The Public Forum

  • Law

  • Judge Villani sticks with his decision to release murder suspect. [RJ]
  • The Las Vegas City Council approved a $560,000 settlement of a lawsuit brought by a firefighter for overtime pay. [RJ]
  • The Vagos trial is wrapping up. [Washington Times]
  • Claim against Ronaldo belongs in arbitration. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • A lawsuit seeks to stop the teacher’s union-backed initiative to raise the sales tax. [TNI]
  • Mandatory bar dues are defended as challenges pile up at the Supreme Court. [Law.com-sub. req’d.]
  • Finally, with regard to the comments about the increasing political comments on the blog, remember this is an election year. A divisive, presidential election year in which all of our local judges are running for reelection too. It is unavoidable that we are going to attract a certain number of political comments. That comes with the territory of being a local blog that permits anonymous commenting. Obviously, we are big proponents of free speech and see a genuine need for some of the discussion that is only able to take place behind the mask of anonymity. We are not big fans of junk comments that do not further the conversation. We do our best to keep the conversation flowing while allowing you to speak your mind (as long as it is workplace appropriate and non-defamatory), but we do not have the resources to moderate every comment and still allow for the type of commentary you want to have on the blog. If you have suggestions, we’re certainly open to hearing them. Thanks for your patience and your comments.
24 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 4:27 pm

3:25 here from yesterday. I want to apologize for using the term dip***t. I sincerely am sorry. I was just having a really bad day and venting. I see the tone of our blog is going downhill, and I for one, am committing to elevating it, focusing on local legal issues, and acting like a good lawyer and not a teenager venting anonymously on a blog. Once again, I really disagree with the OP, but I should have articulated my argument and will in the future.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 9:58 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I am 5:24 p.m. from yesterday, and thus I am the one who harshly criticized bloggers like 3:25 yesterday(the dip shit comment)as well as other bloggers. For starters, I myself should apologize for my didactic, somewhat sanctimonious approach to those who I believed were making political dialogue far too personal and disrespectful.

3:25 from yesterday has now weighed in again today, at 8:27.

And I for one am very impressed with 8:27 for having the intelligence, insight, self-awareness, as well as basic fairness and respect, to promptly acknowledge that he/she may have gone a little too far in allowing political differences to devolve into personal disparagement of the other person.

8:27 is someone who I would really like to meet some day(and have a brewskie or two with if they drink).

Also, 8:27 plans to meet a personal challenge that we all should undertake. There are certain matters that are so emotionally driven that we should avoid the topics if we believe matters will deteriorate into personal attacks and insults, but if we do undertake the issues that we must commit to be respectful at all times.

These topics include being Pro-Trump or Anti-Trump, as well as incendiary issues such as abortion or gun control.

I, for one, try to avoid arguing firearm issues, and I definitely avoid abortion debates. In fact, I have never witnessed a discussion between a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer that remained centered and respectful. I guess some issues are just so personal, and are so ingrained with an individual's value system, that it is simply not realistic to expect measured, objective, dispassionate, emotionally detached, and intellectually driven, discourse.

Have any of you ever witnessed, or been part of, a firearm debate, or an abortion debate, that remained levelheaded and respectful, and with zero vitriol or anger to the opposing side?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 7, 2020 12:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

And just how "genuine" can your words really be when they are posted anonymously?
Lawyers are losers

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 7, 2020 4:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The words can still be sincere and genuine, and are not necessarily rendered false and insincere, solely because someone chooses to identify the same as everyone else here–anonymous.

That said, it is true that when someone posts anonymously they often will state positons a lot more forcefully than they would otherwise, and also will sometimes assume a positon they don't actually hold, in order to get a reaction out of people and stimulate discussion.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 8, 2020 2:09 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Someone took critical thinking a little too serious! I bet you're convinced 8:21 that you really are a "Super Lawyer" & AV rated as well!
Lawyers are losers … in life

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 4:43 pm

Good for you, 8:27. Seriously. We should be giving each other the space necessary to walk back comments that, after reflection, we regret. I wish our elected representatives in Washington (both sides) would do the same.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 4:43 pm

Politics had devolved to the zero sum game with no room for compromise in the 90's. Attempts to remove President Clinton for oral sex (ok– he lied about it, so what) was the start. Now there is no room for compromise. The press and internet added a layer of insults and personal attacks that expand disagreements.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here. I'm gonna volunteer my leadership to this country. A country without leaders is like a foot without a big toe. And President Trump and Congress can't always be there to be that big toe for us. I think that we owe a big round of applause to our newest, bestest buddy, and big toes… President Trump and Congress.

