The Nevada Supreme Court said the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline can go forward with a hearing about Washoe County Family Court Judge Charles Weller over his comment that a woman’s place was the kitchen and bedroom. [Nevada Appeal]
UNLV immigration lawyer Laura Barrera shows its not easy trying to reunite parent with child in the ICE maze. [RJ; TNI]
Here are opposing opinion pieces from Elizabeth Thompson and John L. Smith regarding MGM’s legal strategy of suing the victims of the October 1 shooting. [TNI]
For those of you catching up, here is Aaron Ford talking about his college arrests. [LasVegasNow]
Honestly can't believe that Ralston hasn't said a word about the Ford arrest/tax lien debacle. This, from a person that was glad he published the Laxalt evaluation. But what's good for one party is good for the other. Unless he's just hopelessly biased.
Fair, but unless and until there is some evidence that Sen. Ford concealed his arrest record from the Board of Bar Examiners at the time he applied for admission to the Bar, this is just rank speculation.
Sebelius might as well have been out hanging "Vote for Ford" signs on fences.
Ford is very well-protected and well-funded. A few tax liens and arrests won't derail his campaign. People with lots of power and money have decided; he is our next AG. Ford is untouchable. This guy is not Yvonne Atkinson gates or Lynette Boggs or Ricki Barlow.
Wait – Ford's tax liens were incurred while he was practicing law. Coupled with the four college arrests, it's a pattern that shows a serious lack of judgment. Ralston's failure to even comment is telling. Replace the name Ford with Laxalt and Ralston would have fired off a tweetstorm for the ages.
The irony. Ralston blasts the LVRJ for protecting Adelson's friends. Hmmm… But, when one of Ralston's friends is newsworthy he does the same thing. Man, I wish we had an independent news source here in town….
Pretty sure the point being made by 10:59 and 3:47 is that Ford has powerful allies and will be difficult to take down. A few college arrests and tax liens won't be enough to make his powerful friends abandon him. And the tears were a great strategy. Unless something much much worse is discovered and confirmed, Ford is going to coast to victory. Politics in Nevada!
If an attorney says he's going to represent a party in a case, but then never formally appears, missing several deadlines (NRCP 16.1) in the process… At what point can you just deal with the party directly? If ever? (If it matters, the party originally appeared pro se, and we've sent several letters and emails asking for an appearance, but they have been ignored.)
11:32 encapsulates our approach. We write a letter pursuant to NRPC 3.5A stating that we will be moving forward and that it is our understanding that you are not representing said party.
Filing a motion is a dick move. They haven't actually appeared, they missed deadlines for a non client who they never actually appeared for. Granted, they could spend 15 seconds sending you an email stating that they dont represent that client. But forcing them to appear on a motion is personal retribution and doesn't help your client.
Guest
Anonymous
July 30, 2018 6:13 pm
Will Ford's crying help him or hurt him? It destroyed Musky's candidacy, but today it might make him seem more human. But does Eglet approve of a man breaking down in public?
I've never come across Hansen so I am not commenting on him personally, but I have known several IAP members, and every single one has been a crazy person. Like, sovereign citizen "but the gold fringes!" level crazy.
Independents are not crazy. IAP members are not "independents" though.
Guest
Anonymous
July 30, 2018 6:57 pm
The Weller matter does not make a lot of sense to me.
He was chairing a Domestic Violence Task Force. So, ostensibly, it would appear he is significantly concerned with Women's issues, or at the very least the people who appointed him perceived that he is quite sensitive and committed to those issues.
At such a meeting he discussed how the Feds. have gutted funding for the Violence Against Women programs, etc. It is uncontroverted that he discussed this.
It is likewise uncontroverted that he (quite unwisely) stated that the Feds. were trying to put women back in their place, and that one of the committee members then asked something like "and what is out place?"
It is also uncontroverted that he(quite idiotically)stated "the bedroom and kitchen."
That, of course, is all really stupid and insensitive, and these subjects should never give rise to jokes or attempts at humor.
But that all being understood, it seems clear that when Weller flippantly(and quite inappropriately) said "the bedroom and the kitchen" he was not expressing his own views, but the views of the budget cutters. Again, this dialogue had been preceded by "they"(the Feds.) are trying to put women in their place, and therefore it is Federal budget cutters, and not Weller, who thinks their place is the bedroom and kitchen.
