Friday, June 3, 2016

Stay Cool Kids


  • A Celebration of Life Ceremony for Melanie Kushnir will take place today at 3:30 in the jury room at the Federal Courthouse. [LACSNRJ]
  • In case you missed it in the comments yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an important opinion on attorney's liens that also says you don't have to deposit interpleader funds with the court if you keep them in your trust account.
  • The Eighth Judicial District Court issued a new administrative order about the destruction of certain physical evidence. [eighthjdcourt blog]
  • A reader wants to know if anyone knows what was up with the guy dressed like Hitler marching in front of the RJC yesterday. Anyone else see that?   

40 comments:

  1. Melanie was a good person. Rest in peace.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Apparantley the Hitler guys was protesting the cause of WWII or something like that. he dressed that way to get people's attention and to have them go to his website which, from what I have heard, filled with nonsensical jibberish. Although I am 100% for free speech, i do feel that there is a fine line (and grey area) between voicing your views and straight up being a jerk off trying to incite reaction. Obviously I know this is the area of most contention in free speech cases, but I think if there is (not in the underlying scenario but just as a thought) a nazi or KKK dude saying the N-word or what have you in an effort of voicing his "views," the general public should have a free pass in punching that dude in the face. i think there is a clear line between speech and promoting hate, and the courts should be slightly more aggressive in delineating the two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I will punch anyone who says he is voting for Hillary. Such an outrageous uttering must be met with a prompt physical response. The souls of the countless men, women and children murdered by her will be cheering on from the afterlife.

      Delete
    2. "i think there is a clear line between speech and promoting hate, and the courts should be slightly more aggressive in delineating the two."

      Well, thankfully, you're not in charge. If you truly want to live under that kind of speech regulation, then move to Saudi Arabia or Iran where the "line" between protected and unprotected speech is both "clear" and regularly enforced. I hope you're a devout Muslim, because if anyone in those countries (and some others) espouses any other opinion out loud, the "line" will be very sharp and it will bisect that person's neck. Or move to DPRK and espouse "hate" against the leadership if you'd rather experience more exotic punishments. In this country we have freedom of speech, which means that outside of a few very narrow exceptions for actual threats and defamation, neither you nor anyone else gets to decide whose speech is acceptable. There is no "line" between speech and promoting hate. Some speech promotes hate and some doesn't, but its all speech. Neither you nor your political opponents get to decide what opinions are "hateful" or "ignorant" or "stupid" or "wrong" and therefore undeserving of protection.

      Delete
    3. I bet 12:10 is a true Elite Attorney!

      Delete
    4. 10:53am here, and 12:17pm I agree with you! So 12:10pm, You must be a insurance defense attorney, because obviously you are taking one line out of a paragraph completely out of context. Right before i talk about nazis and KKK using the N-word and what have you...i know there is a gray area but if someone is going around sayin "i am going to kill some n***ers" i believe that person should be arrested.

      Delete
    5. 10:53,

      No, no. Don't even try that. You did not in your original post say "if someone is going around saying 'I'm going to kill.'" You said, "if there is . . . a nazi or KKK dude saying the N-word," which is much broader. Your follow-on sentence talked about "promoting hate," not "threatening violence." If you misspoke, then admit it and fair enough, but don't try to defend your original post by misrepresenting it.

      Delete
    6. well then i "misspoke" because that i what i am trying to say. maybe in my eyes having a swastika and affiliating yourself with nazis or KKK is the same as stating you intend to harm blacks and other minorities.

      Delete
    7. 10:53/2:36, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) says you're full of shit.

      Delete
    8. Damn 10:53 got BTFO

      Delete
    9. Sigh...like i said...the swastika represents to me intentions of a person. Does that by itself constitute "fighting words"? obviously not. But take that symbol, plus hate or anti-black/semitic/minority speech and now i believe it rises to more than just assembly and speech. who knows, maybe im just more sensitive to speech and actions like that. oh well, id rather be wrong for that than wrong for spewing hatred that's "protected"

      Delete
    10. For some, the Islamic religion represents to them intentions to discriminate against or even kill nonbelievers or apostates (and not without some pretty decent evidence). Can Muslim preachers or apologists therefore be jailed? Do they have to denounce certain passages of the Koran or Hadith to avoid jail?

