Chief Judge Linda Bell sent an email to staff yesterday detailing what to expect in coming months as Nevada reopens. Don’t expect any jury trials for at least 75 days. [Eighthjdcourt blog]
Governor Sisolak says Nevada will start phase 1 of reopening tomorrow. [TNI]
Some Nevada business owners have filed suit against Governor Sisolak over the stay-at-home order. [MyNews4]
Last week we went over the local primary races, but didn’t cover the Supreme Court. The Nevada Appeal has information up about the three candidates for Seat D on the Nevada Supreme Court. What are your thoughts on who should be elected to this position?
The way the current AO is drafted, the current stays remain in place for 30 days after the emergency declaration is lifted, which would mean that all previously stayed discovery would be due on the same day, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Actually, the AO stays in place for 30 days after the declaration is lifted or modified. So the declaration has been modified so arguably the last date for calculation of the tolling period might be May 9 rather than May 15, but there is also an argument that the AO still is in place until Phase 2 or later is entered. Chief Judge Bell will need to clarify.
Actually, it says Admin Order 20-13 remains in effect until thirty (30) days following the expiration of the March 12, 2020 Governor’s Emergency Declaration or until modified or rescinded by a subsequent order, whichever occurs earlier. I do not believe there has been a subsequent order modifying or rescinding and I have not seen that the Emergency Declaration has been lifted so I think discovery is still tolled.
Guest
Anonymous
May 8, 2020 6:11 pm
The Supreme Court of Nevada is inviting public comments regarding proposed changes to the July 2020 Nevada Bar Examination under ADKT 0558. The proposed modifications to the upcoming exam include eliminating the MBE, making the exam open-book, and utilizing a performance test question drafted by the Nevada Board. The deadline for comments from law school graduates and other interested individuals is Thursday (May 14).
Other states have agreed to provisional licensing pending examination. My personal thought is that the examination is simply cancelled and bar takers can take it in February 2021. There are no jobs currently in the market nor need to tinker with the Examination. To the forthcoming complaint from the Law School that these graduates were promised an opportunity for licensure, well hopefully you adequately explained to them how rough the legal world really is.
Dean Dan Dan has no faith in the intellect of its recent graduates. I would not either, looking at the people who are in the classes now. Hell no on this initiative. If you are a licensed lawyer, wake up. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals want to interfere in your profession.
I'm not at all for making the bar exam easier. But other states are doing far worse: getting rid of it completely and allowing for an apprenticeship. I'd rather have this option than those options. Open book could be a curse to applicants: they risk spending too much time going through the material and will likely not study as hard now. I was worried they wouldn't have a bar exam at all and would do what Utah did. Briefing a sigh of relief.
Mark Gibbons and your wonderful Nevada Supreme Court is behind this. Dumb down the bar. Nice play, Matk, right at retirement. Vote Pickering out. Bye, Kris.
Uh, you still have to sit for a bar exam, open book or not. You are selfish, 12:48. Trying to lie and manipulate people during a pandemic. Shame on you!
12:59, agreed. I love it how this is even being done during a pandemic, with an obscure notice to lawyers less than a week before public comment. Where is Andrew Craner? Paola Armeni on this? BOGS are supposed to protect members, bot be the Supreme Court.
I am so opposed to this. Pickering, you lost my vote. I promise you, if they grant this waiver once, it will remain. Do not trust the NSC. Who is on the BBE?
Michael E. Buckley
John P. Desmond
Dawn Ellerbrock
Dean J. Gould
Hon. Tierra Jones
Nancy Rapaport
Shawn B. Meador
Eileen O’Grady
Jacey Prupas
Hon. Bridget Robb
Robert Salyer
Hon. Jennifer Togliatti
Board of Examiners=Nevada Supreme Court, be proud and loud.
I think this was the best decision based on what other states are doing. A diploma privilege would be awful for everyone. Postponing the exam helps no one. Open book is not going to change the pass rate. There isn't enough time to dig through books to find the one answer someone needs.
There are lots of reasons for this. The people that run the MBE will not even offer the test to NV if they cannot ensure a safe testing facility (impractical at best) Most likely it will not be offered at all. Same can be said for an in person traditional exam. The decision needs to be made now in order to plan for any possibility, this seems to be decent solution to a no-win scenario. Also 1:22 is right the BBE reports to the NSC not the BOG. Kinda like the completely useless CLE board.
"Open book" does not necessarily mean examinees will actually be searching through a book. It is a huge advantage to have an outline of causes of action, elements, etc., especially on an issue spotting exam. I do think this is the way to go, but the exam should be tailored accordingly, either tougher issues or graded more strictly.