So, if they want to barbecue Weller for being really insensitive, really inappropriate, and extremely unprofessional and of conduct unbefitting a judge, based on the idiotic and highly offensive way he handled all this, then fine.
But to up the ante, and create a seemingly false narrative that he, rather than the budget cutters, thinks women's place is the bedroom and kitchen, seems intellectually disingenuous.
Unless, of course, he really is a sexist individual who does in fact holds those views, yet somehow bluffed his way to becoming the head of a committee designed to protect women. It would be like Heinrich Himmler bluffing his way into becoming head of a committee centered around religious inclusion and tolerance. Theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.
I tend to agree. But as these two more lengthy posts indicate, why did he not immediately clarify that it was a bad joke, and start strongly apologizing?
He did not go on a diatribe; he made a sarcastic comment (believing he was mocking what the powers that be that he was fighting would say). But in a Gotcha culture, he got snagged by a Gotcha. He should have been required to apologize (which he has done REPEATEDLY).
Do you know why Judge Weller was chosen to chair the Task Force? Because he is deeply invested in womens' issues. Remember this is a Judge who was SHOT by a litigant who believed that Weller was too sympathetic to the wife. Unlike Susan Johnson who held a litigant's liberty in her hands while she repeatedly inappropriately joked, Weller made one sarcastic comment while fighting for the very issue that his detractors now wish to attack him. How many apologies is enough? When can we look at the body of work of an individual instead of 4 words taken out of context?
To build upon what 9:24 said, Judge Weller is deeply investing in domestic violence and protection of women:
"Since the shooting, Weller has studied domestic violence and court security extensively. He received a master’s degree in judicial studies writing about domestic violence and a doctorate in judicial studies writing about court security. 'I wanted to understand it. I wanted to understand what happened and put it into context,' he said. 'That’s the reason I started to study more about domestic violence, because in my mind this was clearly an act of domestic violence. And I wanted to also learn about court security, and I find what happened to me was typical of court security incidents.'"
On the surface, the posts by 9:24 and 9:33 would satisfy me that Weller's remark was simply an ill-conceived joke, and there is no necessity for discipline.
But we must not lose sight of the fact the complaint from the commission details how he was given opportunities to clarify the remarks at the time, and made no effort to apologize and explain that it was simply a bad joke.
These days, the stakes are real high. Once someone says something they should not have ,and instantly regrets, they need to start explaining and apologizing immediately.
Guest
Anonymous
July 30, 2018 7:18 pm
11:57–do we really need to get into the weeds on all that, and deconstruct it to that extent?
If he uttered the offensive phrase, he is responsible and his true motivations may not be critical.
I would allow that I suppose one could credibly argue for some degree of minor mitigation by insisting it was either a really stupid, incredibly insensitive, and even cruel, attempt at humor and/or a commentary on the view of those cutting the funds for the program, rather than being his actual views.
But what we should not forget is that the record would appear to indicate that at the committee meeting he had more than ample opportunity to clear things up, and did not. Once the one member said "and what is out place", and the judge responded "the kitchen and the bedroom", he should have immediately gone into over-drive and apologized profusely and made it clear that he was referring to the priorities of those gutting the budget, and not of course his own views.
But, apparently, he did nothing to clarify matters at that time. In fact, the statement of charges also makes it appear that it was possible he was attempting to wield undue influence after the fact to hopefully short-circuit matters.
But in things like this sort, the devil is in the details, and hopefully the true state of affairs will emerge at the hearing, and that any sanctions are appropriate and proportionate with the Commission's findings.
But I would reiterate that I'm not sure I agree that his intent must be absolutely determined, or that his intent is essentially dispositive of the issue. People are accountable for what they say–often regardless of why they said it.
And hopefully the reference to Heinrich Himmler's is his first and last appearance in this blog, although unfortunately, a few people have resorted to calling others Hitler or Stalin on this blog when they don't agree with them. Glad to see that this type of extreme hyperbole is happening less and less.
I'm not Jewish and I abhor political correctness but I must say, I don't like ANY comparisons of typical negative actions with Nazis, etc. Hopefully, no actions can ever come close to those atrocities, it just makes me cringe when I see a talking head on TV compare one to Hitler, etc.
Deal with it. It will make understanding the toilet this country is going down much better. Makes me sick, but unfortunately, it's already here. The most important thing any of us can do is vote in November.
