Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez denied Steve Wynn’s motion to terminate his shareholder agreement. [RJ]
A lawsuit was filed related to that recent Grand Canyon helicopter crash. [Las Vegas Sun]
Sifting truth from fiction in pimp investigation. [TNI]
Today is the first day for non-judicial candidates to file for office. Will we see a lot of lawyers throwing their hat in the ring? You can get information about county elections here and statewide elections here.
Steve Morris is the LDS Stake President over Judge Victor Miller, according to Stephen Stubbs. Steve Morris is the Boulder City prosecutor. Stubbs rightfully pointed out this conflict of interest.
Last week on the blog, this conflict of interest was glibly dismissed with this straw man: "I'm not missing that point ('m the guy arguing above). I can see how a defendant/defense attorney would use it to make some noise, but I just don't think that its a REAL issue. 'I'd better rule in favor of the prosecutor here, or he'll yank my temple recommend!' Dumb."
If only it were that simple. If you read the briefing filed by Stubbs in his Writ to the district court, he says that when he argued that Morris had violated the Constitution, Judge Miller rejected Stubbs' argument (according to Stubbs' Writ) by stating that Morris did not violate the constitution because that's not something Morris would do.
Think about that. Really think about it. Judge Miller didn't review the facts and then explain that, based upon those facts, Morris didn't violate the constitution. Rather, Judge Miller ruled (according to Stubbs) that Morris isn't the kind of person that would violate the constitution. In other words, the ruling was based not upon the facts and law, but Judge Miller's familiarity with Morris.
And exactly how is it that Miller knows Morris? Oh right, Morris is Miller's stake president, which means he is seen by Miller as a paragon of virtue and righteousness. The kind of person that isn't capable of breaking rules, such as violating the constitution.
Do you want to try cases in front of a judge who thinks the opposing counsel is incapable of violating the rules, in spite of what the facts might say?
This is kind of a funny debate, because Stubbs is ALSO Mormon. Also, it is funny that 9:47 is taking Stubbs' recitation of facts at face value … as if Stubbs is the paragon of virtue and righteousness. Let us not forget his criminal conviction (and public reprimand by the Supreme Court) for unlawful notarization of signature by notary public, which is literally a lie in which he was caught!
I can see both sides of the argument here. I am Mormon and I can understand why those who are not Mormon would perceive a conflict. If what is represented above about Miller's handling of the matter is correct, that raises some suspicions.
On the other hand, as a Mormon, the fact that somebody is my Stake President would have no more effect on my handling of a matter than if it involved my newspaper delivery guy.
If one were to resort to character-based arguments, one might also suggest Stubbs is precisely the person to recognize when one is not being a paragon of virtue and righteousness because, as they say, "takes one to know one."
The email was published on ATL, with glorious mountain peaks on full display.
Guest
Anonymous
March 6, 2018 12:59 am
Justin Jones sent me his 800th email even though I do not live in his District and when I needed help Justin was nowhere to be found. Obviously Justin I am praying for karma for you.
To:4:59. I completely agree with and understand your decision not to support Justin Jones, but our reasoning may differ somewhat.
I have a friend who also contacted a politician for help. My friend and I were both really put off–not necessarily by the fact the politician didn't help, but by the fact he never responded.
If he had contacted my friend(who does live in the same district as the politician and represents that he had previously donated to the politician's re-election campaign)and explained why he could not help, although my friend indicates he would have been disappointed, he insists he would have still continued to support the politician. It is the fact he was never contacted back, despite numerous attempts to reach the slime ball(er…I mean politican), is what upset my friend.
So, I don't know whether Jones should have helped you or not, unless some specifics are offered. But damn straight that he should have responded and discussed the matter with you.
Now we know how clients feel when we don't respond to their calls, emails, etc. But, that of courses is yet another topic, and we all have had some clients who constantly phone, email, text, etc.
The comment at 6:41 was only up for a minute or two, and the mischaracterization of that comment nearly 15 minutes later by 6:57 provides strong evidence that 6:41 and 6:57 were the same person. So no, I reckon 6:57 was not just asking a question – s/he was complaining about the removal of their earlier nasty comment. And I also suspect 7:46 may also be the same person.
