- Quickdraw McLaw
- 72 Comments
- 272 Views
- The 9th Circuit said that while government employers have legitimate interests in regulating their employees’ speech, they can’t do so with a blanket ban. [RJ]
- Third time’s a charm for Steven Myhre and the US Attorney’s Office against two of the Bunkerville defendants? [RJ]
I don't blame the jurors for the verdict in the Bundy case. I blame the incredibly bad performance of Steven Myhre, the other US Attorneys involved in the case, and the federal agents who bungled what should have been an easy case. Too bad the Bundy assholes were not prosecuted in state court where the DA's office is capable of putting together a great case. Myhre should hang his head in shame.
The USAO characterized this group of Defendants as the least culpable and yet is going to waste more money on a third trial when they were told that the Jury was 11-1 for acquittal. I also do not blame the jurors even though I believe that Parker and Drexler probably need to serve some time; the problem is Parker and Drexler have served some time (almost 18 months) thanks to Myrhe's bungles. This is not on Nadia Ahmed. This is on Steve and Steve alone. He is heavy-handed. He is over the top. He is all about himself and ultimately I remain hopeful that his tenure as the head USA is coming to a rapid close.
8:25 is right. This is an easy case. Not a free speech case; the Defendants are allowed to speak and are allowed to testify. Not a right to bear arms case; the Defendants were allowed to bear arms. They cannot point their guns at law enforcement officers. It is undisputed that they pointed their guns. Myrhe had the Oregon case to show how conspiracy cases can go south when you overcharge and turn trials into Star Chamber affairs. He has now done it not once but twice without learning his lesson. I suspect we will see Round 3 of the same thing because he is always right and will keep spending taxpayer money to prove that he is right. He is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the USAO.
"can do so" – should be "can't do so" re trooper case at top.
So, McGregor is literally going to die on Saturday.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/sports/mcgregor-ufc-boxing.html?mabReward=CTS2&recid=9d8eb130-dfe7-4cde-5ba8-a89b9a8d8ad2&recp=0
It surprises me that they'd come to a conclusion that it's not safe for him to fight Mayweather. It's not like we're talking about some accountant they picked up off the street. This is a champion MMA fighter. While I'm almost certain McGregor is going to get beat, I don't see Mayweather hurting him. McGregor should know how to defend himself. Besides, Mayweather's only had one knockout in the past 10 years.
KNPR is giving a full infomercial this morning for a "sugar daddy" website on State of Nevada. Multiple drops and mentions of the actual subscription website name. Whomever is in charge of the PR/marketing for that website should be given a nice bonus for the major coup of getting a free infomercial run on an NPR affiliate in a major American city.
Yeah, but what's the website. I am tired of billing my life away.
Voldemort is such an easy target. Lmfao
https://www.facebook.com/CCFCWarmongers/
Two comments:
1. Someone brought up the discussion yesterday on why Family Court Judges get shot. Voldemort. People like Stevie Malingerer are the reason that Family Court Judges get shot. They take enflamed situations and make people think that war and death are appropriate analogies. The Bundys have nothing on Voldemort.
2. How can Jason Stoffel like BOTH Voldemort WAR's Page and the Anti-Voldemort page? Either you are a whore willing to like anything related to Family Court or are not able to realize that these are quite diametrically opposed things.
(I'm not JS) – I follow conservative pages and liberal/antifa/snowflake pages because I like the diversity of the opinions. Honestly, I'm regularly surprised by how far each side goes and it is entertaining.
Follow is one thing. Do you "Like" both KKK and Antifa Pages? I view "Like" as an endorsement of both. I do not think that one can endorse both sides of an issue.
Is it possible to follow a Facebook page without "liking" it? I'm not Facebook savvy.
Like and Follow are two different buttons. We follow quite a few Defendants and Plaintiffs who we are chasing. We never Like them.
Can people tell if you are facebook following them?
See Who's Following You
If you've allowed people to follow you, you can see a list of your followers by going to your profile, clicking Friends below your cover photo and then clicking Followers. If you don't have any followers, you won't see this option.
Note: If you let people who aren't your friends follow you, people who send friend requests that you ignore or delete will automatically start following you. If you don't want someone to follow you, you can block them at any time.
