OK, OK, Because I've been getting CRAZY email on "where was Waldo (LU?)

I had heart surgery. See, I told you I was a geezer. This profession will kill you if you are not careful. You are not getting any more info than that...well...triple bypass...

Any more info & you'll figure me out...hope this stops the questions...

I was NO help back in the Primaries, but I won't be so quiet about the November elections and the ballot initiatives. So, there...my annoyances have only restarted.

Tax Evasion Again...by another LoBello?

A Las Vegas lawyer has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that he allegedly hid more than $900,000 in income from the IRS and failed to pay about $270,000 in personal income taxes, U.S. Attorney for Nevada Daniel Bogden said Wednesday.

Charles C. LoBello, who practices business and personal injury law, is charged with five counts of tax evasion and five counts of making and filing materially false personal income tax returns. If convicted, he faces up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 on each count of tax evasion.

The maximum sentence for a conviction on false tax return charges is three years and a fine of up to $250,000 on each count, Bogden said. The indictment was returned Tuesday.

According to the indictment, LoBello had more than $900,000 in unreported taxable income from his law practice from 2001 to 2005. He allegedly failed to file his tax return for 2001 and filed materially false corporate and personal income tax returns for 2002 through 2005.

Bogden said LoBello is accused of providing incomplete income information to his tax preparer and used personal checking accounts to hide large legal fee checks.

He is scheduled to appear in court on July 9 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt.

(LVSun)

What the hell? The crimes being committed are in Washington DC, not in Las Vegas. We should be able to prosecute the poor decisions of lawmakers if citizens can go to jail for evading taxes. Though I wish I had the problem of evading taxes on $900,000.

Justice Court Case Reassignment Affects Departments 2 and 12

I know...whoopie...what we really want is no cases to ever enter Dept 12 again

Effective July 6, 2010, all cases that are presently assigned to Department 12 (Judge Diana L. Sullivan) will be reassigned to Department 2 (Judge Joseph S. Sciscento) and all cases that are presently assigned to Department 2 will be reassigned to Department 2 or 12 again. Now that would be a good service to the community.

Any hearings that are scheduled to occur on or after July 6, 2010 will take place at their scheduled dates and times but such hearings will be held in the location of the Department to which the cases have been reassigned (i.e. Courtroom 1B for Department 2 or Courtroom 8D for Department 12).

While this is in jest, I hope that all is well for these judges and there are not heath problems.

UMC Hospital, The Medical Mafia, The Abulance Chasers...What Do They Have In Common?

Charges were issued against many of those involved. Wow, I guess things do change. Thanks George...

The video by George Knapp reports that, "The ambulance chaser law firms which may be paying bounties for patient information are also suspected of sending the most lucrative cases on to higher end firms in exchange for a piece of the action, the very same firms which are known to be in the FBI's crosshairs as part of the ongoing medical mafia investigation." (LVNow)

So, you can draw whatever conclusions you want, but finally, the media and the authorities are doing something about this 'age old' problem here in Las Vegas.

Clermont and Drake Kidnapping: Jail for One, But Freedom For the Other

Kidnapping conjures up images of serious disgust. As the Hanged Juror states, "In a bank robbery, for instance, if a robber drags a bank clerk inside the vault and then fends off the police, that is kidnapping. (I doubt that any juror would object to that.)"

However in this case, justice was not served. From what I can tell, news reports and court documents:

A couple things I can draw from this: Chief Deputy DA Roy Nelson is a jerk, given this comment (after prosecuting both women), "Ms. Clermont always wanted her day in court and we were happy to give it to her." (LVRJ). In the DA's Office, what is the reason for the not-guilty verdict for Drake and the guilty verdict for Clermont? Even though the prosecutors think that Drake should have been found guilty, Chief Deputy District Attorney Lisa Luzaich explained that, "Elaine Clermont had the motive and the political agenda that Laurinda Drake did not." (LVRJ). WHAT?!?

The result, if I see a 1st grader walking down the street in a horrible part of town, in the middle of the day, guess what...that little dude is on his own. I'm not going to jail for caring for anyone's children, except my own. Nice community the DA's Office is fostering.

