For those First Amendment aficionados among us, Trump versus Twitter is getting interesting, in part because of his comments about Minneapolis. [C/NET; Politico]
The hockey team that will play at the new arena in Henderson will be the Henderson Silver Knights. [8NewsNow]
Phase 2 starts today and lots of businesses can open up. Are you hitting the gym, the bar, the mall? Are you going to be protesting? What are you going to do to close out May this weekend?
First hearing in awhile, how are courts conducting hearings telephonically, meaning are they contacting you directly or sending court call link? Thanks!
Depends on the Court and the Department. Some send BlueJeans links automatically. Some expect you to make the request. Some are telephonic only wherein the Marshal will call you at the appointed time for your hearing.
Family Court is through an app called Blue Jeans. Costs around $100.00. Court sends you a code to enter to join the meeting which is the hearing. Client also signs up and appears via Blue Jeans.
Not sure where the $100 ref is coming from, 9:35AM. Didn't have to pay to download the app & and haven't had to pay the multiple times I've appeared using BlueJeans
12:00 : yes, absolutely. I don't know the solution but the fact that a couple months ago you could walk in and see any open hearing and now that's virtually impossible is a problem.
12:00 and 12:16 there's still a record. But maybe you should mind your own business. It's family court. Not everyone appreciates he who shall not be named and his band of weirdos "observing" their hearings.
12:40, I guess you don't care about the public's right to open hearings. I am not a fan of Sanson (why can't he be named?), but he has a right to observe and to inform the public of his take on matters.
Guest
Anonymous
May 29, 2020 4:52 pm
I'm still stunned at how politically brain dead we lawyers are(including the brightest ones) when it comes to the political process, particularly judicial races. Consider the following:
1. If you have a judicial race between a male attorney of real solid reputation, but basically unknown to the community at large, vs. an attractive female who has no significant legal experiences or accomplishments, but who has the political connections, endorsements, the financial backing, and the name recognition, ask most lawyers who will win that race, and they will pick the male candidate(simply because they perceive him to be the far better attorney).
Even after you explain the question was not who "should" win but who "will" in all likelihood win, they stick by their answer. And when you ask them why, they say things like people won't vote her, she has no notable legal experience while her opponent is a solid well-regarded practitioner.
Even if you spell it right out for them, that it is the public voting on these races, not a handful of lawyers, they still don't understand.
2. An even more glaring example of this phenomenon just occurred. A bunch of criminal defense attorneys are receiving correspondence to not vote for a certain incumbent. The communication urges them not to support the judge based on some supposed past prosecutorial actions by the judge while with the D.A.'s Office, and/or some wrongful conviction controversy.
Why waste time trying to convert the long since converted?
The problem is that even for someone like me, an attorney who has been practicing in civil litigation for about a decade, I still only have a passing familiarity with some of the candidates, and none at all with those of the criminal/family backgrounds. I tried researching every race before voting, but many of them were still just a shot in the dark. How can we possibly expect the general public to intelligently choose between candidates? At least with partisan races, there's a fallback presumption that the candidate's party affiliation tells us something about the candidate's principles. With judicial candidates, what can we rely on? Is it no wonder that physical attractiveness on a billboard or TV ad becomes so important?
I've been saying this for years. Nancy Oesterle. Stefany Miley.
Guest
Anonymous
May 29, 2020 5:34 pm
9:52, I heard something about that letter. I assumed it was being sent to people beyond crim.defense attorneys. But so far, it appears that those are the only practitioners who were targeted with the correspondence.
We got the letter Our firm does NO criminal defense. I see family law, personal injury, real estate lawyers all on the list. It was a pretty wide swath.
You are describing my Democrat friends, most of whom are nice people. Different brains, think emotionally; are "for" what "feels" right. Will not engage in factual discussion but instead become angry or abusive. I agree with 9:52; Why waste time trying to convert the long since converted.
