The State Bar of Nevada’s Annual Meeting kicks off tonight at the Drake in Chicago. Are you there? We’d love to hear your observations. For those of you who can’t make it, you can follow @nevadabar and #ruleoflawsbn.
There is a new Facebook group called Nevada State Bar to Require Liability Insurance. This group seeks comments and opinions regarding the proposed Bar petition. Attorney Lynn Conant is drafting a statement to the Supreme Court and will accept your comments/opinions via email at skinering[@]yahoo.com (remove the brackets) or at the Facebook page.
Alvogen, Inc., represented in part by Pisanelli Bice, is suing to stop the State of Nevada from using its drug in the execution of Scott Dozier scheduled for tonight. A hearing for a TRO and preliminary injunction in case A777312 is set before Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez this morning at 9 a.m. [RJ; Fox5Vegas]
Here’s a look at the evolution of the death penalty in Nevada. [TNI]
A reader tells us that Justice Court Department 1 candidate James Dean Leavitt has a Facebook ad attacking his opponent Elana Graham that suggests she is taking contributions from defense attorneys and then giving their clients favorable deals. Anyone seen this or have more details?
For a Justice of the peace race this is turning into more of a popularity contest and who's friends and family members can post more nasty comments about the other opponent instead of the what should be the main focus. Experience and knowledge.
Gonzalez is going to take another L on this one. She has a funny history of ruling in favor of Pisanelli Bice, only to be overturned on appeal. Happened in the Quinn case, going to happen in this one. Her ruling would turn capitalism inside out, not to mention it's just fundamentally wrong based on precedent regarding injunctive relief.
Also entertaining to see Jordan Smith versus his old firm on this matter, though it's a bit odd to appear by video from Ely. I wouldn't wish that on anyone and especially in Gonzalez's courtroom.
Guest
Anonymous
July 11, 2018 7:56 pm
Concerning Leavitt claiming that Graham, in her capacity as an ADA,now giving sweet-heart deals to defense attorneys who contribute to her JP race, attorneys should know better than making such sweeping, damning assertions about how someone conducts their position of great public trust as an A.D.A.
He probably heard anecdotally from one or two people(probably friends or supporters of Leavitt) that they feel they got a better deal for their client than Graham would have given them had they not contributed.
And it's conceivable that it's true. How would I know what motivates people. I can't automatically assume the accusation is wrong. And even if it's true to some extent Graham may not be particularly conscious of it(human beings capacity for rationalization is immense).
But that all being said, these type of sweeping allegations seem quite irresponsible(and possibly actionable as she is accused of betraying her positon of critical public trust in exchange for minor financial consideration), in the absence of any reliable empirical study concluding that she offers better deals to contributors.
And since obviously no such studies exist, if he is going to rely on what a person or two told him, they should come forward and indicate their shock at what great deals they are offered once they become contributors. Now, understanding that no such defense counsel is going to come forward, I think these type of sweeping statements are irresponsible and quite risky.
Also, if you are going to take such risk, it makes no sense to take such a huge risk with little or no gain. After all, the average voter will not be looking at his website. So, if he is going to take this huge risk of, with no proof, saying his opponent sells justice for a few hundred bucks at a time, he should go for broke and make the possible reward far more proportionate with the risk–such as trumpeting his charges in television and radio ads, and mass mailers.
The Graham Machine will not take this sitting down and will fight back.
So, for me, if I ever had to appear before a tribunal to answer the question of what proof I have that my former opponent was selling justice, I wish to answer that question in the capacity of a judge who got elected. I never want to answer those inquiries from the posoiton of a defeated candidate who confined my outrageous allegations to a website because I could not afford to reach the public through the airwaves and the mail.
In other words, this approach, in addition to being nefarious, seems stupid. If one is going to attempt it, go for broke and do it in such a manner where you put up the money to reach the voters.
Don't throw the Hail Mary Pass if there is no one around to catch it.
