- Quickdraw McLaw
- 52 Comments
- 127 Views
- A 9th Circuit panel sided with Steve Wynn in his defamation suit against attorney Lisa Bloom (who is represented by Marc Randazza). [RJ]
- Lawyers Michael Wall and Bradley Shrager argued before the Supreme Court over the Clark County Commission election. [TNI; Las Vegas Sun]
- The Court also heard a venue fight in a quadruple killing case. [Las Vegas Sun]
- The Legislature is considering taxing downloading music and streaming shows/movies. [Nevada Current]
- The CFPB is considering new guidelines that would prevent home foreclosures through the end of 2021. [News3LV]
The Legislature won't make mining pay its fair share, but it will come after all us little guys with a tax on digital downloading and streaming?
I love it when people say someone is not paying their fair share when it comes to taxes. What does that mean, "fair share"? At what point would EVERYONE can agree that someone is paying their fair share? America is so heavily divided between libertarians, conservatives, liberals and socialists. We will never agree on how much is considered fair share.
@12:22 Agree
Note that the "fair share" is determined by the people who are elected.
My spouse and I paid $70,000 in federal income taxes last year. We live in a modest home, our cars are paid for and we are by no means wealthy. Because our earnings topped the threshold we were in the 32 percent tax bracket so now we have to write another check for even more, meanwhile we have medical debt, children to care for, charities we support and elderly parents we assist. Where is our 32 percent going? In the gutter. Political gutter nonsense. The feds can't do anything correctly. We don't have a revenue problem in this country – we have a spending problem. I realize your post isn't about "income tax" but – there is no "fair share". It's all shit, meanwhile children are being taxied by the cartel across our southern border and Biden wants to talk about how guns. I'm beyond disgusted at all politicians – everyone, democrats – republicans – socialists – all of them.
4:21 PM,
PREACH! When are married couples making more than $329,851 per annum going to catch a break in this country?
Stay strong. You will be in my thoughts and prayers. Carry your cross with patience and faith.
4:21: I am with you. Remember that although Biden wants to destroy you, you need to stay positive for the kids. They have to believe that positive energy and positive behavior will be rewarded, not punished. Is this a lie? Yes, but the truth will crush them.
@4:21 here- I'm moved by the support on my hardships, clearly I am NOT paying my fair share. What amount should I send in addition to what I'm lawfully required? Another $50K? Peace be with you all. Viva la taxes.
@4:21 you're missing the whole point. Corporations pay virtually no tax and our tax dollars go to subsidize their profits and low wages. You include cartels taxiing children across the border, but you don't mention the rampant corporate welfare in this country or the tax cut the other guy gave them. Also, the border issue has everything to do with cutting aid to central american countries. Refugees are fleeing to escape the gang and cartel violence which is directly attributable to their govt's inability to stop them. If we gave them aid, they'd have the resources to control the violence and then there wouldn't be so many refugees. We brought the problem to our doorstep rather than dealing with it on their own soil. You have a very simplistic view the issues and you seem to be very much focused on the direct impact on you rather than looking at how the big picture impacts us all.
stay home, don't see your parents and grandparents, oh and by the way we are going to tax your Netflix use now too.
I kind of hate to take up for Steve Wynn and other gaming giants when they sue average people for defamation, and initially viewed this ruling as a failure to provide this aggrieved woman and her attorney the Anti-SLAPP protection that they warrant and deserve.
But, examining the details, I have to wonder if the attorney, through some real ill-advised tactics, set herself up for this type of ruling.
Had she simply filed suit against Wynn for this activity, or sent a demand letter that litigation was imminent if a settlement could not be constructively discussed, she seemingly would not have to worry about all this. Any defamation law suit would need to wait until the litigation was resolved in Wynn's favor if he and his attorneys did not wish to explore settlement.
But rather than suing, or indicating an intent to sue by sending Wynn's attorneys a demand package, she releases these so-called press releases.
A lawsuit, or private demand letter to Wynn's people, would not have resulted in the Wynn defamation suit–or if it had, the 9th circuit would have ruled differently and indicated that Wynn's defamation suit is, at the every least, way premature.
But a press-release, theoretically available to the entire universe?
How could the attorney not know that would end very badly?. Wynn, in my view, is a relatively litigious gaming figure, including not hesitating to file defamation suits, when he deems it appropriate, against those he perceived besmirched his name and reputation, even if it is clear there is no real money to be had.
