So i’m assuming the two firms that are associated in on the social media suit have prior experience in the previous 42 states suing the same groups,,,, but is it so specialized that they have experience that literally no other NV firms could have provided? Especially given it’s filed in State Court?
They already have Nevada court specialists at the AG’s office and Kemp Jones, why wouldn’t they want a couple specialists on this esoteric area of law?
When some forward-thinking federal court finally decides to rule that certain of these social media companies meet the definition of a “consumer reporting agency” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, it will be the beginning of the end for all of them.
Ok,, i’m responding to this with little knowledge of the area of law. So essentially if a Fed Ct rules they are a consumer reporting agencies that would require them to comply with a boat load of different FCRA provisions… that would be a lot of new responsibilities like privacy requirements, reporting agencies, consumer report, disclosures, etc?
Correct. One of the many particularly problematic provisions would be the requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1681g which require disclosure of all information contained within a consumer’s file, however stored upon request; while there are some judge-made restrictions on the scope of the disclosed information, a reporting agency is liable if the disclosure is either unclear or inaccurate, with incomplete information being construed as inaccurate. Also problematic is the fact that under 15 U.S.C. 1681x a business may not structure itself in such a way as to avoid regulation as a consumer reporting agency.
I read somewhere that the reason Facebook didn’t go forward with its plans to roll out a “social credit score” (my phrasing) was that the FTC was going to begin regulating them as a consumer reporting agency if they did that.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2024 8:30 am
There was some discussion yesterday about presentism as it pertains to allegations of sexual misconduct from yesteryear by Steve Wynn. Now we have more aged allegations against Cosby. The wrongfulness of these acts has come into sharper focus over time, no doubt, but that’s not presentism. Look at Bill Clinton’s exploitation of Monica Lewinsky. At the time, very few people were saying that the conduct was wholesale A-O-K. Tribalists did make the argument that they were “consenting adults” which in hindsight is painfully cringe. Even so, that doesn’t mean that Bill Clinton and Steve Wynn were just naïve at the time and a victim of shifting social norms. What they did was wrong then, it was a violation of social norms then and it’s wrong now. Same with Bill Cosby.
Gee, more no proof allegations against the famous.
i was assaulted by Nancy Pelosi in an SF elevator in 1985, Bil Clinton in 1986 at a McDonalds and Bill Cosby at someplace that I forgot about until now.
I am going to get rich!
It would be nice if some of the criminal practitioners would weigh in on that motion (assuming you’ve read it) for the benefit of the rest of us. The document didn’t purport to be an official document. The “filing” occurred outside the state of Nevada. It was a clumsy political protest. I have no idea what will actually happen, but that really out to result in full dismissal. Aaron Ford went to the Legislature claiming there was nothing in Nevada law to stop what the fake electors did, and then went ahead and charged then with a crime anyway.
That is his fault for being at home on the shitter when he could be peacefully shitting at the office and posting an actual dispute and not a pointless and ineffectual insult.
10:11–Seems like a legitimate question. An insult does not answer the question. Are you a Boyd grad? There are a lot of issues in the alleged fake elector prosecution.
The document did purport to be official. It was just really shittily done. Also, it was mailed to the Judge Du in Las Vegas, as the Chief Judge of the District Court of Nevada so that the court could send it along if requested under 3 USC 13. If they wanted to protest, fine. No one cares. Whine and complain all you want. But the moment you declare yourself the correctly elected electors and then attempt to file fake certificate of votes, you’ve crossed a line.
I don’t think their argument of “it was a genuine document because it was signed by the maker” works here. The “maker” of the certification of votes is a class of genuinely elected electors, which they were not. They were impersonating the electors.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2024 11:57 am
Here’s a “hypothetical”:
Parties file a joint petition for divorce and 1 party submit the Decree to the judge. Judge doesn’t sign the Decree, but sets a hearing. While the parties expected the hearing to be a prove up hearing, the judge instead goes rogue and asks one party if they want joint custody (the joint petition awarded the other parent primary). Then, at the hearing, the judge decides to reject the joint petition and set a trial on custody. There is no complaint or answer on file; the only pleading on file is a joint petition.
