Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Bluster


  • Already briefly mentioned in the comments, Jennifer Abrams filed suit against Louis Schneider an erstwhile commenter of this blog who shall remain nameless. [RJ]
  • Robert Graham pleads not guilty; gets bail set at $5 million; and, gets a September trial date. And his wife filed for BK in December with over $10 million in liabilities. [RJ]
  • According to OSHA, a construction had the same problems with scaffolding a month after the death of a worker at Tivoli Village. [Fox5Vegas]

55 comments:

  1. Anyone else getting emails at work from Tadas Arlauskas?

    ReplyDelete
  2. My personal opinion of Jennifer Abrams is that she is not familiar with the Streisand Effect.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect that she might be. I watched the video and was actually kind of impressed with how tough she was. I'm not sure that video hurts her ability to get clients, it probably helps. But, I don't practice in family law, so who knows. I am glad someone is finally punching back at Steve Sanson.

      Delete
    2. I had the opposite reaction. I thought her behavior was uncalled for and nasty. She's a bully. Some clients might think that's cool, but most clients realize the way to handle your case is not to insult the judge and act like a jerk.

      Delete
    3. Not in Family Court. In Family Court, many clients want to feel like you are "fighting" and not taking any bad news sitting down. So I would disagree with your hypothesis that most clients in Family Court realize that you are not supposed to be a jerk; most clients in Family Court want you to be a jerk so long as you are their jerk.

      Delete
    4. I used to handle the occasional family law matter, and once had a case against Abrams' firm. They were the first attorneys I ever encountered who were willing to flat-out lie to a judge... and they did it repeatedly, even when called out on it. It was the most amazing, eye-opening experience.

      Abrams and her people can all go to hell.

      Delete
    5. I don't know if it is attorney or client driven, but both seem to fail to understand that throwing gratuitous insults and irrelevant crap at the walls is not likely to impress the Judge, cause a positive impression with the Judge, or help the client prevail. The most likely result is to simply piss off the Judge.

      Delete
    6. @9:45-- Jennifer never lies. Not to the judge, not to anyone. Stop lying about Jennifer. You should know better. See NRPCs about lying

      Delete
    7. Don't you know that we are now in a post-truth age? It doesn't matter what words actually come out of your mouth, or what you actually write on a piece of paper. All that matters is what is in your heart.

      Right?

      Delete
    8. Jennifer is a tough litigator. With her credentials, the Defendant's have a problem. Sanson needs to learn he is not immune to defamation. His FOIA claims conclusively prove how dangerous a wannabe lawyer is. Go back and listen to his radio show with Marshall Willick. He is a foul mouth bully. Defendant's lawyers claim they will prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion. No, they won't. This is worth watching.

      http://www.willicklawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Abrams-Complaint-for-Damages-00163183x7A582.pdf

      Delete
    9. Throwing out gratuitous insults and irrelevant crap gets you elected president,

      Delete
    10. Footnote 7 of Abrams' complaint: She does not deny being "in bed" with Willick. Curious use of terminology.

      Delete
    11. I heard they were just friends. Is it a friends with benefits type of thing? Someone spill the details!

      Delete
    12. I heard Abrams is Willick's significant other. Obviously, Abrams feels that "being in bed" with him is embarrassing. Abrams attributes her own beliefs about willick to Sanson as "defamation".

      Delete
    13. It is an interesting use of the phrase "in bed" what does that mean? Abrams don't know s*#t about real law so who is going to represent her in real court? Who is going to represent Sanson? This might turn out to be an interesting fight as the Judges downtown don't play around like they do on Pecos.

      Delete
  3. People who write anything negative about Abrams obviously have reckless disregard for the truth. Abrams is the most ethical, competent and professional lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get sarcasm, even on a blog.

      Delete
    2. Do you imply that Abrams is not the most ethical, competent and professional lawyer? You shall stop immediately, refrain from any future negative comments;and publish on apology to Abrams. Otherwise, you obviously a member of the "criminal syndicate" and have a malicious intent... Did Schneider pay you? Lol

      Delete
    3. Thank you Jennifer for the comment about yourself.

      Delete
    4. A&M lawsuit against "criminal syndicate" is a showcase of its "competence". Speaks for itself

      Delete
    5. @10:21- I think you missed the tongue firmly in 9:31's cheek.

      Delete
    6. Although Schneider's comment that he is going bring "malicious prosecution" claims against Abrams. Before you spout off to the newspaper, might want to check the elements on that one, Chief.

      Delete
    7. He should (anti)SLAPP the B*****.... Sorry. I meant he should have told everyone what a pleasure it was to work with the creme de la crème officer of the court. The judge obviously had no reason to question anyone's ethics

      Delete
    8. Hi Voldemort! Knew you couldn't stay away from the blog on this one. Doing the shameful cowardly anonymous posts.

      Delete
    9. Shame full Anonymous post you say. I will always put my name on any post, I don't run, I don't hide. This statement is coming from a person using the name Anonymous, that's hilarious. In addition you replace my name with Voldemort, so I cant respond, so I cant defend myself. WOW! Look up the definition of coward idiot! I am right here come get me!