Well said, 9:52. The world of justice is a bit of a cocoon. So, in terms of elections, marketing matters – ample signage, tv ads, mailers…along with whatever else that might drive top-of-mind awareness to the naïve public. And naïve, I think, is the right word since they simply aren't aware of the inside-baseball goings-on of this profession. Not sure if that is a good thing. It tends to lean me towards appointments rather than elections, but of course that opens a whole different can of worms.
Guest
Anonymous
May 29, 2020 7:04 pm
To all you democrats who think your party is the party of free-speech:
Sleepy, Creepy, Dementia Joe wants to revoke section 230. How on earth did you morons pick that guy out of all the democrats? Oh wait it's 2020 there's also been a pandemic and 40,000,000 unemployed. Why am I surprised that SCD Joe is the presumptive nominee
Guest
Anonymous
May 29, 2020 7:28 pm
Eviction moratorium was a cluster*** from the beginning.
If Beloved Dear Leader Sisolak were to lift the Decl of Emergency on June 4, many tenants will owe April, May and June rent. Can a LL serve a Notice To Pay Or Quit on June 5? Or will the LL have to wait until July 1?
I know a couple of people who have not paid their April and May rent, and who will not pay June (or July). They will delay and stall, planning on moving out only when they have to, and cheating the current LL when they do. In the meantime, they are accumulating cash (from Stimulus and Unemployment) so they can afford the next apartment.
Aaron Ford has nothing to say to the current Landlord who is getting screwed.
The lift won't be lifted until June 30th…unless extended.
Guest
Anonymous
May 29, 2020 7:49 pm
When a U.S. Senator withdraws from short list V.P. consideration, does that suggest she may have been informed that she would not be selected?
If so, that lets her, at least in the here and now,to have it both ways–she gets the national focus of having been short-listed for VP, but need not deal with the sting of any subsequent rejection. This is intended to leave us with the lingering impression that she may in fact have been selected had she not withdrawn her name from consideration.
It is true my suggesting that she was not going to be selected is speculation, but it might be pretty reasonable speculation once we peel this all away a little.
Politicians are the most ambitious and upwardly mobile people on earth. And this Senator is a relatively young politician, who just came upon the national scene when she took office in Jan.2017, a mere three years ago.
The only time that it ever seems plausible that someone voluntarily remove themselves from VP consideration while they are still under serious consideration, is when we have a situation of a senator of advanced years who has some health issues, or their spouse does, that type of thing.
But here we have a fairly young, very bright, vibrant, and seemingly ambitious Senator. I cannot fathom how she would remove her name if she was still actually being considered.
And the suspicions are heightened even more when we see the weak and clichéd reasoning for withdrawing–she wants to continue to fight for her state. I honestly believe, from what I know of her, is that she could have personally drafted a far better statement herself, rather than leaving it to her staff.
Whenever anyone says "I must not be considered for this position because there is much work I need to do for my state" it screams: This candidate as no longer under consideration!
No politician, who is still under viable consideration for the VP post, would ever withdraw their name, as that will then be the first and last time they are ever considered for such post by anyone. It's viewed as a slap toward the presidential candidate. It is expected that the short-listed person indicates what a great honor it is to be considered, and then simply ride it out and if not selected, oh well, at least they received the national exposure of being considered.
I really cannot fathom why a bright, politically astute, seemingly ambitious, personable, charismatic, relatively young and quite telegenic female US Senator, who is also Hispanic which increases her national appeal even more, would ever reject being a heartbeat from the presidency under a candidate who will turn 80 during his first term.
And this "fight for Nevada" pretext. Please, at least her people should have come up with something better than that.
Now if I am wrong, and am too cynical, and she really did withdraw at a time when she was still under consideration, and if she sincerely did so due to the economic effect of the pandemic on Nevada, then she is a real jewel and a real keeper. But like I said, I'm cynical so I'm not sure I'm convinced.
It's not possible Harry Reid was one of her advisers in this matter, is it?
Biden has all but expressly committed to pick a black female VP. CCM "withdrew" because she was informed that she would not be picked. "Withdrawing" is just political theater, gets headlines in a positive vs negative way.
Which is too bad because CCM would have been great. Also, I think she would appeal to more voters than any black female politician I can think of with a high enough profile to get picked as VP (e.g., Harris, Abrams), who it seems to me are viewed as being somewhat extreme.