To all of you who think this is a "good way to go". How does dumbing down the bar exam help? How does cutting out the most difficult portion of the exam have any practical common sense relation to COVID-19? All of the examinees will be exposed for the other 2 days.
The notion that getting JD diploma is sufficient for a license to practice law is nonsense. Because some state(s) are/is considering same is no reason for Nevada to engage in a "race to the bottom". Law schools have already dumbed down the curriculum to fill the school's seats.
Might as well let everyone mail in a check to get their license. Let's devalue a license to practice law to about the same value as a cosmetology license. Maybe DMV could administer a 30 question test for a pass/fail.
I know a lot of lawyers. Many are idiots. Let's not foster more of the same on the public.
If what 2:00 says is right, then they aren't "removing" the MBE. The MBE folks are refusing to allow Nevada to use the MBE in a setting that isn't a public health disaster waiting to happen. Sounds like their hand has been forced. Difficult situations require difficult decisions to be made.
You all realize the practice of law is open book, right? Also, I am licensed in two states. Nevada has a top five hardest bar exam. My other state is top 10 easiest. The attorneys I practice against there are better than the attorneys here at every level.
Guest
Anonymous
May 8, 2020 6:20 pm
Jordan Savage opening up about the sexual harassment scandal in the public defenders office during this CLE. Very interesting.
I just caught up on the last two days of comments. Holy shit man. Where did all the tin foil hat wearing, RJ comment leaving, AR-15 in Walmart carrying, American flag pants wearing, Infowars listening truthers come from? This blog is getting unreadable.
In the spirit of your erudite and insightful comment, holy sheet nonbinary being, where did all these cargo pants wearing, CNN watching, gun-less, balls-less, commie flag waiving, NPR listening truth deniers come from? This blog is getting interesting.
Oh, snap. Thanks 2:15, that pithy retort was even better than a good Plasticizing. Just missing a mic drop and a walk away…now I can start my weekend with a smile on my face.
Unfortunately 12:33, mass unemployment means that Republicans are now at home (too) and have time to break down your echo chamber. Gonna have to find a new safe space.
12:33 here. I hear from Republicans all day. I am one. What I don't support is this loud minority faction of my party that traffics primarily in conspiracy theories.
2:15 – what is a "commie flag," and where can I get one? Cargo pants, on the other hand, are more for boomers who collect AR-15s because they haven't felt like a man since 1978.
3:26, I thought the same thing. I think the 2nd amendment crowd has a monopoly on cargo pants these days. Funny how fashion changes with the times, eh?
I'm not a boomer, I'm a Gen X'er.
Cargo pants are damn comfortable, and have lots of pockets to put stuff into. Granted, I only use like 2 of those pockets, but it's nice to know that when I need that 6th and 7th pocket (say, because I'm driving for a while and my wallet gets uncomfortable in either the front or back pocket), pockets 6 and 7 will be there for me.
Does 12:33 mean to say the Flynn hoax was real? The evidence is so overwhelming it is hard to imagine that. He was set up and taken down by a corrupt FBI and DOJ. An innocent man ruined for the sin of being on the Trump team. That has to offend no matter what pants you wear.
Okay, I have to break down and ask the conspiracy theorists… Assuming you are correct that agents within the government desired to "set up" Flynn, how does one "set up" someone to lie to federal law enforcement agents? Short of using torture, administering physical force or severe threats (gun to head, threats to physically harm his family, etc.) I don't see how you can force someone to lie.. only the person making the statement can make the choice to utter a lie.
There is no argument that the statements that Flynn made were materially false. There is no evidence that his statements were the result of a faulty recollection of the events in question. Flynn choose to answer the FBI agents questions by providing them with false information, plain and simple. He had other options available to him if he didn't want to provide them with the truthful facts to avoid the issue, all being completely legal. He could have terminated the interview (right to remain silent), he could have refused to answer the question (right against self incrimination), he probably could have even gotten away with failing to remember the facts surrounding the issue (convenient lack of memory). Lying, however is not on the menu of permitted responses.
The newest spin… "the interview was improper because they didn't have a proper basis to interview him" is nothing but a red herring. What specifically prohibits the agents from asking anyone whom they believe may possess relevant information to voluntarily answer questions? The individual they ask to speak to can always decline to speak with them, ending the contact. This was not a custodial situation, Flynn was fully capable of saying no thanks and walking away.
This Bongino episode is bombastic but very informative.
What gets my goat is that they knew there was nothing there, were about to close the file, and Comey said no, find something, anything, so they set and executed a perjury trap. That's not American. I understand it happens, and framing a guy is unfortunately SOP for too many cops and prosecutors, but they took down a completely innocent three star general whose only "crime" was to sign up with the new administration.
