Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Fool For A Client


  • Here's a story about a real estate agent representing himself in trial. [RJ]
  • Here's a look at the on-the-record spending and gifts done by lobbyists during the 2015 Nevada legislative session. [RJ]
  • Couple sentenced in fire that killed three children. [LasVegasNow]

17 comments:

  1. BTW, has everyone seen the Veterans in Politics e-mail/post on Judge Ramsey in Northtown. There is another side to the story that is not making the newspaper. The paper does not have the facts and does not have it right as I suspected. The e-mail is too long to post but it is on their webiste.
    http://veteransinpolitics.org/

    And, no not Judge Ramsey and have not even appeared before her. Just have been following the controversy. It was as I figured--inaccurate reporting and information in the newspaper. Even if she wins the recall election they are abolishing her department!!??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you want me to place the credibility of He Who Shall Not Be Named over the newspaper?

      No thanks.

      Delete
    2. Not a big fan of He Who Shall Not Be Named but just took time to read the post and his article puts the whole timeline out there and addresses the issues the "paper" refuses to consider. I have never seen some of those things in an editorial or story by the major outlets. His credibility over that of the paper @10:55? You pose a Morton's Fork. Perhaps a little critical thinking is in order before reaching a conclusion either way.

      Delete
    3. Good work VIP and thanks Steve for sharing the detailed time line with important facts. The RJ dropped the ball here. There are political predators seeking an easy avenue to power in the very vulnerable NLV, capitalizing on voter ignorance, voter apathy, voter exodus due to foreclosed homes and other issues. It is imperative that the calculating political mafia be exposed and thwarted once and for all.

      Delete
    4. @10:22 - You might not be Ramsey or her attorney (and you might not even be He Who Shall Not Be Named), but anyone who takes the time to read the piece on the VIPI website can easily figure out that VIPI did not do all of the research to put together the timeline. That could only have been done by Ramsey or her attorney because it is far too detailed for anyone to create it without having been an insider.

      Delete
    5. Just pointing out that the newspaper has not presented both sides and does not seem interested in the facts. I was unfortunately anti-Judge Ramsey and thought she has to go when I read all this stuff in the newspaper. Now I am not so sure and would like to see a detailed investigative news story.

      Delete
    6. .... and would like to see a detailed investigative news story. In Las Vegas???? ROFLMAO

      Delete
    7. @4:38. 1:59 here. I agree with you that it is too detailed to be from more than a few sources and the ones you cite are most likely. The point is that much of it, if true, is easily verifiable with only a little bit of research. City Counsel meetings are public. Mayor Lee's comments and those of members of the government in those meetings are part of the record. The "paper" cited by 10:55 (you perhaps?) never seems to, as far as I can tell, mention that part of the story. If they mention it at all it is usually couched as "opponents of the recall, and you know who that is, say the mayor, or his staff, or someone else did X" when they could easily go out, pull the record and report what really happened. Is either side right or wrong? As with all civil actions the only thing anyone can say with absolute certainty is "Time will tell which side prevails." Till then pundits will punt, haters will hate, He Who Shall Not Be Named will continue to post incredibly long and detailed often aimless pieces of information he feels are vitally important and we, the nameless yet essential cogs in the machinery and process, will read about and comment on it on this blog.

      Delete
    8. Steve Sanson is my hero. Go Steve!

      Delete
    9. Just HAD to go there, didn't you. Start the clock and place your bets.

      Delete
  2. I don't want to risk outing myself by offering a lot of detail, but neither that article nor the RJ are reporting the real problems, which are that Ramsey is inconsistent, applying the law differently from week to week, refusing to entertain oral motions or offers from attorneys she dislikes, but taking them from her favorites, disparaging specific attorneys on the record, etc. Hoffgren has problems too--for example, revoking pleas if defendants ask too many questions, but somehow he's gone unscathed. Now they have mall cops instead of marshalls, too. Northtown is in bad bad shape.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @2:23 you just described half a dozen judges in the various local courts. I guess the real question is why this one judge and not the other (as you suggest) and why not ALL judges who take time off, seemingly have favorites, refuse to follow the law from day to day/case to case or otherwise act like the ruler of their domain. Say Vega, Halverson and Assad (with Ochoa being one groups favorite target and Ramsey now on the list) and you have pretty much hit all of the judges exposed or questioned by the major media (not counting election time hit pieces) in the last decade or so. Might be interesting to see what some hard hitting investigative journalism would turn up on the rest of them. That said, I still don't agree with recalling people we elect to make hard and often unpopular decisions, short of a criminal conviction. If this recall succeeds I bet at least a few other judges will begin to wonder when the powers that be decide they are worth the effort too.

      Delete
    2. Could they start with recalling Judge Allf, the wife of the recall instigator Dave Thomas?

      Delete
    3. Was wondering if a whole thread about Judge Ramsey to point out all this stuff is needed. I never heard much about her temperament or legal rulings just her skirmishes with the City.

      Delete
    4. Seems like this one already is.

      Delete
    5. Judge Alff is actually a good judge. I did not think she would be very good, but se is above average.

      Delete
    6. I am confused by your comment: "revoking pleas if defendants asks too many questions" - What does that mean? Can you give an example.

      Delete