To add on to what 6:36 said, "I really cannot fathom why a bright, politically astute, seemingly ambitious, personable, charismatic, relatively young and quite telegenic female US Senator, who is also Hispanic which increases her national appeal even more, would ever reject being a heartbeat from the presidency under a candidate who will turn 80 during his first term."
It's because she was informed that she would not be selected.
Think about this a different way my wordy friend. As Biden narrows his search and eliminates candidates, why would he go one by one, Trump Apprentice style, axing the people who have been considered. Don't you think that would damage the party? Don't you think that could be used 12 years later when maybe CCM or any other of the possible candidates are actually in that position or in a tough reelection campaign? It would make zero sense.
Guest
Anonymous
May 29, 2020 8:03 pm
12:49–I don't have a strong view point as to whether she was, or was not, still under serious consideration.
But I agree with your assessment of her positive traits, although some of our esteemed republican colleagues will understandably feel differently.
I also agree that the nature of the statement(wanting to direct her efforts to fighting for Nevada) is puzzling, and such a generic platitude does not in any way explain why someone would not want a realistic shot of running for VP with a presidential candidate who, is currently leading in many polls and could reasonably be elected, and who will be pushing 80 when and if he is elected.
BTW, I'm not shilling for Uncle Joe. In fact, Cortez Masto herself would make a far better president, IMO. But Joe is leading in almost all of the poll tracking with Real Clear Politics.
That said, if people were to respond by saying a lot of polls are nothing more than biased b.s. manipulated to establish a pre-planned desired result, you won't get much rebuttal from me, if any.
Trump lost the popular vote, just as the polls predicted he would. The polls were pretty good in 2016 – way better than in 2012. The notion that they were unreliable because Trump won the electoral college is based on a misunderstanding of what polls measure and how much polling error there normally is.
The polls weren't that far off in 2016. People just didn't analyze them correctly. Most pollsters gave Hillary a 95-99% chance of winning. Nate Silver had her at 66% using the same data. The difference? He actually took a step back and realized there were way more undecided voters than in previous years, and took that to mean that a good percentage of Trump voters didn't want to admit they were planning on voting for Trump. In other words, he believed a large portion of undecided voters were actually Trump voters – at least a larger percentage than in prior elections.
As 6:34 points out, it was all using national data and didn't factor in the fact that Hillary screwed the pooch by not campaigning in PA, OH, MN, WI, MI, but the national data was actually pretty accurate.
Guest
Anonymous
May 29, 2020 8:26 pm
My ASSUMPTION is that some told Ms. Cortez-Masto "we know about _______, and that skeleton is going to be given a huge amount of publicity if you do not withdraw."
Let me be clear, I have no knowledge of any hidden secrets. I just find her public withdrawal to be very suspicious.
Not suspicious at all. Happens in every election cycle. She was demographically a strong candidate; she is not a strong candidate personalitywise. Inside gossip within certain party ranks is that the Party wants the next President as VP since Biden is older. Rumor is that Kamala Harris has already been told that she is the pick. She is not who I would pick but I have heard she is the pick.
CCM withdrawing from veep contention is much ado about nothing. She's the DSCC chair. It's way more important she focuses on those duties than joining Biden's campaign. Doing both would be virtually impossible.
Guest
Anonymous
May 29, 2020 10:51 pm
New hockey team name: I was rooting for the Vegas Hookers. 😉
Guest
Anonymous
May 29, 2020 11:00 pm
They'd probably be able to finance their stadium on merch sales alone!
Golden knights and silver knights… ho hum, could you be any more boring? Is the youth team they sponsor going to be called the bronze knights?
I can't decide if I like the new logo or not. I like the concept… I see where they are going, but it somehow seems weird and incomplete.
Bang for my brick, and I like the way you think. Don't they lock up the jewelry in sturdy safes? Maybe I should hit a dispensary. Lots of cash and tasty cannabis.
First hearing in awhile, how are courts conducting hearings telephonically, meaning are they contacting you directly or sending court call link? Thanks!
