So Peterson is completely in the wrong and is going to regret her overstepping yesterday. With that said, Glenn Cook– you are overstepping now.
“'(Peterson’s) serious mistakes are unheard of and outrageous,’ Cook said Wednesday. “The court cannot tell the press what to report. The press decides what to publish, period.”
Yeah freedom of the press (like all freedoms) has limits. And Maggie McLetchie nailed it and got it right in her approach. Perhaps Cook should let Maggie make the sound bites from here on out.
The stupid part of Cook’s performative indignation is that EVERYONE AGREES the victim’s name shouldn’t/won’t be published. This looks like the RJ piling on Peterson.
But why cannot Peterson understand that the R/J is going to do exactly what the R/J did which is publish the names of witnesses who publish their own names and give interviews and not publish the names of minor victims?
“EVERYONE AGREES” – except the victim, who has “previously given interviews to news outlets including the Review-Journal.” While NRS 200.3771 does contemplate that identifying information re victims of sexual crimes must be kept confidential, that requirement goes out the window once a victim decides to publicly identify themselves.
Fair point but it was different victims. The R/J was kicked out of the courtroom during testimony of victim who has not previously talked. R/J was allowed back in during subsequent victim who has identified herself.
Fair counterpoint (we’re so civilized)! It seems like the victim’s identity has been disclosed in public filings (I’m assuming that’s because of sloppy work by either the state or defense), so this presents an interesting question: does the (possibly inadvertent) disclosure of the victim’s identity allow the media to report on her identity? My initial instinct is probably not, because it’s not an express waiver of NRS 200.3771’s protections, and the leg has identified what constitutes an effective waiver in 200.3774. Will be interesting to see how the RJ argues this issue
The freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, expressly guaranteed by the First Amendment, share a common core purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters relating to the functioning of government.
In guaranteeing freedoms such as those of speech and press, the First Amendment can be read as protecting the right of everyone to attend trials so as to give meaning to those explicit guarantees; the First Amendment right to receive information and ideas means, in the context of trials, that the guarantees of speech and press, standing alone, prohibit government from summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open to the public at the time the FirstAmendment was adopted. Moreover, the right of assembly is also relevant, having been regarded not only as an independent right but also as a catalyst to augment the free exercise of the other First Amendment rights with which it was deliberately linked by the draftsmen. A trial courtroom is a public place where the people generally—and representatives of the media—have a right to be present, and where their presence historically has been thought to enhance the integrity and quality of what takes place.
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 556, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 2817, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980).
Verbose. All true, but you have left out all of the numerous recognized exceptions, such closing the court room for, as an example, as testimony of a child in sex crime.
cool cool a quote from the syllabus of Richmond Newspapers. Want to do some application of that case law, or is this the beginning and end of your thoughts?
Only out of sheer academic curiosity, it appears US v Johnson, 2025 WL 3443069 addresses the interplay between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and the public’s/press’s First Amendment right to be present in that public proceeding, particularly during a child sex victim’s testimony. The court must “make specific, substantive findings that closure is necessary to protect higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve such goals.” There, the court gave a detailed order, part of which permitted any member of the press or public to view the testimony via livestream in a nearby courtroom, and provided for a transcript to be accessible following trial.
What the court didn’t do there was dog-walk a member of the press out of the courtroom on the bare premise that a reporter may possibly one day perhaps violate the court’s order not to name any victim in the case, including those already publicly identified.
For your information, 1:34 PM, the Supreme Court had roundly rejected prior restraint.
Guest
Anonymous
January 22, 2026 9:58 am
The RJ has a template when the RJ reports on the RJ.
1. Statement of facts highly favorable to the RJ.
2. Sanctimonious, moralizing quote, most often in maximalist/absolute terms from Glenn Cook.
3. Statement from RJ in house counsel providing a legal conclusion affirming Glenn Cook (usually not much actual analysis) as absolutely legally correct.
4. [Sometimes/often] a historical factual reminder about some unfavorable thing about the opponent.
You could write a very simple ChatGPT prompt for these articles.
Guest
Anonymous
January 22, 2026 11:15 am
The Bridget Robb story is fascinating. She is a really good judge (much better than Sigurdson who she is running to replace). The RGJ indicated that the Applicant is a woman and that the RGJ does not identify victims of sexual assault. So is this a sexual assault between the two women? Is it a catfight over a man who is probably not worth the fight? This is the kind of stuff we need to know.
