Lots of empty Airbnbs, renters out of work, homeowners out of work. I'm no economist but I don't see how this results in anything but a flood of foreclosures once the moratorium lifts.
Correct. And the fact that MGM and CZR stocks are rallying is just stupid. Read an article this morning that it's probably fueled by shorts trying to cash out what profits they can.
Guest
Anonymous
April 7, 2020 4:46 pm
I haven't put a tie on since March 18. I had 2 video motions last week and didn't wear a tie. Opposing counsel did not wear a tie. Judge had robe on but was not wearing a tie. Can we agree that ties are ridiculous and should never be worn again? Would your answer change if you knew that President Trump has investments in companies that make and sell ties?
I frequently wear a tie without a jacket — my jacket is usually off, hung up on a hanger in my office. At all of my past firms, I would wear a suit and tie into work (and when I left work), but once I got into my office, the jacket came off. I have been doing this for all of my professional life, which has been over 35 years. And right now, I am in shirt sleeves and tie, and my suit jacket is on a hanger. (I am not sheltering at home.)
Sorry, 10:39, if this does not meet with your approval.
I may just have a gift, but I have always found it to be extremely easy to tell the difference between someone who is wearing just a tie because they took their jacket off and someone whose planned outfit is a tie with no jacket.
I'm old school. Almost always wearing a sport coat, and always suit and tie for office and court. What you wear says a lot. When I was young and single, I wore a lot of leather jackets and silk shirts. Now that I am a doddering old man (no, really, ask my teenaged kids), I dress the part. So there.
Oh, and yes, I do judge others on how they dress. I prefer the coiffed head of hair over greasy hippie hair; the finely dressed over the sloppy slovenly schlump, and so on.
April 7, 2020 at 2:08 PM – What you said. If someone wants to dispose of the well documented advantages of being dressed for success, then that's on them. This is is no way to pass judgment on whether it
should matter or not, but it doesn't change the fact that it's real. Interestingly, when he did his original research, John T. Molloy found that even people who don't like suits and the people who wear them, he found they still trusted them more than they trusted their own socioeconomic cohort.
Guest
Anonymous
April 7, 2020 5:28 pm
A few thoughts on three of the topics.
1. Small aircraft crashes and kills six passengers. Two years later, MGM is added as a Defendant. Seems like a real reach. Apparently, the rationale for adding them as a Defendant is that one of the passengers was a promoter of sorts, and one of the events she was promoting involved MGM. However, the fact that one of the events she was promoting involved MGM was in no way the reason the flight existed, and in no way caused any other passengers to be on board, and certainly didn't cause the flight to crash. MGM apparently has no connection with the flight, officially or unofficially. But what they have is real deep pockets.
2. The one poker player suing that another poker player supposedly cheated also sounds like a weak lawsuit to say the least. Nothing was detected by the gaming establishment and its security team, at that time or any time thereafter. Seems like a lot of supposition and presumptions,or,better, yet, mere desperation. Not only will it be extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible, to prove this supposed cheating at this point, but the argument for damages is almost ludicrous. He is arguing that he is so great, and was playing so great, that he would have won but for this cheating(which no one detected at the time and which he appears unable to prove).
He would need to reconstruct each and every hand, and the precise cheating that occurred, who was holding what during each hand, etc. And even if he somehow did so, he would have to demonstrate what the precise results would have been(and how much he would have won) but for the almost impossible to proof supposed cheating.
3. The lawyer, after receiving an adverse ruling, placing a curse on the judge to the effect that the judge should become infected with the coronavirus, is certainly an interesting story. However, it would have been far more of a news story had the judge, subsequent to being hexed or cursed, actually become infected with the virus. In fact, if this judge does become infected, and decides to sue the lawyer, I think that is better lawsuit(as far as persuading the average jury) than blaming MGM for the private plane crash they had zero involvement in, as well as a better lawsuit than the losing poker player.
Responding to thought 2 I agree it will be difficult to prove cheating and damages in Court. However, this situation is pretty wild. A brief google search on Mike Postle will show some of the blatant and brazen ways this guy was likely cheating. I went down an internet rabbit hole that lasted days when this first came out a few months ago. There are also allegations that the casino and security team who ran the live stream of the games was in on it so not surprising nothing was reported or detected by them. There are hours of video footage of this guy staring down into his lap during hands, bulky objects in his hat, and just absolutely absurd play with no explanation that resulted in huge wins. As i understand it this guy went from a break even player to massive winner in a very short period of time. He would also allegedly only play on the live stream games and pack up and leave once the live streamed game was over. Unfortunately I think these players suing are SOL but the optics of this look bad and it appears there was probably some cheating.
