Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Growing Pains


  • In an interview, Robert Graham claims he didn't abandon his clients, but didn't answer questions about what happened to the millions of missing client funds. His attorney for the criminal portion of his case is Lance Hendron. [RJ]
  • Clark County filed suit with regard to the development of Blue Diamond Hill. [RJ]
  • Magistrate Leen ordered three separate trials related to the Bundy standoff. [RJ]
  • A British citizen who wanted to kill Donald Trump in Las Vegas gets a year in federal prison. [News3LV]

47 comments:

  1. Enough Graham for an hour or so.... What is the deal with Nelson Cohen and Michael Harker?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether it's there or not anymore, there was definitely a stop work order on Harker's door the other day. Potential client brought me a photo of it asking for help. Was posted by the Department of Business and Industry. May have been a code violation? Licensing problem? Phone resolution wasn't that great.

      Delete
    2. Harker was doing loan mods so maybe it was from MLD?

      Delete
  2. Or Pengilly? There's been a shortage of Pengilly around here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or the downsizing of judicial positions in NLV. That is just awful!

      Delete
    2. Seriously? Welcome to Trumpland, peeps.

      Delete
    3. So, 10:48, How do you associate the reduction in judicial positions in a virtually bankrupt town in Nevada to Donald Trump? That is ridiculous.

      Delete
    4. 11:01, I have a brain stem. You are ridiculous.

      Delete
  3. What is happening to Marissa Border concerning discipline?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude you got to let that go. She did jail time, the case is over.

      Delete
    2. I thought Marissa Border was getting disciplined? No?

      Delete
  4. Dear Eric Earley's wife who keeps hitting me or my firm up for money for his medical bills via GoFundMe-- you and your husband provided zero support when other attorneys we mutually know were going through troubled times. No offense when I tell you that I will provide you with precisely the same amount of help that you gave to others. Should have thought about that when you were turning your back on others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you are now publicly shaming them and turning your back on them when they are in need. Hopefully, if you are ever in need, people won't do a background check on your generosity and will instead help without publicly shaming you. Not that you are brave enough to put your name on your post.

      Delete
    2. Says the Anonymous Poster who responded. Hey tough guy, your glass house needs some Windex.

      Delete
    3. @ 3:05--- Sounds like 11:31 is doing exactly what you suggested-- Doing a background check on generosity and reacting just the way you suggest, which is to withhold it from those who have previously withheld it.

      Delete
    4. This is how Congress should handle requests for emergency funds due to extreme weather: if your representatives voted in favor of it for other states, then your state should get it, but if your representatives said fuck off to other states in need, then your state should bear the burden on its own. Yep - I'm looking at you Southern State Assholes.

      Delete
    5. I believe that 11:31 and 3:05 are both valid, even though these are clearly opposing views. Human nature is complex, and we are not forced to say one position is right, and the other position is wrong, merely because they are opposing. Human nature cannot be pigeonholed so conveniently. It is a normal human reaction for 11:31 to resent people who are now asking for help, when such people were nowhere to be found earlier on when others needed similar help. But 3:05 is absolutely correct that we should strive to be better than that, and should help out when we can, rather than keeping score of whether those now in need were sufficiently generous to others in the past. As to which one is more right? It's 3:05.

      Delete
    6. Well said, 5:14. I understand the sentiment, but we have to be better than that, or at least try.

      Delete
    7. That is a nice sentiment that NO ONE on this Board appears to live up to. The schadenfreude here is quite evident.

      I appreciate that we should help out when we can but that many people who espouse that do not practice it. As someone who had a moment of need and watched this community (members who I know post on this Board) not respond in kind, you will appreciate the fact that I understand that we should all strive for our better selves but also understand that Karma is a bitch.

      Delete
  5. "Hendron said Graham even passed a polygraph test about whether he was a flight risk."

    How is this still a thing? I might have heard of a polygraph for the first time when I was like 12 (during "The Verdict" in fact, I think) and I don't think I've EVER heard the word without being also told that they've repeatedly been demonstrated to be useless.

    So if it's so generally known that they're useless, why do I keep hearing them mentioned by lawyers and law enforcement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do have a purpose when dealing with people that believe they are valid. They have been shown to cause people to voluntarily disclose information they otherwise wouldn't have out of fear that the machine will "out" them.

      When you look at 90% of the polygraph results, they are inconclusive, thus meaningless except for the information that the subject discloses himself/herself.

      Delete
    2. Speaking of "Voodoo science" one of my all time favorites is the penile plethysmography (PPG). What a bunch of crock that test has been passed of as showing.

      Delete
    3. There's of course a reason they are not admissible in court. However even police will still offer them, I think partly as a tool for discerning the truth but maybe more so for calling a bluff.

      Delete
    4. I'm not taking a position as to whether they are better viewed as voodoo science as opposed to being of some actual legitimacy, but there are actually studies to indicate polygraphs are more reliable than eye witness testimony. The "research" is available on the internet. I'm not defending such "studies" or arguing they are of any validity. If those in the know think such studies are horse shit, I will defer to them. However, much eyewitness testimony is utterly useless and totally unreliable. An older person will often see a fleeing suspect of a certain minority group, and to that particular person, young men of that minority group all kind of look the same to them. They will say "that's him!" when only shown that one suspect. But when confronted with a lineup of several young men of the same minority group, or several photos of young men from the same minority group, they are often unable to differentiate. If that's the type of eyewitness testimony some of these studies are relying on, I'm not surprised that they conclude polygraphs are more reliable than such testimony.