Robb is no longer running against Sigurdson. She has resigned and withdrawn from the race. I believe the fight is from the husband/boyfriend of the applicant who had been involved romantically with Robb previously.
“Since May 2024, Ms. Robb has engaged in a course of conduct causing me to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, harassed and fearful of my safety in that she has stalked me over 300 times at multiple locations including, but not limited to my rental house … and surrounding streets,” the TPO alleges. “Despite being frightened, intimidated and fearful for my safety, I gave Ms. Robb multiple opportunities to stop stalking me.”
A Dec. 22 incident, according to an attachment to the TPO, culminated in Robb admitting wrongdoing. “The Judge finally broke down and admitted her wrongdoing,” the partner alleged. “I told her she clearly needed to seek professional help and she admitted she did. She promised that she would get that help.”
Boyfriend of the applicant is a lawyer (partner) at same firm as the applicant (associate). According to the TPO application, Boyfriend partner had a “friends with benefits” relationship with the judge AND judge “serves as a mediator and is often hired by attorneys/clients of our law firm…”
Wait a minute. (1) Partner is schtupping Associate (that could be trouble). (2) Partner was schtupping Judge (that could be trouble). (3) Judge is 1987 admittee and has to be around 65 years of age so good for her for still schtupping with such gusto that it could get to this. (4) Judge is “hired as a mediator” which of course would be inappropriate to be taking side gigs as a mediator while sitting as a judge (I suspect she sits as a settlement judge and was not being hired as a mediator since she had extensive business experience in private practice).
The TPO application supports a yes to questions (1), (2), and (3). Unclear on (4) as to whether judge is “hired” or a district court settlement judge but nevertheless could be steering a case in a certain direction for settlement.
Genuinely disturbing… to throw away a reputation built over a lifetime for *checks notes* some dude? And more disturbing, an attorney? No girl. No. You need better female friends to talk you off that ledge. I hope these allegations are untrue.
I’ve seen the application. It’s well substantiated as it attached multiple pieces of evidence. Obviously always a chance there’s something more to the story. But, as of now, I’m hard pressed to see how the allegations aren’t entirely true.
Some video footage is on the RGJ website. It was a little weird (driving by at odd hours), but not pounding on door or egging the house or anything. Some is almost a year old, so this has been going on for awhile.
The pilates instructor signing a Declaration that the Jeep was present so often that the studio was apprehensive for its clients was a damning inclusion. With that said, this associate is going to forever be tarred so I hope she is not really attached to Reno.
The videos do raise the age-old issue which is they are driving on public streets and parking in public parking lots without any apparent interactions with the Applicant. Stalking is when person engages in a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, harassed, or fearful for their immediate safety or that of a family or household member. So it is annoying, but where is the threats to immediate safety? I guess its harassment; however the harassment statute also contemplates bodily injury, physical damage to the property of another person or physical confinement or restraint. None of that appears to be the case here.
Sounds like the point you’re making is the judge never interacted, but spent a such good portion of her free time following, watching, clocking (over 300) times to the point even a third party was concerned. Letter of the law meet spirit. The judge was behaving very unprofessionally at best and scaring the hell out her ex boyfriend’s GF. If a man were doing that he would been in more trouble much sooner.
Unlikely. More likely an FWB relationship that was more than FWB at one point in time (at least for her) and then one partner decides to no longer follow the relationship escalator and feelings get hurt.
The Judge-Lawyer-Lawyer love triangle holds some intrigue. I will say the decision by the Applicant to file and put her dirty laundry on the line will likely turn out to be ugly for her (and him) in the long-term.
“Judge-lawyer-lawyer love triangle” OW MY EYES. I can’t unsee that. So gross. But also, maybe the stalked lawyer was genuinely afraid and concerned. I don’t know the details, but maybe she didn’t have a choice.
What’s crazier is that the boyfriend (partner at prominent law firm) submitted an affidavit that is definitely going to have professional ramifications for him. I can state for a fact that Judge Robb heard cases from the firm during the FWB timeline. 99.9% sure their relationship was never disclosed to anyone.
Says their FwB lasted for 10 years and was not disclosed. If you were a party to any case in front of her or for which she sat in as Settlement Judge during those 10 years which involved boyfriend, you certainly are going to ask to have that examined. I bought an RGJ subscription just to be able to follow this for the next 30 days.
I don’t care if you do sexy time with other lawyers. Don’t do sexy time with judges that you appear in front of. Don’t do sexy time with clients. Don’t do sexy time with work subordinates over whom you exploit a power imbalance.
