- Quickdraw McLaw
- 80 Comments
- 437 Views
- Today is the day we find out whether the Muni Court race will go to Almase or Campbell. Any last minute predictions?
- From a press release from the Supreme Court:
Governor Brian Sandoval has signed SB 377 creating the Nevada Right to Counsel Commission culminating a 10 year effort by the Supreme Court of Nevada to improve the delivery of indigent defense services in Nevada. Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael A. Cherry will serve as a nonvoting member of the 13-person Commission, which will conduct a study to determine the issues relating to the representation of indigent persons. The Commission will benefit from information learned by the Supreme Court since 2007 when it created its own Indigent Defense Commission, with Justice Cherry serving as chair of that commission. An indigent person is anyone charged with a public offense unable to afford legal representation. “Everyone in our state deserves an attorney regardless of their ability to pay for that representation,” Chief Justice Cherry said. “Thanks to the Governor and the Legislature, this Commission will create the standards needed to create a statewide system especially in our rural communities. It is time we did this and I am pleased we’re moving forward.” The Commission will look at the caseload and workload of defense counsel, minimum standards for legal representation of indigent defendants, and how to fund a statewide indigent defense system. A total of $230,000 has been appropriated to the Supreme Court for expenses related to the Commission’s work.
The race will be close. If Almase wins then I predict it will be a sh##**t show for most criminal defense attorneys as they all supported Cambpell. Glad I don't practice there and I keep to Pecos where all the judges are mean, regardless of how much money you give them.
No one cares. Attorneys were up in arms over the mailer, but most have moved on at this point. I'd be surprised any actually went out to vote. Most wanting to vote did so during early voting, well before the uproar.
I'm not sure who will win but boy will I be glad when it's over.
****MUNI COURT DEPARTMENT 3 WRITE-IN CAMPAIGN****
Vote for "BK HOTTIE"
Unless you're willing to reveal the identity of BK HOTTIE, I refuse to vote for her.
Yeah @8:12, who in the hell is the BK HOTTIE? Come on brother, I still need to get out there and vote.
Please don't feed the BK hottie troll. It's a very tired joke that wasn't funny to begin with.
Lets be honest– most of us could care less about this race. Muni Court is like NASCAR and hockey– we only care when there is carnage, fighting or both.
@8:36 I like the way you think son.
Agreed.
I disagree on hockey
More Alverson.
NO! MORE MICHELE FIORE!!!! I VOTE FOR FIORE!!!!
@9:56 I agree with you on voting for Michele Fiore. I believe she would make a great Councilwoman. And not bad to look at either.
Fiore is nuts. I am supporting Ross. Fiore is a dip shit, too.
Fiore wins by a landslide. She's absolutely nuts, but she will out campaign anyone.
Michele Fiore is to "would make a great Councilwoman" and "not bad to look at" what puppies are to stomach cancer.
I really feel sorry for the trolls who find Fiore attractive in any sense.You must really have something nasty waiting for you at home if you find her in any way desirable.
I think you are jealous! You have nothing at home and it drives your crazy. I feel for you.
Dude, even if true, I would far rather have nothing at home than spend a single second with Fiore. There ain't enough liquor in the world to drink her even marginally acceptable.
She is better looking than Gina Bonjovi.
@10:20 Gina Bonjovi has my vote for way more hotter then Fiore.
My vote is Fiore as hotter. That is a no for Gina.
@10:44 I agree with you on Fiore being hotter then Gina. Michele has super nice, you know.
Tracts of land?
Still amazed that anyone can include the the term attractive or any variant thereof in the same sentence (or even same paragraph) as Fiore. Some of you people have incredibly low (or even no) standards.
11:36 – excellent Monty Python reference.
2:45 – fear not as they are joking.
Okay, I'm in for Fiore, however, Almase or Campbell? Anyone on this blog have a good argument for either one?
I was going to support Almase, but I voted for Campbell. Campbell I know, and I like. She has been a DA a long time. Respected. Almase seems to weird for me.
Oh FFS, "give me a Nell Carter break." This has been discussed here ad nauseam. If you need arguments for either one go read the back and forth blog posts between the Campbell and Almase camps. But please, I beg of you, for all that is good and holy, don't get them started today. Again. Blech.