I'm not sure who's crazier. Voldemort or the author of that page. Embarrassing..
Voldemort. That page is actually quite a clever parody and rib-poking.
It's pretty ridiculous and disrespectful to anonymously call Steve Sanson "Voldemort". Sanson fights for your freedom and this is the thanks he gets?
1. He is called that so Google Alerts do not send him racing to this page to derail discussions with his diatribes.
2. Fights for my freedom (present tense)? He does nothing to fight for my freedom or the freedom of anyone else.
So let me get this straight – because someone used to serve in the military, we can't ever criticize how that person acts?
What else does this cloak of impunity extend to? What other laws or social norms should they be exempt from?
The bottom line is that these personal, juvenile attacks on Steve are just undignified.
The bottom line is that Voldemort is an undignified rube. Are you looking for a VIP endorsement and the 2 votes it brings?
His latest email blast almost had me laugh out loud. He was going to have "David Jones to discuss why child support and child custody is against Federal Law"
Hey 12:48…personal, juvenile attacks = voldemort!
You guys can nit pick over irrelevant issues all day, but if Steve wasn't standing up for what is right in this town, who would be?
When Marshal Willick was on VIP's program, discussing his efforts to help fashion legislation to better protect veterans, he was attacked. The host basically said: How dare you think you have the right to have an opinion on veteran issues, or how dare you take action to help veterans, unless you yourself have been in battle and seen your best friends blown to bits.
The rationale seems to be that one cannot truly understand what these combat damaged veterans have truly been through unless one has been through it themselves.
Fair enough to a point. But the people, such as Willick, who are in a position to advance and help implement legislation and change on these critical veterans issues,are not claiming to be able to relate to the horrors of what the combat veterans have been through, or to assist with the treatment of the physical and psychological aspects of it. Willick was not pretending to fathom the horrors of what they have been through, and made no pretense that he was there to offer medical/psychological advice.
Therefore, it was pointless, and not particularly rational, for him to be attacked. He was there because he is an attorney who has, and continues to be, at the forefront of assisting veterans by seeking to advance and implement legislation favorable to them.
Willick is a super smart academian,to the point of nerdhood(that's not an insult, by the way). That is his strength. That's what he brings to the table–being able to assist veterans with critical legislative changes. He does not bring great warmth or bedside manner to the table. Those are not his strengths.
Willick is therefore the perfect type person to help the veterans with matters involving the law. To berate him on the program with profanity and the insistence that he has no right to be heard on these issues unless he's seen his dead, dismembered buddies stacked six high, although admittedly somewhat entertaining and colorful, is in no way helpful to advance the dialogue.
Having an academian like Willick, who is an expert on these issues, is exactly what veterans need. It does not really matter so much whether he served in the military or not. In fact, one of the two hosts who were beratting him, never served either(!).
We can infer by the remarks of the hosts that some highly traumatized vet., who is currently in the throes of disabling PTSD from witnessing atrocities such as seeing his friends blown to bits two yards from him, and such vet. having zero real education or knowledge on these highly complex, multi-faceted statutory matters, is, by mere virtue of the horrors he suffered, a far superior advocate on legislative changes than Willick could be. I disagree.
Granted,legislative testimony from veterans is certainly highly desirable and can be icing on the cake. But the point person on the legislative changes needs to be the legal expert who has tirelessly studied and advanced such issues. If he happens to have been in battle, and knows the trauma first hand, that can certainly add something to his presentation and credibility when advancing the legislative changes. But it is hardly a prerequisite, and is not a matter of the first importance.
If he's the best person to help veterans and increase their benefits, then he should be the person pursuing these matters, regardless of him having no military service.
Not nitpicking. This is a legal blog which discusses issues with the Courts. Malin Gerer has placed himself as fodder for the discussion of legal issues. These are not personal attacks; they are discussions regarding the fact that he is a blight on the legal system who stands up for no one but his own self aggrandizement. These are criticisms of his actions and tactics as related to the Court System. I did not make Malin front and center for this topic; he did. If having a Facebook Group is good for the goose; having a Facebook Group is good for the gander.
I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that you anonymous cowards could come on the internet and attack a true patriot!
@2:30 – You do realize that one of the liberties you fought for was freedom of speech, right?