The John L. Smith situation is a classic example–the RJ journalist who wrote the book unfavorable to Wynn.
The book, a limited publication run and locally distributed by a few copies being sent to each local major book store, presumably did not really generate any meaningful profits, and Smith is a local salaried journalistic, so presumably obtaining money form Smith was not a main motivation.
The motivation appears to have been to obtain a judgement that indicates the Smith's assertions against Wynn were knowingly false, or made with reckless disregard. And, truth be told, perhaps to send a message to others to tread real lightly before they publish unfavorable material
I'm not knocking Wynn or suggesting casino moguls should never be permitted sue for defamation(or that every such lawsuit is necessarily a SLAPP attempt). I don't believe most bother to sue a lot of the time, but Wynn does tend to be one of the more litigious ones in my estimation. I'm not saying that's good or bad, it's just a fact in my view.
And the attorney should have known that, and entered private settlement negotiations rather than this highly ill-advised press release, which was intended to create the impression that everything included therein is gospel.
If I'm dead wrong about all this, let me have it. I'm a big boy, already had my morning coffee, and I'm pretty thick-skinned by this point in life, so tell me how ignorant and wrong I am, so we can fill up this blog with relevant legal discussions, rather than the endless tiresome Trump vs. Biden, blue vs. red political discussion that sometimes dominates the blog.
Lisa Bloom is daughter of Gloria Allred, famed tv lawyer. She knew what she was doing.
11:22. Does "she knew what she was doing" imply that she knew the press release(as opposed to suing or confidential settlement attempts) might result in a defamation lawsuit, and that such was a calculated risk that the attorney planned for within the tactical structure she imposed?
You may be right about this, but I'm not certain. I think even if she expected the defamation suit might result, I bet she planned she would win before the ninth circuit and receive anti-SLAPP protection.
But only the lawyer really knows.
Bloom's bread and butter are press releases…not real lawyering. She knew what she was risking.
Bloom is the type of person you see next Tuesday. Just desserts for her!
Lisa Bloom took a page from her mother's playbook. Have allegations that belong in litigation? Don't file a lawsuit, Issue a Press Release! You get a press release. You get a press release. We all get press releases!
Gloria Allred and her associates are a bunch of assholes. They are only in it for the publicity. They do not care about the victims.
I get a stomach ache when I skip dinner and eat just desserts.
Smith was sued by Aldeson, not Wynn.
They both sued him.
10:21–way too long, but I tend to agree if in fact everything relevant has been reported.
But I bet there is a lot we don't know that might cause me, and perhaps you as well, to take a different view.
You can't rely on short, local news articles, written by journalists untrained in the law(and certainly now aware of the intricacies of these types of legal matters) to always know what is, or is not, legally relevant.
And even if the more skilled ones know something is legally relevant, they may not include such material if it will make the article too technically detailed and confusing to the average reader.
I have had more than my fair share of high profile cases over the years. I've also had cases that I could have made high profile if I had wanted to. I have always made it a point to not try my cases in the media. I don't give quotes to the RJ on my own cases, although I am always happy to offer quotes for cases I'm not involved with. Things can get spun in directions you can't control. And once you go to the media, that horse is out of the barn and can make settlement more complicated.
Hey folks did you see that UNLV Boyd Law School moved up in U.S. News rankings tied with a bunch of some top law schools for 60th place like Penn State and Tulane. Oh c'mon. Are you kidding me?
https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings
My school, USD, was ranked 86th in the nation. I could not believe how much it costs, just in tuition, to go to law school. Insane! I remember when I went to school it was about $18,000 a year in tuition. To me that was too much. Unless you are going to Yale or Stanford, it is best to pick the cheapest school to go to and to try to work while going to school to avoid debt. It looks like your best bet is to join the mormon church and then go to BYU law school. What a steal in comparison.
My motto is the same for law school and grad school. Go to school who offers you the most money, so you are not in debt or you have lower debt. Academic scholarships are very difficult to get. Hence, state schools are usually harder to get into.
@12:17
I think that the rankings are heavily politicized and with a lot of pandering a school can move its rank up. I believe that the rankings are not particularly reliable nor accurately evidence the quality of the education.
Boyd got the ranking solely because of best in the west lawyer, Gina Bongiovi.
I believe that as much as I believe no voter fraud. ROFL
Apparently, no one is watching the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer on trial for the murder of George Floyd. Otherwise, the media couldn’t get away with their spectacular lying to the public about how the prosecution is killing it.
