Thursday, October 13, 2016

Like An Octopus


  • Assuming it goes forward, here are the topics for next week's presidential debate at UNLV. [RJ]
  • Not Vegas centric, but the NY Times article about women claiming Donald Trump touched them inappropriately has resulted in legal threats (via Mediaite) from his lawyer. Any experts on Sullivan in the house? 
  • Will the Assembly push the stadium bill through? [Las Vegas Sun; RJ]
  • Here's your reminder about Craig P. Kenny's annual party tomorrow:

34 comments:

  1. Whatever happened in the Pengilly matter? Was the motion granted? Status-update.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. from the case register, you can tell this much:

      10/11/2016
      Motion for Protective Order (9:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Bulla, Bonnie)
      Pltfs' Motion for a Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions on an OST
      Result: Granted

      10/11/2016
      Opposition and Countermotion (9:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Bulla, Bonnie)
      Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions on an OST and Countermotion for Sanctions
      Result: Denied

      Delete
    2. Here's a news story on it. Pengilly hit with $2,500 in sanctions and all depos are canceled until the criminal investigation is completed. Then they must be conducted at the courthouse with a marshal present.

      http://www.ktnv.com/news/contact-13/protective-order-granted-against-lawyer-accused-of-pulling-gun-during-deposition

      Delete
    3. Daaiiiuumm! Pengilly might be in real trouble. Don't pull your weapon unless you plan to use it.

      Delete
    4. Yes he is in real trouble. The LVMPD Investigation is real. The Petition for Summary Suspension is real. The fact that he has been imploding apparently for years is real. The fact that his partners (Robbins and Slater) both left was a sign that the something was happening with Jim.

      Delete
    5. I heard his trashy wife heckles opposing counsel from the gallery in Court. "Trailers for sale or rent."

      Delete
    6. Bet you were hittin' that, 10:53.

      Delete
    7. I read the opposition. It certainly would not let Pengilly off the hook, but if believed definitely paints a less damaging picture of what occurred. Obviously he must have reached out to the court reporter for an affidavit. Why would he do that unless he had reason to believe she would be supportive of him? I've run up against Pengilly at various points over the years, and although he can be a temperamental SOB, I've never seen anything approaching this. Of course we don't know what other pressures he might be under either. Anyway, I'm not excusing the guy, just trying to remain somewhat impartial.

      Delete
    8. You've never seen anything like this from the temperamental SOB, and you don't know what other pressures he might be under. But you aren't letting him off the hook or excusing the guy.

      Delete
    9. So what's your point? Mine was that, while I think he's in trouble either way, I don't have a basis to assume that everything in the motion is correct, whereas everything in the opposition is bullshit. I've never met Dale Hayes, Jr. I've never met either of these Stuhmers. I have no opinion one way or the other as to their veracity. On the other hand, my personal experience with Pengilly would suggest that he's an asshole, but not that he would pull a gun on someone during a deposition. But I haven't dealt with him in a few years, either. Maybe he's gone around the bend. I guess we'll find out eventually, but until then I'm trying to remain somewhat objective. So shoot me (no not really).

      Delete
    10. Pengilly was one of the big defense players during the construction defect craze in the late 90's and early 00's. He was an incredible prick during depositions back then. Sounds like things haven't changed, except now he brings weapons.

      Delete
    11. Yes but he seemed like a normal prick, not a sit by the exit in case you have to quickly bail from the room prick. He did get hugely sanctioned by Sally Loehrer once.

      Delete
    12. No even back then he would hit the sauce pretty good. The difference was that being hammered was fun and cool when you are 35, not so much at 48.

      It is interesting that Pengilly's story is that he just flashed his gun. From today's RJ about the guy killed by Metro suspected in a string of armed robberies "Police believe he was the same man who robbed a Dairy Queen at 1660 W. Warm Springs Road on Saturday, Sweet Addiction at 2291 N. Green Valley Parkway on Friday, and Walgreens at 1701 N. Green Valley Parkway on Friday.

      The carjacking Monday happened about 7:30 p.m. while a woman was parked in her driveway in the 1900 block of Spode Avenue, near Warm Springs Road and North Valle Verde Drive, Henderson police spokeswoman Michelle French said.

      The man pointed a gun at the woman as she was sitting in her car and demanded she get out. After a brief scuffle, he drove away in her gray 2012 Nissan Rogue, Nevada license plate 733YVV. Her purse was still in the car.

      Another Dairy Queen robbery happened about 1:45 p.m. on Tuesday at the 2607 Windmill Parkway store. The man ordered an ice cream cone, then showed an employee a gun in his waistband. He made off with cash from the register, and no one was injured." Yes merely flashing a gun is an armed assault. Take Jim at his word in his Opposition, and he is in trouble. Take Hayes's version of the facts at his word, and Jim is in big trouble. If the animus is so pronounced that you need to take a gun into a court proceeding, have someone else handle the proceeding because you are simply too close to the matter (which if you read the Reply is precisely what Judge Cadish told him in the C2 Lofts case).

