- Quickdraw McLaw
- 30 Comments
- 225 Views
Thank you to all of you who serve(d) our country!
- No execution next week. [RJ]
- Fred Steese was pardoned and the only no vote was AG Adam Laxalt. [ProPublica]
- Remember all those ADA filings that Whitney Wilcher represented, he told the Court he got paid $100 a case. [RJ]
Here is the agreement for Litigation Management and Financial Services, LLC, the company behind the litigation. https://www.scribd.com/document/348187704/Litigation-Management-Services-Funding-Agreement#from_embed
Can someone explain what the (Observed) is in the title? Does that mean we're watching something while we're at the office billing?
Veterans Day is the 11th day of the 11th month (the day the guns fell silent in WWI). If you look real closely at a calendar, you'll discover that isn't today. But the 11th wouldn't give anyone a 3 day weekend, so here we are.
For 98 years, Americans have remembered those who served our country in uniform on 11 November – first as Armistice Day, and then, since 1954 as Veterans Day. In this 99th year of commemoration, the Department of Veterans Affairs is broadening that tradition of observance and appreciation to include both Veterans and Military Families for the entire month of November. Given 11 November falls on a Saturday, businesses are "observing" it today.
10:51 here, was trying to make a joke that we're at the office on a holiday, but I appreciate the honest and insightful responses from 10:56 and 10:57 😀
Humor is not allowed on this blog, 10:51. YOU KNOW BETTER!
OBC is looking for a sucker, who is willing to violate all rules of ethics under Hunterton's iron fist and serve as assistant bar counsel.
Is a law degree required?
I should have this wrapped up: I have no law degree, no undergrad degree, voted for Trump and believe that most lawyers have an over inflated sense of self…
Just a torch, a pitchfork and an overinflated sense of piety.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
11:56 essentially asks if there is any unprincipled scum who is willing to be a worthless "yes man(or woman)" and serve as Assistant Bar Counsel.
How much does it pay? Please explain the benefits
Has Laxalt offered any defense of his "no" vote in the Steese pardon hearing? I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the cynic in me assumes his attempt to abstain followed by a no vote means he knew the guy was innocent but was afraid of how a "yes" vote could be spun in a 30-second ad.
He's a "doer", not a "talker". If only his ad had shown him eating chicken, I might have laughed.
Isn't it just Cadish's ruling that made him "innocent" and not the facts? If the AG believes he's guilty, that would explain the no vote.
Her ruling was that he was factually innocent
The governor of the State and every single Supreme Court Justice voted for clemency. Only Laxalt voted "no". What a dirtbag. Must be a magna cum laude graduate of the Jeff Sessions School of Astounding Ignorance and Miniature Thinking. Please, PLEASE, not our next governor — even despite the Koch's giving him $1 million already.
He said this morning that the DA wrote a letter saying he should vote "No" so he voted "No".
Laxalt told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he relied on a report from the Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson’s office to cast his vote. “The district attorney, Steve Wolfson, felt that this pardon was absolutely unwarranted,” Laxalt said. “If I had to choose between the district attorney and career prosecutors over a liberal judge and a news story, that was an easy call for me — I was going to go with the district attorney on this one.” Laxalt was referring to an investigative story about Steese’s case published by ProPublica in May.
A letter signed by Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Owens read in part: “The position of this office is that pardons should be reserved for exemplary individuals under extraordinary circumstances in cases of lesser gravity.”
Laxalt initially requested to abstain from voting, after watching each of the other board members vote in favor of a pardon. He reviewed the district attorney’s file, which included Steese’s criminal history of various felony charges in other states.
“As the state’s top law enforcement officer, I always value the district attorney’s perspective on these cases,” Laxalt said, referring to prosecutors who struck the deal with Steese four years ago. “That weighed very heavily on my decision to have no-voted for this pardon.” He added: “I was frankly stunned that the board voted, prior to me, unanimously to pardon. I just wasn’t sure if I was missing something that was not in the file.”
@9:21 No actually it was more than just Cadish's ruling. It was the facts which were introduced into evidence at the Hearing in front of Cadish, such as the fact that there is an entire document trail which puts Steese not in the state at the time of the murder and hiding material witnesses.
12:12 here, to 9:21, his asking to abstain is weird if he actually believes he is guilty. A "no" vote by itself would not have been hard to figure out, but a "no" vote after seeking to abstain seems strange in the light of all the facts here.
They have been looking for weeks. Starting to think they might be having problems finding an applicant.
There are two other jobs I would not take before taking the job at the OBC. One of them is working for defending the big banks.
I work defending the biggest banks all day every day (well, 5.5 days a week anyway). They pay well and on time. I can think of about 500,000 jobs I would avoid before "working for defending the big banks."
Good for you, who does not pay on time?
Back that sweet Yamaha bike up, I would rather be an OBC puppet, than work for Wells Fargo as their attorney.
Wells Fargo attorneys are making good money and can sleep at night that their work is above board for a client that might not be above board. Nothing of what goes down at OBC is above board.
There are reasonable banks and unreasonable banks, just like there are reasonable borrowers and unreasonable borrowers. I have a friend who does that type of work and there are plenty of tales of borrowers who haven't paid a mortgage in 4 years while continuing to live in the home. Of course there are lots of bad stories from the banking side too. So, like everything else, perspective.
I think the point 1:22 was making is that there is a difference between representing a client who does scummy things (Akerman) and having to do scummy things yourself (Stan).
Nothing at OBC is above board.
I used to work for a lenders' firm, and there was a lot of shady shit done by the attorneys at my firm.