      Delete
    11. 3:42pm i would disagree. The KKK and the Nazi/Swastika are uniform symbol of discrimination and hate. Have you ever seen an open KKK/Nazi member be fine with segregation and allowing minorities into their home or workplace? Islam on the other hand, has been affected in many ways due to extremists. One could the say the same about Christians during the Crusades. Thus such view is not uniform of the religion as it is of the KKK/Nazis.

      Delete
    12. And yet discrimination and hate are not inevitable precursers to violence, nor are stated words necessarily the same as intentions to act. See, e.g., my dicking around on blawgs instead of billing. Which is why the law punishes acts, not beliefs. Behavior, not words. And which is why the law should not attempt to differentiate between Dumbass A's speech and Dumbass B's speech, based solely on its content. Err on the side of freedom, not the side of silencing beliefs at gunpoint.

      Delete
    13. I do agree with that analysis, especially the dicking around on blawgs part. But the law does recognize a difference between speech and "fighting words" and potential incitement of violence. I guess this all goes back to the big grey area of free speech.

      Delete
  3. I saw him. Seemed to be a total loser starved for attention.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On another topic, happily voted for Annette Levy. Get rid of Eric Johnson. His commercials are hilarious. Glen Lerner, his "big"endorsement, should get his money back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw him. He had a speaker (I think in his U.S. Army issued backpack ... ahh the irony) and it was saying hitleronthestrip.com As noted above, that site is full of jibberish. On another note, however, I thought his speaker said nazionthestrip.com, and my friend who looked it up said it took her to a lot of links about Nazi themed porn. Who knew that even existed????

      Delete
  5. I'm guessing all PI attorneys are not happy with Golightly/Vannah after they decided to appeal a tiny case and ended up with a broad decision that will negatively affect all of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PI attorneys typically ignore basic business law concepts like, say, perfecting a lien. Maybe now they will pay attention.

      Delete
  6. I am voting for Eric Johnson. Near as I can tell, Anat has not or does not practice in Nevada and the last time I can remember electing a judge with no courtroom experience in Nevada it was Elizabeth Halverson. We don't need that again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Annette Levy is no Halverson. Nasty comment, untrue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anat Levy easily has my vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is she? What is her background and experience? Give me something here beyond the fact that she is not Eric Johnson.

      Delete
    2. She is a licensed attorney in NV, running against Eric Johnson who has my vote.

      Delete
    3. Nobody has heard of her and she is going to get creamed in the election.

      Delete
    4. she's spending a bunch of money

      Delete
    5. She IS Nevada licensed. She has experience in California in a quasi-judicial capacity (if I recall correctly), and she practices mostly entertainment law. She is fair and open minded. She is a Democrat (I am not), but I would easily pick her over a Republican (which I usually will not), and I recognize that judicial offices are non-partisan, but I still am interested in the political registration of candidates. If you've heard her speak, she is organized and deserves a chance. It would be a mistake not to give her one.

      Delete
  9. Yeah, I don't think so, Eric Johnson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not Judge Johnson but Levy is only admitted in Nevada since 2011 (five years) and most of her career was spent in California.

      Delete
    2. Levy has been licensed in California for decades. Will take her over Judge Johnson.

      Delete
    3. I don't get the hate for Johnson. I like him. I'm a civil practitioner, so my experience is limited to civil issues, I think he's smart, reads things, and seems fair. He's on my ever shrinking list of judges I won't kick if I have the chance.

      Delete
    4. Voted for Levy. Johnson bothers me.

      Delete
  10. Levy, Johnson, a porcupine, whatever--just not Ramsey or Holper.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My prediction--Johnson by a landslide.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My prediction, you are a Johnson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's funny. "You're a johnson." ha ha


      Delete
    2. It is not funny. It is sad how immature the Johnsons are.

      Delete