Here we are in 2020 and the bad guys are still trying to undo the 2016 election. As POTUS would say, "sad, very sad."
“Framing” a guy usually means he didn’t do the thing. He lied to the FBI. The idea that the FBI shouldn’t be interviewing a guy tied to an active FBI investigation is weird. Have you ever seen any law enforcement agency say “well we investigated something and during the investigation we found that someone committed a crime, but we’re dropping it because we shouldn’t have been investigating in the first place.” Really?
The whole point is they determined beforehand that there was exactly zero evidence that a crime had been committed. The interview had one purpose: perjury trap to take out an innocent man. That's it. Could be replicated on every one on this blog at any time, anywhere. If that's your America, watch out for Trump's second term.
Flynn’s supposed crime was lying to FBI agents in a January 2017 interview at the White House. Yet the concealed evidence included 1) a top FBI official’s notes suggesting the entire purpose of the interview was to catch Flynn in a lie, or get him to admit to a technical violation of the Logan Act — all in order to force him from office. And 2) an internal Justice Department memo, from the day before that interview, calling on the FBI to close the Flynn investigation because agents had dug up absolutely no wrongdoing.
In fact, they already had the transcript of Flynn’s call with the Russian ambassador that was the supposed reason for the interview — and knew he’d said nothing improper, just things an incoming national-security adviser should discuss.
Now-disgraced agent Peter Strzok intervened to keep the case open anyway and proceed to the interview, which even then-FBI chief Jim Comey later admitted was in violation of multiple standard procedures.
Yet both Strzok and the other agent in the interview left agreeing that Flynn hadn’t attempted any deception at all. It was months later that prosecutors working under Mueller decided that he had lied — and proceeded to nearly bankrupt Flynn with legal fees, then threaten to prosecute his son, before the general finally agreed to plead guilty.
July Bar Exam, proposed format.
See ADKT 0558. The Board of Bar Examiners is proposing to eliminate the MBE from the July Bar.
Will making the bar exam easier increase the pass rate to 70%; OR, will Bar Examiners still maintain the cut, dicing and slicing the cut line to 3 or 4 decimals places?
And, if the Exam is still going to be conducted in July, how does eliminating 1 day help?
Guest
Anonymous
May 8, 2020 10:13 pm
The February 2020 bar results have been released. The pass rate is 52%.
He was a ridiculous choice who has no experience in cases like EHB has brought. Other than unbridled hubris, he is not experienced in this area of law and is far too small of a firm for this litigation.
Guest
Anonymous
May 9, 2020 6:14 pm
Pet Peeve of the Day: Attorneys who send you an email that says "Hey would you give me a call to discuss this matter?" Is there some reason that you did not just call me to discuss the fact that you wanted to talk to me on the telephone? Some reason to make it my burden to call you to talk about what you apparently want to talk about?
I despise voicemail and prefer opposing counsel and clients just email me, including a request for a phone call, but I also realize a lot of people prefer the phone, so I try to ask their preference.
The smartest men and women I know put almost nothing in writing, but that would mean I would have to talk to people all the time, and that is pure bloody torture for me.
Trying to gain a perceived power advantage. Similar to the main reason that depositions normally held in the office of the attorney taking it rather than the the party's attorney office or a neutral location. Having you call them gives them the ability to have you cool your heels on hold until they decide to grace you with their attention. It can also be a situation that their client (or rules) required them to explore with you but that don't really want to do so. If the conversation doesn't occur, they can point to the email and shift the blame to you for not calling them.
This is 12:14. Oh dear, I didn't think of that. Makes sense. I have been doing this a very long time but am still naïve in so many ways. I take my depositions in a neutral location.
Lol at 12:20’s inferiority complex. Ever just realize opposing counsel doesn’t answer the phone and it makes sense to schedule a time? Or maybe you don’t want them to call when you’re preoccupied, leading to phone tag?
If you have to play games to have the power advantage, you don't really have the power and intimidation advantage. (You're just being an annoying gnat.)
@1220. Perhaps taking a deposition at your own office is easier, faster and more economical. No power trip at all, unless you're a dbag and you think it gives you "power."
5:18 is exactly right. They are not memorializing a voicemail; they are commanding you to call them because they want to talk on the telephone (rather than just picking up the telephone). Emailing without a call saying that "I want you to call me" is annoying. I send a (short) email back that lets the person know that they are free to call at any time that they wish.