Now, Graham is no squeaky clean innocent victim herself. She too not only plays hard ball, but also does so with material she knows is far more inflammatory than it is relevant. She's attacking Leavitt for an old DUI charge, which apparently resulted in no DUI conviction, but instead resulted in a Reckless Driving Conviction or something. Based on the great work her dad has done to help attorneys with dependency issues, she should not be attacking attorneys for any past such problems unless she is convinced the person still has chemical dependency issues. I don't believe Leavitt drinks, and has not done so for years. Now, if Ms. Graham knows something I don't in this area, then fine.
I am super confused – what needed to be cleaned up? Did a post get deleted or something? Everything on here seems to be above-board.
Guest
Anonymous
July 11, 2018 8:26 pm
Damn, I missed it.
Guest
Anonymous
July 11, 2018 8:32 pm
What's to clean up? That appears to be a balanced, fair analysis and criticism of the hard ball tactics played by these two candidates. The comments do not appear to be personal attacks in any sense–just criticism of the political tactics. There was no name-calling.
Does the poster really need to clean things up, or should the candidates clean things up so they don't run into ethical trouble? The post points out some of the risks, ethical and political, the candidates are taking.
It's a shame these races deteriorate to this point. Abe Lincioln pointed out that people feel compelled to do certain things to win political races–and many of these things they do to win the position disqualify them for the positon they seeking. He said something like people do things to win the presidency that ultimately render them unfit for the positon.
All candidates should keep this in mind. But most of them believe if they run a race with honor, that they will lose.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there's a reason the old blogs are gone: lawsuits, subpoenas, potential liability, and all the time, hassle and expense that goes with dealing with the aforementioned challenges, not to mention dealing with endless emails and complaints (some valid and some not) from the subject of these comments. This is the same reason the comments are gone from the RJ, and even sites like Reddit have commenting guidelines. If we don't have rules, people run wild like animals, admins get sued, and there are no more blogs period.
I also do not necessarily disagree with you except (adding on to what L.D. said) it is really funny when you are not the subject of merciless attacks because of the way you look, because someone does not like you and because vicious rumors are like forest fires: easy to start and very difficult to put out.
This is not unique to this activity or this profession. The UFC would be more "fun" if we got rid of the rules and just let people kill each other literally. Practicing law would be a lot more fun and lucrative if we got rid of the RPC. But as members of society it is not too much to ask to maintain at least some level of decency.
@law.dawg 3:05 here. Very much appreciate this blog and all the work you do keeping it up and running. I wouldn't trade places with you. Fun has a price, no doubt, and you should not be the one paying for it. Do miss the old days, though. Lawyers are funny, funny people when running wild.
Guest
TruthandJustice
July 11, 2018 9:16 pm
Correction – this is James Dean Leavitt. I was cited and pled to misdemeanor reckless driving. There was no alcohol involved. There was no speeding involved. If any of you here are sincere about the differences between myself and my opponent please visit Leavittforjudge.com or better yet give me a call at my office. 702-384-0909
Mr. Leavitt: I am sincere about the differences between you and Ms. Graham, but I am also sincere in telling you that the Facebook posts themselves are unseemly at best and the dialogue that appears under your name borders on lunacy. If you want to promote your credentials and differences in approaches to the Bench, so be it. Your ads are far beneath anything resembling a high road and acting judicial or prudential.
Sounds like a double standard to me. Ms Graham can run a tv commercial based completely on false information and her entire campaign is trying to attack Mr Leavitt, but he is simply responding how any other opponent probably would and HE is the one that is not acting properly? Remember when you point a finger there are three others pointing back.
There is no double standard: Act judicial. Tell the truth. Be honorable in earning the title "Your Honor."
If you want to post about false things that Graham is saying about Leavitt, absolutely such ads are fair game to discuss. If she is in the mud, point that out rather than getting into the mud with her. And I am not judging any of the candidates based upon what their opponents are saying about them; I am judging them on how they comport themselves. That standard is universal across the board.
