Thursday, July 14, 2016

Lawyers Can Do Anything*


  • Judge Cadish dismissed the claims of one of the candidates who claimed voting errors in the recent primary election. [McClatchyDC]
  • A former Henderson business licensing enforcement officer was tipping off a massage parlor in exchange for services. [RJ]
  • Here's Jane Ann Morrison's latest update on Glen Lerner in Louisiana. [RJ]
  • The new Las Vegas NHL hockey team general manager is a lawyer. [RJ]
  • *some limitations and restrictions may apply.  See local lawyer for details.

35 comments:

  1. Anything you can do a 2013 Boyd grad can do better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But what about 2014 Boyd grads? I feel like we were the true chosen ones

      Delete
    2. Nice try Mr. 2014 Boyd grad. But this is like Ozzie Canseco arguing that he was better at baseball than his brother Jose. It's facially silly. 2014 Boyd grads, like Ozzie Canseco, should just be happy that they were able to share the same roof as their more talented brethren.

      Delete
    3. Cooley grads are retarded. I hate dealing with them.

      Delete
    4. It's really odd to me how many Cooley grads have made it out to Nevada. Does Nevada have a reputation for having a glut of attorney openings? Does Cooley's massive class size guarantee that its graduates will end up in every crevice of the universe? I'm seriously curious.

      Delete
    5. Cooley Grads are like bed bugs. Someone from there takes a vacation to Las Vegas, and they spread all over the place.

      Delete
    6. It indicates that the bar exam grading was lowered so UNLV Boyd would look good. Nevada also offered the bar twice a year. Now it seems anyone can pass the bar including Cooley grads. But seriously, Cooley is like a last chance law school. They admit anyone who can pay. They seem to have standards and their graduates get a thorough education. They used to flunk a lot of people out in the first year. Don't know if that is the case anymore. There are some folks who graduated from there who are pretty good but most I would agree are pretty poor. What about Thomas Jefferson? That is another place flooding Nevada. I don't even think Thomas Jefferson requires the LSAT anymore. It is simply too easy to become a lawyer with the glut of law schools who will take anyone and a bar who lets anyone in. Too easy to get a student loan for law school.

      Delete
    7. Graduates like myself from Thomas Jefferson (TJSL) call it the Tijuana School of Law. Quality education.

      Delete
    8. I don't run into many Cooley grads.

      Delete
    9. Harmony Letizia went to Cooley, and she's about to buy a seat on the Justice Court bench

      Delete
  2. Is anyone scared of this "Black Lives Matter" movement and these planned violent protests around the country that are supposed to be TOMORROW? I don't know if Las Vegas was one of the several dozen big cities as part of this protest, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As an LEO wife, I'm scared anytime my husband leaves for work. Generally, I don't believe BLM protesters have ill-intentions, but I am on high alert because of what transpired in Dallas, and what has occurred in Las Vegas previously.

      Delete
    2. No. And I am not Black BTW.

      Delete
    3. The only Nevada city on the list of PLANNED protests was Carson.

      Delete
    4. Hide yo kids, hide yo wife, and hide yo husband and everything will turn out fine.

      Delete
    5. I have no issue with them protesting. Just stay the hell off the streets and highways, thanks.

      Delete
    6. I'm not afraid of the protestors aside from traffic congestion.

      I'm concerned for the safety of the protestors. Tear gas, pepper spray, etc.

      I'm always worried that police will be killed by crazy people. Unfortunately, the NRA has persuaded Republicans that the safety of police officers is secondary to Second Amendment dogma. As I understand the right's interpretation of the amendment, the entire purpose is to kill cops when a citizen deems a law or administration to be overstepping liberty. (Yes, I realize they don't word it that way.)

      Delete
    7. Sigh. I don't know if it's the bourbon or just my general cluelessness, but I can't figure out what an LEO wife is.

      Delete
    8. Ah!! Got it right after I hit 'Publish' of course!

      Delete
    9. @12:52. I'm what I think of in my head as a rational libertarian. Those others whom I've met who are serious and scholarly really DO seem to think that the entire point is to be as well armed as the police, specifically so that when the Nuremberg laws go into effect against your particular group, you can shoot at the guys coming to enforce them.

      In the defense of those I've met holding such views, they never seem to mean "When the gubbmint says I have to let my daughter marry a darkie...". They all have simply *really* believed that a day would come when jackbooted cops would enforce laws, by firepower, making it illegal to practice Islam, or to be liberal, tolerant, or Christ-help-you an atheist. I think American culture tends to rebound a bit too radically for that to be a real risk....but that's what they have all claimed that stockpiled guns about.

      Delete
    10. ...that stockpiling guns was about.*

      Delete
    11. Lets see if the Nice incident convinces people that congregating in large groups for marches in the middle of the road is such a great idea.

      Delete
    12. @12:52. Not a member of the NRA. Do not own a gun. However I share your concerns, only in reverse. I'm always worried that people will be killed by crazy/out of control police. No one has said that the safety of police officers is secondary to Second Amendment. They are not mutually exclusive. Your understanding of conservative/libertarian views is simply wrong. We are militarizing the police to deal with out of control citizens; what mechanisms do we have that effectively deal with out of control police?

      Delete
    13. 9:49 (7/14) and 9:44 (7/15),

      You quibble over terminology but concede that the aim of Second Amendment evangelists is to enhance the ability to kill cops eventually.