Guest
Anonymous
July 30, 2018 8:52 pm
Nothing better than Elizabeth "E" Thompson, with her BA in English Lit. from the Harvard of the West, offering legal hot takes about procedure and liability in the MGM case. If I may, it's ethically acceptable for MGM to make its case in court, but the victims of the shooting should pass on the same because MGM is surely not liable.
Great stuff. Thankfully the free price tag perfectly matched the value of the article.
^This. The Independent routinely has good stuff, but this had no intellectual rigor whatsoever. The worst of many lowlights was the argument that "MGM wouldn't be liable if somebody shot somebody in one of their hotels." Well, they would be if they saw him wandering around with a gun saying he was going to shoot somebody. Point being, this is an issue for a judge and a jury. I really think the reporters there do very good work, and "E" should stick to editing their work.
That is the look of a man fresh out of fucks to give.
Guest
Anonymous
July 30, 2018 9:50 pm
Congratulations to Rudy Giuliani for rehashing the airtight legal argument that collusion isn't a crime. Go figure that all this time Mueller and his team have been collecting evidence for a crime that doesn't exist. Silly federal prosecutors. Case closed.
August 2018 Nevada Lawyer has 9 pages of attorney discipline. Also, hey, possession of a narcotic now reflects adversely on lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
Thanks for pointing this out, otherwise I wouldn't have seen it. Really well written letter on the current issues with the State Bar and how it can change them.
Honestly can't believe that Ralston hasn't said a word about the Ford arrest/tax lien debacle. This, from a person that was glad he published the Laxalt evaluation. But what's good for one party is good for the other. Unless he's just hopelessly biased.
Or maybe there's a difference between things that happened during college and things that happened while one was admitted to practice law.
Unless those college-era things might've had an impact on one's ability to practice law in the first place.
Fair, but unless and until there is some evidence that Sen. Ford concealed his arrest record from the Board of Bar Examiners at the time he applied for admission to the Bar, this is just rank speculation.
Sebelius might as well have been out hanging "Vote for Ford" signs on fences.
Ford is very well-protected and well-funded. A few tax liens and arrests won't derail his campaign. People with lots of power and money have decided; he is our next AG. Ford is untouchable. This guy is not Yvonne Atkinson gates or Lynette Boggs or Ricki Barlow.
Wait – Ford's tax liens were incurred while he was practicing law. Coupled with the four college arrests, it's a pattern that shows a serious lack of judgment. Ralston's failure to even comment is telling. Replace the name Ford with Laxalt and Ralston would have fired off a tweetstorm for the ages.
Ford did not pay his taxes for years, but he had the money to pay for an expensive house and get his PHD. Just, wow. We want that as the AG.
The irony. Ralston blasts the LVRJ for protecting Adelson's friends. Hmmm… But, when one of Ralston's friends is newsworthy he does the same thing. Man, I wish we had an independent news source here in town….
Laxalt had a college-era DUI. Seems both politicians have grown up, learned a lesson, and moved forward.
But you'd agree if he had four DUIs it would be a bit more concerning?
If he had 4 DUIs while practicing law, that'd be one thing, but he didn't. And now you're mixing facts. Ford didn't have 4 DUI arrests.
10:59: And the reason you included Yvonne Atkinson Gates with two people convicted of felonies is….?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/ex-commissioner-faces-probe/
He's also not Dario Herrera, Lance Malone, Erin Kenny, or Mary Kincaid-Chauncy. He's also not Elizabeth Halverson.
And you are setting the bar really low…
Pretty sure the point being made by 10:59 and 3:47 is that Ford has powerful allies and will be difficult to take down. A few college arrests and tax liens won't be enough to make his powerful friends abandon him. And the tears were a great strategy. Unless something much much worse is discovered and confirmed, Ford is going to coast to victory. Politics in Nevada!
3:43: I guess you couldn't find where anything came of it.
4:45 is right. Both Yvonne Atkinson Gates and her husband, (former) Judge Lee Gates, abruptly resigned while under investigation.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/judge-decides-to-leave-bench/
Well protected? Sounds like the mafia.
Another question for the peanut gallery:
If an attorney says he's going to represent a party in a case, but then never formally appears, missing several deadlines (NRCP 16.1) in the process… At what point can you just deal with the party directly? If ever? (If it matters, the party originally appeared pro se, and we've sent several letters and emails asking for an appearance, but they have been ignored.)
If they never formally appeared, then they haven't. Treat docs you sent them as undelivered to pro se, and restart.
IMHO file a motion with the court – I wouldn't risk without the court's blessing.