I just had this happen to me last week. They write and asked me to call. I emailed back and said "Feel free to call." The opposing counsel emailed back and said "No I want you to call me." I do not play childish games like this. If you want to talk on the telephone, telephone me. If you want to have an email discourse, then continue to email me. I have had judges and commissioners see through this and say "If you want to talk to her on the telephone, the burden is on YOU to initiate person-to-person contact."
Lately, many people are working from home, so I think it makes more sense to email requesting a call. Also, I like to email requesting a call so that the other person can call when it is convenient for them rather than call them at a time when they are not able to talk but take the call anyway.
Emailing asking for a call also gives opposing counsel a chance to prepare and remind themselves what the case is about, which might be helpful if they're juggling a lot of matters. Y'all are too sensitive.
Guest
Anonymous
May 9, 2020 7:07 pm
Regarding eliminating the MBE from the July exam, as someone who has taken multiple state bar exams back in the day, and also frankly who as not passed every one on the first try, it has always seemed to me that how you perform on the essays is the true measure of your ability to pass the exam. The MBE score is easily minimized by a strong performance on the essays; the reverse is not true. I'd rather have a lawyer who can analyze fact patterns and set out reasoned, cogent arguments, than a "Bar Exam Expert" who's claim to fame is that he got a really high score on the Multi-State — as one LV attorney likes to advertise, appearing on billboards wearing a clip-on butterfly bowtie that went out of style probably before he was born.
I agree with you, in part An attorney that excels at the performance portion as well as, to a slightly lesser degree the essay portion is more likely to better perform as a practicing attorney, I don't think a strong essay performance will necessarily increase a candidate's test passage chances. The essays are designed as more of an issue spotting challenge rather than articulating the correct outcome to the problem. The grading scores of the essays for the majority of the test takers fall within a fairly narrow range. Excelling on the MBE portion will result in a much larger impact on the overall test result as the scores fall in a much larger range. Additionally, the MBE is more substantive law based (the correct statement of law must be identified from the provided choices) rather than the issue spotting challenge of the essays (correct strategy is normally to argue both sides as almost any issue used has authority supporting both sides of the issue).
I've passed more than the Nevada bar exam on the first try. I'm convinced each time that resulted from MBE scores that were high enough that only need to hit the minimum required score on the essays to pass the exam. Of course there is no way to know (other than knowing the MBE score the bar discloses you received) as they don't disclose your essay scores when you pass. I suppose an alternate theory is scoring high on the MBE establishes a stronger knowledge of substantive law thus the essays also receive a higher score.
12:35 — Well, they DO disclose your essay scores when you fail and, at least in Nevada, give you your actual exam essays so you can check them against other essays from the same exam that scored high, medium and low. I can tell you, that it was eye-opening. Almost everyone, whether scoring high or low, was able to issue spot. The differences between the answers was the organization and quality of the legal argument. That is NOT tested by the MBE. Again, to my way of thinking, that's what I want to see in my lawyer.
How you do on the multiple guess Multistate is, to me, more an indication of how fast you can eliminate two of the four choices, and then guess right more often than not between the "plaintiff wins because" answer and the "plaintiff loses because" answer.
I do agree with you, and it stands to reason, that most people who do well on one part of the bar exam do well on the other parts, too. Sounds like you fall into that category. It's just been my experience (longer and longer ago every year, thank God) that where someone falls down on one part of the exam but passes nonetheless, those who did poorly on the MBE and passed outnumber those who did well on the MBE and failed.
I don't understand why people give Doug Herndon a pass on Fred Steese but not Bill Kephart.
Because Herndon cried publicly about it years later, after he was exposed, and Kephart did not cry about it.
Ozzie all the way.
Fred Steese all they. So sorry for what happened to you. However, I am supporting Herndon.
They were fake tears.
Everyone is sorry after the fact when they are caught.
Broken record.
@10:28am…Kefart's obviously not sorry…
Did Nevada Supreme Court decide not to release some of the prisoners due to covid 19, I cannot remember.
They denied the writ and said go to trial court. No decision on whether they will convene a pardons board.
I will take Doug Herndon.
That Complaint filed by Sigal Chattah and Joey Gilbert was a great way to get publicity even if Complaint is complete garbage.
I had some cases against Chattah a few years ago. I see lots of missed deadlines and incoherent arguments on the horizon.
Things to do when your bored: Draft a 51 page Complaint.
So bad publicity is good publicity? Okay, I guess I need to go back to business school.
P. T. Barnum is credited with famously saying, “Any kind of publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right.”
Has the emergency declaration been lifted? I need to know for written discovery response due dates.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The way the current AO is drafted, the current stays remain in place for 30 days after the emergency declaration is lifted, which would mean that all previously stayed discovery would be due on the same day, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
That is going to be a hell of a day.