To: 2:30. Please keep in mind that if you pay attention to what 1:54 is saying, he/she is not attacking the veterans. In fact, he/she professes to recognize the critical role vetrans have in the advocacy process.
The point seems to be that someone who has not served, may also be able to effectively advocate for veterans.
If someone offers a balanced, nuanced discussion, I don't see how that constitutes attacking veterans.
Oh please, 3:03 PM? For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.
Sincerely,
2:30
2:40 PM,
Life does not stop and start at your convenience, you miserable piece of sh!t.
Sincerely,
2:30 PM
True, but that's not what 1:54 and 3:03 are discussing.
They were only making the point that Marshal Willick can effectively advocate on veteran issue even if he hasn't been in battle.
If you disagree with that, I understand. But I think that is the only real point those posts were aiming to make.
What the fudge are you talking about? Marshal Willick is not the issue here, 3:13 PM. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, across this line, you DO NOT cross!
Sincerely,
2:30 PM
Oh my, Google Alerts went off, and he is here. We will never get a moment's peace for while.
To:2:30. Although I agree with you about your prior restraint remark, as 3:13 points out that is really not what 1:54 and 3:03 are discussing.
I agree with them that Willick can be an effective advocate for certain veterans issues even if he has never served in the military.
He has an encyclopedic knowledge of, among other things, military pensions. He not only devotes his professional life to such topics, but that appears to be his personal hobby as well.
Some men golf in their free time, while some watch porn, while others enjoy travelling, dating, collecting fine wines, enjoying their motorcycles or sports cars, photography, or any other of a myriad of understandable hobbies. But with Willick it is all the arcane technicalities of various pension divisions.
I have a neighbor, who is retiring as a heavy equipment operator, who is encountering difficulties with some issues relative to his pension and the language of the order dividing such pension. I am going to suggest he consults Willick. Before making such referral I am not going to ask Willick whether he ever drove a bulldozer or operated a crane.
He's an expert in pensions, and that's what's important. The fact that some people believe that he is in bad need of a personality transplant is of no real import. Ultimately what matters is that when he advocates for someone, he makes certain that his client receives every cent from the pension, and every benefit, they are entitled to.
But, like one of the posters, I also heard the broadcast and I believe Willick shares a little of the culpability for how things went south in a hurry. He did not break things down and describe them succinctly. The hosts seemed to be under the impression that the law had changed and that military disability pensions were now subject to division, and that portions could be attached and withheld, and paid to the former spouse. Willick needed to make a clearer point that such was not the case, and he had repeated opportunity to do so. Instead, it seemed that he was defending the division of such disability pensions. He should have made it very clear that such disability pensions are still protected from division, and that all that was occurring in certain cases is that a judge, when viewing the general financial positions of the parties, was able to note and make a finding of the tax free disability dollars flowing to the one household.
Instead, because he did not effectively clarify matters, the hosts were understandably upset that he seemed to support division of such disability pensions–even though in actuality he said no such thing.n
I also think it's important not to over-react to the tome taken by VIP in such broadcasts and in in their other speeches and presentations. It's an advocacy group, and the dignified approach suggested by some of the bloggers is not an approach which attracts attention. Advocacy groups need to attract attention to their causes, before anyone can do anything about the issues they raise. Steve's approach seems to be one-half fire and brimstone, and one-half stand-up comedy. That's the approach he takes on behalf of his group, and even if we may believe another approach would be more effective, I believe that too many judges and lawyers are way too thin-skinned about all this.
For example, he has criticized myself and probably will continue to do so. But I have an advantage many of the others he singled out may not have. I'm quite up there in years, so I've prioritized to the point where only certain, limited matters can upset me. Admittedly, some years ago this all would have bothered me like it bothers others who have been singled out.
2:30, dude. We're not going to take any advice from you. For all we know you're a white Russian. Fucking amateurs.
3:44,
Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a crap about the rules?
Sincerely,
2:30 PM
So you have no frame of reference here, 3:54 PM. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know…
Sincerely,
2:30 PM
Also, 3:54 PM, white Russian is not the preferred nomenclature. Russian-American, please.
Sincerely,
2:30 PM
You spell too well to be Voldemort.