#termlimits

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 5:14 pm

I've been practicing in Clark County for almost four years after having practiced in another state (not California) for the previous 16 years. I'm a civil practitioner handling business litigation matters and some insurance coverage matters.

In my estimation, members of the bench here are overwhelmingly ill-equipped for their jobs. They are, by-and-large, inexperienced in the areas of law for cases on which they sit, intellectually lazy, rude, and consistently late in just about every aspect of their work, including issuing decisions. It is also painfully obvious that certain attorneys receive favor and preference as the result of their campaign contributions – this is sickening. It is clear that here it is not a requirement that one be among the best and brightest lawyers in order to ascend to the bench in Clark County Nevada.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 5:36 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

"Welcome to the party, pal."

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 5:39 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

And they are on the Supreme, too. Run, please run for judge. I have a few people who are running now, and I am excited they are running, and I am supporting them financially.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 5:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Hey, well, as far as I’m concerned, progress peaked with frozen pizza.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 5:57 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Hah, hah, cute. I am happy too with some of the new people running, too. I am tired of the PI mafia crew who are up there. I was sad to see that some of the incumbents are unopposed.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
February 6, 2020 6:19 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You should have been here 30 years ago. We had fifteen or sixteen departments, there was no Family Court (meaning that you had to sit through 30 min. or so of uncontested divorces at the beginning of every law and motion calendar), and half of the judges were senile. What we have today is a vast improvement, overall.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 6:56 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The new judge, Trevor Atkin, seems to be better than most of the others we have.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 8:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

"intellectually lazy" describes me but fortunately I'm not a judge

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 8:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

And I make salt water as a side gig. Way more rewarding than being a bank defense lawyer.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 7, 2020 12:22 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Lawyers are losers! The numbers prove it! Math is the only language that will never lie to you.
Research the profession of being an attorney with respect to the rates of alcoholism, depression, drug addiction, divorce, stress, mental illness etc…

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 7, 2020 4:28 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I take it 4:22 is not an attorney as they call all attorneys "losers".

As to the problems 4:22 lists, those are problems that also are endured by other high stress professions–law enforcement, etc.

The factors 4:22 lists are symptons that often result from one being in such a stressful, intense profession for many years.

But 4:22 lists them as if they are already existing personality traits of the people who later on decide upon the Law as a profession.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 8, 2020 1:58 am
Reply to  Anonymous

8:28 … I am indeed an attorney! Well qualified to express the obvious with over 26 years of practice in the profession.
The realities of being a successful lawyer require all the personality traits referenced in your above post.
Moral character & ethics are just words without meaning or relevance amongst legal professionals and judges. The NSB is a joke as well!
Let's just call it what it really is counselor and leave the theoretical arguments for BS Pleadings, Complaints & Answers!
A little honesty stirs the law blog cess pool from time to time.
Enough with the "other professions are stressful too!" arguments.
Why would you choose law enforcement as an applicable comparison?
Law enforcement is right there with us in the unfulfilling life job career choice.
The worst client to defend publicly and in the courtroom is a LAWYER.
Maybe you're still wet behind the ears and your idealism has a more firm grasp on your cognitive dissonance?
Not a Boyd or Cooley Grad either!
And yes, you have my permission to use "cognitive dissonance" in your next court mandated mediation.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 7:23 pm

Rush defended slavery. I am shocked anyone can defend him winning the medal of freedom, and I don't care what curse word you call me. This is outrageous.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 8:22 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

He got the medal of freedom for saying nice things about Trump and because it trolls the libs. It's an absolute joke.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 9:53 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Make sure to watch this above reddit video tomorrow on STFU Friday. (great video btw)

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 6, 2020 11:05 pm

That is a great video and no it's not a Rick Roll. Very, very good advice! It's also great advice when "arguing" with one's wife. Men, just STFU