Thursday, July 13, 2017

Monkey See, Monkey Sue


  • A federal judge said an ADA serial suer operation is like a carnival shell game. Worth noting the Plaintiff in this case was getting $50 a case---what is the attorney getting? [ABC15 Arizona]
  • Meanwhile, here's a look at the status of the 274 ADA cases filed by Whitney Wilcher which appear to have stopped. [RJ]
  • The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument about whether a monkey owns the copyright on a selfie photo he took. [AL.com]

46 comments:

  1. Are you calling disabled people monkeys? /s

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whitney Wilcher, ATMS alumnus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude was the ultimate construction defect loser back in the day. Once saw him stay in an expert deposition for almost an entire day before he realized he did not represent a client in that particular case. He sat there eating court reporter food and playing games on his phone thinking he was going to be able to bill his time.

      Delete
    2. Are you sure he didn't bill for his time anyway?

      Delete
  3. I think that New Mexico decision would be reversed in the 9th Circuit. I worked on a few of these and I recall that the obvious best move in the 9th Circuit was to pay their low shake down demand and get on with it. It's funny that the 9th Circuit is willing to call out some shake down schemes (hi Steve Gibson) but not others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bloggers from yesterday seem to think Caddish will be elected to the Supreme Court because she is a smart, capable judge.

    Well she certainly will not be elected if Silver also decides to run.

    The question of who is the better judge will be rendered largely academic and moot. Clearly, if these two both run, the far better judge gets beat by the far better politician.

    Competing with Silver's incredible connections, and even far more impressive expected war chest, will prove insurmountable.

    And Cadish will not be able to make up for any of that with a concerted grass roots effort--because Silver has her clearly beat in this department as well. Silver, although viewed by some as a creature of certain entitlement and privilege, actually is quite effective with mingling with working class folks. This will be amplified in the more rural areas where Caddish may be seen as sort of a somewhat aloof, intellectual type. Although I believe her to be an individual of sufficient warmth, she does not really project it and is not demonstrative.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shots fired at UNLV. Campus is on lockdown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shots were fired at another car. This is not exactly a school shooting

      Delete
  6. Silver is running for a different seat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Silver for Cherry's seat. Caddish for Douglas'

      Delete
  7. I realize that Cherry announced he will not serve another term, but I saw no announcement that Douglas is retiring. My understanding is that speculation of his pending retirement is inaccurate. If that is the case, Caddish and Silver will need to run in the same race.

    ReplyDelete
  8. All I have to say is that the supreme court races should rarely be unopposed. People need choices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. I will donate money if people run against these jokers. Tired of the same old, same old.

      Delete
  9. The good news in recent years is that no Supreme Court vacancy goes unopposed or only draws token opposition. They have been very hard-fought, insanely expensive affairs. When Pickering beat Schumacher, Nancy Alf, and a fourth highly viable candidate, were in that race. All four probably spent hundreds of thousands, and it's possible the winner spent over a million, or reasonably close to it.

    So, even if Caddish does not wind up in the same race as Silver, Caddish reputation as a strong judge is not nearly enough. She will need to be an expert fund-raiser and an expert campaigner. 10:43, while conceding her notable skills as a jurist, seems to question whether she has the relentless drive, massive fund raising skills, and the extremely out-going personality necessary to prevail in such a massive state-wide undertaking. Can't say that I know the answer to that, but she's an excellent jurist for certain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FYI i know for a fact that Pickering spent over a million to win that seat.

      Delete
    2. I think she's way overrated. Super condescending. Needs to make sure that everyone in the room thinks she's the smartest person there. Countless eye rolls in every argument I've ever seen before her (not mine, luckily mine were all status checks, though I'm sure I'm not immune). I get that that often comes with the robe, but I'm still not a fan of hers.

      Delete
    3. Pickering or Cadish?

      Delete
    4. Rude judges should ot be elected. There are a lot of them. I donate money, and the public asks me who to vote for. Keep that in mind the next time you treat an attorney like shit.

      Delete
    5. I've tried cases in front of Cadish and found her to be smart and fair. Unfortunately, a lot of what passes as the practice of law in this jurisdiction is eye-roll worthy.

      Delete
  10. Re: Monkey owning selfie. Since when do animals have IP rights? Think, puppy, monkey baby.

    ReplyDelete
  11. https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/ex-las-vegas-prosecutor-key-player-in-russia-probe-cited-for-sex-discrimination/ - Drama at the US Attorney's Office.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good. Bunch of assholes at that office.

      Delete
  12. story is short on specifics

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like names were omitted from the decision so the RJ had to connect the dots to figure out who did what. I can't figure out who the former AUSA could be, but everyone else is recognizable by title and time of events. I love Padda coming in and piling on as if he has any credibility.

