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!!
.

Monday's Motion Day: 11-23-09

11-23-09: Kabins, Of The Las Vegas Medical Mafia, To Plead Guilty For No Jail Time. The word is that Kabins will plead guilty for no jail time and that was enough to flip him. We'll see how weighty that is at trial & how mouthy the Medical Mafia remains. (LVRJ)

11-23-09: Blawg Review #239 is hosted by Human Rights in Ireland. With a heavy dose of futbal (soccer) and Irish politics, we get a great summary of the blawgosphere this week as Human Rights in Ireland teaches us a lesson is weaving prose and web links into seamless reading and enjoyment.

11-23-09: Civil Filing Increase, Criminal Decreases. Civil cases statewide rose by more than 18,000 from 2008 to 201,441, marking the first time civil filings topped 200,000. At the district court level, civil filings jumped 18.6 percent, while criminal cases decreased by more than 7 percent. Family Court filings rose about 2 percent. (LVNow)

11-21-09: Las Vegas Has Been Exposed For Its Gambling By . . . Ghana? The Ghana Business News has "Exposed Las Vegas" for gambling, I think. It seems more like some guys that stole money from somewhere else gambled in Las Vegas. Somehow that is our fault, I guess. (Ghana Business News)

11-20-09: Finding a Judge Teuton Replacement Will Likely Take Months. Thanks Leuck. Now we have another hole in the judiciary. Hey, maybe the governor will appoint Leuck back to the bench . . . not. (LVSun)

11-19-09: Strippers In A Box UPDATE. It appears that the strip clubs may not really want to stop the trucks on the strip. Word is they are looking into a loophole relevant to 'free speech'. It is doubtful they will win this one, but they may be giving it a run. (LVSun)

11-19-09: Clark County changes how indigent criminals pay for a defense. According to Judge Herndon there is not a co-pay, "Now we're an HMO." "Beginning Dec. 1, defendants represented by the public defender or a private appointed attorney will be charged on a sliding scale. The fees will range from a minimum $250 if a case is resolved at the justice court level up to a maximum $750 if the case nears trial or goes to trial." (LVRJ)

11-18-09: Las Vegas Smut Peddlers Get Another Battle For Sidewalk Turf. The City and the casinos have been trying to get rid of the prostitution handbills for nearly a decade. No secret. They may be in trouble, again, this time for blocking the sidewalk. See HERE.

.

See HERE for the History of Monday's Motion Day.

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.
.

Independent Commission on Judicial Reform Issues Report, Post-Caperton

Yes, here we are again talking about 'judicial appointments', and the debate rages on. We've posted on this topic several times this year. However, in the long wake of Caperton, West Virginia has issued a Report regarding judicial reform from their Independent Commission on Judicial Reform ("the Report"). Most significantly, the Report did not recommend an end to the election of judges. It did, however, suggest several changes to the current system in order to provide more transperancy & more integrity to the system.

It should be noted that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is on the panel authoring the report. We know, of course, that she is a huge proponent of doing away with judicial elections. So, if she is on a panel that recommends the NOT do away with judicial elections, maybe, just maybe, she has changed her mind. Should we?

West Virginia has a similar system to Nevada, election of judges with an appointment for vacancies by the Governor. While there are some minor differences, the basic structure is consistent with our state. This Report helps to provide some much needed advice to West Virginia and vicariously to Nevada in considering whether to amend the our state constitution which would do away with judicial elections and provide for exclusively 'judicial appointment'. I am against the amendment the the state constitution, though I am in favor of many changes to the current system. Below is a list of some of the suggested changes that the 151-page Report suggests for West Virginia. You should note that Nevada, either already has these changes, or I have suggested similar ones that have not been made. Yes, I think I'm a genius.

The Report suggests*:

• the state study the feasibility of a creating a business court;
• finding more uniformity and openness in how governors fill judicial vacancies;
• a new level of court, called a deflective court, that is basically a mid-level appeals court;
• filing the 'deflective court' with appointed judges, where higher and lower level judges are elected;
• the Legislature should define the makeup of an advisory panel to be used by the governor when filling a judicial vacancy;
• a defined evaluation process for judicial performance to assist voters (though Nevada judicial study has made a recommendation for such evaluations);
• a public financing pilot program to curb campaign spending in judicial races (with a pilot of the 2 Supreme Court seats set for 2012); and
  
• making the entire judicial process more open to the public, among other suggestions. (LNL)
  

*notably the commission did not provide any suggestions on radical changes for the current appointment process, surprising given Justice O'Connor's attendance on the Commission.

You'll note that the suggestions I've highlighted in RED have already been made by us here at Legally UnBound, relevant to Nevada, and that the suggestions highlighted in BLUE are already in existence in Nevada. So, if we move more toward transparency, judicial evaluation for public education/accountability, curb campaign finance structures, generate an appeals court, and provide for ethical accountability for the judges (with regard to judicial campaign contributions), we will be solving the majority of the problems, even in the eyes of Justice O'Connor. So, why do we need a constitutional amendment . . . we don't.

If there is any question that we could simply toughen the rules that govern our judges, just ask Michigan, who is obviously quicker to act than Nevada.