McDonald Carano is prominent in Reno and does gaming. But remember the big firms all have offices in Reno. For example Bridget Robb was in Lewis & Roca which took over Beasley Peck.
out of morbid curiosity, I scrolled through all the partners at McDonald Carano and, whichever one it is, I gotta say that it was not worth throwing away a judicial career over.
Interesting facts here. The press reports make it sound like a May-December lesbian relationship (or wanna-be relationship.) I thought Reno was a sleepy little conservative town filled with God fearing conservatives.
You know- you can sleep your way to the top and to the bottom.
Guest
Anonymous
January 22, 2026 12:43 pm
ICE story is outrageous. I’m all for deporting illegals but the dude was already in custody and killed someone. Let him stand trial and serve his time. If he gets out, THEN deport his ass. Stupid.
Microsoft Outlook and Teams outage today. Be professional and civil to opposing counsel; grant extensions if necessary as a result of a large scale Microsoft issue.
We have had this issue too. Some outbound emails are making it out, others are not. Emails in the firm have been just fine. I just randomly received an email with a 12:05 time stamp. This kind of thing is fairly unnerving.
Guest
Anonymous
January 22, 2026 3:26 pm
That time Judge Robb filed a judicial discipline complaint against then-Judge Humke.
So Peterson is completely in the wrong and is going to regret her overstepping yesterday. With that said, Glenn Cook– you are overstepping now.
“'(Peterson’s) serious mistakes are unheard of and outrageous,’ Cook said Wednesday. “The court cannot tell the press what to report. The press decides what to publish, period.”
Yeah freedom of the press (like all freedoms) has limits. And Maggie McLetchie nailed it and got it right in her approach. Perhaps Cook should let Maggie make the sound bites from here on out.
The stupid part of Cook’s performative indignation is that EVERYONE AGREES the victim’s name shouldn’t/won’t be published. This looks like the RJ piling on Peterson.
But why cannot Peterson understand that the R/J is going to do exactly what the R/J did which is publish the names of witnesses who publish their own names and give interviews and not publish the names of minor victims?
“EVERYONE AGREES” – except the victim, who has “previously given interviews to news outlets including the Review-Journal.” While NRS 200.3771 does contemplate that identifying information re victims of sexual crimes must be kept confidential, that requirement goes out the window once a victim decides to publicly identify themselves.
Fair point but it was different victims. The R/J was kicked out of the courtroom during testimony of victim who has not previously talked. R/J was allowed back in during subsequent victim who has identified herself.
Fair counterpoint (we’re so civilized)! It seems like the victim’s identity has been disclosed in public filings (I’m assuming that’s because of sloppy work by either the state or defense), so this presents an interesting question: does the (possibly inadvertent) disclosure of the victim’s identity allow the media to report on her identity? My initial instinct is probably not, because it’s not an express waiver of NRS 200.3771’s protections, and the leg has identified what constitutes an effective waiver in 200.3774. Will be interesting to see how the RJ argues this issue
I’m not a 1A lawyer but I could imagine a 1A problem with barring the press from reporting on publicly filed facts.
Ya think?
“For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.”
— Walter Sobchak
well, that’s like your opinion, man.
The freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, expressly guaranteed by the First Amendment, share a common core purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters relating to the functioning of government.
In guaranteeing freedoms such as those of speech and press, the First Amendment can be read as protecting the right of everyone to attend trials so as to give meaning to those explicit guarantees; the First Amendment right to receive information and ideas means, in the context of trials, that the guarantees of speech and press, standing alone, prohibit government from summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open to the public at the time the FirstAmendment was adopted. Moreover, the right of assembly is also relevant, having been regarded not only as an independent right but also as a catalyst to augment the free exercise of the other First Amendment rights with which it was deliberately linked by the draftsmen. A trial courtroom is a public place where the people generally—and representatives of the media—have a right to be present, and where their presence historically has been thought to enhance the integrity and quality of what takes place.
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 556, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 2817, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980).
Verbose. All true, but you have left out all of the numerous recognized exceptions, such closing the court room for, as an example, as testimony of a child in sex crime.
As an aside, notice the court’s use of em (for the attorneys ignorant about grammar from a discussion a few days ago).
cool cool a quote from the syllabus of Richmond Newspapers. Want to do some application of that case law, or is this the beginning and end of your thoughts?