One party filed a notice of revocation of joint petition, but the department still has not vacated the trial date (one month later). The goal is to get the joint petition vacated and file a complaint.
Of course, with only a joint petition on file, there are no pleadings to go to trial based upon and obviously there’s numerous due process issues.
Any suggestions on how to get this trial on a joint petition vacated?
Family court, just like bankruptcy court, will reassign a subsequent case to the judge that previously was assigned a case with the same party/parties.
The clue might be the parties drew it up. 23 yrs in family law and I’ve not had a jp rejected. A couple of changes before due to clerical errors but never rejected. Get them to an experienced fl lawyer
Sounds par for the course in family court. The same judges look at a man with a history of violent felonies and rape of one of the kids and give that same man unsupervised visitation with the other kid. Make it make sense. In case anyone is wondering why they want to keep family court cases sealed, this is why. The crap that goes on in that courthouse is pure insanity and they have no oversight and no accountability.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2024 2:38 pm
7:23 from yesterday gets it re presentism. Morally speaking yes wrong is wrong. But culturally- not saying it was right – ethnic jokes were accepted in the 60s n 70s. Go back and watch Johnny Carson or even Bonanza if you doubt me. I guarantee you are doing something today that will cringe people in 25 years,
They really weren’t okay even then. The difference was the social, economic, and potentially life-altering consequences to the subject of the joke if they attempted to object.
Police union lost an anti-slapp motion against Clark County and the Citizens Review Board. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/clark-county/judge-dismisses-police-unions-lawsuit-against-oversight-board-2990651/amp/
So i’m assuming the two firms that are associated in on the social media suit have prior experience in the previous 42 states suing the same groups,,,, but is it so specialized that they have experience that literally no other NV firms could have provided? Especially given it’s filed in State Court?
They already have Nevada court specialists at the AG’s office and Kemp Jones, why wouldn’t they want a couple specialists on this esoteric area of law?
When some forward-thinking federal court finally decides to rule that certain of these social media companies meet the definition of a “consumer reporting agency” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, it will be the beginning of the end for all of them.
Ok,, i’m responding to this with little knowledge of the area of law. So essentially if a Fed Ct rules they are a consumer reporting agencies that would require them to comply with a boat load of different FCRA provisions… that would be a lot of new responsibilities like privacy requirements, reporting agencies, consumer report, disclosures, etc?
Correct. One of the many particularly problematic provisions would be the requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1681g which require disclosure of all information contained within a consumer’s file, however stored upon request; while there are some judge-made restrictions on the scope of the disclosed information, a reporting agency is liable if the disclosure is either unclear or inaccurate, with incomplete information being construed as inaccurate. Also problematic is the fact that under 15 U.S.C. 1681x a business may not structure itself in such a way as to avoid regulation as a consumer reporting agency.
I read somewhere that the reason Facebook didn’t go forward with its plans to roll out a “social credit score” (my phrasing) was that the FTC was going to begin regulating them as a consumer reporting agency if they did that.
There was some discussion yesterday about presentism as it pertains to allegations of sexual misconduct from yesteryear by Steve Wynn. Now we have more aged allegations against Cosby. The wrongfulness of these acts has come into sharper focus over time, no doubt, but that’s not presentism. Look at Bill Clinton’s exploitation of Monica Lewinsky. At the time, very few people were saying that the conduct was wholesale A-O-K. Tribalists did make the argument that they were “consenting adults” which in hindsight is painfully cringe. Even so, that doesn’t mean that Bill Clinton and Steve Wynn were just naïve at the time and a victim of shifting social norms. What they did was wrong then, it was a violation of social norms then and it’s wrong now. Same with Bill Cosby.
