraph you dispute, and I am writing to respond to you. By following your reasoning, I could not refute the existence of the Tooth Fairy. But the existence of the Tooth Fairy is as improbable as the existence of God. I cannot deductively prove that there is no God any more than I cannot deductively prove that there is no Tooth Fairy. One cannot prove a negative. But my inductive reasoning, fundamentally grounded in probabilities and common sense, remains strong. Also, when people send their "prayers," they aren't sending them to "gravity," quantum entanglement, or some metaphysical energy; they're sending them on the premise that there is a "conception of God [that] IS childlike" (caps emphasis added), so your criticism of me strays from the topic of discussion. In other words, you missed the point. Signed "The Tooth Fairy Agnostic" (someone who is an agnostic about Tooth Fairies b/c their existence cannot be disproved)
For all of you who are getting upset with each other based on the comments on this thread, be assured my thoughts and prayers are with you.
Amen.
Since Judge Elliott's resignation is effective tomorrow, and most of us are only hearing it for the first time today, does anyone happen to know how much notice she gave?
I have known for weeks. I don't even practice in family court or know her, so I don't think it has been a secret.
It's been an open secret for weeks now
After reading yesterday's NVSCT superpriority lien decision, I wonder how 7 justices and a dozen law clerks don't know the difference between a legal claim and an equitable defense. How can you prove valid title in yourself if you can't show that the sale was properly conducted. Read the Turner case they cited; No statutory violation. Only balance equities in an equitable defense.
Chapman case from 2013 says Quiet Title claims don't have any particular elements, but each party must plead and prove his or her own claim to the property in question. Sounds like should be balancing any time QT is plead.
I get it now, "we can make it up as we go along because there are no rules." Just what we need, more soft-minded superpriority nonsense.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Interesting point about the NVSCT use of prejudice in response to legal issues. They also did this in the Southern Capital order (Mar 2018) which overturned a jury verdict (!) because no evidence of prejudice. If sale is bad as a matter of law, evidence of prejudice is not needed. Alternatively, prejudice would be presumed because how can you possibly know who may have bid.
10:48 To get to QT, you have to prove you actually have interest based on a valid sale. District court properly found that the sale was not valid. End of story.
The West Sunset opinion is a veritable mess. I am really starting to belief that the NVSCT has no idea what it is doing on these superpriority cases and is just alternating one for the bank, one for the investor, one for the bank, one of the investor.
All HOA foreclosure cases are fraud sales and Nevada Supreme Court is cleaning its own mess SFR decision from 2014
just read decision and yes Nevada Supreme is out of control… nothing about due process… most incompetent court in US
Yes, please vote for E. Cadish for Supreme Court. Woman cannot find a vowel in real estate, clueless.
She goes to her husband for advice. He was a mortgage man.
Wait, what? Seriously? That is scary.
My investor is E.F.Hutton, and EF Hutton says….
2:14 is part of a troubling trend–attorneys who think a judge is a disaster in a certain court, so in order to get rid of such judge it is suggested we vote them to a higher court.
We are supporting Jerry Tao. He is more experienced, and smart.
Here we go again. The same anti-Cadish bullshit poster talking to himself. At least try to space out the comments to make it look believable.
Thank you, Cadish.
8:05 has a point. Tell me at least 4:01, 4:09, 4:13, and 4:17 aren't the same person. If you want to manufacture conversation on a given viewpoint you should try to make it less obvious. Do better.
Yes. Do better, Judge.
Louis schneider weighs in. Smart, get someone that doesn't practice in that area of law.