- Quickdraw McLaw
- 63 Comments
- 194 Views
- Here are the four candidates being interviewed for the City Attorney position in Boulder City. [BCR]
- The Supreme Court selected 20 Nevadans to serve on the Guardianship Commission. [nvcourts]
- Scott Dozier can review previously redacted portions of the State’s Execution Manual. [RJ]
- UNLV law students are helping people with DACA paperwork. [Fox5Vegas]
Anyone going to the he who shall not be named protest at family court?
The Nevada court watchers FB page has video/photo evidence up that Sanson and company have paid retired vets 20$ to act as the protesters. ROTFL!!
Hey, $20 is $20.
You can buy a Valor medal on EBay for $20
Certain Family Court Judges, and a handful of Family Court attorneys, in my estimation, have really over-reacted to the antics of V.I.P. The more that that judges get all worked up and, in public hearings that attract media attention, condemn the organization for corruption , and the more that attorneys sue the organization for defamation and other matters, the worse it gets. Certain people and certain groups thrive on negative attention.
What happened to growing a somewhat thicker skin and, to the best extent possible, ignoring most of this? Judges worry too much about their re-election and how they are perceived in the community. Understood. But I believe they make matters much worse if, rather than simply ignoring most of this, they schedule emergency hearings to basically say "This guy, who is not a party in this litigation, accussed me of being corrupt. But I will detail, with specific references to the record, that he is really the corrupt one here, not me."
Seems somewhat unseemly, and very unneccessary, to get involved with this kind of tit-for-tat at a public hearing. I understand that this is a very difficult situation for a judge to deal with, and perhaps if I were in his shoes, I might have done the same. And I understand the organization caused these problems by interjecting themselves into the litigation, and contacting the judge, declaring War On The Courts, etc.
But with all those qualifiers in place, I still don't think that all this was necessary, and 10 or 20 years ago I believe judges would not have scheduled a special hearing to address such matters, or had this non-party appear. And then, rather than declining to question the non-party, or having the attorney(s) question him if necessary, the judge conducted the questioning and it seemed to degenerate into an argument, rather than testimony.BTW, all this aside, I consider that judge to be the best on the bench at the current time.
And attorneys are now getting into the act and suing the organization and the individual for defamation. He may very well, for all I know, have made materially false statements about certain attorneys. But, really, suing the guy? He is probably judgment proof, or, IMO, at least it can probably be arranged that he appears judgment proof. Plus an elongated suit just brings very public focus to what the person said about the lawyer. Without the litigation everyone probably would have forgotten what he said, and most never would have heard it in the first place. But with the lawsuit, it is always very publicly out there. And people hate attorneys, so they will probably believe what the person said about the lawyer is true. And even if the lawyer wins the suit, people will think that is simply the system protecting one of their own, and people will still believe the negative statements about the lawyer are true.
So, why is all this being done? It's such a gross over-reaction. It's like "Quick, Suzie! Get the sledge hammer! There's a fly on baby's head!"
The videos also show Voldemort recruited "protesters" out of homeless shelters. The Family court war is officially ova. The struggle is not real.
@10:27 the judge was subject to attempts to sway him in favor of a litigant in an open case. I don't think he had much choice except to make a record of it and recuse himself. And I agree – he is the best on the bench right now. Great judge.
As for the lawsuits, your assessment of that is pretty spot on. It's just feeding the trolls at that point.
10:35. True that the judge needed to make a record of it. But he did so, extensively, at a prior hearing he arranged a few months ago, which he chiefly devoted to this issue, and fully vetted it on the record, and then issued a detailed order from his department documenting all that. So, to then set yet another hearing, the one from a couple weeks ago, where the same incident and the same theme is beat to death, this time enhanced with unpleasant exchanges with the nonparty, accomplished nothing. Nothing new had really occurred between the two hearings. If he needed to recuse he could have done so at the first hearing, where he essentially made all the same findings(as to the ex parte contact) that he made at the second hearing months later. All that was accomplished by the second hearing was unpleasant exchanges with Sanson, and the court repeating its findings multiple times to establish that VIP is in the wrong, and the court is in the right.