      Since every individual determines subjectively when that dystopian era has begun, when the cops have begun wearing jack boots, cops will die. Didn’t the Dallas shooter believe he was advancing the cause of justice by fighting back against the forces of tyranny?

      We place cops on the altar of the Second Amendment. Own it.

      Delete
    14. 11:24-- Yeah that is not what either one of those guys/gals said. Nobody is trying to enhance the ability to kill cops, as if the only reason to allow gun ownership is killing cops. With that said, the Government is not sacrosanct from being held accountable for its actions. This notion that all cops are good and all government actors are good is myopic.

      The very fact that you would advocate for the interests of law enforcement superceding the laws that they are supposed to enforce is precisely the concern which the other posters have raised. When government and its actors are above the laws which they are sworn to enforce and the rights which they are sworn to protect, all will be lost.

      Delete
    15. 1:31,

      "With that said, the Government is not sacrosanct from being held accountable for its actions."

      “[B]eing held accountable”? I assume you’re not referring merely to the ballot box. The Government = law enforcement = cops. Ergo, fighting “The government” through Second Amendment remedies = shooting cops. What am I missing?

      I understand that it’s merely a contingency plan—a theoretical matter of political philosophy—as far as you are concerned, because you believe the day of confrontation has not yet come. The Dallas shooter concluded that it had.

      Let’s be honest about the public policy choice we’re making and its costs. All I’m saying.

      Delete
    16. 3:11/11:24

      You are missing quite a bit because no one in the threads above stated shooting cops is the sole purpose of Second Amendment rights and gun ownership. No one promoted shooting cops. In the hierarchy of reasons that gun ownership is a protected right under the Constitution, protection against being trampled by the Government is likely down most people's lists. But it is on people's lists. The right to own (or not own) guns is not merely public policy; its a fundamental tenet of the Bill of Rights, part of the rights that LEO are supposed to protect. The right to own guns is not merely a contingency plan; it is a constitutional right.

      At no point in your analysis does gun ownership serve any purpose other than killing cops: the red herring that the only reason people would protect the Second Amendment is to kill cops. The number of civilians killed by firearms by cops is 20 times larger the number of cops killed by civilian firearms. And no LEO are not the only aspects of government that are subject to being held accountable; all aspects of government are. However LEO and the military are the two aspects of government most likely to be carrying weapons and confronting citizens. If you are proposing that LEO disarm as part of a nationwide disarmament, then so be it. But I have never heard those voices make such requirements bilateral.

      Delete
    17. 11:57,

      It's a constitutional right (running to the individual or a state) because a supermajority of the founding generation chose it. It wasn't carved on Mt. Sinai. Whether to keep the amendment or, assuming we do, how to interpret it, how strictly we regulate ownership within its bounds, are policy decisions for every subsequent generation.

      If the right were just about protecting yourself from lawless neighbors or hunting, there should be no problem with registering arms, requiring training, restricting types or quantities, etc.. As I understand, the resistance to even these types of regulation ultimately stems from the anti-tyranny notion--e.g. "if they know who has them, they'll be able to confiscate them."

      Yes, "killing cops" is a provocative way to articulate the idea of holding government accountable in the manner for which the SECOND AMENDMENT exists. Occasionally, people need to put aside sterile, euphemistic bullshit if only to be honest with themselves. Owning arms because you anticipate confronting the government necessarily entails the anticipation of (some day) killing cops. The moral difference between the Dallas shooter and the gun-stockpiling, doomsday preper who plans to fight the government someday is that the Dallas shooter thought that "someday" had come.

      "However LEO and the military are the two aspects of government most likely to be carrying weapons and confronting citizens." Exactly. This comment is the third time in this string that my point is conceded by understated caveat. If it makes you feel better, I'll amend to say "killing cops or our own troops."

      Delete
  3. "The new Las Vegas NHL hockey team general manager is a lawyer."

    Does anyone really know what time it is?

    Does anyone really care?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The lines are a reference to a song by the band Chicago, but I don't get it. - BOyd 13 grad

      Delete
    2. I am just not a hockey fan. I don't care if we have a team, a GM or any more stadiums/venues.

      Delete
  4. Speaking of new (NFL?) stadiums, if the public only has to cough up $500 million, and we have 2 million people, that means (if my math is right) that every man, woman and child in the valley would need to contribute $250 each! And that's before paying interest on any bonds.

    So my request to every head of household is send your checks ($250 per family member) directly to Steve SizzleLack and that way we can see how many residents REALLY want a new stadium!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does anybody else have trouble with the new captcha codes on the docket lookup after a few drinks? Or, generally, I guess?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a public access site, why put the captcha codes in in the first place. It is a royal pain. Oddessy/Tyler Tech keeps pushing buttons, changing what can be seen and not seen. Not a month ago, signing in to the attorney's portal, I could see all cases, both Family Court and RJC. Now we all have to deal with captcha codes on each case we need to look up. Half the time, it does not work and you get a blank screen.

      Delete
  6. Blind item: lawyer told judge today that they were not to stand when addressing the court because standing was a "security risk." (1) anyone heard of this and (2) said lawyer said in juvenile court you're required not to stand, as well as at least one family court judge's courtroom. Inquiring minds want to know.

    ReplyDelete