Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Contributions To Society


  • Deputy marshals suing Clark County are having issues with their own attorneys. [RJ]
  • AG Adam Laxalt collected $1.2 million in campaign contributions, but no word yet on whether he is going to be running for governor. [RJ]
  • The Nevada Independent launched today with a look at campaign finance--unfortunately no analysis about contributions to the judiciary. [TNI]

14 comments:

  1. I appreciate the fact that the admin. marshals wanted collective bargaining status, and to secure better benefits, conditions, and more control over their own destiny. But it is now several years later and one must question whether the concessions and additional benefits they have obtained are worth the huge price they have paid in attorney fees, in fighting, and countless hours spent on these issues(when such hours may have been better spent working any available over-time, and concentrating on career advancement and improving court security issues, etc.)

    Some of what they accomplished in the earlier stages seems to beneficial to them and perhaps worth the time and money spent. But over the last few years it often seems they are fighting for the sake of fighting, as it appears that during long stretches of time they accomplish very little by these activities except to greatly increase their attorney fees bill and to aggravate people in the system who they desperately need on their side.

    At what point(to use a couple clichés) are they being penny wise but pound foolish, plus throwing good money after bad?

    Plus, the issues are getting too convoluted to attract peoples' sympathies. I don't believe the average reader is going to understand all the dynamics being relayed in the RJ article. And if they don't understand it, then they won't care about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes I already do not care about it. If you do not like your job for whatever reason, then go out there and find something better or different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's far worse than 12:53 says. And now these geniuses are turning against their own lawyers. These attorneys have apparently made a great deal of money representing the organization over the last several years, even though one could debate whether or not significant progress was made. Now that it appears the attorneys are counseling them to finally be reasonable and not to approach every minor real or imagined problem with over-heated litigation, the organization turns against the attorneys, secretly records them, accuses them of being in the tank for the opposing side(which appears to be an absurd belief) and now the matter is in the RJ. Who on earth is running that organization and making decisions of that nature?

      Delete
    2. Agree with those remarks, except to make the clarification that the "organization" is still sticking with the attorneys(who will still be representing 38 Plaintiffs), while the marshals turning against the attorneys, and making the conflict of interest allegations, are 9 in number. But whether we are just discussing these nine, or in general the organization as a whole, the approaches taken over the years, and results received, are really open to question. It is very reasonable, in my opinion, to question the leadership of the organization.

      Delete
  3. First off, the case of topic here is an individual case. It is funded by the individuals named. The RJ article was written well, but missing several substantial facts. This is usually true with most articles. You clearly are close with the marshals, because of the fact you know there is a difference in Marshal titles at the courthouse. The fact is the Marshals as a whole, judicial and administrative, have their own cases in litigation. Funded by an association. The case in federal court is each individual Marshal. The Marshals department is understaffed, under appreciated, and over worked. Many Marshals put in hundreds of hours in It a year. The salaries are the same salaries they were paid in the 90’s. Marshals leave on a daily basis, because of insufficient post, and a lack of enforcing benefits afforded to them by statue. Security suffers at the courthouse, because of lack of man power. They rather let retired Nevada officers double dip, than address the issues at hand. The fight needs to be seen to the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, hundreds of hours of OT.
      LEAVE ON A MONTHLY BASIS BECAUSE OF PAY.

      Delete
  4. Oh dear God. Now the Marshals are posting on here. Just concentrate on not being an asshole at the security checkpoints.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Marshalls are taking a step down by hiring Parsons.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As 12:53 and 2:26 suggest, it sounds like the few marshals involved believe there is a conspiracy, and that the lawyers are not to be trusted, merely because the lawyers told them something they did not want to hear. That's all these (apparently improper) recordings prove.

    The attorneys were doing their job about amplifying the negatives, and weaknesses of their clients' case, and that it is best to pick only the fights that are really important, along with some observations about the reality of the politics involved, including some level of quid pro quo.

    I can understand that some marshals may not want to hear that, and that they might even find the political observations unsavory(e.g. the county will need something, etc.), but that may very well be a sound analysis of all the dynamics involved. It seems to me a huge logical leap to argue collusion, conflict, and corruption merely because a quid pro quo factor was mentioned. All litigation is give and take. It seems really myopic and simplistic to attack the lawyers as being unethical for analyzing the matter from all angles.

    Apparently, these marshals believe that if you point out problems or weaknesses with their case, or tell them anything they don't want to hear, that such makes an individual corrupt and in the sway of the opposing side.

    I'm not offering a view or opinion of these two lawyers in general, or what they have accomplished for the marshals. I don't know nearly enough about their overall performance in this case to speak to that. But I am bewildered that the marshals believe the exchange caught on tape establishes conflict of interest or that it reflects poorly on the integrity and ethics of the attorneys.

    For example, if there are concessions wanted from the County, what is possibly wrong about saying the County may want some concessions in return? Apparently, the marshals would answer by arguing that their requests are so clearly an automatic legal right and entitlement for them, that it is clearly illegal if the County does not immediately cave to all such demands, and that the attorneys must be owned by the opposing side because they had the audacity to point out the give-and-take of all effective negotiations.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You obviously haven't listened to the whole recording. You also aren't knowledgeable on the events leading up to the time of the recording. There is a much bigger picture than what was painted by the article. You are basing your comments on missing, and inaccurate information. Until you listen to the whole recording, or everything is brought to light, I don't think you have any standing to pass judgement. Your conclusions aren't supported by anything.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Seriously, just be nice at the checkpoints. Go shadow the Federal Courtroom Security Officers if you guys need any pointers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The federal court Marshals don't deal with the volume of people the county Marshals do on a daily basis. Most of the Marshals handle all the negativity professionally, and can maintain a great attitude towards the public. The are some occasions when the general public can get to a Marshal with their poor attitudes.

      Delete
    2. There are some marshals who are complete jack-asses, who have no business dealing with the public. Unfortunately, by the time administration figures this out (usually based on complaints from the public), and decides it's time to get rid of the bad apple, a judge intervenes and puts the guy in the courtroom where he can do even more damage. It would be great if the County or courts would conduct some research by sending anonymous people in to go through the metal detectors and to sit in the courtrooms so that they could observe the unprofessional conduct of some of the marshals. It would also be great if the judges would intervene and demand that the marshals treat people with respect and dignity.

      Delete
  9. There isn't much discussion going on here.

    Did anyone happen to attend the 341 creditors' meeting for Alessi & Koenig's BK? I heard it was quite comical.

    ReplyDelete