So, 10:27 has a point that things could have been handled somewhat differently, and that inadvertently gasoline was poured on the fire. But that's all hindsight, and this is a rather unusual circumstance that doesn't crop up too often. So, a little bit of over-kill or repeated thoroughness may not be a bad idea under the highly unique circumstances.
"Judges worry too much about their re-election . . ."
That's pretty much ALL they worry about.
Why are all the comments about William Onyeabor being deleted?
Why are all the comments about Kei(t)h's m(o)m being deleted?
Deleted again w/o explanation
Saved you a click list of Bounder City candidates, I don't know any of them:
Chris Davis, Christi Kindel, Gordon Goolsby and Steve Morris
Chris Davis may be a fine person and fine lawyer, but I don't really like the way he occasionally presents himself during election speeches or interviews to fill judicial vacancies.
I believe he was a City Attorney, perhaps in North Las Vegas.
He ran a few times for a judgeship. In one speech while he was campaigning, which I saw, it seemed to me that he made such a point over and over, that when he decides if and how to prosecute someone, it has nothing to do with race, socio-economic status, etc. I have no reason to doubt him, and accept him at his word, but anytime someone forcefully, and repeatedly, insists that when doing their job they don't consider any racial factors when making decisions, this may raise suspicion in some people(not me, but some people) that the person in fact does consider such factors. No one at the forum, if memory serves, had raised any race-related issue. If, when no one has asked, someone hollers from the roof tops about how they are not bigoted, it gets people wondering. People in attendance were commenting on it afterward, as to why he made such a point to emphasize and insist how color-blind he was, when no one had asked him about it. But there may be some mitigation or excuse for his approach. The speech occurred in '08 on the West Side at a function sponsored by an organization where it is reasonable to expect that someone would raise the question about disparate treatment in the criminal justice system for people of color. But next time, he should probably wait till someone actually inquires about such issue before he wags his clenched fist with emphasis about how, when prosecuting, he is never influenced by race factors.
And I saw one of his interviews for a District Court vacancy, which streamed live. First, my view(and just speaking for myself)is I felt the tone he took raised a legitimate concern as to whether, if appointed, he would view the department as his own private fiefdom. Secondly, in my view, he presented a highly negative view of the District Court bench. Rather than saying it's a good team, I want to join it, and help with improvements that can be made, he seemed to suggest he was running because of how ghastly some District Court Judges are, and how dreadful their decisions are.
He then said something to the effect that the District Judges way too often get it wrong, he and his firm appeal them, they win the appeal and the case is remanded, a whole new trial occurs, and the judge still gets it totally wrong. He then honked like a goose, which I guess is how he laughs, as he seemed to continue to expound on the incompetency of the District Court bench–strongly implying that he was seeking the position not for any personal considerations, but on account that he would be a savior to help rescue the District Court from their own incompetence and cluelessness.
Now, all that being said, obviously that is not the message Davis was attempting to convey. But by saying nothing positive about the court, and only emphasizing the court's mistakes, and then by implying that either due to arrogance and/or stupidity that even when a case is remanded the courts continue to screw them up, he hardly endeared himself to the panel, which included at least one justice who formerly served on the District Court.
Now, I realize many may agree with what Davis observed. But he was not in a setting where brutal honesty is rewarded. He was in a setting which called for significant diplomacy. In the future, Mr. Davis, your chances for appointment to District Court increase greatly if you exercise some diplomacy. I'm not aware of anyone who got appointed to District Court after spending much of their brief, precious allotted interview time, cackling about how much District Court sucks.
That being said, you seem to say what you think regardless of context or circumstance, and that can be a laudable trait at times.
Based on what 12:00 says about Davis' approach in his District Court interview, I would support his appointment to the Bench if he applies in the future.
I saw those interviews and remember them as 12:00 does.