If you need to know as of 10:05 today who to vote for, you aren't going to vote.
10:18–you must mean she seems "too weird to me" not "to weird."
It's "to" as in going to the store, to court, to the movies, to Europe.
It's "too" as in too fat, too old, too salty, too expensive, etc.
2:27, get a fucking life.
6:36 if you don't want your grammar errors called out, go somewhere other than a lawyers' blog.
2:27 PM and 7:36 PM, I agree with 6:36 PM. Get a fucking life.
The Alamse/Campbell race really stole the AP thunder. More AP!
Almase*
I'd say 60% Campbell to 40% Almase. I live in Henderson so the Marz/Cox city council race has my attention. Marz will win 55-45 is my prediction.
Dear OBC-
Rob Graham apparently had complaints and issues for quite a while before you went to Court in early December to appoint Jason & Brandy to take over the practice.
Before Graham's office went "dark" in early December, he was sued by at least one client. Where were you then OBC?
OBC please answer the questions of what you knew and when you knew it?
Respectfully,
My trust account was $19
out of balance and OBC beat me up
like an expense account rent a car.
As someone who turned myself in for having my Trust Account out of balance because I thought it was the right thing to do, let me go on record. ABSOLUTELY NEVER EVER EVER TURN YOURSELF IN. The days of the State Bar caring more about making it right than having pelts on the wall are long gone (well gone since the Stan Regime arrived). Do not cooperate with the OBC. Do not think that mitigating the damage will have any effect on your case. Do not think that the OBC's goal is to protect the public.
Yeah, they will lie to your face. Bunch of a-holes. You can thank your SP and Hardesty for that. Someone please run against them. They are tired.
Why was your trust account out of balance though? If you turned yourself in for a real crime, I don't think the "go easy on me, I turned myself in" card would carry much weight. If it was "oh, haha, I accidentally wrote a check from the account with the period in the wrong place but then I immediately put money back into the account to fix the problem," then screw them.
Bank errors never happen. OBC sucks, so do the BOGS. F the bar. This is why I avoid the bar like the plague. No monetary contributions to their charities; no attendance to the bar convention; no pro bono work. I am done.
12:18 The answer is that a deposit to the General Account and IOLTA Account went in together. Somehow a settlement check got in with the General Deposit. Didn't get caught until reconciling bank statements at the end of the month. No client complaint. OBC is discussing suspension. Yeah they suck.
@12:47:
OBC is horrible. They are more concerned with trophies on the wall than "protecting the public." Several of the prosecutors lose sight of their purpose and take cases personally without regard to purpose or objective discretion.
BOG and the Bar are also horrible. That starts with Kim Farmer who has gone past her shelf life. The BOG needs new blood too. So, someone, please run! #MNV-BGA
Even though OBC and BOG are horrible that doesn't mean you abandon pro bono. Suck it up and try to make the world a better place.
Agree. Continue to do Pro Bono. And to continue to show professionalism to your colleagues and clients. Its too late to run for BOG this go-round. But they need to clean house at the State Bar, starting the Kim Sycophant Farmer. Yes Kim, we know you read the blog and have people bring you the comments (since one of your minions personally told me that you have this person bring you the comments).
Go after dishonest lawyers all day long, go after grossly negligent (e.g. "I turned my trust account over to my secretary and didn't look at the bank statements for six months") lawyers all day long, but what purpose is served by spending resources chasing down every human error that might be made, particularly if no harm resulted to a client? I don't get it. A complete waste of money and effort, and a needless headache for the lawyers involved.
I've seen this at a lot of low-level places that somehow have a lot of power but only semi-competent oversight. They come up with some issue that they think is super important to crack down on, and then they try to fit everything possible into that category, then they punish everyone they've lumped in the category to the furthest extent of the law, and then when they get called on their mistakes they to go great lengths trying to justify them with whatever excuse they can muster. Forgive me if I sound like Justice Gorsuch, but sometimes the "designated experts" are actually just DMV workers with even more power over your lives.
Criminal defense attorney here. +1 for Almase. I sense she'll be more deferential to my clients post-election to counter the backlash.
Prediction. Close Race. Almase pulls it out 52.5% to 47.5%
Campbell has more money and ran a better, and more honorable campaign, and looks great on signage. Also, Almase lost some support with the whole celebrity endorsement debacle.