Depends on the Court and the Department. Some send BlueJeans links automatically. Some expect you to make the request. Some are telephonic only wherein the Marshal will call you at the appointed time for your hearing.
Okay, I will call the department. Thank you!
Family Court is through an app called Blue Jeans. Costs around $100.00. Court sends you a code to enter to join the meeting which is the hearing. Client also signs up and appears via Blue Jeans.
Not all Family Court departments are using BlueJeans. H and T for example are telephone only.
Not sure where the $100 ref is coming from, 9:35AM. Didn't have to pay to download the app & and haven't had to pay the multiple times I've appeared using BlueJeans
BlueJeans has a pay per month option that they try to get you to opt into which allows you to host calls.
Is anyone else bothered that the general public can't listen to BlueJeans hearings and it's invite only?
12:00 : yes, absolutely. I don't know the solution but the fact that a couple months ago you could walk in and see any open hearing and now that's virtually impossible is a problem.
12:00 and 12:16 there's still a record. But maybe you should mind your own business. It's family court. Not everyone appreciates he who shall not be named and his band of weirdos "observing" their hearings.
12:40, I guess you don't care about the public's right to open hearings. I am not a fan of Sanson (why can't he be named?), but he has a right to observe and to inform the public of his take on matters.
I'm still stunned at how politically brain dead we lawyers are(including the brightest ones) when it comes to the political process, particularly judicial races. Consider the following:
1. If you have a judicial race between a male attorney of real solid reputation, but basically unknown to the community at large, vs. an attractive female who has no significant legal experiences or accomplishments, but who has the political connections, endorsements, the financial backing, and the name recognition, ask most lawyers who will win that race, and they will pick the male candidate(simply because they perceive him to be the far better attorney).
Even after you explain the question was not who "should" win but who "will" in all likelihood win, they stick by their answer. And when you ask them why, they say things like people won't vote her, she has no notable legal experience while her opponent is a solid well-regarded practitioner.
Even if you spell it right out for them, that it is the public voting on these races, not a handful of lawyers, they still don't understand.
2. An even more glaring example of this phenomenon just occurred. A bunch of criminal defense attorneys are receiving correspondence to not vote for a certain incumbent. The communication urges them not to support the judge based on some supposed past prosecutorial actions by the judge while with the D.A.'s Office, and/or some wrongful conviction controversy.
Why waste time trying to convert the long since converted?
The problem is that even for someone like me, an attorney who has been practicing in civil litigation for about a decade, I still only have a passing familiarity with some of the candidates, and none at all with those of the criminal/family backgrounds. I tried researching every race before voting, but many of them were still just a shot in the dark. How can we possibly expect the general public to intelligently choose between candidates? At least with partisan races, there's a fallback presumption that the candidate's party affiliation tells us something about the candidate's principles. With judicial candidates, what can we rely on? Is it no wonder that physical attractiveness on a billboard or TV ad becomes so important?
I've been saying this for years. Nancy Oesterle. Stefany Miley.
9:52, I heard something about that letter. I assumed it was being sent to people beyond crim.defense attorneys. But so far, it appears that those are the only practitioners who were targeted with the correspondence.
Odd.
We got the letter Our firm does NO criminal defense. I see family law, personal injury, real estate lawyers all on the list. It was a pretty wide swath.
I do criminal defense and did not receive it…
You are describing my Democrat friends, most of whom are nice people. Different brains, think emotionally; are "for" what "feels" right. Will not engage in factual discussion but instead become angry or abusive. I agree with 9:52; Why waste time trying to convert the long since converted.
Good one. I love ironic humor
Well said, 9:52. The world of justice is a bit of a cocoon. So, in terms of elections, marketing matters – ample signage, tv ads, mailers…along with whatever else that might drive top-of-mind awareness to the naïve public. And naïve, I think, is the right word since they simply aren't aware of the inside-baseball goings-on of this profession. Not sure if that is a good thing. It tends to lean me towards appointments rather than elections, but of course that opens a whole different can of worms.