It’s quite the opposite. In fact, in less than a week, the prosecution’s theory of the crime has subtly shifted from MURDER! to “failed to provide what we would say, in retrospect, would be a full and complete duty of care during the one- to three-minute interval between Floyd’s resisting the police to his dying, as a hostile crowd screamed obscenities at the police officers.”
The defense hasn’t even begun to make its case, but the prosecution’s witnesses keep helping Chauvin. (The only exception to the wild media lying is Headline News, where the lawyer commentators go the extra mile by watching the trial.)
Week One was chock-a-block with weeping bystanders wailing about how they felt watching Chauvin restrain Floyd. This would be tremendous evidence if the charge against Officer Chauvin were “first-degree upsetting bystanders.” But that’s not the charge. That’s not even a crime.
One especially distraught witness, Charles McMillian, an elderly black man, testified to seeing “foam” coming out of Floyd’s mouth.
QUIZ: Is foam coming out of the mouth a sign of:
a) a head wound?
b) strangulation?
c) a drug overdose?
ANSWER: c) a drug overdose.
Apart from that crucial fact, McMillian’s evidence only pertained to “first-degree upsetting bystanders.” Which, again, is not a crime.
My favorite witness — and the media’s favorite, too! — was Genevieve Hansen, Feminist Hero. She appeared in court in her firefighter dress uniform and a belligerent mood — though not as belligerent as the day Floyd died, when she showed up in sweats and began shrieking at the officers.
The headlines are along the lines of “Firefighter: I Could Have Saved Floyd’s Life, But Police Wouldn’t Let Me.”
Yes, apparently, Genevieve would have invented a time machine, gone back, and stopped Floyd from ingesting three times the lethal dose of fentanyl. I take it back: Chubby girls make the best firefighters! (Don’t get snippy with me: It’s beyond outrageous that fire departments have abandoned all physical fitness requirements solely in order to hire more women.)
According to Genevieve, the police on the scene unaccountably refused to step aside and take direction from her, despite her full ONE YEAR of experience as a firefighter.
Genevieve was totally on top of the situation. In her statement to investigators shortly after the event, she described Floyd as a “small, slim man.” Floyd was at least 6-foot-4 and weighed 230 pounds. The largest police officer on the scene was Chauvin, coming in at 5-foot-9 and 140 pounds. Genevieve missed nothing!
Even in the calm setting of a courtroom, with no agitated bystanders yelling at her, here are the things Genevieve says she would have done to save Floyd’s life!
In order:
“I would have requested additional help.”
“I would have wanted someone to call 911.”
This will likely change the meaning of the words "Chauvinist" and "Chauvinistic" forever.
Ironically, the person who wrote all of the above is a woman!
2:07 appears to be spot on. I only watched one cross examination, but that was enough to convince me there was no murder or even manslaughter.
I also feel bad for firewoman's colleagues. God forbid someone needs her to stop emoting and instead carry a heavy weight a long distance during, say, a fire.
The problem is the media makes money when cities burn. The reporting has been horrific from day one. Rodney King was great for the bottom line but a tragedy for LA. Same for St. Louis in the case where even the Obama DOJ had to admit the cop did absolutely nothing wrong. Most of my friends don't even know about the fentanyl and Floyds previous history of doing the exact same thing and almost dying.
Do yourself a favor and turn off the TV and watch parts of the trial with your own eyes. Echoes of Zimmerman all over the place. Media narrative versus the facts. Thank God we still have a court system with some due process.
I don't think the evidence matters here. No matter how clear the evidence is in favor of Chauvin, the jurors all know that unless he is found guilty, there will be riots, arson and looting [also known as "mostly peaceful protests"] all across the country. So Chauvin will be found guilty. He is a sacrificial lamb.
I can't yet say that 2:07 is spot on,as 3:58 says, and I think we need to wait before pronouncing that.
But like 3:58, I only saw a limited amount of it so far, chiefly consisting of one cross-examination, yet I already perceive the desperation, uncertainty, theory shifting, and general thematic inconsistency, that both 2:07 and 3:58 allude.
Oh whatever. This whole post is racist nonsense. And while we're on the topic of firemen…my brother was a volunteer fireman for years (in another state) and the entire department was full of over weight, unhealthy men who couldn't see their own dicks, much less carry a person out of a burning building. Don't whine to me about fitness standards.