However that whole controversy was only seen by the relatively few people who still read the RJ–either on line or paper copy, and the relatively few people that still watch local newscasts.
However, Almase's mailers, attacking Campbell, were sent to confirmed Municipal voters, and are devastatingly effective. To us in the legal community, the assertions in the mailers are admittedly absurd. But they will resonate with many of the municipal voters–many of who are older,city dwellers, not too sophisticated, live in fear of crime(justifiably or otherwise), and will have a knee jerk reaction against any candidate portrayed a soft on crime.
Although the mailers are grossly unfair and inaccurate to the point of absurdity, they are very dramatic, graphic and histrionic–graphics of a little girl being victimized, etc. That is what will linger with many voters. They will not analyze the situation and realize how ludicrous it is to accuse a career prosecutor of being soft on crime, and lax as to releasing pedophiles and rapists onto the streets(simply because the prosecutor is married to an attorney who does some criminal defense work).
Almase's Facebook apology, as well as the supportive letter from her ex-husband, attorney Caesar Almase, can not really be viewed as particularly sincere. She knew full well she was sliming the entire defense bar, but was willing to do so in order to collect voters. Her attack on the defense bar was not simply a statement she blurted out off the cuff and without reflection. That could be forgiven. Instead, this mailer was planned for days or weeks in advance. She knew full well, over the course of weeks of planning, she was publicly calling the defense bar scum, but was very willing to do so, and ultimately insisted on doing so, to gain votes.
But, IMO, gain votes she did–probably an extra 5% or 7%.
Some people gain the world and lose their soul. So, she will probably win, and the system is inadvertently rewarding her for disgracing the judiciary by universally condemning the criminal defense system as existing for the purpose of endangering us by flooding the street with scummy criminals, as opposed to recognizing the vital constitutional purpose of such protections.
The fact she is a former criminal defense attorney simply adds to how disingenuous, knowingly false, outrageous and absurd her attacks are on the criminal defense bar are.
But, but, but, she sent out a mailer to the same people who got the original mailer apologizing for the original mailer! And, yes, the apology mailer will arrive the day after election day, but that's not her fault, right?
I know she apologized on Facebook(which is useless), but I was unaware she send out a mailer apologizing for it.
And, even so, as you indicate, the mailer will arrive late, or at the very last minute at best and too late to make a difference.
Plus all people will remember is the original, graphic mailers, screaming out in huge font about scum victimizing us on account of defense attorneys. The apology will be totally ineffective. It will say something like: I'm sorry if any criminal defense attorneys were offended by me repeatedly broadcasting across the valley that they are scum who endanger our life and safety merely for their own profit and warped moral compass. I actually value the vital work of the defense bar and their role in our legal system even though I have spent the last several weeks, and spent tens of thousands of dollars, to broadcast how totally scummy I think they are.
Recipients will believe the assertions of the mailers attacking the defense bar, and will merely believe she was forced to send the subsequent apology mailer.
Question for anyone who practices in LV Justice Court (or can read the rules better than I can):
JCRCP 25A(a) says that we need leave of the court to propound written discovery, except as permitted under 25A(b). 25A(b) says we can propound up to 10 interrogatories, requests for production, and RFAs without leave.
BUT… JCRCP 33(a) says that "without leave of court", any party may serve up to 40 interrogatories. JCRCP 36(c) says that a party can serve up to 40 RFAs without obtaining a written stipulation or court order. I don't see anything in JCRCP 34 about the number of requests to produce.
Am I missing something here? How many requests can we serve without getting court approval?
There have been articles and seminars on civil practice in Justice Court taught by JP Saragosa for the CCBA. I attended the class which was very good. It is probably available on DVD. There were articles in the Communique about civil practice and discovery in Justice Court. Sounds like a question to direct to an attorney law clerk in Justice Court. Off of the top of my head, I don't remember anything about this.
its 10/10/10. You need the JP to approve up to 40. youre welcome.
Easton Harris and the Rock & Roll Law Firm disbarred today, 116 RPC Violations and disappearing with half a million dollars of client money, taking loans and investments from clients. Here is the problem: temporarily suspended December 2015 and yet it took until June 2017 to resolve this case. Harris put up no defense. What is taking the SBN and Supreme Court so long to rule on these cases?
