Thursday, September 8, 2016

Mercury Rising


  • Anyone have more details (timeline, casualties, etc) on Morris Law Group joining Snell Wilmer
  • How long before there is a lawsuit against CCSD related to the mercury contamination and the EPA keeping kids at Johnson Junior High School until 5 am? [RJ]
  • Or until there is a lawsuit over the CCSD breakup? [RJ]
  • Watch video of how easily a man escaped custody from the North Las Vegas Police Department. [Fox5Vegas]
  • 60 years in prison for Otis Holland. [RJ]
  • Two Paiute tribes are suing the State over ballot access. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • The Supreme Court will be deciding what last name(s) a baby should have when parents split up. [RJ]
  • Last minute private meetings took place yesterday between Adelson, Davis, and Sisolak before the stadium proposal goes before the SNTIC evaluates it. [KTNV-Ralston]

29 comments:

  1. Look at the time stamp on the breakout video, you can see they play it out of order, and that he sat unattended for almost 45 minutes while slowly and almost waiting for the door to open and get caught, he lays his head down after breaking the cuffs, then slowly figures out nobody is coming and climbs out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It has been a long time since I attended a deposition at Morris Law Group, but I remember they used to have a really cool dog who had free reign of the office and would come into depositions and check things out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Morris was a dog friendly office. Lots of employees brought their dogs to work. If/when the merger happens, there will be no dogs roaming the halls of Snell & Wilmer. They couldn't reach the key card access units on the doors anyway.

      Delete
    2. Mr. and Mrs. Morris never had kids together, so the dogs were a substitute.

      Delete
  3. If the baby daddy sticks around, the baby should get his name. If the baby daddy splits, the baby should get mom's name - but only if she doesn't seek child support. Forced child support is slavery. Pure and simple.

    Outrageous that over a hundred years after our brothers were freed, they can still be enslaved again. It's as if the 13th amendment is an "ink blot" like the 9th amendment. Shameful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So if I understand you correctly, you believe that it is tantamount to slavery to force the father of a child that was the result of the father's free and willing choice to sleep with and impregnate the mother to pay to support the child he had a 50% hand in making. If that isn't a succinct reflection of societal decline, I don't know what is.

      Delete
    2. And DNA testing should be mandatory, whether married or not at the time. I have known too many women who claimed employed/monied X was the daddy knowing full well it was unemployed/brokeass Y. That ain't right.

      Delete
    3. Read NRS 126. Or stop sleeping with gold-diggers.

      Delete
    4. The advice in second hyperlink under "are" is priceless. Thank you.

      Delete
  4. The shit about child support is the receiving parent does not have to provide any sort of proof that she is spending it on the child. Also paying parent can't claim CS payments on tax return. I've always believed if child support payments were tax deductible then more people would pay them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hate the argument about how the receiving parent doesn't have to provide proof that the money is benefiting the child. Kids are expensive. I have four of them, so I know. You have to pay for the roof over their head, diapers, food, gas driving them to and from school and activities, etc. If you helped make the baby, you should help pay for it.

      Delete
    2. If you believe deadbeat parents are only deadbeat due to the Tax Code, come on down to Child Support Enforcement hearing to disabuse yourself of this misconception.

      Delete
    3. The fact that both of these comments assume that 1) custodial parents "clearly" spend the money on their children and that 2) paying parents are "deadbeats" are non-starters. When you find yourself 18 years on the shit end of a child support order stick then we can talk.

      Delete
    4. Pretty sure paying parents are the opposite of what is meant by the term "deadbeat." Now, if you want to refuse to pay (on time, or at all) and at the same time take offense at the "deadbeat" label, then tough titties. The "shit end" of a child support order is nothing less than your own personal obligation to the kid you sired. You made your bed; you had sex in your bed; now lie in it.

      Delete
  5. If the parent receiving CS has to prove that the money is being spent on the child(ren), then the violations for failure to pay MUST be increased as well, since 100% of the funds must be spent on the child, then 100% of the funds MUST be paid on time, every month.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 11:15 is clearly a troll. Alternatively, 11:15 should eat a dick.

    The problem with requiring proof of where the CS is being spent is that you would engulf the courts in never ending litigation. How do you prove things like out of $150 in groceries, $50 was pent from CS and the child only ate $48 in food. Or the power bill that was paid out of CS...how many kilowatts did the kid use? Now pretend you are the family court judge listening to an endless calendar of this kind of crap. Waste of time and money. Our system isn't perfect, but requiring a CS recipient to "prove" where the money goes would require tripling our family court bench and it would be a never ending parade of dead beats bitching about where their CS payments go. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  7. newbie lawyer here:
    I heard that firms merge b/c rent seeking shareholding partners become lazy and want to guzzle the juice out of the cases that younger -hungrier- wanna be partners bring in.

    Once a firm is filled with only associates without a rolodex and lazy ass senior partners the produtive people jump ship and the left behind firm becomes a vampire, looking for a firm with produtive partners to parasite off of.

    so... Snell?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Morris' phone rings man, so I don't that's the issue here. I think the issue is that he's old as dirt and getting tired of answering his ringing phone.

      Delete
    2. Morris makes the phone ring. Stable of hard working yeomen underneath him. Who is else there makes the phone ring? No one.

      Delete
    3. So then who benefits from the the merger? The people tired of answering phones, right? Consequently, the hard working yeomen now have to feed another set of lazy vampires? Btw, I'm not try to suggest this is something novel, i'm just trying to figure out why the yeomen will stick around (other than golden handcuffs and promises).

      Delete
    4. Not everyone's phone rings. You can go gladhand all you want, but it's no guarantee that work will come in. They're there because they probably make really good money and all they have to do for it is work up the old man's cases.

      Delete
    5. I'll add that it's not exactly novel for people to work for a big company and rely on other people to bring in the work. Lots of carpenters could open their own handy man business, but they continue building form work for a big general contractor because the general contractor has the work, and they're happy with taking home a stead paycheck and not needing to go out and hustle for work. The same is true for lawyers. Some lawyers rent an office and get tons of work, others rent an office and struggle to pay the bills, some go work for some old guy(s) with a bunch of cases and collect a steady pay check. And some of those old guys pay a lot of money. (See the magic number post)

      Delete
    6. @10:20, Morris is old and has to be getting ready to retire. There is no guarantee that when he goes, his business will stick around with the younger attorneys. In fact, its probably a good bet that it wouldn't. So two parties benefit from the merger: (1) Morris's kids get a nice soft landing at Snell, where they don't necessarily shrivel up and die if his work does. And Snell gets the inside opportunity to snag Morris's work before he retires, in hopes of keeping it after he's gone. Win-Win.

      Delete
  8. Any bets on who applies for the vacant SC seat? Cadish? Bare?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Denton and Michael King Powell so far. Stiglich from the 2nd JD probably.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Denton, please. Glad he put his name in.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Me, too. From my direct experience, it was clear that he stopped reading pleadings at least a few years ago. I appreciate his typically courteous demeanor, but I'm really tired of judges mailing it in. I put my license on the line by not reading pleadings; the same should apply to the judiciary.

    ReplyDelete