But I find Davis' candor quite refreshing. There were(some would say there still are) some bad ones on the bench. And I strongly agree that some cases are remanded with specific instructions, yet the same errors are then repeated.
So, I too would support Davis in a future quest for judgeship, and hope he receives the boulder City position he currently seeks.
There are some bad ones on the bench. He would be a dolt if he ever managed to get appointed or elected. God help us.
You may be right in your assessment of him. I don't know. But if he said those things at his District Court interview as referenced by 12:00, I would support giving him a shot.
Ala "The Topic Which Shall Not Be Named": Just because the District Court needs a savior does not mean this is the savior. This just might be a buffoon who cannot get out of his own way.
List of permanent guardianship commission members (saved you several clicks and a captcha)
JUDGES/STAFF
Vincent Ochoa, 8th Judicial District Court
Gloria Sturman, 8th Judicial District Court
Egan Walker, 2nd Judicial District Court
Dawna Richert, 8th Judicial District Court JEA
PUBLIC/PRIVATE GUARDIANS
Karen Kelly, Clark County Public Guardian
Shelly Register Private Guardian, Washoe County
LAWYERS
Debra Amens
Jim Berchtold
Elizabeth Brickfield
Henry Cavallera
Lynn Hughes
Michael Keane
John Michaelson
Jennifer Salem
Jennifer Rains
Dania Reid
STATEWIDE REPRESENTATIVES
Mary Bryant, UNR
Becky Harris, State Senator
Lynda Hascheff, AARP
Homa Woodrum, Department of Health & Human Services
Jenny Salem still around?
So apparently Posner is insane:
https://twitter.com/JoshMBlackman/status/908497141047447557
Holy guacamole. Can't decide whether it is scary or awesome.
I've been saying this for well over a year based on both his opinions and public comments.
Troll level: Expert
Awesome!
DACA? Where can I volunteer to help with the deportation paperwork?
Go to hell.
I assume 9:31 was referring to deportation outside the USA. ICE has processing centers in CA, AZ, TX and CO, so you may want to start looking there 9:31. I check and there are no processing centers in Hell, MI. I think 10:06 is trying to mislead you.
I think what 10:06 meant was "Go f*ck yourself"
I'm assuming 9:31 isn't a Native American so GTFO. Go back to whatever country your ancestors came from. Your nasty comments aren't welcome here and neither are you.
There are so many people with birthright citizenship I would deport before even getting close to DACA recipients who have been vetted. We can start with the Trump children and immediately improve our society 10-fold
I would exempt Barron. Kid is too young to be responsible for the sins of the father. Wait, isn't that the entire rationale for DACA?
Deport the wall street banks.
10:56: Do you kiss your momma with those lips?
Welcome to the University of California-Berkley blog where differing points of view are not tolerated.
Don't you know 9:31 that you are not entitled to your opinion on things such as ILLEGAL immigration?
You must walk lockstep with the hyperventilating left wing brain dead Las Vegas legal community in order to post here…
Another thing not tolerated here is RANDOM CAPITALIZATION.
WHAT ARE WE YELLING ABOUT?
10:29 Here. I am so happy to have an educated immigration discussion on a law blog. I will get ball rolling.
Are their parents/or guardians who brought them here illegally within the country?
Alright, next question. Are the "DACA" individuals here illegally?
Are there lists of people around the world that have been waiting years, and in some cases decades, to get into the United States legally? (I know these are easy!)
Would legalizing DACA recipients reward lawbreaking while acting as a deterrent to using the formal legal process for immigration?
If you answered YES to all of the above, please do your part and report illegal immigrants.
Other than normal mudslinging at the current administration, I do not understand the DACA hullabaloo. Trump just gave Congress 6 months to "legalize" DACA. If DACA is right for our country, all Congress has to do is handle it legislatively and no one goes home or anywhere else.
And if Congress wants to handle it like NSC (and COA wannabe's) handles their responsibilities; where does the surprise and outrage come from?