Actually, the AO stays in place for 30 days after the declaration is lifted or modified. So the declaration has been modified so arguably the last date for calculation of the tolling period might be May 9 rather than May 15, but there is also an argument that the AO still is in place until Phase 2 or later is entered. Chief Judge Bell will need to clarify.
Actually, it says Admin Order 20-13 remains in effect until thirty (30) days following the expiration of the March 12, 2020 Governor’s Emergency Declaration or until modified or rescinded by a subsequent order, whichever occurs earlier. I do not believe there has been a subsequent order modifying or rescinding and I have not seen that the Emergency Declaration has been lifted so I think discovery is still tolled.
The Supreme Court of Nevada is inviting public comments regarding proposed changes to the July 2020 Nevada Bar Examination under ADKT 0558. The proposed modifications to the upcoming exam include eliminating the MBE, making the exam open-book, and utilizing a performance test question drafted by the Nevada Board. The deadline for comments from law school graduates and other interested individuals is Thursday (May 14).
I fail to see the need to tinker with the bar exam. Someone’s political agenda I guess.
Other states have agreed to provisional licensing pending examination. My personal thought is that the examination is simply cancelled and bar takers can take it in February 2021. There are no jobs currently in the market nor need to tinker with the Examination. To the forthcoming complaint from the Law School that these graduates were promised an opportunity for licensure, well hopefully you adequately explained to them how rough the legal world really is.
In such a lawsuit, Boyd can rely upon the steady judgment of Dean Hamilton and his many years in the practice of law.
Is for real, 11:11? More reason to vote against BOGs that are in now, and to remove Kris Pickering. Fuck this shit!
this
Dean Dan Dan has no faith in the intellect of its recent graduates. I would not either, looking at the people who are in the classes now. Hell no on this initiative. If you are a licensed lawyer, wake up. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals want to interfere in your profession.
I'm not at all for making the bar exam easier. But other states are doing far worse: getting rid of it completely and allowing for an apprenticeship. I'd rather have this option than those options. Open book could be a curse to applicants: they risk spending too much time going through the material and will likely not study as hard now. I was worried they wouldn't have a bar exam at all and would do what Utah did. Briefing a sigh of relief.
This should not even be an option. This is insane. Who is behind this?
California has had an apprenticeship program in place for as long as I can remember. That's how Kim Kardashian is pursuing her bar card.
Excerpt from https://www.vox.com/2019/4/17/18411768/kim-kardashian-lawyer-studying-california-bar-criminal-justice-reform-elle-woods-legally-blonde : "She is attempting to become a lawyer without a degree from college or law school, which are not requirements to sit for the notoriously difficult California bar…"
Let's just close the UNLV law school and follow the path of no college degree and no law school necessary for new lawyers!
Mark Gibbons and your wonderful Nevada Supreme Court is behind this. Dumb down the bar. Nice play, Matk, right at retirement. Vote Pickering out. Bye, Kris.
Ah yes, vote someone out because they responded to COVID to save lives. @12:43, you are selfish.
You want to open book bar exam bc of coud 19????? Yeah, that is the real reason, Mark. Fuvk you.
Uh, you still have to sit for a bar exam, open book or not. You are selfish, 12:48. Trying to lie and manipulate people during a pandemic. Shame on you!
12:59, agreed. I love it how this is even being done during a pandemic, with an obscure notice to lawyers less than a week before public comment. Where is Andrew Craner? Paola Armeni on this? BOGS are supposed to protect members, bot be the Supreme Court.
The request was made by the Board of Bar Examiners. BBE reports directly to NSC.
I am so opposed to this. Pickering, you lost my vote. I promise you, if they grant this waiver once, it will remain. Do not trust the NSC. Who is on the BBE?
Michael E. Buckley
John P. Desmond
Dawn Ellerbrock
Dean J. Gould
Hon. Tierra Jones
Nancy Rapaport
Shawn B. Meador
Eileen O’Grady
Jacey Prupas
Hon. Bridget Robb
Robert Salyer
Hon. Jennifer Togliatti
Board of Examiners=Nevada Supreme Court, be proud and loud.
I think this was the best decision based on what other states are doing. A diploma privilege would be awful for everyone. Postponing the exam helps no one. Open book is not going to change the pass rate. There isn't enough time to dig through books to find the one answer someone needs.
There are lots of reasons for this. The people that run the MBE will not even offer the test to NV if they cannot ensure a safe testing facility (impractical at best) Most likely it will not be offered at all. Same can be said for an in person traditional exam. The decision needs to be made now in order to plan for any possibility, this seems to be decent solution to a no-win scenario. Also 1:22 is right the BBE reports to the NSC not the BOG. Kinda like the completely useless CLE board.