Sentencing is set for January 7, 2010, while Clermont has been realeased on bond until she is sentences. (LVRJ)

Facts:

• both moms had kids at the school
• the boy was never in any danger
• CCSD got egg on it's face
• I've not seen one report about how they school should improve security
• There was not intent to kidnap
• both women look crazy
• one mother was found innocent, the other was found guilty
• The guilty mom did not 'take' the boy
• alleged kidnapping of a young boy who was walking near Mackey Elementary. It was Clermont's home the boy was taken to.
• In May 2009, Laurinda Drake was acquitted of all charges.
• In October 2009, Clermont was found guilty (LVNews 3)
  
• Incident occurred in September 2008
• The charge against Drake was: "We the jury, in the above and titled case, find the defendant Laurinda Drake as follows: Count 3, first degree kidnapping, not guilty." (LVNews 3)
  
• "I really think the state loses some credibility when it's over the top," says Jordan Savage, defense attorney. "Jurors can sense that and they sense when something's not fair." (LVNews 3)
• So the prosecution changed the charge for Clermont to: jury found Clermont guilty of conspiracy to commit kidnapping and first degree kidnapping.
• The prosecutor did not charge Drake with the "conspiracy to commit kidnapping" charge & Drake was acquitted for the exact charge of "first degree kidnapping"
• GOOD JOB Clark County, you've now created another motherless child in Las Vegas in order to keep the CCSD from looking bad.
  

(For the wrong story Clermont guilty) OR Convicted


Comment from someone called "A Mother"
Wow! Your story is soooo, WRONG. Shame on you, along with the school district, the police and the district attorney's office.
Thank goodness there is still common sense in our community and the ability to discern when there is a political railroading to protect the school district that nearly lost another mother her child.
A mother finds a lost child on the side of the road, she tries to help him, she calls the school as soon as she knows it -- they don't know he was even missing. She asks the school to call his mom RIGHT AWAY, they say they cannot. She calls the authority for the school's, the school board, and takes him directly there.
The school lets the child walk out the front gate, they don't know he's missing, doesn't call the mom, doesn't care if it will ever happen again, AND THEN they and the DA thinks that the right place for the child to be is in police custody, because you know, that's where all "those kinds" of kids will end up anyway.
Kudos to that mom for caring enough to take the matter to the top. God bless her. We need more moms like this, then maybe our school district wouldn't be one of the worst in the nation! (LVNews 3)

She also comments: Guest Mom
Wait a minute! Did not this woman take the child to Walmart or something equally as crazy you put my child in a car and drive away, man you would have some hurt a coming! I do wish though the teachers overseeing the children in the playground would shut up and stop talking to each other and look after the children - it drives me crazy!!! Why if these women thought there was and clearly there was a problem why did they not go to the principal? (LVNow)

Another thought is: Guest
The Guest that says these two women should get a medal is an idiot. The school is responsible after the children get to school, not while they are on their way walking to the school. The parents need to be more responsible for their children and not pawn it off on everyone else. Those two women should be prosecuted just like any other person who takes a child who does not belong to them. They should go to prison just like anyone else who abducts a child. (LVNow)

Another parent comment, called Guest:
There needs to be better security in these schools. My child goes to 100 Academy and it is horrible! I have complained many times about how the side door is always unlocked and I have seen people just walking in it at odd times of the day with out having I.D checked or anything. And was this during school or after school? If it was after school where was this childs parents? I see too many small children walking to and from school all by themselves and I think that is a shame. I do not allow my child to walk anywhere alone and he is almost 9. Anything can happen to children out here and still parents are negligent in watching theor children closely. I think these ladies showed poor judgement. I would be upset also but I don't think I would be trying to get them put in jail for the rest of their lives. That is harsh. They did need some sort of punishment for this act though. It was very bad. (LVNews 3)

So why is THAT not the story. Thanks to the conventional media for making sure they DON'T report the real story.

Do We Have A Forum To Rate Judges? No...

.
I know you may be saying that there IS a forum (via the Review Journal) to assess judicial performance...blah! We don't. The only participants in that survey (that hardly anyone answers) are attorneys, I believe judges, too. If we were to get the assessments from all the civil litigation & criminal attorneys that practice in front of the judges, then we might have something. We don't. That is one of the reasons that I'm pushing so hard for the Nevada Legislature to enact and provide funding for a judicial evaluation program that incorporates litigants, criminals, attorneys, staff & the judges themselves. If it were mandatory, it would be done and the public could get a rating of judicial performance.