      Delete
    5. 11:35 -- Right on. I bet Graham would pass the polygraph if you asked him if he believed in the tooth fairy. Doesn't mean WE should believe him.

      Delete
    6. 5:29; Your absolutely right about eye witness testimony. There are many factors that undermine its reliability, including the surprise of the incident, internal biases, adrenaline, memory gaps, cognitive deficiencies, etc.

      I have seen this demonstrated many times in multiple forms. I quick test is to show someone a photograph of a person in a high stress situation, wait 10-20 minutes and have them describe the person (in detail) that's in the photo. They will rarely get much right.

      Delete
  6. I cannot believe that the biggest news story in the Legal World today has gone undiscussed and undisclosed-- the supposed bankruptcy of Alessi & Koenig. A&K's Trust Account could be Lehman Brothers-level stuff of legends, and in the same week as Graham.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is going to be like Capital One commercials.... "What's in your [trust account]?"

      Delete
    2. Now *that's* interesting. They mostly represent HOA's I think. If memory serves they were also on the wrong end of a sizeable verdict a year or two ago. Alessi is not admitted here.

      Delete
    3. David Alessi is not. Robert Koenig is (but never touches those cases). They are supposedly holding millions of dollars of foreclosure proceeds in their Trust Accounts. Sound like another case circulating around?

      Delete
    4. Who cares. It's HOA litigation. Alessi & Koenig being compared to Lehman, thanks for the laugh.

      Delete
    5. @10:38-- You are correct. Lehman Brothers was respected at one time and actually did legitimate business. A&K has been a joke since its inception and how it got away with their practices for this long was amazing. So 10:38, where is the millions in foreclosure proceeds that were supposedly being held in A&K's Trust Accounts?

      Delete
  7. http://tinyurl.com/z953o66

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy I hope Alessi has someone better at corporate BK than Ryan Alexander in their stable because there is going to be a witch hunt for MILLIONS of dollars of trust account proceeds which are not listed in the Petition.

      Delete
    2. Obviously I'm not a BK guy here, but would funds held in a client trust account need to be listed if they are not property of the bankruptcy estate? Except to the extent that some portion might represent fees that are in the pipeline I guess.

      Delete
    3. They aren't assets of the estate so no, they don't get listed in the schedules; but they would be listed in SOFA (Statement of Financial Affairs) as something held on behalf of another, along with their contact information.

      Delete
    4. In my opinion, Ryan Alexander is an arrogant, overconfident bitch, and A&K are opportunistic, heartless scumbags that have helped ruined a lot of people's lives over the past few years. I hope they both get their asses kicked in on this case.

      Delete
    5. I don't know Ryan Alexander, but it's lame when these comments turn into an episode of Mean Girls.

      (Cue accusation that I'm Ryan Alexander.)

      Delete
    6. I am not accusing you of being Ryan Alexander (or Bongiovi or Marissa Border or James Kelley or...well I do not remember everyone who is accused of posing on this board). I can agree with the sentiment on some threads. You are right that this blog has a tendency to be nasty (comments on appearance, weight, perceived intellect, lifestyle). However nothing in THIS thread says that anything is so fetch.

      Ryan Alexander has no business in what will ultimately be a nasty business Chapter 7 with plenty of nondischargebility actions and complex asset clawback issues. A&K has engaged in out and out fraud that was reported to the State Bar over a year ago. A&K sold houses to HOAs who did not want the houses and then also sold homes titled to HOAs without the HOA's knowledge or permission. A&K appeared in lawsuits claiming to represent the HOA without the HOA's knowledge or permission and then would bill the HOA for a defense that the HOA never asked for. The comment above that A&K will make Rob Graham look like peanuts is likely accurate.

      Delete
    7. Ryan, I disagree that it's lame to express my opinion about your arrogance and overconfidence. I've had personal experience dealing with you and that's what I think about you. Sorry if you don't like it, but maybe you should take my comment to heart and reflect about how you treat opposing counsel.

      Delete
    8. Stop trying to make "fetch" happen! It's not going to happen!

      Delete
  8. Whatever happened to Tramel Law Group?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The AOC put out the annual report on the Nevada Judiciary. It shows that from 2012 to 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court disposed of around 2300 cases per year. In 2016, which was the first full year with the Court of Appeals, it resolved only 1786 cases, while the Court of Appeals resolved 723. The Nevada Supreme Court published decisions in 97 cases, which was around the same number as the previous 5 years, so they can't blame their lower disposition number on a claim that they published more opinions. This is shameful. The Court sold the state on the Court of Appeals by promising that its backlog would be reduced, but instead the justices appear to be focused on everything but resolving cases. And how could the Court of Appeals only have resolved 723 cases, when they are given the easiest cases to handle? Tao needs to stop with his 25 page law review dissents and get to work on doing something that matters. They should all be ashamed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't write more opinions. Gotta spend time picking out the right decorations for the Judicial Palace downtown.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely atrocious and a waste of money. They are a truly shameful bunch. Cases languish in front of them. And the worst part is that there is really no way to expedite or move cases faster before the Court. They move at whatever speed they choose. And the worst part is that there are actual issues which are clogging the Courts (Saticoy Bay?) which sit unresolved.

      Delete
    3. You can expect a few more appeals from Saticoy Bay in the near future....sigh.

      Delete