Letizia (Leavitt) has zero problem running dirty campaigns. I think he takes pride in it. So does Thomas (Graham) but Letizia's are ridiculously in the mud, imo. Agree with 3:52A but suspect candidates/incumbents feel they have no choice if they want/want to keep the job. Meanwhile, the campaign managers just make more money the nastier it gets.
I do not see Leavitt attacking his opponent however he is attacking her unethical practice of raising money from lawyers with whom she has active cases. Go to leavittforjudge.com and read the vast difference in experience between the two candidates. It is not even close. And only a Graham supporter could say otherwise.
I am the author of an earlier comment that was removed (got nothin' but love for you, law.dawg!) in which I discussed the realities of that "vast difference". Suffice it to say that the claimed "vast difference" is not nearly as compelling as it might appear. Read the words carefully.
4:49– I agreed with you up until about 3 weeks ago. EG's lack of experience and youth (and Tracey Enid Flick demeanor for her campaign) rubbed me wrong. I could overlook the pajama bottoms and politicking by JDL. And then these Facebook posts and ads started coming out. JDL started personally posting. I have been to the website which shows that he is older and has been an attorney for more years.
I would rather have a clueless judge who I can educate and walk through the pleadings than someone who is nasty and dirty on the Bench. Maybe JDL is just being poorly served by Letizia and maybe he has bad social media advisors (although he personally posts on these ads so….). He is not judicial, which has completely turned me off. So older he is; however absent some change of temperament and tone more judicial he is not.
Nevada's Justice Courts are limited jurisdiction courts handling matters detailed in Nevada Revised Statutes. The 65 Justices of the Peace at the 40 Justice Courts determine whether felony or gross misdemeanor cases have enough evidence to be bound over to a District Court for trial. In addition, Justice Courts preside over non-traffic misdemeanor, small claims, summary eviction, temporary protection, and traffic cases.
Courts of Justice are a collection of secret hideouts from which the masked members of the Justice League of Nevada dispense their sweet, sweet Justice Juice. It's been rumored, although never actually proven that the whorehouse-looking entrances to the Supreme Court building in downtown Las Vegas, are in fact hidden portals to the underground hideout of The Gibbonator, a hero famous for spraying his Justice Juice on the infamous villains Eight Cholay.
Politics is a full-contact sport…
For a Justice of the peace race this is turning into more of a popularity contest and who's friends and family members can post more nasty comments about the other opponent instead of the what should be the main focus. Experience and knowledge.
Just business as usual for most if not all elections in Nevada.
No execution.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/las-vegas-judges-ruling-will-halt-tonights-execution/
How bad is it that our State representatives are lying to people to get drugs?
Gonzalez is going to take another L on this one. She has a funny history of ruling in favor of Pisanelli Bice, only to be overturned on appeal. Happened in the Quinn case, going to happen in this one. Her ruling would turn capitalism inside out, not to mention it's just fundamentally wrong based on precedent regarding injunctive relief.
Also entertaining to see Jordan Smith versus his old firm on this matter, though it's a bit odd to appear by video from Ely. I wouldn't wish that on anyone and especially in Gonzalez's courtroom.
Concerning Leavitt claiming that Graham, in her capacity as an ADA,now giving sweet-heart deals to defense attorneys who contribute to her JP race, attorneys should know better than making such sweeping, damning assertions about how someone conducts their position of great public trust as an A.D.A.
He probably heard anecdotally from one or two people(probably friends or supporters of Leavitt) that they feel they got a better deal for their client than Graham would have given them had they not contributed.
And it's conceivable that it's true. How would I know what motivates people. I can't automatically assume the accusation is wrong. And even if it's true to some extent Graham may not be particularly conscious of it(human beings capacity for rationalization is immense).
But that all being said, these type of sweeping allegations seem quite irresponsible(and possibly actionable as she is accused of betraying her positon of critical public trust in exchange for minor financial consideration), in the absence of any reliable empirical study concluding that she offers better deals to contributors.