Post pone the exam until February. Make the exam once a year. I oppose this as well. Open book has nothing to do with covid 19.
No to open book. No to removing MBE. Is there a link to comment?
"Open book" does not necessarily mean examinees will actually be searching through a book. It is a huge advantage to have an outline of causes of action, elements, etc., especially on an issue spotting exam. I do think this is the way to go, but the exam should be tailored accordingly, either tougher issues or graded more strictly.
To all of you who think this is a "good way to go". How does dumbing down the bar exam help? How does cutting out the most difficult portion of the exam have any practical common sense relation to COVID-19? All of the examinees will be exposed for the other 2 days.
The notion that getting JD diploma is sufficient for a license to practice law is nonsense. Because some state(s) are/is considering same is no reason for Nevada to engage in a "race to the bottom". Law schools have already dumbed down the curriculum to fill the school's seats.
Might as well let everyone mail in a check to get their license. Let's devalue a license to practice law to about the same value as a cosmetology license. Maybe DMV could administer a 30 question test for a pass/fail.
I know a lot of lawyers. Many are idiots. Let's not foster more of the same on the public.
If what 2:00 says is right, then they aren't "removing" the MBE. The MBE folks are refusing to allow Nevada to use the MBE in a setting that isn't a public health disaster waiting to happen. Sounds like their hand has been forced. Difficult situations require difficult decisions to be made.
No, to all of the above. Move the exam to 2021.
They are proposing it be offered online…
You all realize the practice of law is open book, right? Also, I am licensed in two states. Nevada has a top five hardest bar exam. My other state is top 10 easiest. The attorneys I practice against there are better than the attorneys here at every level.
Jordan Savage opening up about the sexual harassment scandal in the public defenders office during this CLE. Very interesting.
Great CLE
I just caught up on the last two days of comments. Holy shit man. Where did all the tin foil hat wearing, RJ comment leaving, AR-15 in Walmart carrying, American flag pants wearing, Infowars listening truthers come from? This blog is getting unreadable.
In the spirit of your erudite and insightful comment, holy sheet nonbinary being, where did all these cargo pants wearing, CNN watching, gun-less, balls-less, commie flag waiving, NPR listening truth deniers come from? This blog is getting interesting.
Oh, snap. Thanks 2:15, that pithy retort was even better than a good Plasticizing. Just missing a mic drop and a walk away…now I can start my weekend with a smile on my face.
Unfortunately 12:33, mass unemployment means that Republicans are now at home (too) and have time to break down your echo chamber. Gonna have to find a new safe space.
12:33 here. I hear from Republicans all day. I am one. What I don't support is this loud minority faction of my party that traffics primarily in conspiracy theories.
2:15 – what is a "commie flag," and where can I get one? Cargo pants, on the other hand, are more for boomers who collect AR-15s because they haven't felt like a man since 1978.
3:26, I thought the same thing. I think the 2nd amendment crowd has a monopoly on cargo pants these days. Funny how fashion changes with the times, eh?
I think we all need to get Plasticized. I'll try to sneak one in early next week.
I'm not a boomer, I'm a Gen X'er.
Cargo pants are damn comfortable, and have lots of pockets to put stuff into. Granted, I only use like 2 of those pockets, but it's nice to know that when I need that 6th and 7th pocket (say, because I'm driving for a while and my wallet gets uncomfortable in either the front or back pocket), pockets 6 and 7 will be there for me.
Does 12:33 mean to say the Flynn hoax was real? The evidence is so overwhelming it is hard to imagine that. He was set up and taken down by a corrupt FBI and DOJ. An innocent man ruined for the sin of being on the Trump team. That has to offend no matter what pants you wear.
Okay, I have to break down and ask the conspiracy theorists… Assuming you are correct that agents within the government desired to "set up" Flynn, how does one "set up" someone to lie to federal law enforcement agents? Short of using torture, administering physical force or severe threats (gun to head, threats to physically harm his family, etc.) I don't see how you can force someone to lie.. only the person making the statement can make the choice to utter a lie.
There is no argument that the statements that Flynn made were materially false. There is no evidence that his statements were the result of a faulty recollection of the events in question. Flynn choose to answer the FBI agents questions by providing them with false information, plain and simple. He had other options available to him if he didn't want to provide them with the truthful facts to avoid the issue, all being completely legal. He could have terminated the interview (right to remain silent), he could have refused to answer the question (right against self incrimination), he probably could have even gotten away with failing to remember the facts surrounding the issue (convenient lack of memory). Lying, however is not on the menu of permitted responses.