To all you democrats who think your party is the party of free-speech:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke
Sleepy, Creepy, Dementia Joe wants to revoke section 230. How on earth did you morons pick that guy out of all the democrats? Oh wait it's 2020 there's also been a pandemic and 40,000,000 unemployed. Why am I surprised that SCD Joe is the presumptive nominee
Eviction moratorium was a cluster*** from the beginning.
If Beloved Dear Leader Sisolak were to lift the Decl of Emergency on June 4, many tenants will owe April, May and June rent. Can a LL serve a Notice To Pay Or Quit on June 5? Or will the LL have to wait until July 1?
I know a couple of people who have not paid their April and May rent, and who will not pay June (or July). They will delay and stall, planning on moving out only when they have to, and cheating the current LL when they do. In the meantime, they are accumulating cash (from Stimulus and Unemployment) so they can afford the next apartment.
Aaron Ford has nothing to say to the current Landlord who is getting screwed.
The lift won't be lifted until June 30th…unless extended.
When a U.S. Senator withdraws from short list V.P. consideration, does that suggest she may have been informed that she would not be selected?
If so, that lets her, at least in the here and now,to have it both ways–she gets the national focus of having been short-listed for VP, but need not deal with the sting of any subsequent rejection. This is intended to leave us with the lingering impression that she may in fact have been selected had she not withdrawn her name from consideration.
It is true my suggesting that she was not going to be selected is speculation, but it might be pretty reasonable speculation once we peel this all away a little.
Politicians are the most ambitious and upwardly mobile people on earth. And this Senator is a relatively young politician, who just came upon the national scene when she took office in Jan.2017, a mere three years ago.
The only time that it ever seems plausible that someone voluntarily remove themselves from VP consideration while they are still under serious consideration, is when we have a situation of a senator of advanced years who has some health issues, or their spouse does, that type of thing.
But here we have a fairly young, very bright, vibrant, and seemingly ambitious Senator. I cannot fathom how she would remove her name if she was still actually being considered.
And the suspicions are heightened even more when we see the weak and clichéd reasoning for withdrawing–she wants to continue to fight for her state. I honestly believe, from what I know of her, is that she could have personally drafted a far better statement herself, rather than leaving it to her staff.
Whenever anyone says "I must not be considered for this position because there is much work I need to do for my state" it screams: This candidate as no longer under consideration!
No politician, who is still under viable consideration for the VP post, would ever withdraw their name, as that will then be the first and last time they are ever considered for such post by anyone. It's viewed as a slap toward the presidential candidate. It is expected that the short-listed person indicates what a great honor it is to be considered, and then simply ride it out and if not selected, oh well, at least they received the national exposure of being considered.
I really cannot fathom why a bright, politically astute, seemingly ambitious, personable, charismatic, relatively young and quite telegenic female US Senator, who is also Hispanic which increases her national appeal even more, would ever reject being a heartbeat from the presidency under a candidate who will turn 80 during his first term.
And this "fight for Nevada" pretext. Please, at least her people should have come up with something better than that.
Now if I am wrong, and am too cynical, and she really did withdraw at a time when she was still under consideration, and if she sincerely did so due to the economic effect of the pandemic on Nevada, then she is a real jewel and a real keeper. But like I said, I'm cynical so I'm not sure I'm convinced.
It's not possible Harry Reid was one of her advisers in this matter, is it?
Biden has all but expressly committed to pick a black female VP. CCM "withdrew" because she was informed that she would not be picked. "Withdrawing" is just political theater, gets headlines in a positive vs negative way.
Which is too bad because CCM would have been great. Also, I think she would appeal to more voters than any black female politician I can think of with a high enough profile to get picked as VP (e.g., Harris, Abrams), who it seems to me are viewed as being somewhat extreme.
"When a U.S. Senator withdraws from short list V.P. consideration, does that suggest she may have been informed that she would not be selected?"
Yes, that is what that means. There was no need to write Anna Karenina after your first sentence.