Only out of sheer academic curiosity, it appears US v Johnson, 2025 WL 3443069 addresses the interplay between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and the public’s/press’s First Amendment right to be present in that public proceeding, particularly during a child sex victim’s testimony. The court must “make specific, substantive findings that closure is necessary to protect higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve such goals.” There, the court gave a detailed order, part of which permitted any member of the press or public to view the testimony via livestream in a nearby courtroom, and provided for a transcript to be accessible following trial.
What the court didn’t do there was dog-walk a member of the press out of the courtroom on the bare premise that a reporter may possibly one day perhaps violate the court’s order not to name any victim in the case, including those already publicly identified.
For your information, 1:34 PM, the Supreme Court had roundly rejected prior restraint.
The RJ has a template when the RJ reports on the RJ.
1. Statement of facts highly favorable to the RJ.
2. Sanctimonious, moralizing quote, most often in maximalist/absolute terms from Glenn Cook.
3. Statement from RJ in house counsel providing a legal conclusion affirming Glenn Cook (usually not much actual analysis) as absolutely legally correct.
4. [Sometimes/often] a historical factual reminder about some unfavorable thing about the opponent.
You could write a very simple ChatGPT prompt for these articles.
The Bridget Robb story is fascinating. She is a really good judge (much better than Sigurdson who she is running to replace). The RGJ indicated that the Applicant is a woman and that the RGJ does not identify victims of sexual assault. So is this a sexual assault between the two women? Is it a catfight over a man who is probably not worth the fight? This is the kind of stuff we need to know.
Robb is no longer running against Sigurdson. She has resigned and withdrawn from the race. I believe the fight is from the husband/boyfriend of the applicant who had been involved romantically with Robb previously.
A sad ending to a distinguished career. Something obviously went off the rails.
“Since May 2024, Ms. Robb has engaged in a course of conduct causing me to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, harassed and fearful of my safety in that she has stalked me over 300 times at multiple locations including, but not limited to my rental house … and surrounding streets,” the TPO alleges. “Despite being frightened, intimidated and fearful for my safety, I gave Ms. Robb multiple opportunities to stop stalking me.”
A Dec. 22 incident, according to an attachment to the TPO, culminated in Robb admitting wrongdoing. “The Judge finally broke down and admitted her wrongdoing,” the partner alleged. “I told her she clearly needed to seek professional help and she admitted she did. She promised that she would get that help.”
Boyfriend of the applicant is a lawyer (partner) at same firm as the applicant (associate). According to the TPO application, Boyfriend partner had a “friends with benefits” relationship with the judge AND judge “serves as a mediator and is often hired by attorneys/clients of our law firm…”
Wait a minute. (1) Partner is schtupping Associate (that could be trouble). (2) Partner was schtupping Judge (that could be trouble). (3) Judge is 1987 admittee and has to be around 65 years of age so good for her for still schtupping with such gusto that it could get to this. (4) Judge is “hired as a mediator” which of course would be inappropriate to be taking side gigs as a mediator while sitting as a judge (I suspect she sits as a settlement judge and was not being hired as a mediator since she had extensive business experience in private practice).
The TPO application supports a yes to questions (1), (2), and (3). Unclear on (4) as to whether judge is “hired” or a district court settlement judge but nevertheless could be steering a case in a certain direction for settlement.
Everyone should have more schtupping.
Genuinely disturbing… to throw away a reputation built over a lifetime for *checks notes* some dude? And more disturbing, an attorney? No girl. No. You need better female friends to talk you off that ledge. I hope these allegations are untrue.
I’ve seen the application. It’s well substantiated as it attached multiple pieces of evidence. Obviously always a chance there’s something more to the story. But, as of now, I’m hard pressed to see how the allegations aren’t entirely true.
Care to share that Application?
Some video footage is on the RGJ website. It was a little weird (driving by at odd hours), but not pounding on door or egging the house or anything. Some is almost a year old, so this has been going on for awhile.
The pilates instructor signing a Declaration that the Jeep was present so often that the studio was apprehensive for its clients was a damning inclusion. With that said, this associate is going to forever be tarred so I hope she is not really attached to Reno.
Top tier chisme. We thank you
The videos do raise the age-old issue which is they are driving on public streets and parking in public parking lots without any apparent interactions with the Applicant. Stalking is when person engages in a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, harassed, or fearful for their immediate safety or that of a family or household member. So it is annoying, but where is the threats to immediate safety? I guess its harassment; however the harassment statute also contemplates bodily injury, physical damage to the property of another person or physical confinement or restraint. None of that appears to be the case here.