The newest spin… "the interview was improper because they didn't have a proper basis to interview him" is nothing but a red herring. What specifically prohibits the agents from asking anyone whom they believe may possess relevant information to voluntarily answer questions? The individual they ask to speak to can always decline to speak with them, ending the contact. This was not a custodial situation, Flynn was fully capable of saying no thanks and walking away.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy fact.
Dan Bongino has covered this from day one, and his analysis has proven correct. The DOJ motion to dismiss is stunning and worth reading.
This old article is a good summary.
This Bongino episode is bombastic but very informative.
What gets my goat is that they knew there was nothing there, were about to close the file, and Comey said no, find something, anything, so they set and executed a perjury trap. That's not American. I understand it happens, and framing a guy is unfortunately SOP for too many cops and prosecutors, but they took down a completely innocent three star general whose only "crime" was to sign up with the new administration.
Here we are in 2020 and the bad guys are still trying to undo the 2016 election. As POTUS would say, "sad, very sad."
Didn’t he plead guilty and have competent legal counsel while doing it?
“Framing” a guy usually means he didn’t do the thing. He lied to the FBI. The idea that the FBI shouldn’t be interviewing a guy tied to an active FBI investigation is weird. Have you ever seen any law enforcement agency say “well we investigated something and during the investigation we found that someone committed a crime, but we’re dropping it because we shouldn’t have been investigating in the first place.” Really?
The whole point is they determined beforehand that there was exactly zero evidence that a crime had been committed. The interview had one purpose: perjury trap to take out an innocent man. That's it. Could be replicated on every one on this blog at any time, anywhere. If that's your America, watch out for Trump's second term.
Flynn’s supposed crime was lying to FBI agents in a January 2017 interview at the White House. Yet the concealed evidence included 1) a top FBI official’s notes suggesting the entire purpose of the interview was to catch Flynn in a lie, or get him to admit to a technical violation of the Logan Act — all in order to force him from office. And 2) an internal Justice Department memo, from the day before that interview, calling on the FBI to close the Flynn investigation because agents had dug up absolutely no wrongdoing.
In fact, they already had the transcript of Flynn’s call with the Russian ambassador that was the supposed reason for the interview — and knew he’d said nothing improper, just things an incoming national-security adviser should discuss.
Now-disgraced agent Peter Strzok intervened to keep the case open anyway and proceed to the interview, which even then-FBI chief Jim Comey later admitted was in violation of multiple standard procedures.
Yet both Strzok and the other agent in the interview left agreeing that Flynn hadn’t attempted any deception at all. It was months later that prosecutors working under Mueller decided that he had lied — and proceeded to nearly bankrupt Flynn with legal fees, then threaten to prosecute his son, before the general finally agreed to plead guilty.
NYPOST
The missing 302s……
July Bar Exam, proposed format.
See ADKT 0558. The Board of Bar Examiners is proposing to eliminate the MBE from the July Bar.
Will making the bar exam easier increase the pass rate to 70%; OR, will Bar Examiners still maintain the cut, dicing and slicing the cut line to 3 or 4 decimals places?
And, if the Exam is still going to be conducted in July, how does eliminating 1 day help?
The February 2020 bar results have been released. The pass rate is 52%.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/las-vegas/bundy-attorney-will-not-defend-las-vegas-in-badlands-cases-2024252/
He was a ridiculous choice who has no experience in cases like EHB has brought. Other than unbridled hubris, he is not experienced in this area of law and is far too small of a firm for this litigation.
Pet Peeve of the Day: Attorneys who send you an email that says "Hey would you give me a call to discuss this matter?" Is there some reason that you did not just call me to discuss the fact that you wanted to talk to me on the telephone? Some reason to make it my burden to call you to talk about what you apparently want to talk about?
I despise voicemail and prefer opposing counsel and clients just email me, including a request for a phone call, but I also realize a lot of people prefer the phone, so I try to ask their preference.
The smartest men and women I know put almost nothing in writing, but that would mean I would have to talk to people all the time, and that is pure bloody torture for me.
Trying to gain a perceived power advantage. Similar to the main reason that depositions normally held in the office of the attorney taking it rather than the the party's attorney office or a neutral location. Having you call them gives them the ability to have you cool your heels on hold until they decide to grace you with their attention. It can also be a situation that their client (or rules) required them to explore with you but that don't really want to do so. If the conversation doesn't occur, they can point to the email and shift the blame to you for not calling them.
This is 12:14. Oh dear, I didn't think of that. Makes sense. I have been doing this a very long time but am still naïve in so many ways. I take my depositions in a neutral location.