No, this is not unique. It is done in many other jurisdictions to allow for judicial accountability to the public and to their peers. Some would argue that judicial accountability to the public is what we are trying to avoid, we want an independent judiciary that follows the law and that is it. Well, we certainly don't have that right now. I've already laid out that we should have an appointed intermediary appellate court that will ensure politics stay out of the judiciary. Even in the system currently suggested by the Nevada Legislature, they want judicial evaluations. However, they want pure appointment with judicial retention elections. How will that get rid of politics and bias in the courtroom?

In the coming weeks, I'll review some these issues relevant to judicial elections in Nevada and where we should be going. Consider this a "call for opinions" on the subject. I'd like to get more feedback, other than my daily conversations with judges, attorneys and the public.
.

UPDATE: Deputy Stoddard Is Jailed In The "Mesa Hilton" For Refusing To Apologize

.
Well, Judge Donohue followed through and now Phoenix has a serious battle on their hands...not good. So where are we at there? Well, you will recall that we reported on the Deputy that rifled through defense counsel's personal papers, taking some of them and copying them, under the guise of court safety. (Video of hearing HERE). You will also recall that we reported the matter was set before Judge Donohue to determine whether the Deputy was in contempt of court...he was found in contempt. The Deputy was ordered quite simply to apologize or serve a jail term. The Order of the Judge indicates that the

The law that applies is well established. The first applicable principle is the security officers’ status in the court. In carrying out their security duties in the courtroom, the Sheriff’s employees are acting as officers of the court. See Arpaio v. Baca, 217 Ariz. 570, ¶ 27, 177 P.3d
312 (App. 2008).

The second principle pertains to the court’s authority to address in a contempt proceeding behavior that adversely impacts people in a courthouse. In Hirschfeld v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, 184 Ariz. 208, 211 – 212, 908 P.2d 22, 25 – 26 (App. 1995)...

Then the Judge laid down the TRUTH of the law:

Unlike the events in Hirschfeld, the conduct in question occurred in front of a judge of this court. Like Hirschfeld, the conduct in question was done by an officer of the court. The conduct in question disrupted and delayed the sentencing proceeding. The principles discussed in Hirschfeld apply here and teach that control of the conduct of all those appearing in court, whether inside or outside the courtroom, must remain in the hands of the presiding judicial officer.

Then, the Judge showed how the Deputy was simpy wrong:

The Court finds that DO Stoddard’s conduct was unreasonable. This Court finds that there was no security threat justifying the seizure of the document from counsel’s file. Nor was there any evidence that a crime was being committed or about to be committed. There was no immediate or future security threat that would have justified a reasonable detention officer in DO Stoddard’s situation removing, seizing and coping a document from a defense attorney’s file. A reasonable detention officer would have recognized after spending approximately 37 seconds reading the paragraph in question, that the “key words” had nothing to do with an immediate or future security threat to the jail or anyone else. Even giving DO Stoddard the benefit of the doubt that he had a right to scan the entire paragraph which was in plain sight after seeing the “key words” to determine if Defendant presented an immediate security risk, nothing in that paragraph justified DO Stoddard’s continued conduct of removing the document from counsel’s file and having the document copied.

The penalty for DO Stoddard:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED holding Detention Officer Adam Stoddard in indirect civil contempt of court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that unless timely purged as set forth below, DO Stoddard shall on December 1, 2009, report to the Maricopa County Jail and be incarcerated therein until such time as proof is presented to this Court that he has purged the finding of contempt. Failure to comply will result in the issuance of a warrant for the arrest and
incarceration of DO Stoddard.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Detention Officer Stoddard may purge the finding of
contempt and the jail sanction by arranging, on or before November 30, 2009, at a time
convenient for Ms. Cuccia, a news conference to take place in the plaza on the north side of the Central Court Building where he is to give Ms. Cuccia a sincere verbal and written apology for invading her defense file and for the damage that his conduct may have caused to her professional reputation. DO Stoddard shall assure that the press release announcing the news conference is sent by email and fax to all news media outlets (print and broadcast) serving Maricopa County at least 24 hours in advance of the news conference. If at the news conference, Ms. Cuccia does not state that the apology is sufficient, DO Stoddard shall report to the jail on December 1, 2009 and be detained until further order of this Court upon a finding that he has complied with the purge clause.

The Judge, later, realized the err of his ways and amended his decision so that the apology still was to occur, but that the attorney did not have to decide whether it was sincere. I appears Stoddard ONLY had to apologize and BOOM, no jail.