      Delete
    13. This whole Pengilly kerfuffle indirectly led me to find the Pengilly v. Craig Slater case that apparently was tried earlier this year, where Jim sued his former partner for having the temerity to leave. If you have time (c'mon its Friday), pull the pleadings and see a guy who apparently has been grasping at straws for years.

      Delete
  2. Was hoping the Minutes would pop up quickly. Just ugly all the way around. The fact that the Reply had a Declaration from another guy who claimed Pengilly pulled a gun on him at a UNLV Game just puts nails in his coffin. This story is not going away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would like to review the Reply. Whatever happened to the UNLV game and pulling a gun. Assume no charges filed and nothing happened. How did they find out about it? Can anybody post?

      Delete
    2. Here's a link to the Reply...

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16060807/Reply_in_Support_of_Motion_for_a_Protective_Order_on_an_Order_Shortening_Time_and_Opposition_to_Cou_Rply.pdf

      Delete
    3. Paragraph 10 of Exhibit 1: "Nearly all of Pengilly's Declaration is comprised of blatant lies."

      Someone's committed perjury here. I don't know which side, but both have come out and sworn that the other side is a liar. I'm just gonna get me some popcorn.

      Delete
    4. As well as Pengilly: "Court Reporter is not talking because LVMPD has put her under a gag order." (Didn't know Metro stopped people from signing Affidavits?) Hayes: "Uh there is no gag order. Just wait until the criminal charges come and you will get her statement."

      In that way, Commissioner Bulla was smart. Stay the case pending resolution of any criminal investigation.

      Delete
    5. What authority does METRO have without a court order to issue a "gag order" in the Pengilly case. With a court order, I can understand that there could an order to protect witnesses. But the only case right now is the civil case. Do we even know if the "gag order" directive is true?

      Delete
    6. @1:07,

      See Paragraph 10 of the Reply. That is all.

      Delete
  3. So much for going high Hillary, et al. Unfortunately, because Hillary will be a single termer, I have a feeling that the campaigning will not end even after Nov 8th. Warren and Castro will be positioning the base on Day 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure if she'll be a single termer, as it really depends on what happens the next few years.

      But she'll have a hell of a battle and it will be a lot closer than the last 3 presidents 2nd election battle. It really depends on who the Republicans nominate.

      Are they going to nominate some blow-hard like Trump? Not sure else who has the combination of ego + mouth that could even pull it off - and remember, he is the parties nominee based almost exclusively on populist appeal. Who else could do that?

      It could potentially be a moderate or liberal Republican. A few years ago, I thought it was gonna be Chris Christie. Now, he's imploding. Any thoughts who else could be seen as a moderate Republican or someone who is bombastic enough?

      If they go with someone like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, or Ben Carson, good night. Hillary will get elected. This wouldn't be a step backward, but it certainly wouldn't be seen as a step forward.

      Delete
    2. 11:45, Clinton won't have to worry about the Republican challenger, the majority of our party doesn't support her and are only voting because it's her or Trump. Clinton, in a way, is a gift to the Republicans. She is a moderate democrat just like her husband who is playing progressive to get my vote. Yeah, we'll get liberal leaning justices on the Court, but no RBG.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, we need to make sure we get some real progressives in so we can get another RBG. Who was it who appointed RBG again?

      Delete
  4. Incumbent presidents have an enormous advantage built in. Lower the number a little because it'd be a fourth consecutive from same party, but to predict a single term with any confidence, just on the objective fundamentals, is not smart money.

    The only recent incumbent defeats were hampered by both severe economic downturns and third party candidates. Incumbent presidents win, generally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kind of like incumbent judges!

      Delete
    2. I think the fundamentals of 2020 will look a lot like 1992, a fourth consecutive term, high likelihood of a strong third party candidate. Add in the likelihood of a recession between now and then, and the fact that 2020 is a census and redistricting election, and I think 2020 is going to be an even more vicious campaign than 2016 was.

      Delete
  5. Whoever gets elected will be a one-termer because the stock market is about to crash to levels it would properly be at if the Federal Reserve had not kept interest rates insanely low for nearly a decade. They raised rates to 0.25% from 0.00% several months ago, and the market lost like 15% of its value within a month. It has only regained because the hikes that were expected to follow didn't happen when Yellen thought to herself, "Holy crap, we're even more screwed than I'd thought." If rates went to historically reasonable levels (5-6%), the markets would totally implode, and we'd instantly go into the depression that will inevitably happen when the dollar collapses. No president can kick the can down the road four more years. Those in power when it happens will get blamed, even though the last 100 years or so of politicians are collectively to blame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome Ron Paul tinfoil hat crowd.

      Delete
  6. Re: DT bullshit and NYT: http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2016/10/13/gibson-dunns-boutrous-trumps-nyt-threat-is-a-stunt/?cmp=share_twitter

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anything more on the Pengilly matter. Saw the link and read the reply. It is definitely getting out of hand. What if no charges or if charges are brought. Does anyone know if the bar filed a petition for suspension?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Going to to CPK pahtie, get into a couple of fist fights, wear a Danny Bonaduce, or Danny Tarkania bandana, so I am ready to get my freak on the Eric Johnson campaign party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:25, that is funny. Does the CPK party bring out the judicial candidates who try to campaign?

      Delete