I just wanted to comment regarding the poker lawsuit as I am an attorney and poker enthusiast and I am very familiar with this situation. Basically, it is generally accepted that the poker room manager was in cahoots with a player and would feed him the other players' cards live. The manager had access to this information due to a TV program they were shooting. The cheating occurred at a CA casino not here. The reason the cheating wasn't caught earlier is the the poker room manager was in on the fraud. No one in the poker community doubts the cheating at this point. The player at issue repeatedly on tape refers to the phone on his lap which is how the information was sent to him. They were simply TOO brazen about it. Had they wanted to steal only $1,000 a night, have a losing session every once in a while, or make aggressive but not unreasonable plays, they would have gone undiscovered longer. But they got greedy. Many poker players are very intelligent and once extreme oddities were identified, figuring the rest out wasn't hard. The suit is 100% legit. Also, as to the remark to the effect that the poker room would find out about the cheat first, please understand that EVERY major poker cheat I am aware of was exposed by PLAYERS not the casino. Casinos seem to care less because it is not their money lost. Players continue to be the whistle blowers.
1:44 is correct. Unlike every other game in the house, the casino doesn't care who wins the pot. They take their rake and push the pot to a winner. Who that happens to be on any given hand doesn't matter.
Guest
Anonymous
April 7, 2020 5:36 pm
10:28, I'm also having trouble understanding including MGM in the plane crash matter,or the poker lawsuit. It could be the articles left out key points. Journalists are, generally speaking, not attorneys, and when they report on civil cases they often only report on a very surface level, as to what sounds interesting or salacious. Explanatory details are often glossed over.
As to corona situation, based on some of the juries I've seen and read about, as well as the tense, crazy times we are in, I wouldn't be surprised if there are certain juries who could be convinced of the causal connection between someone wishing corona on someone, and then that person actually becoming infected with the disease. And that explains why certain Defendants, when facing an outlandish lawsuit, are well served to seek a Bench Trial, rather than demanding a Jury Trial(providing they wind up with a rational judge, which is no guarantee).
@10:36
Short answer: Deep pockets. My guess is that the only insured defendant is the aircraft owner and plaintiffs have realized that the owner's liability is doubtful. Naming MGM is an attempt to breath life into the case, obtain settlement for cost of defense.
Guest
Anonymous
April 7, 2020 6:10 pm
I have an unrelated question, does Supreme Court publish all orders each week?
The Nevada Supreme Court: not final because they are infallible, but infallible only because they are final (on questions of state law). With apologies to the Honorable Justice Robert H. Jackson.
Guest
Anonymous
April 7, 2020 8:10 pm
Any Divorce Attorneys in here. I saw this online "Family Court Judge’s in New York and the statewide coordinating Judge for Matrimonial Cases rule Families with custody agreements must still follow their court-ordered schedules, despite any "shelter in place" – type orders issued by the state." Is this the law in Nevada? Thank you.
The Family Court has not issued an order similar to New York and other states which require adherence to custody orders despite the governors stay at home orders. Each judge is handling visitation matters as they arise. Judge Bell and Judge Duckworth declined to enter such blanket orders in favor of a case by case approach.
My landlord reached out to me to tell me it's okay not to pay rent this month. At first, I gladly accepted the offer. Then I thought, no, I'm paying rent until I can't, and I paid. Did I fall for reverse psychology?
While landlords are notorious for trying to pull one over on their tenants, such voluntary gestures should be taken as they come. If you can afford your rent now but may be worried that something could happen in the future that could jeopardize your ability to pay, perhaps call your landlord back and let them know that you appreciate the offer but you are able to pay this month and will be doing so. You also could ask him to extend you the favor of giving you a full month grace period on a future month's rent if you need it. At least then you give yourself the chance of collecting the chit in the future.
Lots of empty Airbnbs, renters out of work, homeowners out of work. I'm no economist but I don't see how this results in anything but a flood of foreclosures once the moratorium lifts.
Correct. And the fact that MGM and CZR stocks are rallying is just stupid. Read an article this morning that it's probably fueled by shorts trying to cash out what profits they can.