Though I have been vocal about beleiving Ms. Cuccia should have been the judge of sincerity, I realized my error, too. Since then, I got into a bit of a debate about it with "What It Means", who has proven his wisdom to me, unfortunately only in hindsight. (OK, so I'm hard-headed). I have now realized I was wrong, too. Why? Because to have put this burden on Ms. Cuccia (the decision to send him to jail) would have been simply...stupid, not to mention that it was a lose-lose for her. If she said he as sincere when he said "I cannot apologize" would have put her up to public ridicule & if she would have said "He was not sincere", it would have placed her in serious 'outs' with the sheriff's office and with others. We can't be right all of the time.

What happened next was, well stupid, on the part of DO Stoddard. I'm sure that Arpaio ordered him to "not apologize", but why?. The statement made that morning is:

I am Maricopa County Detention Officer Adam Stoddard. I work in the Court Security Division of the Sheriff’s Office and have been with the Sheriff’s Office for five years.

Recently, Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe ordered me to hold a press conference to publicly apologize for doing the job I have been trained to do.

Part of my job in providing security to the court is to inspect documents brought into the courtroom. On October 19th, I saw a document that I had not yet screened, and that raised security concerns. I retrieved that document in plain sight and had court personnel copy it to preserve it as evidence in case it was a security breach.

It was a split second decision and I do not regret my actions.

Judge Donahoe has ordered me to feel something I do not and say something I cannot. I cannot apologize for putting court safety first.

What a dummy!! Are you telling me he can't just say, "I'm truly sorry for making the mistake of going through your personal belongings. I had originally thought there might be a security threat, but I was wrong and I really regret it, especially given all the mess it has caused." Would that really have been that hard? Instead he opted for the overused "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" statement...again, stupid.

Of course, you'll also recall that we reported that the infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio stated after the Order, "My officer was doing his job and I will not stand by and allow him to be thrown to the wolves by the courts because they feel pressure from the media on this situation,” Arpaio said in a press release. He further said, "I decide who holds press conferences and when they are held regarding this Sheriff’s Office." (Arizona Republic). Nice Job Joe!! You made good on your promise. You obviously ordered this STUPID "non-apology".

Forget justice, due process, search and seisure laws, & having respect for the Court of which your man is an officer. I'm told this is...typical Joe. While Stoddard has been incarcerated for his refusal to apologize, it is rumored that he is hold up in the "Mesa Hilton", where all the celebrities and donors to the Sheriff get to stay. The lucky 60 prisoners are rumored to be able to bring "luxury personal items into the jail, including cell phones, musical instruments, computers and takeout meals." So much for 'equality' under the law...but I've never believed that one anyway.

It was also reported yesterday that "more than 100 officers rallied in downtown Phoenix Wednesday to support a colleague currently being held in jail on a contempt charge." (ABC15). To boot, the Maricopa County Association of Detention Officers (MCADO) has decided that they "feel it is an injustice and [they] will not tolerate it," according to Luis Altamirano with the MCADO. Oh great, what are they gonna do now? It seems like they, or someone with their opinion, is going to disrupt the courts until they get what they want. Yesterday, the court not only had a walk out and picketing by the Officers, but a bomb threat, too. What next? Who will investigate this...noone.

Why is it so hard to understand that all that was required for committing a serious breach of ethics & control of the courtroom, is a simple apology? All he had to do is apologize. We teach this everyday to our kids. You may not like it, but sometimes you just gotta say "I'm sorry" and move on. Instead he opted to refuse. Who is doing the most damage to our view of the police...not the judge. These actions seem in line with all the negative stereotypes about cops, namely, that they never feel remorse and they never think they are wrong. Good one guys!! Gotta love it when people 'fulfill the stereotype'!

Oh yea, the kicker, Sheriff King Great Leader Arpaio is paying DO Stoddard for every hour he is incarcerated. So the only person getting "screwed in jail" is the taxpayer...again!

*All of the bold & italic was added and not part of the original quotes.
.

Regulation of "For-Profit" Social Media? What About "For Fun" Social Media?: Proposed Court Rule Changes To Nevda Supreme Court Rules 229-247

.
Steph brought my attention last week to a recent Order by the Supreme Court proposes an amendment to Part IV of the Nevada Supreme Court Rules, as it relates to electronic recordings of Court proceedings in the state. The Order was issued on September 24, 2009 setting a public hearing to be held on November 2, 2009 at the Nevada Supreme Court in Carson City, video-conferenced into Las Vegas.

