Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Gladiator


  • As some of you noted in the comments yesterday, the New York woman in the High Roller tryst will have to show up in person to enter a plea for misdemeanor disorderly conduct after an order from Justice of the Peace Conrad Hafen. Good use of resources? Good due process? Skype, anyone? [Las Vegas Sun]
  • Here's a look at some of the Nevada corporations set up by the firm in the Panama Papers scandal. [RJ]
  • Cliven Bundy's attorney Joel Hansen alleges that Senator Harry Reid is trying to prejudice the criminal case against his client. [RJ]
  • A wrongful death suit brought by family of a Nevada inmate alleges guards created a "gladiator-like scenario." [LasVegasNow]
  • A breastfeeding mom who previously avoided jail time because of her children is back behind bars after testing positive for marijuana. [Fox5Vegas]

15 comments:

  1. Hansen is a good advocate. What Reid (or Obama) publicly say about the Bundys probably won't affect the criminal case at all. But the fact that Reid proposed Navarro (and Obama appointed Navarro) might possibly get the Bundys (and Hansen) a new judge. Hansen might be looking to have the case heard by a member of the Federal bench a bit more in tune with his (and the Bundys') libertarian/LDS/anti-government philosophy. It's a good move. And there's no penalty for throwing a little mud at a couple of outgoing politicians. There's really no downside to this move and Hansen puts himself in position to perhaps be in front of a friendlier judge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judge Jones, perhaps? lol

      Delete
  2. Joel is a really solid old-school insurance defense attorney. Always professional, ethical, and civil enough to deal with in my experience. Not sure what his criminal law background is though, and when it comes to politics, what a kook. In Nevada we have the Independent American Party, which could also be called the Hansen Family Political Party. Think Sharron Angle, but a bit more extreme.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These guys are hiring ideologues, they're not hiring the guys who know what they are doing. They just want mouthpieces for their nonsensical diatribes. I know a number of criminal people who have been contacted to represent these kooks, myself included, and the only thing they care about is making sure nobody deals before trial.

      Delete
  3. Navarro is going to crucify the Bundys. Terrible draw. Only Hicks or George would have been worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boulware would have been worse.

      Delete
    2. Navarro is going to "Big Boy" them. (I think that is the new verbiage for it).

      Delete
  4. Oh yeah, I was super impressed by the keen legal insight that inspired him to compare Cliven Bundy to Nelson Mandela. And I think the "possibly" is doing a lot of work in the sentence where you imagine a world in which a judge is recused from a case because they were appointed by a president of the opposite political party-- a scenario that basically makes the federal judiciary unworkable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The appointing president's party is absolutely immaterial.

      The fact that this particular appointing president very publicly and negatively discussed these particular defendants bears some consideration.

      If the justice system is open and fair and free of the appearance of prejudice, even for the Bundys; it is also open and fair and free of the appearance of prejudice for you and whatever you believe.

      Now if Navarro removes herself from the case or is removed from the case and an even more left-leaning non-Obama-appointee is substituted, Hansen's tactic will have failed. But the odds of that not happening are pretty good.

      Delete
    2. Yes, comparing Mandela to Bundy is nuts. Nelson Mandela was a blood thirsty mass murderer. Bundy is a patriot who killed no one. The former deserves his place in hell. The latter has a secure spot in heaven.

      Delete
    3. "The appointing president's party is absolutely immaterial"

      Hee, hee, that's adorable. Your argument is that it's plausible that a federal judge has to recuse herself from the case where a party acts out of political opposition to the president (I'll give you the most generous interpretation of Bundy's actions), simply because that federal judge was appointed by the president and is therefore obligated out of fealty to abandon the impartial application of the law and rule exclusively and arbitrarily in favor of the president against all who oppose him and his policies. I mean, I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essential thrust of the argument you're endorsing. And it's very clearly based on the idea that the mere appointment by a president imbues a judge with a partisan taint that makes the judge unable to preside over a case. So, in your argument, party affiliation (or political views, if you prefer)is not just central to your argument, it is THE only argument you're making.

      And again, if the standard for recusal is that if a judge was appointed by somebody who opposes the viewpoint or policy on trial is therefore automatically unable to judge fairly, that makes the federal judiciary unworkable.

      (And yes, yes, i know in the real world you do have judges who let their politics rule their decisions, but you also have judges who don't. Guilt by association of appointment isn't enough for a recusal.)

      Delete
    4. @ 11:19 a.m. = internet troll.

      Delete
    5. Last time I checked, these judges still had lifetime appointments and can only be removed by impeachment. Who cares what Obama says about a case that is pending in front of a judge he appointed years ago? That is, unless the government really has perfected time travel and is hiding it from us. Paging Art Bell...

      Delete
    6. Sure. Unless you want to be fast-tracked to the 9th Circuit a la Rawlinson.

      Delete
  5. 11:04 I'm stealing your idea and will start using "Big Boy" as often as possible haha

    ReplyDelete