Friday, January 22, 2016

Senioritis


  • Federal Judge Robert Clive Jones is taking senior status next month. [RJ]
  • Actor/Defense attorney cum Special Prosecutor Robert Langford got a jury to convict a former pastor of sexual assault. [RJ]
  • The AG's office is asking the Supreme Court to be quick about its decision on education savings accounts. [Fox5Vegas]
  • A Carson City judge ruled that efforts to get a minimum wage increase on the ballot this November can move forward. [LasVegasNow]

18 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. this is a disgusting way to ask for a referral

      Delete
    2. First, I would never refer a good forensic accountant (yes there are good ones) to someone who sees them as fee rapists (do you have trouble seeing their work as valuable and beneficial to your clients?).

      Secondly, if you substitute the word "Lawyer" for "forensic accountant" that's how much of the general public probably sees most hourly attorneys.

      Sadly it's usually not because lawyers overcharge their clients, but more often because lawyers do a pitiful job of communicating their value to clients....which is ironic when you consider that most lawyers communicate value very effectively in litigation and court.

      Delete
    3. I was wrong. I apologize and repent.

      Delete
    4. Lol. Bunch of thin-skinned little bitches rolling around in here. Everyone is offended by everything!

      Delete
    5. Yes, making figurative references of rape is abhorrent. You know what is worse, assholes like 3:26. Go fuck yourself!

      Delete
    6. Literal is what I meant.

      Delete
  2. Here is a thought, did Catherine Ramsey throw a bone to Sandra Morgan when she filed for the district court seat? After Wednesday she can’t withdraw from that and if the Supreme Court ever decides to affirm her recall, then she would be running a special election against Morgan. It seems arguably that NRS 281.055 prohibits someone from running in two elections at the same time. So would she have to remove herself from the special election against Morgan and Morgan just gets it? I assume her braintrust has considered this as Craig Mueller is a brilliant attorney or at least tells everyone he is. It would make an interesting continuation to the North Las Vegas soap opera.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She's probably assuming that any municipal recall election would occur next year at the earliest, after her current District Court race is concluded. I think any municipal recall election, just like regular municipal elections, would always occur in an odd numbered year(thus, 2017 at the earliest).

      There's probably no cloak and dagger, back room, convoluted political side deal with her recall opponent. I suspect her approach is to put the pressure on this year by running against the District Judge who is assigned to rule on the propriety and legality of the municipal recall election. And then if she loses this race, she at least goes into any 2017 recall election with greatly enhanced name recognition, and a great many more voters will be aware of her narrative--that she was unfairly targeted by political North Vegas factions who had an ax to grind, and that she supposedly stood firm and refused to sell out her integrity and be manipulated by them, or that she protected North Vegas residents from callous exploitation from shifty bureaucrats who were pushing their own agenda--or whatever the hell her narrative is.

      Delete
    2. The timing of the recall election is by statute and requires the city clerk to call the election not more than 10 days and not less than 20 days after the recall petition has been verified. So if the Supreme Court affirms Judge Johnson's decision upholding the petition, then the city clerk would basically have less than 20 days to call the election, which would then need to happen within 30 days (I think that is the number). It is not restrained to the same odd years as a regular municipal election.

      Delete
  3. Yeah, please, Jones, go away. You suck!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jane Ann Morrison has another hit piece out on the candidates she doesn't like. Such a pleasant woman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She is a ill-informed, hateful, bile-spewing troll.

      Delete
    2. But that is part of what makes some of her columns interesting. If she was always fair-minded, non-controversial, and just wanted to write feel-good stories about people who are pursuing altruistic and charitable concerns, no one would read it. It would be boring copy.

      I do agree that if one is going to be a hateful, bile-spewing toad, if they are at least fully informed, although that would have little effect on making their opinion seem more impartial, their opinion at least would have more substance and credibility as all major facts were at least known by them prior to writing the column.

      Delete
  5. Are there any names being thrown out for Judge Jones' replacement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I heard double kickstands. Or Shark Pump.

      Delete
    2. Thanks auto correct.

      Delete