Gee, more no proof allegations against the famous.
i was assaulted by Nancy Pelosi in an SF elevator in 1985, Bil Clinton in 1986 at a McDonalds and Bill Cosby at someplace that I forgot about until now.
I am going to get rich!
More manufactured outrage. Great.
It would be nice if some of the criminal practitioners would weigh in on that motion (assuming you’ve read it) for the benefit of the rest of us. The document didn’t purport to be an official document. The “filing” occurred outside the state of Nevada. It was a clumsy political protest. I have no idea what will actually happen, but that really out to result in full dismissal. Aaron Ford went to the Legislature claiming there was nothing in Nevada law to stop what the fake electors did, and then went ahead and charged then with a crime anyway.
There’s no way @8:44 is an attorney.
Why do you say that?
Because he disagrees with the argument, but cannot competently argue in opposition to it.
This is a stupid and pointless comeback when you just disagree with a premise.
I may start arguing in court as follows: “Judge, there is no way that OC is an attorney!”
Such a high standard for a post. Dude could’ve been on the shitter n had like 2 seconds to post. Damn my wife yelling again needs toilet.
That is his fault for being at home on the shitter when he could be peacefully shitting at the office and posting an actual dispute and not a pointless and ineffectual insult.
And billing on the shitter
I heard that in BK Court yesterday. Pro per arguing Greg Wilde was not a real attorney.
10:11–Seems like a legitimate question. An insult does not answer the question. Are you a Boyd grad? There are a lot of issues in the alleged fake elector prosecution.
The document did purport to be official. It was just really shittily done. Also, it was mailed to the Judge Du in Las Vegas, as the Chief Judge of the District Court of Nevada so that the court could send it along if requested under 3 USC 13. If they wanted to protest, fine. No one cares. Whine and complain all you want. But the moment you declare yourself the correctly elected electors and then attempt to file fake certificate of votes, you’ve crossed a line.
I don’t think their argument of “it was a genuine document because it was signed by the maker” works here. The “maker” of the certification of votes is a class of genuinely elected electors, which they were not. They were impersonating the electors.
Here’s a “hypothetical”:
Parties file a joint petition for divorce and 1 party submit the Decree to the judge. Judge doesn’t sign the Decree, but sets a hearing. While the parties expected the hearing to be a prove up hearing, the judge instead goes rogue and asks one party if they want joint custody (the joint petition awarded the other parent primary). Then, at the hearing, the judge decides to reject the joint petition and set a trial on custody. There is no complaint or answer on file; the only pleading on file is a joint petition.
One party filed a notice of revocation of joint petition, but the department still has not vacated the trial date (one month later). The goal is to get the joint petition vacated and file a complaint.
Of course, with only a joint petition on file, there are no pleadings to go to trial based upon and obviously there’s numerous due process issues.
Any suggestions on how to get this trial on a joint petition vacated?
Stipulation and order of voluntary dismissal, followed up with a second joint Petition in the hope of rolling the dice and getting a different judge?
Naw. They will draw the same judge. Trust me on this one!
Family court, just like bankruptcy court, will reassign a subsequent case to the judge that previously was assigned a case with the same party/parties.
The clue might be the parties drew it up. 23 yrs in family law and I’ve not had a jp rejected. A couple of changes before due to clerical errors but never rejected. Get them to an experienced fl lawyer
Sounds par for the course in family court. The same judges look at a man with a history of violent felonies and rape of one of the kids and give that same man unsupervised visitation with the other kid. Make it make sense. In case anyone is wondering why they want to keep family court cases sealed, this is why. The crap that goes on in that courthouse is pure insanity and they have no oversight and no accountability.
7:23 from yesterday gets it re presentism. Morally speaking yes wrong is wrong. But culturally- not saying it was right – ethnic jokes were accepted in the 60s n 70s. Go back and watch Johnny Carson or even Bonanza if you doubt me. I guarantee you are doing something today that will cringe people in 25 years,
They really weren’t okay even then. The difference was the social, economic, and potentially life-altering consequences to the subject of the joke if they attempted to object.