The Scotti ruling is candidly frightening. The fact that it got to the point of the Review-Journal (not exactly a liberal bastion) having to instruct reporters how to batten down the newsroom and turn away Metro officers is just mind boggling. I know it has been discussed on this page before, but Scotti (who was a pretty good attorney) is just bafflingly lost on the bench.
The Steve Wolfson story sadly does not move the meter. The CCDA imprisons wrongfully convicted people and refuses to examine its mistakes? Pshaw and sarcastically "You don't say." We know this happens all of the time. Even worse is how often it happens on the Federal level in this state because Federal sentences. The AUSA lies, cheats and steals because it refuses to admit its wrong.
The good news is that somewhere in the middle of all of these mistakes continue to stand lawyers who stand up against this garbage.
Guest
Anonymous
February 12, 2018 5:37 pm
Before you condemn Scotti completely, mMaybe give some thought to the concept that the RJ did not accurately report the basis of the decision and that Fox is just parroting the RJ's attorney. I would be more impressed if they had interviewed Sgro or his client.
I don't need to talk to Tony Sgro or Mrs. Hartfield. I understand her desire to keep the autopsy private. What a horrible event through which she has endured. It does not change the fact that it is a public record. It does not change the newsworthy and public interest in these events. And it certainly does not change the prior restraint of the press in ordering the free press to not even be allowed to discuss Hartfield.
I do not understand why the autopsy report, which would essentially describe how the person died and what was found within the body at the time of death, be a public record. I can understand that the cause of death based on autopsy report should be known to the public, but the minutiae of the findings within the report for each person should be private. What if, in this case, Mr Hartfield had some personal issues within his body that he did not want the public to know? I do not believe first amendment rights apply here, as the right of privacy supersedes any public interest in the exact details of the person's body.
Got a citation from ANY MANDATORY AUTHORITY for your claim that the right of privacy in this context overcomes First amendment protections? Betcha don't. Because you're wrong, and no one cares what you believe or what you understand, only what the law actually is. Additionally, in Nevada, they're public records until the government agency can demonstrate a compelling reason why they aren't. They're public records because they were made by a government agency, and under NRS 239.010(3), the confidential information can be redacted out.
Just read the Application for Writ. It is not outstanding. But then you remember (1) it was written in a hurry and (2) it really does not have to be outstanding because it is so common sense that Scotti's Order is completely baseless.
I had the same thought as 2:59. I wondered how much this was about avoiding campaign mailers saying "ASK JUDGE SCOTTI WHY A DEAD COP'S WIDOW LOSES HER RIGHT TO PRIVACY!"
The Scotti ruling is more well reasoned than folks are giving him credit. Confidential private health information is protected by federal and state law. Nevada does not have a state FOIA but has "Public Records" but not total "Open Records." The Public Records law and cases allow for a balancing and weighing of factors to shield some disclosure. This is what Scotti did. The comments on this blog show ignorance of the law. I know because I was a government lawyer and handled the requests. The Public Records law is not well known nor understood. Ultimately it leaves the decision to a judge to a balancing act. It is statutory and not constitutional. Public Records are governed by the Public Records law. There is no constitutional right to government records. If there were we would not need such laws.
Except that it was not well reasoned. Scotti's ruling tried to unring a bell and attempted to take records away away from the press that were already (lawfully) in the possession of the press. I would agree with you 9:58 if Scotti was weighing whether to disclose the records in the first place (which is what you are discussing). But once those records were lawfully disclosed, the entire balancing test that you discuss goes out of the window. Plus once Scotti realized that he had stepped in it because there was no effective way to do what he was trying to order since Hartfield's information was redacted, Scotti's solution of having government officials go through a newsroom to retrieve all of the records (even beyond the records that were the subject of the action) was just nutty. No sorry 9:58, watch the Hearing. It becomes quite clear that Scotti had no idea what he was doing.
No, that's what Williams did when he deemed them public records and ordered that confidential information be redacted before ordering them produced, as the statute provides. Scotti decided to play appellate judge over a fellow DC department, and then decided to go further and impose a wee bit o' prior restraint on a friggin' newspaper. Demanding that the Fourth Estate choose between destroying records lawfully obtained or permit government officials access to the newspaper's files so they can remove the records is a bullshit choice.
Huffington Post is reporting on all 58 autopsies, including summaries. I haven't seen them uploaded anywhere, but it's only a matter of time. But the RJ gets to be gagged. Way to go, Scotti.
And now Marc Randazza has entered the fray. I'm just gonna grab me some popcorn.
Guest
Anonymous
February 12, 2018 7:49 pm
What firms still go to Boyd's OCI? When I was there, people gunned for LSC, Jones Vargas, Morris Pickering Peterson, Greenberg Traurig, Bailey Kennedy, Holland and Hart, and BHFS. Now the first few are gone, and most of the ones that are left seem to be shrinking, not growing.