See HERE for an update on CAPERTON v. A.T. MASSEY COAL CO., INC., as of 11-17-09
.

Court Allows Deputy To Steal Attorney File, In Courtroom

.
By now you have certainly heard of Deputy Stoddard's actions when he ruffled through an attorney's privileged file (in court) to pursue what he considered to be a potential crime...a handwritten document. Oh, yea, that's why he is a Deputy, not a detective.

If not, see the video:

Why am I bringing up something that happened in Phoenix? Because it is just as relevant here in Las Vegas when it comes to Marshal's rifling through attorney/client documents. I'll site a local example:

My current associate used to work for a firm that was opposite the offender on this one; they just sat back and watched, thankful that it didn't happen to them. The defendant left her purse checkbook behind, in the Courtroom, because she was taken into custody for contempt (for refusing to make a payment of funds that was 'attached', while she said their was no money). She was jailed. Soon thereafter, the judge called the attorneys back for a session on the record that basically showed the Defendant was a liar, further proving contempt. The Bailiff (today called Marshall) had evidently rummaged through the Defendant's belongings and discovered incriminating evidence in her checkbook showing that she had the money. He, then, gave it to the judge and copied the information, handing it out to all parties. She was left in jail until she turned over the money. Thanks to the Bailiff for this little illegal search.

What does this bring up? What does this mean to Las Vegas? You know we are no different. At what point do we continually look the other way and cover up the actions of those seemingly innocent persons...innocent because they have a position of power. We make excuses for their actions, whether it be a shooting (LVRJ & Attorney Duensing's version), a beating (See HERE), a car wreck (See HERE) or going through papers (video above).

If you really want some insight, go check the following blogs that discuss the tip of the iceberg:

Heat City (10-31-09) - the theft of attorney file by officer
Heat City (11-7-09) - key words that 'made' the officer look
Heat City (11-11-09) - the hearing
Simple Justice - comment
Volokh Conspiracy - comment
Johathan Turley - comment
.

Monday's Motion Day: 11-16-09

11-16-09: Blawg Review #238 is hosted this week by Joel Rosenburg (self termed aka "Jew With A Gun") at The WindyPundit (& apparently The Twin Cities Carry Journal). The International Day of Tolerance really takes a chance to show us how absolutely insane the United Nations "can be" . . . er . . . uh . . . I mean "is". Just see Joel's lead in quote: “We tend to idealize tolerance, then wonder why we find ourselves infested with losers and nut cases." – Patrick Nielsen Hayden

11-13-09: Mortgage fraud has finally become criminal. This week the IRS, the FBI and likely many other federal and state anacronymonious deaprtments have charged Brian K. Jackson, 38, formerly an attorney in Las Vegas, currently from Anaheim, California, with Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud, Mail Fraud, and Wire Fraud, Tuesday, November 10, 2009. After being released on $50K bond, he is expected for arraignment in Las Vegas on Friday, November 20, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. (NRER)

11-14-09: Strippers In A Box. We originally brought this story to you HERE. Since then, the Strip Club owners have decided to take the 'high road'...what? They, seemingly, do not want to contribute to the immoral reputation of Las Vegas by putting stippers in a box and parading them around the Strip, though this has increased business substantially. Instead, they want to be a "good citizen". SO the bad news, no more stippers in a box. BOO! (LVSun)

11-14-09: Dr. Kabins to plea bargain? What is Las Vegas coming to? I thought he was the center of the medical mafia, I thought he was going down, I thought he was never going to 'deal'. Who blew this one, Kabins or the U.S. Attorneys? Do I need to answer that question, really? (LVRJ). Listen local NPR interview on the Medical Mafia HERE.

11-16-09: Should we, can we, would we, have sex with our clients? Simple Justice tackles this topic this morning, citing Texas' change and California's pursuit of change. Did you know that this has come up before in Vegas? See the LVRJ and the LVSun. At the Nevada State Bar? See HERE. Sex with client is one thing, but sex with client's wife? Have we no boundaries?!
.

Looks Like My Little Blawg Has Been Nominated For A Weblog Award

I know this is shameless, this is me promoting myself, me being self-centered and self indulging, me try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Oh Well, its still relevant, to me anyway!

I've been nominated for the Best Law Blog in the 2009 Weblog Awards, by an administrator here named Rett Burn. Thanks Mr. Burn.

Vote For Legally UnBound HERE.

I'm way to small to win, as this award has a lot to do with follower count and how you market your Blog, amount of content, quality of content & number of posts. You know... I only post about 5 times a week, focus on Las Vegas & Nevada, with an eye toward judicial and attorney corruption seeking justice. Probably a little too small, but I still enjoy blawging.

While I appreciate the nomination, I think I'll leave with minimal votes. Well, I should at least have two (Mr. Burn & myself). Thanks again for reading.

If you feel the same, you can nominate others here, or comment. There are a lot of categories. I nominated Wild Wild Law. While a little greasy and a little gabby, they are still my favorite Blawg, especially because it is all LV, all the time.

My category is "Best Law Blog".

I have 4 nominations. You can vote for Legally UnBound at the following links:

Best New Blog
Best Law Blog
Best Hidden Gem (Blog)
Best Blog


See 2008 Results for Best Law Blog.