Tactical blame shifting.
God this is a great profession!
Lol at 12:20’s inferiority complex. Ever just realize opposing counsel doesn’t answer the phone and it makes sense to schedule a time? Or maybe you don’t want them to call when you’re preoccupied, leading to phone tag?
If you have to play games to have the power advantage, you don't really have the power and intimidation advantage. (You're just being an annoying gnat.)
Everyone is missing the point. It’s not that OC emailed and said oh I left you a vm and now am sending a follow up email. Give me a call when you can.
The email (without a call) saying call me is an asshole move.
@1220. Perhaps taking a deposition at your own office is easier, faster and more economical. No power trip at all, unless you're a dbag and you think it gives you "power."
5:18 is exactly right. They are not memorializing a voicemail; they are commanding you to call them because they want to talk on the telephone (rather than just picking up the telephone). Emailing without a call saying that "I want you to call me" is annoying. I send a (short) email back that lets the person know that they are free to call at any time that they wish.
I just had this happen to me last week. They write and asked me to call. I emailed back and said "Feel free to call." The opposing counsel emailed back and said "No I want you to call me." I do not play childish games like this. If you want to talk on the telephone, telephone me. If you want to have an email discourse, then continue to email me. I have had judges and commissioners see through this and say "If you want to talk to her on the telephone, the burden is on YOU to initiate person-to-person contact."
Lately, many people are working from home, so I think it makes more sense to email requesting a call. Also, I like to email requesting a call so that the other person can call when it is convenient for them rather than call them at a time when they are not able to talk but take the call anyway.
Emailing asking for a call also gives opposing counsel a chance to prepare and remind themselves what the case is about, which might be helpful if they're juggling a lot of matters. Y'all are too sensitive.
Regarding eliminating the MBE from the July exam, as someone who has taken multiple state bar exams back in the day, and also frankly who as not passed every one on the first try, it has always seemed to me that how you perform on the essays is the true measure of your ability to pass the exam. The MBE score is easily minimized by a strong performance on the essays; the reverse is not true. I'd rather have a lawyer who can analyze fact patterns and set out reasoned, cogent arguments, than a "Bar Exam Expert" who's claim to fame is that he got a really high score on the Multi-State — as one LV attorney likes to advertise, appearing on billboards wearing a clip-on butterfly bowtie that went out of style probably before he was born.
I agree with you, in part An attorney that excels at the performance portion as well as, to a slightly lesser degree the essay portion is more likely to better perform as a practicing attorney, I don't think a strong essay performance will necessarily increase a candidate's test passage chances. The essays are designed as more of an issue spotting challenge rather than articulating the correct outcome to the problem. The grading scores of the essays for the majority of the test takers fall within a fairly narrow range. Excelling on the MBE portion will result in a much larger impact on the overall test result as the scores fall in a much larger range. Additionally, the MBE is more substantive law based (the correct statement of law must be identified from the provided choices) rather than the issue spotting challenge of the essays (correct strategy is normally to argue both sides as almost any issue used has authority supporting both sides of the issue).
I've passed more than the Nevada bar exam on the first try. I'm convinced each time that resulted from MBE scores that were high enough that only need to hit the minimum required score on the essays to pass the exam. Of course there is no way to know (other than knowing the MBE score the bar discloses you received) as they don't disclose your essay scores when you pass. I suppose an alternate theory is scoring high on the MBE establishes a stronger knowledge of substantive law thus the essays also receive a higher score.
12:35 — Well, they DO disclose your essay scores when you fail and, at least in Nevada, give you your actual exam essays so you can check them against other essays from the same exam that scored high, medium and low. I can tell you, that it was eye-opening. Almost everyone, whether scoring high or low, was able to issue spot. The differences between the answers was the organization and quality of the legal argument. That is NOT tested by the MBE. Again, to my way of thinking, that's what I want to see in my lawyer.
How you do on the multiple guess Multistate is, to me, more an indication of how fast you can eliminate two of the four choices, and then guess right more often than not between the "plaintiff wins because" answer and the "plaintiff loses because" answer.
I do agree with you, and it stands to reason, that most people who do well on one part of the bar exam do well on the other parts, too. Sounds like you fall into that category. It's just been my experience (longer and longer ago every year, thank God) that where someone falls down on one part of the exam but passes nonetheless, those who did poorly on the MBE and passed outnumber those who did well on the MBE and failed.
Good discussion.
Our Nevada Judges is reporting LVRJ's endorsements, where is the link? It is nowhere on the RJ.
You have to dig for it. The only LVRJ endorsement I agree with is Herndon.