Thursday, January 26, 2017

Just Us?


  • If the Las Vegas Municipal Court moves out of the RJC, then Jane Ann Morrison thinks the Las Vegas Justice Court should move too. What do you think? [RJ]
  • Did you know there is a satellite Justice Court office at the Flamingo branch of the DMV? [Las Vegas SunRJ]
  • A Carson City judge ruled that PERS has the release names and information of thousands of public workers. [RJ]
  • Did the Stadium Authority already violate the Open Meeting law? [TNI]

52 comments:

  1. I am not opposed to the Courts having new buildings. As a former law clerk in the district court, I can assure you space is tight and the judicial system is bigger than the RJC can fit. Plus, it is a good way to revamp downtown from the pockets of ghetto that still is there and replace it with new legal buildings. We are already halfway there with private buildings. LETS MAKE DOWNTOWN GREAT AGAIN (lol)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Space is tight because there's no room for huge egos. If the judges would work together instead of insisting on their own kingdoms there would be plenty of room. Not all calendars have to be in the morning. Not every stupid motion even requires a hearing. Not every judge needs a courtroom big enough for a jury trial.

      Source: former law clerk

      Delete
    2. I'm in favor of moving all traffic cases out of the RJC, but other justice court matters should stay there. There are many attorneys who go to both justice court and district court in the morning and creating new tunnels for movement of inmates from CCDC would be a huge expense. If they need more room in the RJC (1) move the marriage licensing bureau to a new building, (2) move muni court and strictly traffic matters somewhere else, and (3) kick the District Attorney out of the building.

      Delete
    3. There is plenty of space at the RJC. There are two courtrooms that are not used for anything (1D and 6B). Plus, when the Supremes move out, there will be the entire 17th floor. There is so much extra space that they even have moved three family court departments to the RJC (H, M, and S). The City does not need its own building IMHO.

      Delete
    4. I'd be happy with a separate, dedicated elevator for out of custody criminal defendants and their family and friends to take to Justice Court so that I don't have to stand there and smell them.

      Delete
    5. ^^^^ The poor are the grist of our legal system, giving rise to your employment, 11:39, directly or indirectly.

      Delete
    6. 11:39 - feel free to take the stairs asswipe.

      Delete
    7. The defendants don't bother me. But Bikers Against Child Abuse are a bunch of assholes, and they tend to seize entire banks of elevators.

      Delete
    8. 11:39 amen, especially in the summertime.

      Delete
    9. 1/26/17 at 12:15 PM....really??? You're going to bash people who take time out of their lives to advocate for these children? What would you have them do...all 10, 12 ,15 of them split up in groups take different elevators and the steps so as not to inconvenience you?

      Delete
    10. Sure, that would help. Or they could take the stairs.

      Delete
  2. Bourne Valley was short-lived. Nevada Supreme Court declares that NRS 116.3116 is constitutional (or rather is not unconstitutional) and that HOA foreclosure sales are OK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What case? Do you have a cite?

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't say that Bourne Valley was short lived. The NV S.Ct. just basically took the exact opposite side than the 9th Circuit on the interpretation of the federal constitution. Bourne Valley is still the law in federal court, whereas the opposite is true now in state court. This sets up a nice battle at the U.S. Supreme Court.

      The case is Saticoy Bay v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 68630.

      Opinion is here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16060807/Saticoy%20Bay%20v%20Wells%20Fargo.pdf

      Delete
    3. Not totally clear on superpriority issues, but why is S.Ct. deciding constitutional issues and then remanding for other determinations. Doesn't Nevada only consider constitutional issues if nothing else to decide. Maybe this only bothers me.

      Delete
    4. District Court ruled the statute to be facially unconstitutional; NSC said not facially unconstitutional and not a taking. Wells Fargo has other arguments that it made at the NSC which were not considered by the District Court, so the NSC said go make any other arguments and conduct further proceedings at the District Court level.