Regardless of whether or not I am correct on any of the foregoing assumptions, the point is, sometimes I get sick of seeing nasty, negative comments on here, and today I elected to do something about it and remove one such comment.
In addition to Solomon Dwiggins & Freer, supposedly other homeowners are contacting some of the bigger commercial litigation firms to explore bad faith as against the HOA's carrier. I only know this because my firm got some calls.
The carrier is going to appeal, and it will get worked out/settled at the NVSC mediation conference, because the bad faith litigation threat is a real thing and Clagget doesn't want to lien/foreclose those houses in the HOA if he doesn't have to.
I don't think it will get settled at the NVSC Mediation Conference. Spread is too big. For $20MM, carrier can pay its coverage counsel to fight Claggett and homeowners all day long.
The award can not and will not stand. There are far too many issues. First of all, one of the parties–the swing set maker settled. So there is a substantial set off there. Word is the single plaintiff already collected something like several million. Secondly, sounds like the trial court made many errors which are likely to be reversed. Thirdly, the HOA did nothing to warrant this kind of award. The case is a crazy anomaly. The judge is likely to drastically reduce it in post verdict motions.
Guest
Anonymous
March 6, 2018 6:38 pm
Anyone who tells you do not have to pay anything is filth. No attorney can promise you that. That is unethical and untruthful. You guys are making the foreclosing brothers look good right now. Who in the hell are you to take advantage of distressed homeowners like that.
Re: Conflict of interest in Boulder City
Steve Morris is the LDS Stake President over Judge Victor Miller, according to Stephen Stubbs. Steve Morris is the Boulder City prosecutor. Stubbs rightfully pointed out this conflict of interest.
Last week on the blog, this conflict of interest was glibly dismissed with this straw man: "I'm not missing that point ('m the guy arguing above). I can see how a defendant/defense attorney would use it to make some noise, but I just don't think that its a REAL issue. 'I'd better rule in favor of the prosecutor here, or he'll yank my temple recommend!' Dumb."
If only it were that simple. If you read the briefing filed by Stubbs in his Writ to the district court, he says that when he argued that Morris had violated the Constitution, Judge Miller rejected Stubbs' argument (according to Stubbs' Writ) by stating that Morris did not violate the constitution because that's not something Morris would do.
Think about that. Really think about it. Judge Miller didn't review the facts and then explain that, based upon those facts, Morris didn't violate the constitution. Rather, Judge Miller ruled (according to Stubbs) that Morris isn't the kind of person that would violate the constitution. In other words, the ruling was based not upon the facts and law, but Judge Miller's familiarity with Morris.
And exactly how is it that Miller knows Morris? Oh right, Morris is Miller's stake president, which means he is seen by Miller as a paragon of virtue and righteousness. The kind of person that isn't capable of breaking rules, such as violating the constitution.
Do you want to try cases in front of a judge who thinks the opposing counsel is incapable of violating the rules, in spite of what the facts might say?
How is that justice?
This is kind of a funny debate, because Stubbs is ALSO Mormon. Also, it is funny that 9:47 is taking Stubbs' recitation of facts at face value … as if Stubbs is the paragon of virtue and righteousness. Let us not forget his criminal conviction (and public reprimand by the Supreme Court) for unlawful notarization of signature by notary public, which is literally a lie in which he was caught!
11:19, who cares about his religion. His ruling is unconstitutional.
Miller and Morris should have disclosed the conflict.
If there's a conflict, doesn't that mean that no criminal cases can be heard by that judge?
Who in the hell picked Morris? Lets have him appear in his religious leader. Didn't Doug Smith have a similar conflict?
Front
I can see both sides of the argument here. I am Mormon and I can understand why those who are not Mormon would perceive a conflict. If what is represented above about Miller's handling of the matter is correct, that raises some suspicions.
On the other hand, as a Mormon, the fact that somebody is my Stake President would have no more effect on my handling of a matter than if it involved my newspaper delivery guy.
What if it is President Gates?
9:04 – you still have a newspaper delivered?
If one were to resort to character-based arguments, one might also suggest Stubbs is precisely the person to recognize when one is not being a paragon of virtue and righteousness because, as they say, "takes one to know one."
http://fox13now.com/2018/03/05/every-lawyer-in-the-state-got-an-email-of-a-topless-woman-from-the-utah-state-bar/
Utah holds it's convention IN STATE? Novel!