Too busy prosecuting brain farts to go after the crooks.
But to be clear, it is not all on the State Bar. The Nevada Supreme Court sat on the Harris case for 7 months. Seven months on an uncontested disbarment with 116 RPC Violations. Wanna know why things are bogged down NSC? Because you collectively are part of the problem.
C'mon, there were furnishings to pick out at their totally necessary New digs. Sure, they weren't actually doing the job they were elected to do, but kingdoms don't build themselves, you know.
Kingdoms, you mean glorified strip joint the new court house looks like.
Thank you naqvi law for the great settlement today.
I predict Almese wins by less than 100 votes. If she loses it is rigged. MAGA
As of right now Campbell has 10,594 votes to Almase's 9,792 votes. I wonder if that will hold up and how much early voting will change that.
https://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/portal/faces/home?_adf.ctrl-state=esmn2ze64_4&_afrLoop=36971677520468466
I find it hard to believe a hot pink website
After 100% of the machines have been processed, it looks like Campbell pulled it out. So did Fiore.
Jesus, Fiore is a moron
Interesting. The results seem to be in, but neither the RJ nor the Sun have ANY mention of the election or its results. Hell, reading the papers, you might not even realize that today was election day. TNI, yo.
Twitter is your friend
Bob Beers voted out in favor of a guy with no ideas (but lots of Queensridge backers). Disaster coming. Proof again that Bob Eglet gets what he wants when he wants it.
Get involved and learn to be persuasive and you will get what you want too.
Persuasive? You mean spend hundreds of thousands of dollars.
You mean pay for marketing? Spending money in politics is required. How do you get your message out if you don't spend time and money? It is not like he is paying voters.
So tell me, what are Beers' grand "ideas"? I don't have a dog in the fight, but Beers is a clown. He and Fiore are Bundyites, and are in charge of the crazy train. I can only imagine the devastation if both Beers and Fiore were on the council at the same time.
Remind me (with citation) where Beers sided with, supported, had anything to do with Bunkerville/Bundys. Fiore? Absolutely gun-toting tit-flopping nutball. But where was Beers involved with the Bundys.
Beers was a no nonsense fiscal conservative. He helped stop that stupid stadium in downtown Las Vegas. He got voted out because some voters were mad about the Badlands Golf Course development. He had a no nonsense approach to problems and it cost him. His opponent was a well financed Dem who had the unions and some angry residents behind him. The taxpayers lost a friend. It is a shame. Fiore squeaked by and really had nothing to do with Beers. Beers is a CPA and former legislator.
First, I was a at a campaign event for another candidate when the BLM roundup was ongoing, and Beers was whining about government overreach and touting Bundy as a true American hero (as I tried not to vomit in my mouth). As far as citation, try doing a Google search. This is what I discovered in 15 seconds on Google. http://beers4nevada.org/category/federal-overreach/
http://beers4nevada.org/pointing-fingers-in-the-bundyranch-affair/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bob-beers-makes-a-stroll-for-the-u-s-senate/
"Beers is a CPA and a former legislator" – And is that supposed to impress anyone? And I have seen no response re: these great "ideas" that Beers supposedly has.
So I read your link where Beers says: "Thee BLM took the matter to BLM court, which found the BLM acted in accordance with congressional instructions. Bundy appealed, and the appeals court ruled with the BLM. So Bundy owes the money. The BLM should put a lien on his bank account, just like the IRS does. The shock troop assemblage is because the new BLM director seems to be a political operative." He is not supporting any Bundy actions there. Bundys lost. They owe the money. Frankly Beers saying that a matter over money turning into armed officers (and armed citizens) clashing is right on the money. Beers never said the Bundys don't owe for the grazing fees.
As far as the great ideas, more fiscal restraint which stopped a boondoggle of a stadium downtown and which was stopping the City getting into a lawsuit over Badlands that will cost the City millions just to preserve Eglet and Schreck's views. Maybe the City/County can bail out Silverstone also.
You should have taken your lazy ass out and knocked on doors for Beers. If you like a candidate so much, then get busy and help that candidate rather than complaining on an anonymous blog after the fact.
Since when is adequate legal representation a right?! Look at what the government did to medicine! These as clowns