      Delete
    5. 10:38 is correct. Israel dismissed the case on grounds that sale was facially unconstitutional. Nevada Supreme Court said that the sale was not unconstitutional so lawsuit should proceed.

      Delete
    6. 10:38 - Maybe the question was not clear, why not send it back for D.Ct. to rule on all other issues before ruling on constitutional issues. Is there something special about superpriority cases?

      Delete
    7. 10:48, so you want the NVSC to take a case in which the district court dismissed the case based on a finding that the statute in question was unconstitutional - a dispositive issue - decline to rule on that dispositive issue, and send the case back to the district court to rule on all other issues that could all be irrelevant if the NVSC were to agree and rule that the statute is in fact unconstitutional?

      This isn't a case there the NVSC can avoid constitutional issues by deciding the case on other grounds. The constitutional issue was the issue.

      Delete
    8. To 10:48: because there was nothing to proceed on in the Dist.Ct. if the statute was unconstitutional. Often constitutional issues can be reached last under the constitutional avoidance doctrine, but in many cases the constitutional issue is the threshold issue that must be addressed first.

      Delete
  3. #MDGA - Make Downtown Great Again. I love it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. An ADKT was recently filed in the Nevada Supreme Court to amend the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct to permit judicial law clerks to provide pro bono legal services under certain circumstances. ADKT Link: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=40704

    What do you think? a survey is here:

    http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07edkwqpwriwmfw55v/start

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me get this straight - the NSC complains that their workload is too high, so we need the Appellate Court. They get the Appellate Court. They produce no more opinions than they did before the change. Now they want to let their clerks go off and work on something else?

      GET BACK TO WORK.

      Delete
  5. Just abolish the Las Vegas MUNICIPAL court. Aside from MAYBE some obscure city business, what do they do that the JUSTICE court couldn't do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep all that fine and penalty money in the City's pocket. The Muni Court is essentially a fundraising entity.

      Delete
  6. https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/robert-graham-1770638.html

    Rob Graham still has a 9.1/10 rating on Avvo.

    LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I heard a rumor that the furniture and effects of LawyerWest were being auctioned off this week. Since LawyersWest is not in bankruptcy, I would presume that it not affected by the BK.

      Delete
    2. Rumor confirmed. It's being held by Nellis Auctions and ends next Monday. It has been combined with leftovers from the World Market expo.

      Delete
    3. As soon as AVVO notices that he is no longer sending them money...his rating will drop.

      Delete
    4. January 26, 2017 at 12:36 PM - ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! So very, very, very true. The great majority of attorney rating services are nothing more than advertising scams on a public desperate for information.

      Delete
    5. I am taking a flyer and bidding on LawyersWest's safe. Got a good feeling about this.

      Delete
    6. Me too. I'm hoping for an unexpected envelope of cash taped to the bottom of a drawer.

      Delete
  7. Do people really believe climate change is a hoax? Or is that just something Republicans say because they enjoy making liberals panic? I know that there are definitely some uneducated folks on the fringe who generally don't believe in science (evolution, vaccines, global warming, etc.), but surely most people (even Republicans!) understand that climate change is real???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there are many intelligent people who see the whole climate agenda as a big hoax.

      Delete
    2. 3:33 I'm sorry to break it to you but there really are that many Republicans who think that science is a liberal conspiracy. I have difficulty referring to them as "intelligent people who see climate change as a hoax" since that would be an oxymoron.

      Delete
    3. Same people who believe in God, think climate change is a hoax. LMAO

      Delete
    4. I'd say that the larger group is those who think climate change is real but that it's not caused or significantly increased by human activity. I think, though, that as with most anti-science positions, it's an ideologically driven viewpoint. Taking care of the environment is hard, therefore there's no benefit to doing so. I'm not cleaning my room, either, 'cause it'll just get messy again.

      Delete
    5. I believe climate change is real. What I am not sure of is how many times we have had climate change in the Earth's 4.5 billion year history. Written history of the Earth only goes back 5 or 6 thousand years and climate has only been written about for a few hundred years. Who knows what the past was or what the future will bring?