Send alleged opposing counsel letter stating you are making that move and they have 5 business days to contact you of they are still acting as counsel
11:32 encapsulates our approach. We write a letter pursuant to NRPC 3.5A stating that we will be moving forward and that it is our understanding that you are not representing said party.
Filing a motion is a dick move. They haven't actually appeared, they missed deadlines for a non client who they never actually appeared for. Granted, they could spend 15 seconds sending you an email stating that they dont represent that client. But forcing them to appear on a motion is personal retribution and doesn't help your client.
Will Ford's crying help him or hurt him? It destroyed Musky's candidacy, but today it might make him seem more human. But does Eglet approve of a man breaking down in public?
Eglet's idol was Randy Mainor. Mainor cried in trial during closing argument.
That verdict was reversed (Dejesus v. Flick).
Ford cried? He should cry. He endorsed E. Cadish. His credibility went downhill with me after that.
I am going to ask again, is there a third party candidate for AG?
July 30, 2018 at 11:46 AM – Independent American Party Candidate Joel Hansen.
I spelled Muskie incorrectly. Sorry. Yes, Ford cried when he discussed the last 20 years of his life when he was raising three sons and a nephew.
I am researching Hansen.
Joel Hansen is a tough lawyer and a man true to his beliefs. I'll vote for him.
I've never come across Hansen so I am not commenting on him personally, but I have known several IAP members, and every single one has been a crazy person. Like, sovereign citizen "but the gold fringes!" level crazy.
Independents are not crazy.
Independents are not crazy. IAP members are not "independents" though.
The Weller matter does not make a lot of sense to me.
He was chairing a Domestic Violence Task Force. So, ostensibly, it would appear he is significantly concerned with Women's issues, or at the very least the people who appointed him perceived that he is quite sensitive and committed to those issues.
At such a meeting he discussed how the Feds. have gutted funding for the Violence Against Women programs, etc. It is uncontroverted that he discussed this.
It is likewise uncontroverted that he (quite unwisely) stated that the Feds. were trying to put women back in their place, and that one of the committee members then asked something like "and what is out place?"
It is also uncontroverted that he(quite idiotically)stated "the bedroom and kitchen."
That, of course, is all really stupid and insensitive, and these subjects should never give rise to jokes or attempts at humor.
But that all being understood, it seems clear that when Weller flippantly(and quite inappropriately) said "the bedroom and the kitchen" he was not expressing his own views, but the views of the budget cutters. Again, this dialogue had been preceded by "they"(the Feds.) are trying to put women in their place, and therefore it is Federal budget cutters, and not Weller, who thinks their place is the bedroom and kitchen.
So, if they want to barbecue Weller for being really insensitive, really inappropriate, and extremely unprofessional and of conduct unbefitting a judge, based on the idiotic and highly offensive way he handled all this, then fine.
But to up the ante, and create a seemingly false narrative that he, rather than the budget cutters, thinks women's place is the bedroom and kitchen, seems intellectually disingenuous.
Unless, of course, he really is a sexist individual who does in fact holds those views, yet somehow bluffed his way to becoming the head of a committee designed to protect women. It would be like Heinrich Himmler bluffing his way into becoming head of a committee centered around religious inclusion and tolerance. Theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.
I am a feminist, and I say give Weller a pass. It sounds like his comment was not malicious and it might have been a bad joke.
I tend to agree. But as these two more lengthy posts indicate, why did he not immediately clarify that it was a bad joke, and start strongly apologizing?
He should be disciplined. Sexist jokes are not acceptable. Judged are not comics.
He did not go on a diatribe; he made a sarcastic comment (believing he was mocking what the powers that be that he was fighting would say). But in a Gotcha culture, he got snagged by a Gotcha. He should have been required to apologize (which he has done REPEATEDLY).
Do you know why Judge Weller was chosen to chair the Task Force? Because he is deeply invested in womens' issues. Remember this is a Judge who was SHOT by a litigant who believed that Weller was too sympathetic to the wife. Unlike Susan Johnson who held a litigant's liberty in her hands while she repeatedly inappropriately joked, Weller made one sarcastic comment while fighting for the very issue that his detractors now wish to attack him. How many apologies is enough? When can we look at the body of work of an individual instead of 4 words taken out of context?
