Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Hot Dogs


  • Judge Gloria Sturman throws out contempt charges against Zohra Bakhtary. [RJ]
  • After a dog dies from being left in a truck for 17 hours, Henderson Animal Control institutes a policy of checking the truck at the end of the shift. [Fox5Vegas; RJ]
  • Former Nevada prisoner files suit for being shot with birdshot. [RJ]
  • Meanwhile, the attorney for a guard trainee involved in the shotgun killing of an inmate is in talks with the AG's office. [RJ]

48 comments:

  1. Be sure to click through the pictures on the Zohra article. That's gold, Jerry! Gold!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it was intentional that they included all those photos of Zohra in the article. Most of them look like b-roll that shouldn't have made it. My guess is the website guy was sent all 10 photos from the impromptu shoot and was told to pick the best one. Instead of reading the instructions, he dragged and dropped them all and hit Post and then went to lunch.

      Delete
    2. It's been over 16 hours that it's been posted on the website. If it were a mistake, they would have fixed it by now. It's reflective of the lack of professionalism over there that has happened since Adelson took over and the real journalists left.

      Delete
    3. "Click bait" folks. The more clicks on the website the better for the website.
      How many times today do you think some variation of the "Well, yeah, I'd handcuff her too" joke has been made?

      Delete
    4. I think she is hotttttt.

      Delete
  2. Why/how did Hafen have counsel present? That seems very odd. I hope he at least paid for it himself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm happy for Zohra and think it was the right decision, but what's with the RJ posting all of those photos? It's like some editor got carried away with his crush. Weird.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, I've seen Bakhtary dozens of time in court. Congratulations to her on this victory. But come on, never has she looked anything like she looks in those photos. They are very flattering. Just saying.

      Next, I'm guessing Dominic did this one for free and that Gloria had to repeatedly resist an incredible urge to roll her eyes.

      Hafen is on his way out anyway. He will end up representing the Bundys.

      Delete
    2. She obviously used a wind machine. Why didn't the just lay out a love-seat for her to drape herself over?

      Delete
    3. I think the more obvious answer is that it was windy outside. I don't fault Zohra for the photos at all - she looks great. I question the editorial judgment of Sheldon's rag in deciding to post a series of glamour photos for an article about an attorney. When was the last time they did this for a man?

      Delete
    4. If she ever goes out on her own, she can use those photos for her web page.

      Delete
    5. to 9:44, of course it was windy outside. I wasn't being literal, Spook.

      Delete
    6. If I had to guess, I'd say this is part of a pre-emptive strike to get an interview at Eglet Prince. Gotta show she can fit in on the web site homepage. http://egletlaw.com/

      Delete
    7. @ 9:44 - those aren't glamour photos, they appear to be her actual lawyer photos (see, setting is the front steps of the RJC and she has legal files in her hands). Likely, she had them taken because of all the press she was getting and wanted to look good in the Huff Post article.

      Although it is strange that the RJ included so many photos and what appear to be outtakes, you are entirely off base in your assessment here.

      Delete
    8. Nope, the pictures are weird. Also, weird she is using a PD file for a photo opp. Plain out and out dumb. PR stunt gone bad.

      Delete
    9. If you looked at the RJ last night, there were like 7 photos for her hearing. Timing, content, and prolif of photos look like a PR stunt.

      Delete
    10. @9:44 That was Conrad Hafen's glamour photo. They can only do so much.

      Delete
    11. It isn't bad PR gone wrong. The RJ's thing lately is to publish one photo in the print version but dump nearly every photo its photographer takes (including "B" roll) in the online version with no apparent editorial review. You wind up with some weird, redundant, and sometimes very awkward and unflattering photos.

      Delete
    12. Still makes her look stupid.

      Delete
  4. I guess Zohra didn't like the initial article of her looking slightly messy and in handcuffs, so she wanted to make up for it with a pre planned model photo shoot infront of the RJC lol. I gotta admit I am slightly jealous. I need to borrow that photographer and make up artist for my shots.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If by preplanned you mean Hey Zohra we would like to take a photo of you for the RJ in fifteen minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Say what you will about glamour shots, but these photos are lawyer hot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And might actually spill over into actually hot.