      Delete
    6. Well, I think that's the poster's point, through science, we can understand changes in the Earth's climate going back further than a few thousand years ago. Scientists have a wealth of data upon which to analyze trends and reasonably predict future data points. Just because someone didn't write something down, doesn't mean we don't know it happened. No one wrote down first hand accounts of dinosaurs, but those were real too.

      Delete
    7. 11:11 is right. 11:04 is wrong. Scientists can and have figured out what the climate was like going back into the distant past by reviewing certain element concentrations in things like sediment cores and ice sheets. Basically, these areas have preserved a chemical record over time through which scientists can chart the past. So to answer 11:04's question of who knows what the past was - scientists do. And they explain how they do. The current GOP leadership just refuses to listen.

      Delete
    8. Too many big words.

      Delete
    9. The only problem is that scientists are very much like attorneys. What do you get if you lock 10 of them in a room.... 14 opinions!

      Delete
    10. Well, that's simply not true when it comes to this issue. The vast and overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and that humans are a driving cause.

      I guess I'm beginning to see a pattern here, though. By pretending that climate information is unknowable or the subject of some sort of he-said she-said, no-clear-answer debate, some people do appear to be able to dismiss reality.

      Delete
    11. 12:55, actually if you lock 100 scientists in a room you'll get 2 opinions. 97 of them will agree, and the other 3 are oil companies' expert witnesses.

      Delete
    12. Ahem, 7:31, most scientists are skeptical of the idiotic premises of climate change. A large part of that is that the models they rely on are wrong approximately 100% of the time. That's why climate fraudsters consistently refuse to provide raw data (that is often manipulated and sometimes flatly made up), and when they get hacked (climategate) they go on the attack and claim boogey men did it. (Like Russia "hacked" the DNC)

      All lies, buddy. Lies. Nice touch trying to throw ad hominem attacks against oil company scientists who are the only ones who both know what they are doing and - get this my science buddy - actually see their predictions come true.

      But what's science to you, right? Piss on insisting that theories are tested in the real world and produce the predicted results. Do you still think Socialism can be achieved given proper leadership? And this whole binary sex thing, do you know science conclusively proves there are men and women, not 168 sexes, er, genders, along a rainbow spectrum with a magical unicorn letting you know every day which one you should be.

      Oh, and get this, if you let a violent criminal slip across the border chances are - long pause - he will continue to be a violent criminal here? Trump undid Obama's order to not track immigrant crime. Once the flood of data comes in (or take a walk through any Nevada prison) the true cost of no borders will be so open and obvious that....well, it will be ignored, just like with climate fraud. Sigh.

      Delete
    13. Did you just take a page out of the Trump handbook and start making shit up as you go along? No, most scientists are not skeptical of the premise of climate change. Is there a debate as to whether this is entirely man made or if man has hastened a natural phenomena? Yes. Science does not conclusively prove shit, that's why there are theories and not laws, so go back to Breitbart and let them tell you how to make another fallacious argument.

      Delete
    14. You mean like your brilliant observation that climate is changing so let us tax the shit out of the middle class? Jokester. Climate changes. Always has and always will. Google it. And scientists do not agree, and even if they did, it is measurable proof that matters. They have none, except that, get this, climate changes. Wow. Just wow.

      Delete
  8. I love the letter sending us our bar cards. It says, "receipt of membership cards is not confirmation of a completed renewal," but the card itself says "membership certification." If it's not confirmation of a completed renewal, then what the hell good is the card that purports to certify membership? Just the usual doublespeak and gobbledygook from our state bar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have angered the Bar gods. They are coming for you.

      Delete
    2. Would you call this year's stripe teal? Turquoise?

      Delete
    3. Definitely teal.

      Delete
    4. When I did the process online, I couldn't tell if it worked. That letter confirmed that the bar can't tell either.

      Delete