To build upon what 9:24 said, Judge Weller is deeply investing in domestic violence and protection of women:
"Since the shooting, Weller has studied domestic violence and court security extensively. He received a master’s degree in judicial studies writing about domestic violence and a doctorate in judicial studies writing about court security. 'I wanted to understand it. I wanted to understand what happened and put it into context,' he said. 'That’s the reason I started to study more about domestic violence, because in my mind this was clearly an act of domestic violence. And I wanted to also learn about court security, and I find what happened to me was typical of court security incidents.'"
https://www.rgj.com/story/news/crime/2016/06/12/10-years-later-reno-judge-reflects-assassination-attempt/85708968/
On the surface, the posts by 9:24 and 9:33 would satisfy me that Weller's remark was simply an ill-conceived joke, and there is no necessity for discipline.
But we must not lose sight of the fact the complaint from the commission details how he was given opportunities to clarify the remarks at the time, and made no effort to apologize and explain that it was simply a bad joke.
These days, the stakes are real high. Once someone says something they should not have ,and instantly regrets, they need to start explaining and apologizing immediately.
11:57–do we really need to get into the weeds on all that, and deconstruct it to that extent?
If he uttered the offensive phrase, he is responsible and his true motivations may not be critical.
I would allow that I suppose one could credibly argue for some degree of minor mitigation by insisting it was either a really stupid, incredibly insensitive, and even cruel, attempt at humor and/or a commentary on the view of those cutting the funds for the program, rather than being his actual views.
But what we should not forget is that the record would appear to indicate that at the committee meeting he had more than ample opportunity to clear things up, and did not. Once the one member said "and what is out place", and the judge responded "the kitchen and the bedroom", he should have immediately gone into over-drive and apologized profusely and made it clear that he was referring to the priorities of those gutting the budget, and not of course his own views.
But, apparently, he did nothing to clarify matters at that time. In fact, the statement of charges also makes it appear that it was possible he was attempting to wield undue influence after the fact to hopefully short-circuit matters.
But in things like this sort, the devil is in the details, and hopefully the true state of affairs will emerge at the hearing, and that any sanctions are appropriate and proportionate with the Commission's findings.
But I would reiterate that I'm not sure I agree that his intent must be absolutely determined, or that his intent is essentially dispositive of the issue. People are accountable for what they say–often regardless of why they said it.
And hopefully the reference to Heinrich Himmler's is his first and last appearance in this blog, although unfortunately, a few people have resorted to calling others Hitler or Stalin on this blog when they don't agree with them. Glad to see that this type of extreme hyperbole is happening less and less.
I'm not Jewish and I abhor political correctness but I must say, I don't like ANY comparisons of typical negative actions with Nazis, etc. Hopefully, no actions can ever come close to those atrocities, it just makes me cringe when I see a talking head on TV compare one to Hitler, etc.
Deal with it. It will make understanding the toilet this country is going down much better. Makes me sick, but unfortunately, it's already here. The most important thing any of us can do is vote in November.
Nothing better than Elizabeth "E" Thompson, with her BA in English Lit. from the Harvard of the West, offering legal hot takes about procedure and liability in the MGM case. If I may, it's ethically acceptable for MGM to make its case in court, but the victims of the shooting should pass on the same because MGM is surely not liable.
Great stuff. Thankfully the free price tag perfectly matched the value of the article.
^This. The Independent routinely has good stuff, but this had no intellectual rigor whatsoever. The worst of many lowlights was the argument that "MGM wouldn't be liable if somebody shot somebody in one of their hotels." Well, they would be if they saw him wandering around with a gun saying he was going to shoot somebody. Point being, this is an issue for a judge and a jury. I really think the reporters there do very good work, and "E" should stick to editing their work.
So why then is JLS getting a free pass for writing a Point/ Counterpoint editorial?
Just saw the Nevada Lawyer article about the swearing in of the Board of Governors (page 34) – Coffing in shorts cracked me up …
That is the look of a man fresh out of fucks to give.
Congratulations to Rudy Giuliani for rehashing the airtight legal argument that collusion isn't a crime. Go figure that all this time Mueller and his team have been collecting evidence for a crime that doesn't exist. Silly federal prosecutors. Case closed.
Giuliani says Senator Ford committed no crimes.
August 2018 Nevada Lawyer has 9 pages of attorney discipline. Also, hey, possession of a narcotic now reflects adversely on lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
The Stan-off is over.
That's Stantastic!
Page 7 of this month's Nevada Lawyer was the most interesting and useful thing published this month.
Thanks for pointing this out, otherwise I wouldn't have seen it. Really well written letter on the current issues with the State Bar and how it can change them.