      Delete
  7. I think the pics are a little creepy. Agree with the ruling, but I don't think the photos are helpful to her professional image. Your law career is based on your achievements, not your looks. Gentile should know better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This statement is true for people like Gentile.

      Delete
  8. Staged photos. Weird, I am more concerned about the death of Mr. Chops than Bhaktary.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The comments about her appearance are weird. If I was involved in a high profile case I'd probably do my hair and throw on some make-up too. She's not responsible for the morons down at the RJ posting so many pics. I also think the outcome is great. Hafen was completely out of line. I hope some of the other bullies on the bench are paying attention. It's a court...not your little kingdom.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The comments about her looks are weird, but the photos are weirder. She works for the PD's office. She is a public official. This is a PR stunt. Are those PD's files? They should not be used for personal photos.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What? Is Eglet & Prince now TOO GOOD! to show up for a hearing on their own motion?
    I was in Dept. 9 this morning and saw Brent Jordan move for attorney's fees on a Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Jury Questionnaire only to have it continued with firm language from the bench for a court ordered settlement conference.
    Normally, I don't question the rulings in Dept. 9 as I've found Togliatti to be more competent than most judges... but, when you are THE "esteemed" plaintiff's counsel and you can't even get an associate down to court for a scheduled hearing on your own motion and it gets continued with language from the judge relating to court ordered settlement conference , it makes me think there is some legitimacy to all these ID counsel courtroom conspiracy theories with all things Eglet!
    Of course, I came back to the office this afternoon and studied A-15-713356-C (Garcia v. Girnus),and I think that defense counsel (Ranalli) is definitely at a real disadvantage with the case in question however, to just "snub" the court doesn't play well for future proceedings, especially before Togliatti!
    Unless...you are Eglet & Prince! The Eagle and the Prince! I guess a few hundred bucks or at most a thousand or two in attorney's fees just isn't worth E&P's time.
    My client's would move their files immediately if I just decided not to show for a hearing, but then again I'm not Eglet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SLAM DUNK! for Dennis ...they don't give a ****!

      Delete
    2. and doesn't FC have anybody other than "Alabama Roll Tide" Brenoch Wirthlin? Don't get me started on that guy!!!!! who the hell is Amy Abdo?
      What have they done to our once prestigious LSC?

      Delete
    3. Sure is a lot of high end legal fees going on with that case. Eglet , Ranalli & Zaniel, and Fennemore Craig

      Delete
    4. George knows better than to f*** around too much with Dennis and Bob! I think I'd withdraw my request for attorney's fees and create a more favorable environment for settlement. I can hear defense client now...
      Frias that is! "Oh great! you got $1,500 in attorney's fees and it's now going to cost WHAT? to get this thing resolved?"
      Churn $$$$$ that file Brent ! Daddy George might remember come Christmas bonus time? but, probably not!

      Delete
    5. Daddy George? That's some funny stuff!

      Delete
    6. How in the hell isn't this case settled yet? Food server riding her bike to work and gets plowed by a hack. How much can it really cost?
      Are we going to be talking about another senseless Clark County multi-million(s) jury verdict for the Eglet plaintiff again?
      You're right! George and FC are churning those files!

      Delete
    7. I prefer "Sugar Momma Tracy" to "Daddy George"

      Delete
    8. @ 5:42 always siding with the money!

      Delete
    9. Is it me? Or is Eglet & Prince the Kardashian's of the Las Vegas legal community?

      Delete
    10. @ 5:48 yes, one could say

      Delete
    11. Any recent Hot Tracy sightings?

      Delete
    12. @ 5:31 Having worked with him extensively over the years , the term "Daddy George" just gives me the most awful mental images and I thank you for these few chuckles that I can end this day on!

      Delete
    13. Is it me? Or does this thread have the most abuses of the apostrophe of any thread lately?

      Delete
    14. "Roll Tide?"

      Delete
    15. I'm *stunned* nobody has shopped an Eglet Prince reality show. Also FC should send Mary Bacon do to all FC appearances.

      Delete
    16. *to do*. Whatever.

      Delete
  12. This case has been commented on several times on this blog in the last six months.
    What's the big deal? Another 6 or 7 figure fee for Eglet? That's not news!

    ReplyDelete