I haven't put a tie on since March 18. I had 2 video motions last week and didn't wear a tie. Opposing counsel did not wear a tie. Judge had robe on but was not wearing a tie. Can we agree that ties are ridiculous and should never be worn again? Would your answer change if you knew that President Trump has investments in companies that make and sell ties?
the real question is whether a jacket and no tie is more professional than no jacket but a tie
Tie with no jacket is a bad look that no one should do ever. Jacket is good with or without tie.
I frequently wear a tie without a jacket — my jacket is usually off, hung up on a hanger in my office. At all of my past firms, I would wear a suit and tie into work (and when I left work), but once I got into my office, the jacket came off. I have been doing this for all of my professional life, which has been over 35 years. And right now, I am in shirt sleeves and tie, and my suit jacket is on a hanger. (I am not sheltering at home.)
Sorry, 10:39, if this does not meet with your approval.
I may just have a gift, but I have always found it to be extremely easy to tell the difference between someone who is wearing just a tie because they took their jacket off and someone whose planned outfit is a tie with no jacket.
I'm old school. Almost always wearing a sport coat, and always suit and tie for office and court. What you wear says a lot. When I was young and single, I wore a lot of leather jackets and silk shirts. Now that I am a doddering old man (no, really, ask my teenaged kids), I dress the part. So there.
Oh, and yes, I do judge others on how they dress. I prefer the coiffed head of hair over greasy hippie hair; the finely dressed over the sloppy slovenly schlump, and so on.
No need for my approval 12:50. Also, you are in good company. Male lawyers are, as a whole, a sartorially-challenged group.
@2:08pm. Ward Cleaver? Is that you?
A most excellent show! I need to rewatch while in quarantine.
April 7, 2020 at 2:08 PM – What you said. If someone wants to dispose of the well documented advantages of being dressed for success, then that's on them. This is is no way to pass judgment on whether it
should matter or not, but it doesn't change the fact that it's real. Interestingly, when he did his original research, John T. Molloy found that even people who don't like suits and the people who wear them, he found they still trusted them more than they trusted their own socioeconomic cohort.
A few thoughts on three of the topics.
1. Small aircraft crashes and kills six passengers. Two years later, MGM is added as a Defendant. Seems like a real reach. Apparently, the rationale for adding them as a Defendant is that one of the passengers was a promoter of sorts, and one of the events she was promoting involved MGM. However, the fact that one of the events she was promoting involved MGM was in no way the reason the flight existed, and in no way caused any other passengers to be on board, and certainly didn't cause the flight to crash. MGM apparently has no connection with the flight, officially or unofficially. But what they have is real deep pockets.
2. The one poker player suing that another poker player supposedly cheated also sounds like a weak lawsuit to say the least. Nothing was detected by the gaming establishment and its security team, at that time or any time thereafter. Seems like a lot of supposition and presumptions,or,better, yet, mere desperation. Not only will it be extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible, to prove this supposed cheating at this point, but the argument for damages is almost ludicrous. He is arguing that he is so great, and was playing so great, that he would have won but for this cheating(which no one detected at the time and which he appears unable to prove).
He would need to reconstruct each and every hand, and the precise cheating that occurred, who was holding what during each hand, etc. And even if he somehow did so, he would have to demonstrate what the precise results would have been(and how much he would have won) but for the almost impossible to proof supposed cheating.
3. The lawyer, after receiving an adverse ruling, placing a curse on the judge to the effect that the judge should become infected with the coronavirus, is certainly an interesting story. However, it would have been far more of a news story had the judge, subsequent to being hexed or cursed, actually become infected with the virus. In fact, if this judge does become infected, and decides to sue the lawyer, I think that is better lawsuit(as far as persuading the average jury) than blaming MGM for the private plane crash they had zero involvement in, as well as a better lawsuit than the losing poker player.
Responding to thought 2 I agree it will be difficult to prove cheating and damages in Court. However, this situation is pretty wild. A brief google search on Mike Postle will show some of the blatant and brazen ways this guy was likely cheating. I went down an internet rabbit hole that lasted days when this first came out a few months ago. There are also allegations that the casino and security team who ran the live stream of the games was in on it so not surprising nothing was reported or detected by them. There are hours of video footage of this guy staring down into his lap during hands, bulky objects in his hat, and just absolutely absurd play with no explanation that resulted in huge wins. As i understand it this guy went from a break even player to massive winner in a very short period of time. He would also allegedly only play on the live stream games and pack up and leave once the live streamed game was over. Unfortunately I think these players suing are SOL but the optics of this look bad and it appears there was probably some cheating.