In a good year recently, I would guess there are around 15-20 summer associate spots at Chambers-ranked firms (using Chambers as a good if imperfect proxy for "big firm.") It looks like about half come from the top of the class at Boyd, about a quarter from the schools that send a lot of lawyers here pre-Boyd (the ones named above plus Utah, UA, ASU, USD, Pepperdine, etc.), and about a quarter from top 30ish schools.
Guest
Anonymous
February 12, 2018 8:08 pm
S&W, LRRC both attend and hire from Boyd. Don't think those firms are shrinking.
Guest
Anonymous
February 12, 2018 10:51 pm
What about the Lerner writs that were denied because Lerner is trying to dismiss the State Bar complaint in Nevada regarding the Louisiana debacle.
It looks like competing writs from Lerner and OBC were both denied. I didn't get any farther into the weeds than that. Does this mean the case is effectively over?
No it means that the Supreme Court has stated that the Disciplinary Hearing goes forward without any interruptions and that after the Disciplinary Hearing that the matter can be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Guest
Anonymous
February 13, 2018 2:14 am
There is something that stinks in Denmark about some of our judicial candidates. Do your research on these people on the Nevada Secretary of State's contribution page. Very interesting.
The Scotti ruling is candidly frightening. The fact that it got to the point of the Review-Journal (not exactly a liberal bastion) having to instruct reporters how to batten down the newsroom and turn away Metro officers is just mind boggling. I know it has been discussed on this page before, but Scotti (who was a pretty good attorney) is just bafflingly lost on the bench.
The Steve Wolfson story sadly does not move the meter. The CCDA imprisons wrongfully convicted people and refuses to examine its mistakes? Pshaw and sarcastically "You don't say." We know this happens all of the time. Even worse is how often it happens on the Federal level in this state because Federal sentences. The AUSA lies, cheats and steals because it refuses to admit its wrong.
The good news is that somewhere in the middle of all of these mistakes continue to stand lawyers who stand up against this garbage.
Before you condemn Scotti completely, mMaybe give some thought to the concept that the RJ did not accurately report the basis of the decision and that Fox is just parroting the RJ's attorney. I would be more impressed if they had interviewed Sgro or his client.
OR, OR, OR – you could watch the entire hearing yourself, and discover that the RJ covered it pretty accurately. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MopFsFHOE6E&list=PLNBXrpVad-8gzv4p94siQc-AuYlZD94nV
Part II – Scotti's announcement of his ruling starts at about 19:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAmwfq-DMVI&list=PLNBXrpVad-8gzv4p94siQc-AuYlZD94nV&index=2 Scotti doesn't understand 1st Amendment law. That much is absolutely certain, based on his malarkey "balancing test" and the justifications for it.
I don't need to talk to Tony Sgro or Mrs. Hartfield. I understand her desire to keep the autopsy private. What a horrible event through which she has endured. It does not change the fact that it is a public record. It does not change the newsworthy and public interest in these events. And it certainly does not change the prior restraint of the press in ordering the free press to not even be allowed to discuss Hartfield.
I do not understand why the autopsy report, which would essentially describe how the person died and what was found within the body at the time of death, be a public record. I can understand that the cause of death based on autopsy report should be known to the public, but the minutiae of the findings within the report for each person should be private. What if, in this case, Mr Hartfield had some personal issues within his body that he did not want the public to know? I do not believe first amendment rights apply here, as the right of privacy supersedes any public interest in the exact details of the person's body.
Got a citation from ANY MANDATORY AUTHORITY for your claim that the right of privacy in this context overcomes First amendment protections? Betcha don't. Because you're wrong, and no one cares what you believe or what you understand, only what the law actually is. Additionally, in Nevada, they're public records until the government agency can demonstrate a compelling reason why they aren't. They're public records because they were made by a government agency, and under NRS 239.010(3), the confidential information can be redacted out.
Also, the issue of whether dead people have a right to privacy is up for debate.
Lol where are Scotti and 12:32 getting this balancing test from?
The phrase balancing test reminds me of our class' gunner 1L year. "WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?!?!?"
Just read the Application for Writ. It is not outstanding. But then you remember (1) it was written in a hurry and (2) it really does not have to be outstanding because it is so common sense that Scotti's Order is completely baseless.
Scotti is just trying to score points with police department for reelection.
I've never been in front of Scotti before, and now I'm glad. This decision is ground-breaking in how obviously wrong it is. Wow.
I had the same thought as 2:59. I wondered how much this was about avoiding campaign mailers saying "ASK JUDGE SCOTTI WHY A DEAD COP'S WIDOW LOSES HER RIGHT TO PRIVACY!"