      Delete
    10. Who cares if you put your name down? All said is true and you know it. What is your disability? Obviously not physical with all your challenges to fight. So must be elsewhere. Perhaps you should stop posting since you are so handicapped you have to beg for $$$ to pay for your divorce. You have made yourself a public figure writing for Rolando, writing your own newsletter criticizing Judges, Metro and politicians, and running and losing for office 10 times. You do not get to try to hide your negative baggage by claiming it is personal. You put yourself out there. Reap what you sew. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. After all the slanderous things you write, it is hilarious your minions come on this blog and accuse people of slandering you. Steve you do sometimes do positive things and expose corruption but stop the threats and the attempted bullying.

      Delete
  4. I suspect the Supreme Court passed on summary discipline for Pengilly as the case states "Disposition Filed" but it remains confidential.

    ReplyDelete
  5. While I understand the fascination with Rob Graham, how is NOBODY talking about the Alessi & Koenig bankruptcy? Filed their Schedules that state $0 in the Bank and the balance of their IOLTA Account is "Unknown." Allegedly millions were supposed to be in the IOLTA and now they have no idea what is in their own IOLTA Account?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their clients are screwed.

      Delete
    2. Far more interesting and relevant than whether some Russian hookers wet the bed. How can the balance of you IOLTA account possibly be "unknown?"

      Delete
    3. When the only question is whether it is $0 or whether there are overdraft fees when you cleaned it out and now its a negative number

      Delete
    4. I read a few of the documents from the warrant case that was referenced. My guess is that all the trust funds are being held by the alleged "shell" corporation that was set up. Let's hope that is the case.

      Delete
  6. Didn't Alessi build himself a beautiful beach mansion in Malibu?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9 Million I hear.

      Delete
    2. Yes, but of course he paid himself only a reasonable salary, and did not funnel money to himself.

      Delete
    3. BTW Alessi is not a member of the Nevada Bar.

      Delete
    4. So, you are suggesting that lawyers barred in other states can also be crooks?

      Delete
  7. Abrams contemplates running for judge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She would be a good judge and an asset to the bench. It would be a massive pay cut for her though.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. It's possible she may think about it, but would probably ultimately decide against it. Almost no one bills and collects as successfully and efficiently as Jennifer. I imagine she clears way more than the salary a judge receives. Plus, to run for judge in Family Court, where campaign contributions are relatively scarce(and even more so for someone who is not an incumbent), she would need to spend $100,000., or perhaps $200,000., of her own money in order to better assure victory. And for the whole year she is campaigning, she would be largely away from the office as campaigning is more than a full-time job. Even though other attorneys work with her and for her and would hold down the fort to some extent, she would not be in the office to rain make, generate new cases, etc. That could result in diminished income to the office of a few hundred thousand during the campaign year. It's just not a decision that would seem to make any financial sense, or sense of any kind.

      Delete
  8. Abrams hot or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thought she was pretty 15ish years ago when she 1st arrived on the scene. I have not seen a recent picture. I do not practice in family court. I met her at my son's preschool.

      Delete
    2. Barely even registers as "lawyer hot."

      Delete
    3. Not hot. B*tch = many would say yes, hot = not.

      Delete
    4. To think that at least some of these comments probably come from my colleagues is disappointing to say the least. A learned profession, indeed. We are as base as any street hustler.

      Delete
    5. Schadenfreude Central.

      Delete
  9. If I recall from seeing the video, didn't Judge Elliot call Ms. Abrams out on her "misrepresentations" in not just that case but others as well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elliott called Abrams out on many things, including:
      asking for sanctions as "prevailing party" when they didn't prevail at anything
      Making personal attacks on opposing counsel
      Ignoring judges orders
      Finger-pointung and filing bullshit motions instead of focusing on merits of the case
      Taking about other clients cases in that department in their motion
      Billing their client for their stupid, meritless sanctions motions
      Suggesting to "schedule a hearing" at clients expense to deal with Abram's personal ethical question
      Telling the judge what to do in the case, etc

      Delete
  10. I am aware of one judgment of $300,000 against A&K. The HOA served subpoenas on the bank where A&K said their trust account was and all accounts had been closed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like Graham (which was really driven by Sid Kistler going after Graham in the Macknin case), the A&K Bankruptcy was driven by the bench warrant for the arrest of David Alessi for contempt in the Levi Jones case. (Case No. A-14-695063-C). The BK filed the day before or day of Alessi's contempt hearing before Kephart in which he was going to jail.

      Delete
    2. They filed a motion to quash. I wonder if Mr. Alessi will show up on the 19th?

      Delete
    3. They filed a Motion to Quash the Warrant against Alessi; Kolesar filed an Opposition that stated that Alessi is not personally in bankruptcy and that the personal obligations against him are not stayed by the corporate bankruptcy.

      Delete
    4. He should be in irons.

      Delete
  11. Blog is certainly not dead today!

    ReplyDelete