And since obviously no such studies exist, if he is going to rely on what a person or two told him, they should come forward and indicate their shock at what great deals they are offered once they become contributors. Now, understanding that no such defense counsel is going to come forward, I think these type of sweeping statements are irresponsible and quite risky.
Also, if you are going to take such risk, it makes no sense to take such a huge risk with little or no gain. After all, the average voter will not be looking at his website. So, if he is going to take this huge risk of, with no proof, saying his opponent sells justice for a few hundred bucks at a time, he should go for broke and make the possible reward far more proportionate with the risk–such as trumpeting his charges in television and radio ads, and mass mailers.
The Graham Machine will not take this sitting down and will fight back.
So, for me, if I ever had to appear before a tribunal to answer the question of what proof I have that my former opponent was selling justice, I wish to answer that question in the capacity of a judge who got elected. I never want to answer those inquiries from the posoiton of a defeated candidate who confined my outrageous allegations to a website because I could not afford to reach the public through the airwaves and the mail.
In other words, this approach, in addition to being nefarious, seems stupid. If one is going to attempt it, go for broke and do it in such a manner where you put up the money to reach the voters.
Don't throw the Hail Mary Pass if there is no one around to catch it.
Now, Graham is no squeaky clean innocent victim herself. She too not only plays hard ball, but also does so with material she knows is far more inflammatory than it is relevant. She's attacking Leavitt for an old DUI charge, which apparently resulted in no DUI conviction, but instead resulted in a Reckless Driving Conviction or something. Based on the great work her dad has done to help attorneys with dependency issues, she should not be attacking attorneys for any past such problems unless she is convinced the person still has chemical dependency issues. I don't believe Leavitt drinks, and has not done so for years. Now, if Ms. Graham knows something I don't in this area, then fine.
Clean it up, people.
Forgive me. I shall endeavor to avoid language as obscene as t@!t in the future.
I am super confused – what needed to be cleaned up? Did a post get deleted or something? Everything on here seems to be above-board.
Damn, I missed it.
What's to clean up? That appears to be a balanced, fair analysis and criticism of the hard ball tactics played by these two candidates. The comments do not appear to be personal attacks in any sense–just criticism of the political tactics. There was no name-calling.
Does the poster really need to clean things up, or should the candidates clean things up so they don't run into ethical trouble? The post points out some of the risks, ethical and political, the candidates are taking.
It's a shame these races deteriorate to this point. Abe Lincioln pointed out that people feel compelled to do certain things to win political races–and many of these things they do to win the position disqualify them for the positon they seeking. He said something like people do things to win the presidency that ultimately render them unfit for the positon.
All candidates should keep this in mind. But most of them believe if they run a race with honor, that they will lose.
Respectfully, the blog was better (and funnier) when it was an unmitigated free for all. Sigh….the good ole days.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there's a reason the old blogs are gone: lawsuits, subpoenas, potential liability, and all the time, hassle and expense that goes with dealing with the aforementioned challenges, not to mention dealing with endless emails and complaints (some valid and some not) from the subject of these comments. This is the same reason the comments are gone from the RJ, and even sites like Reddit have commenting guidelines. If we don't have rules, people run wild like animals, admins get sued, and there are no more blogs period.
I also do not necessarily disagree with you except (adding on to what L.D. said) it is really funny when you are not the subject of merciless attacks because of the way you look, because someone does not like you and because vicious rumors are like forest fires: easy to start and very difficult to put out.
This is not unique to this activity or this profession. The UFC would be more "fun" if we got rid of the rules and just let people kill each other literally. Practicing law would be a lot more fun and lucrative if we got rid of the RPC. But as members of society it is not too much to ask to maintain at least some level of decency.
@law.dawg 3:05 here. Very much appreciate this blog and all the work you do keeping it up and running. I wouldn't trade places with you. Fun has a price, no doubt, and you should not be the one paying for it. Do miss the old days, though. Lawyers are funny, funny people when running wild.