Re 6:10 – "The whole post is racists nonsense." I don't see it like that. Maybe when all you look for is racism that's all you see. I have not watched any of the trial live. I have watched a little of the highlights on the Youtube. Gotta say I dont see the relevance of how some bystander felt when watching the scenario. I also question the relevance of some other testimony I have heard as well. Chauvin shouldnt have put his knee on the dudes neck for 9 minutes. But I need to hear an expert testify that Mr. Floyd died because Chauvin had his knee on his neck for too long. Certainly looks that way, but… Volunteer fireman I can see as over-weight. Professional firefighters not so much. Signed ID FBU.
I swear, someone in the federal government has it out for the housing market. So incredibly stupid. The economy is going to be just fine a couple months and no one will be able to ever purchase a home. But at least we did evict or foreclose on any deadbeats!
I want to say that I was hasty and completely wrong about one of our new judges. I thought Jessica Peterson was really working hard and prepared for her hearings (she does start early which is nice). She is trying too hard and is entering dispositive orders that make no sense. She is taking conflicting evidence on dispositive motions and ruling on which side she finds more credible. Watched and participated in multiple cases where there are jaw-dropping decisions weighing evidence. Anyone else having this experience?
I thought she has been good thus far. Being prepared is a plus. You may be correct, but I have no seen enough rulings to agree.
Watch her on Motions to Dismiss and MSJs. She lets you know that she reviewed all of the exhibits and declarations but then she weighs them and weaves the narrative of what she believes and does not believe. Seen it 3x now.
Nancy Allf admitted on the record that she did not review motions of ours that our office filed. And still ruled on the other side's behalf.
5:19–I've seen judges say they have not reviewed or considered something like a last minute Reply To Opposition, but I have not seen a judge state they have neither read, nor reviewed, a substantive contested motion, and rule on it.
I guess that might be okay for something like a Motion To Amend Complaint filed very, very early in the proceedings, (but not quite before the Answer was filed) and there really seems to be no possible substantive prejudice. Or perhaps if it's something to correct an innocuous clerical error( incorrect spelling of a name of a party), one could rule without having really read the motion.
Another example might be where the title of the Motion itself tells you conclusively what is being sought, and it seems on its face like it should automatically be granted–like a motion to extend service of process by 30 days, or something like that.
But if it is a motion really going to heart of critical matters, and is rigorously opposed, I've never seen a judge rule while admitting they have not read the motion. So, details would be helpful.
As for 3:04, I hear what you are saying but I am eager for my details on this one as well. Could these be matters where it is proper for her to rule largely based on which evidence is more credible?
I know you referred to "conflicting evidence", but sometimes there is not a lot of documentation as to conflicting evidence and sometimes relative credibility of each witnesses testimony may be our only real area to be relied on.
You also referred to "dispositive matters", but that, by definition, does not necessarily preclude a weighing and balancing of the credibility of conflicting testimony, although I do think I know what you are getting at here, although no real details were offered.
I'm by no means defending this judge. You may well be right(in fact you seem to have attracted support on this very thread)but details would be helpful before it can be reasonably concluded that she should not have been so guided by credibility concerns.
So, 5:19, what kind of motion was it?
Motion to Set Aside
8:02. Clearly, that needs to be fully reviewed whenever contested. That's not something a judge can or should rule on while stating they did not read it.
You guys act like judges do what they are supposed to. They don't. Reading an opinion now with briefs where Nevada Court of Appeals created facts and new legal arguments not in the record. Completely unethical.
11:09 AM Please provide case number. I believe you, just want another example to add to my list.
Sure, post your email and I will send it to you.
7:36, add to your shit list?
Enough seriouso comments. Take a moment to enjoy a glimpse of Hunter Biden's exceptional life at Daily Mail today. I would pretend to be jealous, but it appears he's a discounted version of me. He still gets an A for effort. If I ever get married again, I will send him an invite to the bachelor party.
This is a legal assistant who should be working in Las Vegas, not Alabammy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9449407/Married-Alabama-Secretary-State-admits-affair-lover-shares-risqu-texts.html
A reminder to be picky with whom you have an affair. There are a lot of trashy hussies out there. Be patient and find the one with class. And don't do your business in the marital bed. When Tiger was revealed to have done that, I predicted divorce. Ditto here. Respect your spouse enough to do it cars, behind dumpsters, in cheap hotels, or even top notch hotels. Just not the marital bed.
Oh, look Jacky Rosen is out handing food. Glad she gout out of her cave. Where have you been, Jacky?