If public office is not your thing, maybe consider running for the State Bar Board of Governors? Applications are open now until April 1. [nvbar]
Senator Jacky Rosen’s speech in support of confirming Judge Cristina Silva and Professor Anne Traum to the federal bench. [Rosen.senate.gov]
Man accused of murder was on probation for illegal gun. [RJ]
A local sports betting ethics firm called US Integrity (advised by A.G. Burnett) is investigating wagers placed on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers before Tom Brady announced he was coming out of retirement. [Las Vegas Sun]
Family fined more than $700 after freeing fox from a steel trap because, at that point, the fox was the trapper’s property. [KTNV]
International trademark law is getting more interesting this week as Russia begins potential trademark infringement with knock off McDonald’s logo. [News3LV]
So far remaining unchallenged are: Harmony Letizia, Mellisa Saragosa, Cybill Dotson (2-year term), and Amy Chelini. Also unchallenged are supreme court and court of appeal candidates. No Tao yet.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2022 5:09 pm
Tap will file. Come on. Bulla unopposed will still be a no for me.
1132 and 1104, I am glad I am not you. You are sick. I hope you never harm yourself, because an election is not worth encouraging someone to kill themselves.
So just saw an ad for Max B. He definitely has the money behind him. His ad (available on his website) is clearly shot in a court room of the RJC. Isn't that impermissible?
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2022 5:56 pm
Does anyone have thoughts of Board of Governors candidates? I always that it was entertaining that BOG meetings are subject to open meeting laws, all of the Board of Governors are lawyers and know that, and the meetings are NEVER open. Way to go State Bar of Nevada.
OP you are wrong. Trying to bash the bar when you don't know what you are talking about isn't a great look. Any attorney can go to any BOG meeting. Been there, done that.
I'm not an expert on open meeting laws but NRS 241.015 (4) defines "Public body" as a board which is supported by tax money. I don't think the State Bar receives any tax money so unless there is some other definition of the bodies that are subject to open meeting laws, I don't think the open meeting laws apply to them.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2022 6:07 pm
He should have known better than to say something like that. There are many truths which must be ignored at all costs.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2022 6:15 pm
If an ad shows a candidate at counsel table arguing, I think that is okay. But,if it has the candidate up near the bench, and wearing some black outfit that could(based on the camera angle and dynamics of the image composition) be mistaken for a robe, that could be viewed as implying a candidate is already a judge, and that is forbidden.
Now, if your concern was not so much whether a candidate is implying he/she is already the sitting judge, but the more basic concern of whether there is a strict prohibition against filming anything political related in a courtroom, I don't necessarily think there is a strict prohibition. I have seen many ads and campaign flyers over the years that feature a candidate arguing in a local courtroom.
But that has admittedly been reduced in more recent years, and what is now far more common is that a candidate borrows some mock courtroom for the purpose of the ad. So perhaps there is an ethical clamp down on using the actual courtrooms.
I bet there are posters who will have the answer for us soon. It is definitely an interesting question you pose.
I am going to now make inquiruy on that matter(which I should have doeen before I sshot my mouth off, but hey, that's just me).
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2022 6:47 pm
There's certainly no ethical clampdown. Last round the judicial ethics commission which got assigned to police this stuff took the position that it wasn't going to touch what non-judges running for judicial seats did, only policing what sitting judges seeking reelection did. So we had non-judge candidates appearing in front of election headquarters announcing their party registration on websites, etc. and no one took responsibility for this stuff. As I recall there was a controversy involving some of the 8th judicial district judge races on these issues and judicial ethics formally stood down as far as challengers went.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2022 7:20 pm
re fox story – wasn't that like the first case in law school – hunting and who shot the animal or something?
Pierson v. Post, one of the big property law cases from law school lol
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2022 7:28 pm
Wow, I am only seeing three law firms over and over again with Bonnie and Westbrook fundraising? Firms have no more PPP?
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2022 7:51 pm
11:47-Unerstood that the recent focus is how incumbent judges politically advertise, as opposed to attorneys seeking to become judges.
But that does not mean there is no ethical accountability for attorneys who are not yet judges. As 11:15 suggests, if an attorney, who is not a judge or judicial officer, appears in ad on the bench wearing a robe, that is prohibited.