Its not Voldemort, its Walter Sobchack. I love the Big Lebowski. Keep it going @2:30.
Shut the f@ck up, 4:52! 4:52, this is not 'Nam. This is las vegas law blog. There are rules.
Sincerely,
2:30 PM
2:30, you have got to buck up, man. You cannot drag this negative energy into the blog.
-3:54
I have a good little doggy….First person to get the reference wins the internet
Too late. 2:30 already did.
I'd get the reference, but I need to go shopping for a new rug. Preferably, one that really brings the room together.
Required viewing this weekend – The Big Lebowski.
Don't tell me to shut up. For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.
This aggression will not stand, man.
Hey Nevada Supreme Court. Having the Clerk issue 3 Orders a day dismissing appeals is not confusing any of us regarding the fact that you are doing no work.
Better than Judge Tao's W.T.F. concurrence in Pickett v. McCarran Mansion. Maybe less is more at this point.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Court Of Appeals being created was, to presumably, make appeals far less expensive, far less involved, and much more quickly resolved. Based on those assumptions, a lot of people, including many in the legal community,supported it who otherwise may not have.
But with the push down method, when preparing an appeal, it is unknown with certainty whether the Supremes will maintain a case or whether they will defer it to the Court Of Appeals. And this results in all the intense and expensive appellate procedures and requirements, for an appeal to the Supremes, needing to be fully addressed. So, it is not quicker by any real means, and no significant money is saved, and the procedure is not really more expeditious.
Ideally, the way it should have been created, is to not adopt the push down method, and instead make it much clearer which type of cases would be heard by which of the two courts. And then, as to cases to be heard by the Court Of Appeals, the process should have been significantly stream-lined so that an appeal to the lower court would be less intense, quicker to resolve, and less expensive than an appeal to the Supreme Court.
But I fear that nothing really significant has happened that really benefits the attorneys or litigants. The only notable change is that the Supremes are required to adjudicate fewer cases. I guess that's a benefit if the Supreme Court truly takes more time studying and analyzing the cases they retain, and it appears that in some cases that benefit has in fact been realized. But I still believe that, to some extent, we were sold a bill-of-goods when promised how appeals to the Court Of Appeals would be much less involved, and much less expensive, and much more expeditiously resolved.
It has been an unmitigated disaster of productivity. More cases are not being decided. The delays that we were promised would be averted have returned. The time for resolution of an appeal shortened slightly at the time of adoption but is back to extraordinarily long periods currently. The Court of Appeals has turned out to be a way for the Supreme Court to not only not do more work but actually to do less work.
Don't forget the last-second welching on their promise to reduce the number of Justices, which appeared mysteriously and without disclosure of the party requesting the amendment.
What a bunch of liars. Flat out liars.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
We put up with a lot of crap on this blog but not racism.
Who decided to go racist in the thread about the Supreme Court?
Some turd who thinks is 1952 still.
I've been waiting around nine months on one case. How does this compare with the experiences of others?
We have a case for which the Supreme Court granted a Motion for Expedited Consideration a year ago and has not considered it. Frankly it is an abomination.
I had heard through the grapevine that the NSC was grousing about all of the HOA foreclosure cases which were ending up on its docket. Here is hint Geniuses: Issue some decisions which provide clarity on the law and you will not end up with every HOA foreclosure case on your desk and docket.
15 months since argument
For the love of god and man, issue some HOA foreclosure decisions that actually resolve issues.
Easton Harris looking saucy in his wanted poster;
https://www.facebook.com/LasVegasDA/photos/a.905345189496319.1073741827.419837814713728/1630906626940168/?type=3&theater
6'1 160 lbs? That meth really works better than SlimFast.
What a scumbag.
Crazy, I had a deposition with him maybe 2 years ago and he was pushing 3 bills.
Want to know how Myrhe plans to finance BundyBungle 3?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/clark-county/doj-wants-clark-county-to-pay-75-5m-for-bali-hai-golf-club/
I'm just glad we're not talking about the grand cheeto today.
The cheetoh in chief just pardoned Sheriff Arpaio kicking off yet another constitutional crisis. Because when the leader of the executive branch tells people it's okay to defy the judicial branch that's just hunky-dory, right?