To add on to what 6:36 said, "I really cannot fathom why a bright, politically astute, seemingly ambitious, personable, charismatic, relatively young and quite telegenic female US Senator, who is also Hispanic which increases her national appeal even more, would ever reject being a heartbeat from the presidency under a candidate who will turn 80 during his first term."
It's because she was informed that she would not be selected.
Think about this a different way my wordy friend. As Biden narrows his search and eliminates candidates, why would he go one by one, Trump Apprentice style, axing the people who have been considered. Don't you think that would damage the party? Don't you think that could be used 12 years later when maybe CCM or any other of the possible candidates are actually in that position or in a tough reelection campaign? It would make zero sense.
12:49–I don't have a strong view point as to whether she was, or was not, still under serious consideration.
But I agree with your assessment of her positive traits, although some of our esteemed republican colleagues will understandably feel differently.
I also agree that the nature of the statement(wanting to direct her efforts to fighting for Nevada) is puzzling, and such a generic platitude does not in any way explain why someone would not want a realistic shot of running for VP with a presidential candidate who, is currently leading in many polls and could reasonably be elected, and who will be pushing 80 when and if he is elected.
BTW, I'm not shilling for Uncle Joe. In fact, Cortez Masto herself would make a far better president, IMO. But Joe is leading in almost all of the poll tracking with Real Clear Politics.
That said, if people were to respond by saying a lot of polls are nothing more than biased b.s. manipulated to establish a pre-planned desired result, you won't get much rebuttal from me, if any.
Didn't 2016 teach us that polls are too unpredictable? iirc, Trump was behind in almost all if not all polls.
unreliable*
Trump lost the popular vote, just as the polls predicted he would. The polls were pretty good in 2016 – way better than in 2012. The notion that they were unreliable because Trump won the electoral college is based on a misunderstanding of what polls measure and how much polling error there normally is.
The polls weren't that far off in 2016. People just didn't analyze them correctly. Most pollsters gave Hillary a 95-99% chance of winning. Nate Silver had her at 66% using the same data. The difference? He actually took a step back and realized there were way more undecided voters than in previous years, and took that to mean that a good percentage of Trump voters didn't want to admit they were planning on voting for Trump. In other words, he believed a large portion of undecided voters were actually Trump voters – at least a larger percentage than in prior elections.
As 6:34 points out, it was all using national data and didn't factor in the fact that Hillary screwed the pooch by not campaigning in PA, OH, MN, WI, MI, but the national data was actually pretty accurate.
My ASSUMPTION is that some told Ms. Cortez-Masto "we know about _______, and that skeleton is going to be given a huge amount of publicity if you do not withdraw."
Let me be clear, I have no knowledge of any hidden secrets. I just find her public withdrawal to be very suspicious.
Not suspicious at all. Happens in every election cycle. She was demographically a strong candidate; she is not a strong candidate personalitywise. Inside gossip within certain party ranks is that the Party wants the next President as VP since Biden is older. Rumor is that Kamala Harris has already been told that she is the pick. She is not who I would pick but I have heard she is the pick.
CCM withdrawing from veep contention is much ado about nothing. She's the DSCC chair. It's way more important she focuses on those duties than joining Biden's campaign. Doing both would be virtually impossible.
New hockey team name: I was rooting for the Vegas Hookers. 😉
They'd probably be able to finance their stadium on merch sales alone!
Golden knights and silver knights… ho hum, could you be any more boring? Is the youth team they sponsor going to be called the bronze knights?
I can't decide if I like the new logo or not. I like the concept… I see where they are going, but it somehow seems weird and incomplete.
Youth team? Maybe the Sleepless Nights.
The VSK logo looks like a horse head. Or, is that what it's supposed to be?
Make sure to vote all of the incumbents out. Avoid judicial corruption.
I am feeling social justice rage. Anyone have any recommendations for where the biggest selection of widescreen TV's are?
Widescreen TVs are cheap now. You'd get more bang for your buck at a jewelry store. This is not legal advice.
Bang for my brick, and I like the way you think. Don't they lock up the jewelry in sturdy safes? Maybe I should hit a dispensary. Lots of cash and tasty cannabis.
How can this be a joke to you?! I'm disgusted.