I just wanted to comment regarding the poker lawsuit as I am an attorney and poker enthusiast and I am very familiar with this situation. Basically, it is generally accepted that the poker room manager was in cahoots with a player and would feed him the other players' cards live. The manager had access to this information due to a TV program they were shooting. The cheating occurred at a CA casino not here. The reason the cheating wasn't caught earlier is the the poker room manager was in on the fraud. No one in the poker community doubts the cheating at this point. The player at issue repeatedly on tape refers to the phone on his lap which is how the information was sent to him. They were simply TOO brazen about it. Had they wanted to steal only $1,000 a night, have a losing session every once in a while, or make aggressive but not unreasonable plays, they would have gone undiscovered longer. But they got greedy. Many poker players are very intelligent and once extreme oddities were identified, figuring the rest out wasn't hard. The suit is 100% legit. Also, as to the remark to the effect that the poker room would find out about the cheat first, please understand that EVERY major poker cheat I am aware of was exposed by PLAYERS not the casino. Casinos seem to care less because it is not their money lost. Players continue to be the whistle blowers.
1:44 is correct. Unlike every other game in the house, the casino doesn't care who wins the pot. They take their rake and push the pot to a winner. Who that happens to be on any given hand doesn't matter.
10:28, I'm also having trouble understanding including MGM in the plane crash matter,or the poker lawsuit. It could be the articles left out key points. Journalists are, generally speaking, not attorneys, and when they report on civil cases they often only report on a very surface level, as to what sounds interesting or salacious. Explanatory details are often glossed over.
As to corona situation, based on some of the juries I've seen and read about, as well as the tense, crazy times we are in, I wouldn't be surprised if there are certain juries who could be convinced of the causal connection between someone wishing corona on someone, and then that person actually becoming infected with the disease. And that explains why certain Defendants, when facing an outlandish lawsuit, are well served to seek a Bench Trial, rather than demanding a Jury Trial(providing they wind up with a rational judge, which is no guarantee).
@10:36
Short answer: Deep pockets. My guess is that the only insured defendant is the aircraft owner and plaintiffs have realized that the owner's liability is doubtful. Naming MGM is an attempt to breath life into the case, obtain settlement for cost of defense.
I have an unrelated question, does Supreme Court publish all orders each week?
Dispositional orders, yes. For unpublished orders, they generally appear at the below links the day following their entry:
https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Unpublished_Orders/
https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Court_of_Appeals/Unpublished_Orders/
For published opinions, they generally appear the same day they are issued, and usually they're released only on Thursdays and appear at the link below:
https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Advance_Opinions/
Thank you, 11:46.
You can still find unpublished decisions in FASTCASE, which is a benefit of bar membership.
Generally the Supreme Court will issue Published Decisions to the parties on Wednesday and then publish them on Thursday morning after 9 am.
Yes, every week. We welcome you to another great episode of Animal Kingdom, I mean Supreme Court decisions.
The Nevada Supreme Court: not final because they are infallible, but infallible only because they are final (on questions of state law). With apologies to the Honorable Justice Robert H. Jackson.
Any Divorce Attorneys in here. I saw this online "Family Court Judge’s in New York and the statewide coordinating Judge for Matrimonial Cases rule Families with custody agreements must still follow their court-ordered schedules, despite any "shelter in place" – type orders issued by the state." Is this the law in Nevada? Thank you.
The Family Court has not issued an order similar to New York and other states which require adherence to custody orders despite the governors stay at home orders. Each judge is handling visitation matters as they arise. Judge Bell and Judge Duckworth declined to enter such blanket orders in favor of a case by case approach.
Any more news about layoffs or pay cuts?
Winter is coming…
My landlord reached out to me to tell me it's okay not to pay rent this month. At first, I gladly accepted the offer. Then I thought, no, I'm paying rent until I can't, and I paid. Did I fall for reverse psychology?
While landlords are notorious for trying to pull one over on their tenants, such voluntary gestures should be taken as they come. If you can afford your rent now but may be worried that something could happen in the future that could jeopardize your ability to pay, perhaps call your landlord back and let them know that you appreciate the offer but you are able to pay this month and will be doing so. You also could ask him to extend you the favor of giving you a full month grace period on a future month's rent if you need it. At least then you give yourself the chance of collecting the chit in the future.