Judges and full-time referees or judicial commissioners can appear in robes on the bench in ads, as that represents their actual full-time position.
But attorneys are prohibited from doing so.
But an attorney who also serves as an alternate hearing master and/or lower
court pro tem judge, is likewise prohibited from appearing with a robe and on the bench. It is not their primary occupation by any stretch, so it could create a false impression.
Hi – whether it's prohibited or not, enforcement power lies with the judicial discipline comm'n and they've stated publicly they aren't enforcing canons against judicial candidates unless candidate is a sitting judge. Very big gap. I think it hurt some of the 8th jd races last time.
2:30–12:51 here again. There used to be a separate, relatively short-lived, ethical committee dealing directly with judicial candidates(whether incumbent or not).
But that is no longer. So, yes, that kind of leaves it to the Judicial Discipline Commission which, as you point out, only has authority over sitting judges.
I guess possible accountability could attach to a non-judge candidate through the State Bar Discipline Committee, but it would need to be something really egregious–not just a question of whether someone somewhat over-stated their qualifications, or whether they are subtly trying to imply incumbency, etc.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2022 8:21 pm
So Berkley's ad has him in the foreground, with people in suits at counsel table and someone in the judge's chair. Is this him touting as a judge, I wouldn't say so. But this isn't just a lookalike court room, it is clearly one from the RJC. Can anyone film a commercial there? Is permission needed, and if so, who do i contact? I want to film there.
FFS. Danny Tarkanian finally wins an election (or a county board basically in the Rurals) and 14 months later believes that he is ready to go to Congress and to unseat the only Republican member of Nevada's Congressional delegation. Hubris is not a big enough word.
Yianni Reizakis was her given name. Running against Roohani. Hey, she might have a shot this time.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2022 11:46 pm
OK RulesMinders– what say you? EDCR 2.20 states that an Opposition that contains a motion is a countermotion. It states that the moving party's reply is due 7 days before the hearing. Is an Opposition to Countermotion (which is really a reply) due 7 days before the Hearing or 14 days after service of the Countermotion?
So far remaining unchallenged are: Harmony Letizia, Mellisa Saragosa, Cybill Dotson (2-year term), and Amy Chelini. Also unchallenged are supreme court and court of appeal candidates. No Tao yet.
Tap will file. Come on. Bulla unopposed will still be a no for me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Tap" will not file. Go Bulla!
Tao, Bonnie Bulla is on here to correct you or autocorrect. I would kill to get rid of 2 aholes on the bench.
1104, you want someone to harm themselves, because they think two judges are assholes? You are a sick fick!
Fuck
"Sick fick" — love it!
1132 and 1104, I am glad I am not you. You are sick. I hope you never harm yourself, because an election is not worth encouraging someone to kill themselves.
11:38 — But 10:52 is OK with you?
I am more okay with a noncuss word than telling someone to kill or harm one self.
12:26 — I guess you are . . .
So just saw an ad for Max B. He definitely has the money behind him. His ad (available on his website) is clearly shot in a court room of the RJC. Isn't that impermissible?
Does anyone have thoughts of Board of Governors candidates? I always that it was entertaining that BOG meetings are subject to open meeting laws, all of the Board of Governors are lawyers and know that, and the meetings are NEVER open. Way to go State Bar of Nevada.
Vote for Summer. Vote for Paola.
I think Paola's seat is safe since she's going to be the President next year. (Though I would vote for her if her seat was open).
Maybe we can confirm with her if she'll keep the meetings open (as required under the open meeting laws).
OP you are wrong. Trying to bash the bar when you don't know what you are talking about isn't a great look. Any attorney can go to any BOG meeting. Been there, done that.
10:59 – your great post went right over there heads! However, I love it!
The Board's agendas are NOT posted in advance, and there's no public comment period. Brush up on open meeting laws.
I'm not an expert on open meeting laws but NRS 241.015 (4) defines "Public body" as a board which is supported by tax money. I don't think the State Bar receives any tax money so unless there is some other definition of the bodies that are subject to open meeting laws, I don't think the open meeting laws apply to them.
He should have known better than to say something like that. There are many truths which must be ignored at all costs.