The topic for the public hearing was the proposed 'rule changes' that were attached to the Order, which included changes to Rules 229 thru 247 of the Supreme Court Rules. While there are several proposed changes to these Rules, is seems most dominantly that the main thrust of the change is to clarify the format for "pooling" media and shorten the request time to get media into the courtroom. Initially, Steph had asked, "I wonder where social media fits in the recent hearing by the NV Supreme Court?" Before I respond, let's look at the proposed changes.

If you look at who the rule is regulating, it specifically applies to only "News Reporters" who include any person "who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes news or information . . . of public interest . . . " However, you are a News Reporter ONLY if you provide this information to the public as "a substantial portion of [your] livelihood" or if you do it for "substantial financial gain." (SCR 229, proposed amendment). Even if you are a News Reporter, these rules only apply to you if you are "using a camera or electronic equipment." (SCR 229(2), proposed amendment).

As well, the intent of governance seems to clearly be to deal with "electronic coverage", which the Court seeks to define as "broadcasting, televising, recording or taking photographs by any means, including but not limited to video camera, still camera, or computers." (SCR 229(1)(d), proposed amendment).

My response to that is, "It does not really effect social media one bit." Really? Is that my response?

Before I dive into an in depth discussion of how this rule change will effect social media & Court procedures, I want to first get feedback from all of you. How will social media ("for profit" and "for fun") be effected by this new rule change? How will Court procedures change?

Post comments below, or send me an e-mail: legallyunbound@gmail.com
.

Monday's Motion Day: 11-30-09

Given the Holiday, I really didn't spend any time listening to any of the hub-bub around town. I've been too stuffed with turkey & pumpkin pie. So for Monday, I'll go with this SERIOUSLY COOL use of a "green screen". It is worth the listen. Yea, it is all the same guy, except for the drums. (pound it to The Zorg).

Clark County Court's MANDATORY E-Filing Brings a MANDATORY 3% Credit Card Fee...Why?

I'm not sure whether this is "legally" allowed, I'm currently checking into the legality. (Issue: Can a vendor force you to use a credit card payment and then charge you a percentage fee on top of that payment, or must that charge be incorporated into the fee charged by the vendor?)

I know it sounds like a silly question on its face. However, if you run a business, you know the hassle here (trust accounts, general accounts, reimbursement for credit card use from client, reimbursement of fees paid for client in filing. that this is legitimate).

So, if I were DAP & the Clark County Clerk, I would look into it, too. While I'm not 100% on this, I do recall that a merchant may not be allowed to "pass long" credit card fees to the consumer. If I'm right, then why is DAP adding a 3% fee to all transactions billed to a separate entity? Are they trying to get around that rule? Is this just for trust account issues (law firm charge vs. client charge)? Why have these fees never existed before? Why not just increase the filing fee? I'd like someone to answer these questions.

What do they mean by "This fee will be paid directly to the credit card company on file with your law firm"? Don't they mean "charged" not "paid"? It appears that the fee will be an additional 3% fee charged to all filings which will be billed to a different entity, not the courts. So we will have the $10.00/filing charge and a $0.03 [Math Correction: $0.30] charge to the credit card, from who?

In the bigger picture, it appears that this additional charge comes in the wake of the MANDATORY part of E-Filing. At a point where DAP's business is about to go through the roof in Clark County, is it really necessary to add a 3% fee for using a credit card, when we are being forced to use a credit card & forced to use E-Filing. Don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE supporter of E-Filing. I think we are late to the game on this one, to a certain extent. However, it already costs $6.00 for "e-filing only" and $10.00 for "e-file and serve", of which the latter will now be required. We must front these costs, along with the hugely increased filing fees, for our clients and seek reimbursement (from our retainer).

However, adding a 3% fee on top of filing only complicates our accounting and may make getting fees back a little more difficult. So, at $10.00/filing, do they really need the extra $0.03 [Math Correction: $0.30]. It is not like they have not been doing this for a while now. The complication for those of us filing will be quite large when you take into account that when we pass along the $10.00/filing charge we will have to account for $0.03 [Math Correction: $0.30]. The accounting & billing nightmare for institutional clients, and regular clients, just exploded!!

So now the question becomes whether or not you are going to bother passing a long $0.03 [Math Correction: $0.30] for each filing or "eat it". Either way, I can only say THANKS to DAP & Clark County for this additional headache. Like we don't deal with enough problems, they've just added to our daily burden. It would have been easier to increase the cost of each filing by $1.00, incorporating the cost in the filing fee, & they'd make a lot more money.