Sounds like the point you’re making is the judge never interacted, but spent a such good portion of her free time following, watching, clocking (over 300) times to the point even a third party was concerned. Letter of the law meet spirit. The judge was behaving very unprofessionally at best and scaring the hell out her ex boyfriend’s GF. If a man were doing that he would been in more trouble much sooner.
Could it be early dementia?
Unlikely. More likely an FWB relationship that was more than FWB at one point in time (at least for her) and then one partner decides to no longer follow the relationship escalator and feelings get hurt.
The Judge-Lawyer-Lawyer love triangle holds some intrigue. I will say the decision by the Applicant to file and put her dirty laundry on the line will likely turn out to be ugly for her (and him) in the long-term.
“Judge-lawyer-lawyer love triangle” OW MY EYES. I can’t unsee that. So gross. But also, maybe the stalked lawyer was genuinely afraid and concerned. I don’t know the details, but maybe she didn’t have a choice.
What’s crazier is that the boyfriend (partner at prominent law firm) submitted an affidavit that is definitely going to have professional ramifications for him. I can state for a fact that Judge Robb heard cases from the firm during the FWB timeline. 99.9% sure their relationship was never disclosed to anyone.
Well we are definitely going to need to have this Application published (even if Judge Peterson would dog walk me for having a copy of it).
Says their FwB lasted for 10 years and was not disclosed. If you were a party to any case in front of her or for which she sat in as Settlement Judge during those 10 years which involved boyfriend, you certainly are going to ask to have that examined. I bought an RGJ subscription just to be able to follow this for the next 30 days.
People, for the love of god. Stop doing sexy time with other lawyers.
People forget that the brain is the biggest erogenous zone.
We’re lawyers, not academics. Even law professors aren’t really academics.
Law professors! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, 3:35 PM, at least it’s an ethos.
No thank you.
I heard she is a nihilist…..sounds exhausting.
I don’t care if you do sexy time with other lawyers. Don’t do sexy time with judges that you appear in front of. Don’t do sexy time with clients. Don’t do sexy time with work subordinates over whom you exploit a power imbalance.
I wouldn’t know, 2:55 PM. I deal in publishing, entertainment, political advocacy.
Which law firm in Reno is “prominent”?
McDonald Carano is prominent in Reno and does gaming. But remember the big firms all have offices in Reno. For example Bridget Robb was in Lewis & Roca which took over Beasley Peck.
And, we have a winner!
https://nypost.com/2026/01/22/us-news/nevada-judge-retires-days-after-court-grants-protective-order-to-attorney-she-allegedly-stalked/
Who are the best plaintiff’s-side employment law attorneys Kelci can hit up?
Now that they have outed the associate, inquiring minds want to know — who is the McDonald Carano partner in the midst of the triangle?
out of morbid curiosity, I scrolled through all the partners at McDonald Carano and, whichever one it is, I gotta say that it was not worth throwing away a judicial career over.
The McDonald Carano partner is named in the application. Former Reno office MP.
Matthew Addison is named in the Application. Good of the Judge or schtupping younger.
Interesting facts here. The press reports make it sound like a May-December lesbian relationship (or wanna-be relationship.) I thought Reno was a sleepy little conservative town filled with God fearing conservatives.
Application here (also names partner)
https://www.piconpress.com/documents/kelci
So the Managing Partner (former as of the end of 2025) was schtupping both the associate and the judge! BAD CHOICES.
You know- you can sleep your way to the top and to the bottom.
ICE story is outrageous. I’m all for deporting illegals but the dude was already in custody and killed someone. Let him stand trial and serve his time. If he gets out, THEN deport his ass. Stupid.
“Family seeks justice after ICE deports driver who killed woman”. Even if he was a skinny Hindu he could not be more Gandhi. This story is over.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/22/microsoft-outlook-outage-email-issues.html
Microsoft Outlook and Teams outage today. Be professional and civil to opposing counsel; grant extensions if necessary as a result of a large scale Microsoft issue.
We are having the issue. Outbound emails are going; inbound are not. Teams Meetings today have been a disaster.
We have had this issue too. Some outbound emails are making it out, others are not. Emails in the firm have been just fine. I just randomly received an email with a 12:05 time stamp. This kind of thing is fairly unnerving.
That time Judge Robb filed a judicial discipline complaint against then-Judge Humke.
https://judicial.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/judicialnvgov/content/Discipline/Pending_Charges/2018.11.02_Certified_Copy_of_Order_of_Interim_Suspension_2018-186.pdf
The arc of justice is long yadda yadda yadda