If an ad shows a candidate at counsel table arguing, I think that is okay. But,if it has the candidate up near the bench, and wearing some black outfit that could(based on the camera angle and dynamics of the image composition) be mistaken for a robe, that could be viewed as implying a candidate is already a judge, and that is forbidden.
Now, if your concern was not so much whether a candidate is implying he/she is already the sitting judge, but the more basic concern of whether there is a strict prohibition against filming anything political related in a courtroom, I don't necessarily think there is a strict prohibition. I have seen many ads and campaign flyers over the years that feature a candidate arguing in a local courtroom.
But that has admittedly been reduced in more recent years, and what is now far more common is that a candidate borrows some mock courtroom for the purpose of the ad. So perhaps there is an ethical clamp down on using the actual courtrooms.
I bet there are posters who will have the answer for us soon. It is definitely an interesting question you pose.
I am going to now make inquiruy on that matter(which I should have doeen before I sshot my mouth off, but hey, that's just me).
There's certainly no ethical clampdown. Last round the judicial ethics commission which got assigned to police this stuff took the position that it wasn't going to touch what non-judges running for judicial seats did, only policing what sitting judges seeking reelection did. So we had non-judge candidates appearing in front of election headquarters announcing their party registration on websites, etc. and no one took responsibility for this stuff. As I recall there was a controversy involving some of the 8th judicial district judge races on these issues and judicial ethics formally stood down as far as challengers went.
re fox story – wasn't that like the first case in law school – hunting and who shot the animal or something?
Pierson v. Post, one of the big property law cases from law school lol
Wow, I am only seeing three law firms over and over again with Bonnie and Westbrook fundraising? Firms have no more PPP?
11:47-Unerstood that the recent focus is how incumbent judges politically advertise, as opposed to attorneys seeking to become judges.
But that does not mean there is no ethical accountability for attorneys who are not yet judges. As 11:15 suggests, if an attorney, who is not a judge or judicial officer, appears in ad on the bench wearing a robe, that is prohibited.
Judges and full-time referees or judicial commissioners can appear in robes on the bench in ads, as that represents their actual full-time position.
But attorneys are prohibited from doing so.
But an attorney who also serves as an alternate hearing master and/or lower
court pro tem judge, is likewise prohibited from appearing with a robe and on the bench. It is not their primary occupation by any stretch, so it could create a false impression.
Hi – whether it's prohibited or not, enforcement power lies with the judicial discipline comm'n and they've stated publicly they aren't enforcing canons against judicial candidates unless candidate is a sitting judge. Very big gap. I think it hurt some of the 8th jd races last time.
2:30–12:51 here again. There used to be a separate, relatively short-lived, ethical committee dealing directly with judicial candidates(whether incumbent or not).
But that is no longer. So, yes, that kind of leaves it to the Judicial Discipline Commission which, as you point out, only has authority over sitting judges.
I guess possible accountability could attach to a non-judge candidate through the State Bar Discipline Committee, but it would need to be something really egregious–not just a question of whether someone somewhat over-stated their qualifications, or whether they are subtly trying to imply incumbency, etc.
So Berkley's ad has him in the foreground, with people in suits at counsel table and someone in the judge's chair. Is this him touting as a judge, I wouldn't say so. But this isn't just a lookalike court room, it is clearly one from the RJC. Can anyone film a commercial there? Is permission needed, and if so, who do i contact? I want to film there.
Rhonda Forsberg also filed for Tao's seat.
for real? we truly live in the darkest timeline.
Oh sweet lord…please let her win. I would be so happy to see her in the COA and not on the bench in family court.
That's a campaign I can get behind. If she's really running, I'll be donating to her campaign. I do zero appellate work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
FFS. Danny Tarkanian finally wins an election (or a county board basically in the Rurals) and 14 months later believes that he is ready to go to Congress and to unseat the only Republican member of Nevada's Congressional delegation. Hubris is not a big enough word.
Anna Robertson has filed against Roohani.
Albertson, that is.
Yianni Reizakis was her given name. Running against Roohani. Hey, she might have a shot this time.
OK RulesMinders– what say you? EDCR 2.20 states that an Opposition that contains a motion is a countermotion. It states that the moving party's reply is due 7 days before the hearing. Is an Opposition to Countermotion (which is really a reply) due 7 days before the Hearing or 14 days after service of the Countermotion?