HEY DAP!! You just got a monoploy in Clark County with a huge increase in business. Thanks for the appreciative 3% fee that "will be applied to all statutory court fees". YOU SUCK, in my opinion, of course!!
.

UPDATE: Phoenix Deputy Stoddard, Decision Is In

.
Unbelievable!! We need you in Las Vegas, Judge Donahoe. The good judge has issued his Opinion in the Adam Stoddard contempt hearing (the one where the court deputy took a document from the defense attorney file, see Video HERE). We commented on this earlier in the week. The Court held a hearing (11-10-09) to deal with the actions of the Deputy. The result, this Decision (compliments of Simple Justice, see their full post on this Decision HERE; See also Heat City).

The result here was swift and exact. That may be because of all the national attention, or it may be because Maricopa is pushing for justice. I don't know. I do know that, even though the punishment puts the defense attorney in a "pickle", I think it is a good decision by the Judge because it shifts the POWER away from the deputy into the hands of someone other than a judge, something the deputy & his buddies are probably not very used to feeling.

Just listen to what Maricopa Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has to say "in defense" of his deputy:

"My officer was doing his job and I will not stand by and allow him to be thrown to the wolves by the courts because they feel pressure from the media on this situation,” Arpaio said in a press release. He further said, "I decide who holds press conferences and when they are held regarding this Sheriff’s Office." (Arizona Republic).

I'll keep it short. Yea for Judge Donahoe shoving us closer towards justice!!!


.

Las Vegas Court Marshals Restrain Reporters To Keep Jackson's MD "Safe"

You see, I told you Las Vegas gets their Bailiffs (I mean Marshals) involved in improper actions (at least in my opinion), just like Phoenix. This week, Dr. Murray (of the Michael Jackson drug saga) was in Las Vegas Court, Family Division, regarding some issues about paying child support to a California woman & child (evidently his child). Given his recent notoriety, Dr. Murray's little family matter brought national attention to the courthouse that is quite familiar with media activity, during celebrity divorces. Only days after I told you that Las Vegas should take at look at the Phoenix Deputy because of his intimate fondling of a defense attorney's private file, Brian Haynes of the Review Journal was on the scene and reports that,

"After the hearing, Murray and his entourage were allowed to leave the courtroom while bailiffs held about a dozen reporters inside against their will for 'public safety' reasons," Haynes writes. "The bailiffs released the reporters after Murray left the building several minutes later."

(LVRJ)

Ken Ritter of the Associated Press also reported that,

"Senior Clark County District Judge Gerald Hardcastle had left the bench when an armed, uniformed court marshal, Dennis Curran, politely declined several requests by journalists to let them leave. Curran said he was following orders. His supervisor, Sgt. Steve Rushfield, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment."

Even Michael Sommermeyer, the Clark County courts spokesman, was detained. Sommermeyer later mentioned that had had no idea why they blocked the exit to the courtroom, maybe to maintain safety and decorum. (LVRJ) Nice 'dodge' WordyMouth, I didn't see this event on Twitter (@wordymouth, @lvcourts); probably smart on your part.

"They're police officers," Sommermeyer did say. "I guess they can deem what is necessary for public safety." (LVRJ) Michael, we at Legally UnBound love you (see HERE), but "public safety"? I'm not saying you should have thought of something more creative, I'm just saying maybe you could have come up with something a little sillier in order to jab the 'keepers of the peace' in divorce court, unless of course you are thinking of getting a divorce any time soon.

Let me be the first to call it, before they start performing cavity searches at the LV Justice Center in the name of "public safety", we should consider getting a handle on their authority.

Except for JAmbo (Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2009 at 12:54 PM), a commenter on Thomas Mitchell's LVRJ Blog. JAmbo says, "Freedom of the of the press? i like it, but people should also have freedom of privacy." (emphasis added). JAmbo should definitely get a cavity search at the LV Justice Center, so he knows what 'freedom of privacy' really means.

UPDATE (11:57AM): For the second time in the last month, a Metro Officer shot at a perpetrator while the 'perp' was running away. (1st time & 2nd time). For those that have no sense of direction, that is call "shooting in the back". This time, though, no one was shot and the alleged "he pulled a gun" turned in to, "he made a threatening gesture". HE WAS RUNNING AWAY! There can't be anything LESS threatening.

See Simple Justice today for another story (Remy Meets His Fate) of the police stopping and harassing an attorney, when the attorney doesn't do exactly what the cop wants.
.