Friday, August 12, 2016

Nighthawks?


  • The DEA keeps marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug--meaning it has no medical application. [RJ]
  • Governor Sandoval does not support Ballot Question 1 proposing more background checks on guns. [RJ]
  • Our Nevada appellate courts have several opinions coming out today. [nvcourts.gov]
  • Here are three potential names for the new Las Vegas NHL team. [RJ]

30 comments:

  1. DEA continues to stick it head in the sand while unnecessarily prosecuting marijuana violations. idiots

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Ninth Circuit ruled today that NRS 116.3116 is facially unconstitutional. Suck it SFR!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. where? cites?

      Delete
    2. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/12/15-15233.pdf

      I didn't read it but I'm guessing this is it. Only NV case on the 9th Cir. website from today.

      Delete
    3. 1) Judge Owens is in a majority and Judge Wallace is in the dissent. Owens used to clerk for Wallace, and is considered a rock star. Wallace is a cranky old man. I wonder if Wallace is bitter that Owens came out on top.

      (2) One of Wells Fargo's lawyers used to clerk for Judge Pro and was asking the 9th Cir. to reverse Judge Pro's order. Judge Pro is a solid guy and probably wouldn't care even if he hadn't retired.

      Delete
    4. So... passing a statute that affects a property interest that doesn't exist at the time the statute is enacted is somehow state action? What the ever-loving F?

      Delete
    5. The 9th Circuit court opinion is nice, but too little, too late. Since NRS 116.3116 has been amended, the opinion can only possibly affect anything before the amendment retroactively. Pretty sure all those subjected properties have exchanged hands at least 2-3 times by now

      Delete
    6. @10:47 So what? BFP status (if they even are true BFPs, since the same companies are just transferring them among themselves) doesn't protect you against an unconstitutional statute. The sales are going to be declared void, or at the very least, the deed of trust remains on the property.

      Delete
    7. 10:47 here, I totally understand what you're saying 12:27, but here are two things I am thinking: 1) would they really go back that far to put their deeds of trust back on the property? that will open up a whole new can of worms; and 2) if something like that does go down, im assuming there is title insurance, and if so, they will be paying out the ass because of this. I am not a real estate or property law guru, but thats my primer on the issue

      Delete
    8. 12:27 here. I think the banks will absolutely go back that far to keep their deeds of trust. First, most of these cases are still open anyway. They've either been stayed or they are on appeal, so its not like there will be a lot of "settled" decisions that need to be reopened. Second, a lot of the purchasers at these HOA sales couldn't get title insurance without a court order declaring that the deed of trust was extinguished. That's why there was such a rush to file so many of these initially. No one would insure them. If this decision holds (i.e., SCOTUS doesn't overturn it)then there will be a lot of losses on the side of the property investors. SFR will be hammered to death.

      Delete
    9. I guess time will only tell. I personally thought SFR was crazy, as it defies logic to be able to get a house for pennies on a the dollar. HOAs abused this and now its coming back to haunt them

      Delete
    10. It is a glorious day that SFR finally fell, a lot of money and property is going to be tied up for a long time unwinding these sales, but yeah, I can't imagine the banks aren't furiously working right now to get boots on the ground.

      Delete
    11. It will be interesting to see if the Ninth takes it up en banc. I found the dissent to be the better reasoned opinion.

      Delete
    12. @2:27 I heard today that the 9th Cir. has a lower acceptance percentage for en banc rehearings than the SCOTUS has for certiorari. I think they only grant 2 or 3 a year. That being said, this could be one of them.

      Delete
    13. @3:45: 2:27 here. The rate of EBR in the Ninth is staggeringly low, but invalidating a state statute on shaky constitutional grounds, with the likely effect of nullifying title to a whole host of properties is the sort of issue that seems to get people interested in weighing in.

      Delete
    14. SFR attorney had help to get as far as they got. Nevada Supreme Court justice Namcy Saittia in her SFR 2014 opinion gave SFR a huge win fall. I like the part where she never discloses that the 2 SFR attorneys Jacqueline Gilbert and Howard Kim were both her law clerks. Of that fact that Saitta has already been tied to previous Hoa corruption involving 6 sudden deaths including her friend the late Nancy Quon. Now Saitta steps down. Not so fast she needs to be investigated.

      Delete
  3. Desert Hawks would be fun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I prefer the Nighthawks. The Red Hawks aren't a thing, and I'm not in favor of just slapping "desert" in front of something because we're in Las Vegas. At least Nighthawks are real, and are indigenous to the state.

      Delete
    2. The Las Vegas Coolers

      Delete
    3. Yes, slapping "desert" on it because Vegas is like throwing avocado in a thing and calling it "California-style"

      Delete
  4. Two of the many reasons they keep pot schedule 1 -- civil forfeiture and regulatory creep -- agencies hate to give up money or power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. August 12, 2016 at 9:58 AM - I couldn't agree more. This is a larger issue than just drugs; it extends to everything from local zoning to import tariffs. No one ever wants to give up power. And this extends outside the public sector to the private sector, although generally not quite so egregiously. Although it was written in 1973 I highly recommend reading The Institutional Imperative; How to understand the United States Government and other bulky objects by author Robert N Kharasch. Gut busting funny yet nonetheless academically elegant, it's a worthy read.

      https://www.amazon.com/institutional-imperative-understand-Government-objects/dp/B0006C56CE/ref=sr_1_sc_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1471040076&sr=8-3-spell&keywords=the+institutional+impertive

      Delete
  5. You know, one of the reasons I fully supported the Court of Appeals was because I firmly believed more judicial opinions needed to be published. The CoA advocates promised more judicial opinions would be forthcoming. What a load of crap. Since the beginning of this year, CoA has published a grand total of 3 opinions (132 Nev. Ad. Op 12, 132 Nev. Ad. Op 15, and 132 Nev. Ad. Op 22).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was my understanding that the COA was intended to free up the Nevada Supreme Court to decide the more important cases and issue more published opinions. But, overall, I agree, we were sold a load a garbage. It seems the Nevada Supreme Court and the COA combined published less this year that any other year.

      Delete
    2. Comparing the opinions published last year to this year, we're actually up 4 opinions on the year.

      Delete
    3. I, on the other hand, strongly supported the creation of the COA and I still stand by that. And considering that it was intended largely to filter out the more routine cases on appeal, I'm not overly concerned about a low level of opinions; I think the new court is working the way I expected it would. That said, I would very much like to see an increase in published opinions from the NSC, particularly in light of the fact that so much of NRS is amateurish, poorly written, and vague.

      Delete
  6. @12:27, That was my understanding as well. Thus the reason I refer to the CoA as the Shitwork Panel of the NSC. The COA doesn't get issues of first impression, and it doesn't get issues of importance. Thus, they don't publish. See NRAP 36(c)(1). The CoA gets the crap that the NSC doesn't want to wade through in order to largely rubber stamp the lower decision.

    ReplyDelete
  7. SFR used Chris Hardin as their straw buyer at these Hoa auctions. Everyone knows by how. That the SFR attorneys are behind this huge scam. They live off the rents they collect from the thousands of bank owned properties they have illegally. These people are being watched by the FBI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SFR attorneys Howard Kim and Jacqueline Gilbert. Have only been attorneys during this period of when it became popular to steal lender owned properties. SFR had tons of help. This scam came right after the previous Hoa scam which included Leon Benzer now serving 15 years behind prison. Let's see who much time Judge Saitta serves.

      Delete