      Delete
    2. I wonder how much Eric Johnson knew. Is this why he left the feds?

      Delete
    3. I like the reference to the 160 million dollar verdict for Padda. Did he ever make an appearance on that case? I thought it was some PI guys from California.

      Delete
  13. Norm Reed has died. Pancreatic cancer. He was a good guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was a good dude, and only one felony conviction.

      https://lasvegassun.com/news/1997/jan/06/attorney-convicted/

      Delete
    2. Very sad.
      946 is a jerk.

      Delete
    3. Reed was involved in some insurance fraud 20 years ago, for which he paid a steep price. So far as I am aware, he's kept his nose clean ever since. He never infected anyone with a deadly disease just to turn a buck, and pancreatic cancer is not something I would wish on anyone.

      Delete
  14. Yep 9:46 - maybe you could take the day off from being a complete fucking ass. The man died, he has a family and friends. This is not the time for sanctimonious remarks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, "sanctimonious" describes all the idiots who never said two words to the man coming out of the woodwork crying "don't speak ill of the dead." You should google sanctimonious.

      Delete
  15. A couple months ago, after Dr. Desai died in prison, a few bloggers were saying the most vile, graphic things. While pointing out that I despised Desai and his crimes every bit as much as they did, and feel just as badly for his many victims as they do, I asked if we could exercise some modicum of restraint if for no other reason than sparing his family additional anguish while they are going through the grieving process.

    The bloggers then attacked me for supposedly thinking I'm better than they are, that I'm a sanctimonious POS for defending this vile P.O.S.
    deceased physician who essentially murdered for profit, etc., etc.

    But I really have to question who is being sanctimonious--them or me. After all, if they were so enraged that I asked that they spare the family for a day or two, and essentially accuse me of siding with this despicable individual merely because I made that small request, I must ask if they in fact have the ability to recognize that not everything is black or white. Shades or gray or nuance escape them. People who think in such absolutes are essentially the sanctimonious ones, as well as not being particularly intelligent, analytical or mature. So, as far as I am concerned, they are the sanctimonious ones.

    Also, why do they assume that people who lost family members to Desai's crimes are comforted by that type of unrelenting venom and hatred. If anything , they are trying their best to move on.

    So, you have now learned as I have that these bloggers believe in sins of the father, so to speak. Desai's family apparently deserves no quarter or respite, even though for all we know some of them may be decent people(even though Desai himself was, of course, in many respects, a horrific person).

    As for Norm Reed, no one wants to recognize that he served his prison sentence, served his suspension, turned his life around in a manner which was almost miraculous. Those convicted of felonies almost never regain their right to practice law, but he did. So, that sarcastic , snarky blogger can make the wise ass remark "He was a good dude, and only one felony conviction", but he should recognize the whole story.

    Yes, Reed was deplorable, but he also deserves some recognition for turning his life around, and let's not forget that he made, I believe, complete restitution. I recognize that there is much lingering permanent damage to victims even if someone finally makes restitution at some very belated date, but we still need to tell the whole story.

    Most suspended attorneys never make restitution or regain their right to practice(and certainly almost no disbarred attorneys ever pay meaningful restitution, or ever are permitted to practice again).

    I personally disliked Reed, and was hardly surprised when his actions came to light as they seemed to fit his personality and moral compass. But, in fairness, we need to look at the whole arc of the life of an individual. And despite my negative feelings about him, the objective evidence is that he really turned things around quite dramatically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't make them worse than you, just human. Just like being able to forgive doesn't make you better than anyone, just human.

      Delete
    2. Some people are worse than others. People who don't think that are worse than people who do...

      Delete
    3. Thank you for this post. I found it very moving and appreciate your kindness.

      Delete
    4. Post of the year, 11:41. Luke 15:10

      Delete
    5. "Reed was deplorable"

      Agreed.

      Delete
    6. Beautifully said 11:41.

      Delete
    7. i nominate 11:41 for a judgeship

      Delete
  16. I thought norm reed the younger went to jail and Dad somehow escaped prosecution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Norm took the bullet

      Delete
    2. Thats what I thought. In fact most everyone thought that the younger took a bullet for the old man. I was assigned to handle one of Norm's criminal cases when he was suspended. I am a bit confused, did Norm the younger pass away, or was it the old man?

      Delete
    3. Nathaniel is the old man. Norm is the son and he died recently

      Delete
    4. Norm was only out of law school a year or two and took the hit for you know who. No way he knew how to set up that type of scam that fresh out of law school. He was one of the nicest guys.

      Delete