Trump wimped out like the uninformed, unqualified daddy's money fool he is. He's passing the buck. Ol' buck-passer Trump, admitted whiner, useless in nearly every regard.
Hey 11:37: You could write that nearly everyday….but what is the big deal about DACA?
Not a big trump fan, but he timed the DACA question to expire right around the time candidates for Republican primaries need to declare. If current congressman vote for amnesty, you know they will face a tough primary and will likely lose in the current climate. It dramatically increases his chance at gaining republicans that will follow his agenda.
It also allows voters to hold current members responsible for immigration questions while looking benevolent (as much as Trump could ever be considered that). If they fail to pass something, then he can declare that he is only applying the laws on the books and begin deportation. Underestimating Trump is how he got to the White House.
I concur with 11:31.
This is not a laughing matter. The fate of the Nation hangs in the balance. We are on the verge of becoming California. Stop the madness. Build the wall.
Can you please explain to me why you think the wall would stop anyone from coming here? Aside from being a colossal waste of money the US doesn't have, it simply wouldn't work. The wall that's already built doesn't stop people now! It won't stop people in the future. They dig under it, they fly over it, they swim around it, etc. Get real.
@12:18 – Do you mean the wall between US and Mexico? Or between California and Nevada?
Anyone who uses "alright" as a word is not having an educated discussion.
How about if someone uses "Amiright"?
I believe the correct spelling is "amirite"
DACA, by definition, is Deferred Action, not non-action. It was also an unconstitutional overreach by Obama and an attempt to legislate. All Trump did was removed the non-action and actually defer action 6 months. Get over it.
Apparently, it's xenophobic turd day here on the blog.
Xenophobic? Wait, they pulled out the "phobic" card…. it's all over, they won! No need to articulate policy, legal principles, or financial costs; the "phobic" card has carried the day!
Course, maybe you are on a blog visited by people who know ad hominem fallacies don't automatically make you right. Start with where the current law, then maybe discuss where it should go. Calling someone xenophobic for wanting enforcement of current law is idiotic.
There are over 3 billion people living in poverty around the world. Opening the borders to anyone that can get in would bury the US in a year. We are rich, but not infinitely so. We have to put reasonable limitations on immigration to avoid being overwhelmed. This WILL result in some very nice people being locked out. It also means some very nice people that got here must leave.
We are a nation. We cannot afford to only use our heart, we must also use our head.
Thanks, Mr. Stubbs
Hey, 1:29, you and I need to get together. XOXO
Deport Gov. Trump. I mean Lewis and Roca wiz, Laxalt.
We're rich? Since when?
Slavery was legal once too. It was illegal for women to vote at one point. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right and just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.
@2:36 – You must have missed the point where 1:29 said that if you have a problem with the law, then discuss what needs to be done about it. Of course the law has evolved over the years. But that doesn't mean that we should just stop enforcing the laws as they are written. If they need to be changed, then it should be taken up by Congress.
Yeah, because that's a reasonable conclusion, idiot.
Judge Jack Lehman died on Thursday at the age of 89. It's in the RJ today (Saturday) in the obits.
Too tired/lazy to find link to obits this fine young Saturday morning, and my pancakes just got done too!
Sad loss. Good man.
25 years ago I was a law clerk For Jack Lehman. I was lucky enough to be there for the 1st day of Drug Court and see its first graduate. Lehman was almost alone in this project that has helped thousands. Back then (yes I sound old) all the judges had a civil, criminal and domestic calendar. He treated everyone with a sense of fairness and justice that was unique considering his personal history. He was not perfect, he had a temper and no tolerance for games in his court. He could be hard on his clerks, but it was always with the idea that he was teaching and guiding and not berating or hectoring. I am a much better person for having known him and worked by his side. Terry Coffing
Very nice tribute Terry. It also goes a very long ways to explaining why you put in for the Department X seat, that it is not just a judgeship for you but a special place. I am now doubly sorry that you did not get the appointment.