Correction – this is James Dean Leavitt. I was cited and pled to misdemeanor reckless driving. There was no alcohol involved. There was no speeding involved. If any of you here are sincere about the differences between myself and my opponent please visit Leavittforjudge.com or better yet give me a call at my office. 702-384-0909
Mr. Leavitt: I am sincere about the differences between you and Ms. Graham, but I am also sincere in telling you that the Facebook posts themselves are unseemly at best and the dialogue that appears under your name borders on lunacy. If you want to promote your credentials and differences in approaches to the Bench, so be it. Your ads are far beneath anything resembling a high road and acting judicial or prudential.
And get a better tie.
Sounds like a double standard to me. Ms Graham can run a tv commercial based completely on false information and her entire campaign is trying to attack Mr Leavitt, but he is simply responding how any other opponent probably would and HE is the one that is not acting properly? Remember when you point a finger there are three others pointing back.
There is no double standard: Act judicial. Tell the truth. Be honorable in earning the title "Your Honor."
If you want to post about false things that Graham is saying about Leavitt, absolutely such ads are fair game to discuss. If she is in the mud, point that out rather than getting into the mud with her. And I am not judging any of the candidates based upon what their opponents are saying about them; I am judging them on how they comport themselves. That standard is universal across the board.
Letizia (Leavitt) has zero problem running dirty campaigns. I think he takes pride in it. So does Thomas (Graham) but Letizia's are ridiculously in the mud, imo. Agree with 3:52A but suspect candidates/incumbents feel they have no choice if they want/want to keep the job. Meanwhile, the campaign managers just make more money the nastier it gets.
I do not see Leavitt attacking his opponent however he is attacking her unethical practice of raising money from lawyers with whom she has active cases. Go to leavittforjudge.com and read the vast difference in experience between the two candidates. It is not even close. And only a Graham supporter could say otherwise.
I am the author of an earlier comment that was removed (got nothin' but love for you, law.dawg!) in which I discussed the realities of that "vast difference". Suffice it to say that the claimed "vast difference" is not nearly as compelling as it might appear. Read the words carefully.
Dave Thomas is making me vote for Leavitt. You are such a piece of work.
4:49– I agreed with you up until about 3 weeks ago. EG's lack of experience and youth (and Tracey Enid Flick demeanor for her campaign) rubbed me wrong. I could overlook the pajama bottoms and politicking by JDL. And then these Facebook posts and ads started coming out. JDL started personally posting. I have been to the website which shows that he is older and has been an attorney for more years.
I would rather have a clueless judge who I can educate and walk through the pleadings than someone who is nasty and dirty on the Bench. Maybe JDL is just being poorly served by Letizia and maybe he has bad social media advisors (although he personally posts on these ads so….). He is not judicial, which has completely turned me off. So older he is; however absent some change of temperament and tone more judicial he is not.
Completely agree with 5:47
What is Justice Court?
Nevada's Justice Courts are limited jurisdiction courts handling matters detailed in Nevada Revised Statutes. The 65 Justices of the Peace at the 40 Justice Courts determine whether felony or gross misdemeanor cases have enough evidence to be bound over to a District Court for trial. In addition, Justice Courts preside over non-traffic misdemeanor, small claims, summary eviction, temporary protection, and traffic cases.
Do they have jury trials in Justice Court?
Yes. But only for civil matters.
They do NOT have jury trials in limited jurisdiction courts (justice court, municipal court). You have bench trials in those courts.
Extra credit for the first person who explains the difference between justice courts and courts of justice…
Justice Courts are in Nevada.
Courts of Justice are not!
Touche mi amigo.
I'm sorry you lose, but you do win a matching set of truly tacky American Tourister luggage for playing…
(correct answer: NRS 1.010)
Courts of Justice are a collection of secret hideouts from which the masked members of the Justice League of Nevada dispense their sweet, sweet Justice Juice. It's been rumored, although never actually proven that the whorehouse-looking entrances to the Supreme Court building in downtown Las Vegas, are in fact hidden portals to the underground hideout of The Gibbonator, a hero famous for spraying his Justice Juice on the infamous villains Eight Cholay.