Politics, the cause of and solution to all life's problems. Wait. No, that's alcohol. Never mind.
The Scotti ruling is more well reasoned than folks are giving him credit. Confidential private health information is protected by federal and state law. Nevada does not have a state FOIA but has "Public Records" but not total "Open Records." The Public Records law and cases allow for a balancing and weighing of factors to shield some disclosure. This is what Scotti did. The comments on this blog show ignorance of the law. I know because I was a government lawyer and handled the requests. The Public Records law is not well known nor understood. Ultimately it leaves the decision to a judge to a balancing act. It is statutory and not constitutional. Public Records are governed by the Public Records law. There is no constitutional right to government records. If there were we would not need such laws.
Except that it was not well reasoned. Scotti's ruling tried to unring a bell and attempted to take records away away from the press that were already (lawfully) in the possession of the press. I would agree with you 9:58 if Scotti was weighing whether to disclose the records in the first place (which is what you are discussing). But once those records were lawfully disclosed, the entire balancing test that you discuss goes out of the window. Plus once Scotti realized that he had stepped in it because there was no effective way to do what he was trying to order since Hartfield's information was redacted, Scotti's solution of having government officials go through a newsroom to retrieve all of the records (even beyond the records that were the subject of the action) was just nutty. No sorry 9:58, watch the Hearing. It becomes quite clear that Scotti had no idea what he was doing.
No, that's what Williams did when he deemed them public records and ordered that confidential information be redacted before ordering them produced, as the statute provides. Scotti decided to play appellate judge over a fellow DC department, and then decided to go further and impose a wee bit o' prior restraint on a friggin' newspaper. Demanding that the Fourth Estate choose between destroying records lawfully obtained or permit government officials access to the newspaper's files so they can remove the records is a bullshit choice.
I agree with 10:20 and 10:26. It is a ridiculous decision that I hope the Supreme Court is not gentle in slapping down.
Huffington Post is reporting on all 58 autopsies, including summaries. I haven't seen them uploaded anywhere, but it's only a matter of time. But the RJ gets to be gagged. Way to go, Scotti.
Beam me up into the clueless, Scotti.
Houston, this is CommAnd center. Do you even know that this is CommAnd center? We keep telling you that, but you keep acting like you don't know that.
Scotti and Cadish, two judges who will never get my vote. Horrible judges.
Writ petition filed a few minutes ago. Case No. 75073.
Go get'em, Maggie. This is crap.
And we're off to the races. Scotti has until 4 pm today to reduce his ruling to writing, and Sgro has until 4 pm tomorrow to respond to the Writ.
And now Marc Randazza has entered the fray. I'm just gonna grab me some popcorn.
What firms still go to Boyd's OCI? When I was there, people gunned for LSC, Jones Vargas, Morris Pickering Peterson, Greenberg Traurig, Bailey Kennedy, Holland and Hart, and BHFS. Now the first few are gone, and most of the ones that are left seem to be shrinking, not growing.
OCI is a dinosaur.
Where do big firms hire from these days? Clerks? BYU, McGeorge, and Loyola?
In a good year recently, I would guess there are around 15-20 summer associate spots at Chambers-ranked firms (using Chambers as a good if imperfect proxy for "big firm.") It looks like about half come from the top of the class at Boyd, about a quarter from the schools that send a lot of lawyers here pre-Boyd (the ones named above plus Utah, UA, ASU, USD, Pepperdine, etc.), and about a quarter from top 30ish schools.
S&W, LRRC both attend and hire from Boyd. Don't think those firms are shrinking.
What about the Lerner writs that were denied because Lerner is trying to dismiss the State Bar complaint in Nevada regarding the Louisiana debacle.
It looks like competing writs from Lerner and OBC were both denied. I didn't get any farther into the weeds than that. Does this mean the case is effectively over?
No it means that the Supreme Court has stated that the Disciplinary Hearing goes forward without any interruptions and that after the Disciplinary Hearing that the matter can be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
There is something that stinks in Denmark about some of our judicial candidates. Do your research on these people on the Nevada Secretary of State's contribution page. Very interesting.
Can't seem to find the correct page on the SoS website. Link? Please?
http://nvsos.gov/SoSCandidateServices/AnonymousAccess/CEFDSearchUU/Search.aspx#individual_search
For instance?
I will get pounced for saying who. It is one of the better known one's and it is the January filing.
You are anonymous dumbass. Who cares if you get pounced on.
Exactly.
Way to be encouraging to people who speak out about coruptness. You two are the dumb asses.
Coruptness needs to be rooted out, even if people cannot figure out why you r missing.
While you're quibbling about a missing "r," the actual word is corruption.
Damn that redaction tape. Typo man Sam is back to correct you. I need to call Cadish for it. Wait, she does not have any.
I saw some interesting stuff on sos on candidates.