If they can have theirs in a place as boring as St. George, why can't we have ours in the convention epicenter of the world?
See, THAT'S the kind of thing the State Bar should be involved in doing!
I didn't get the email, and I'm a Utah-barred attorney. 🙁
The email was published on ATL, with glorious mountain peaks on full display.
Justin Jones sent me his 800th email even though I do not live in his District and when I needed help Justin was nowhere to be found. Obviously Justin I am praying for karma for you.
Good for you. These elected officials, almost 100%, are aholes
To:4:59. I completely agree with and understand your decision not to support Justin Jones, but our reasoning may differ somewhat.
I have a friend who also contacted a politician for help. My friend and I were both really put off–not necessarily by the fact the politician didn't help, but by the fact he never responded.
If he had contacted my friend(who does live in the same district as the politician and represents that he had previously donated to the politician's re-election campaign)and explained why he could not help, although my friend indicates he would have been disappointed, he insists he would have still continued to support the politician. It is the fact he was never contacted back, despite numerous attempts to reach the slime ball(er…I mean politican), is what upset my friend.
So, I don't know whether Jones should have helped you or not, unless some specifics are offered. But damn straight that he should have responded and discussed the matter with you.
Now we know how clients feel when we don't respond to their calls, emails, etc. But, that of courses is yet another topic, and we all have had some clients who constantly phone, email, text, etc.
I called Masto's office who was rude and offered no advice. All you care about are the Dreamers. Middle finger for you and your besties.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Don't say anything bad about the Dreamers. Really?
Does Hutchinson have an official office? I know he is working on moving the capital of Israel.
@ 6:41 and 6:57 – this blog is a better off without that sort of unoriginal, uncivilized negativity.
6:57 only asked a question.
Okay, I'll play.
The comment at 6:41 was only up for a minute or two, and the mischaracterization of that comment nearly 15 minutes later by 6:57 provides strong evidence that 6:41 and 6:57 were the same person. So no, I reckon 6:57 was not just asking a question – s/he was complaining about the removal of their earlier nasty comment. And I also suspect 7:46 may also be the same person.
Regardless of whether or not I am correct on any of the foregoing assumptions, the point is, sometimes I get sick of seeing nasty, negative comments on here, and today I elected to do something about it and remove one such comment.
Agreed, the person only asked a question. Go Dreamers.
Go Dawgs. Of both the Legal and the basketball varieties.
RIP NJA
Why do I keep getting annoying emails from them?
What does that mean RIP? Did something happen to the NJA?
More indictments may come for the disgraced, Ricky Barlow.
Lamplight Village may have to pay 90k per homeowner. This is shitty.
Not a single homeowner is going to have to pay anything.
There you have it. No one knows this area better than 8:31.
In addition to Solomon Dwiggins & Freer, supposedly other homeowners are contacting some of the bigger commercial litigation firms to explore bad faith as against the HOA's carrier. I only know this because my firm got some calls.
The carrier is going to appeal, and it will get worked out/settled at the NVSC mediation conference, because the bad faith litigation threat is a real thing and Clagget doesn't want to lien/foreclose those houses in the HOA if he doesn't have to.
Respect 10:03. That was funny.
I don't think it will get settled at the NVSC Mediation Conference. Spread is too big. For $20MM, carrier can pay its coverage counsel to fight Claggett and homeowners all day long.
The award can not and will not stand. There are far too many issues. First of all, one of the parties–the swing set maker settled. So there is a substantial set off there. Word is the single plaintiff already collected something like several million. Secondly, sounds like the trial court made many errors which are likely to be reversed. Thirdly, the HOA did nothing to warrant this kind of award. The case is a crazy anomaly. The judge is likely to drastically reduce it in post verdict motions.
Anyone who tells you do not have to pay anything is filth. No attorney can promise you that. That is unethical and untruthful. You guys are making the foreclosing brothers look good right now. Who in the hell are you to take advantage of distressed homeowners like that.
You may not have to pay anything, but no one can truthfully say that.
You should run for judge.