Available for viewing are a total of
Peter Arambula vs Real Water
Apr 17, 2024, 2 minutes, 26 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Crystal Eller, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 19, presiding over a status check. Attorney Joel Odou for Real Water. Case No. A-21-831557-C. The Court takes no action. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Christopher Wren vs Real Water
Apr 16, 2024, 12 minutes, 55 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Joe Hardy, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 15, presiding over a pretrial conference. Attorneys Will Kemp and Eric Pepperman for Plaintiffs. Attorney Kevin Rising appeared on behalf of Costco. Attorney Colt Dodrill appeared on behalf of Nevada Beverage. Case No. A-21-831169-B. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Debra Adimey vs Station Casinos
Apr 16, 2024, 17 minutes, 18 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Bita Yeager, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 1, presiding over a hearing on motions to dismiss. Appearing for the Plaintiffs is Sarah Grossman. Appearing for the Defendants is Scott Mahoney. Case No. A-22-850394-C. Motions denied in part and granted in part. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
The State of Nevada vs Shawn Ashdown
Apr 16, 2024, 8 minutes, 36 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Stephen Bishop, Ely Justice Court, presiding over an initial appearance. Deputy District Attorney Melissa Brown appeared on behalf of the State of Nevada. The Defendant requested appointment of a public defender. 24-CR-00026-7K. The Court scheduled a preliminary hearing. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
S.A., a Father vs L.B., a Mother
Apr 15, 2024, 3 minutes, 36 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Gary Fairman, Seventh Judicial District Court, Department 2, presiding over a status check. The mother failed to appear. The father represented himself. The Court continues. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Ehline: Cop & Lawyer React
Apr 10, 2024, 1 hour, 40 minutes, 4 seconds
Lawyer Reaction/Cop Reaction - Retired Patriot Cop Breaks Down His View of DeltaHawk Arrest Video - Good Cops hate Bad Cops Series. Welcome back to our 'Good Cops hate Bad Cops' series, where today, we have a unique treat; a video titled "Lawyer Reaction/Cop Reaction - Retired Cop Breaks Down His View of DeleteLawz Arrest Video." In this engaging discussion, we delve deep into a retired cop's perspective on the arresting practices shown in a DeleteLawz video. Check out our Guest: https://www.youtube.com/@UCDwowvFDAGLJoDkFwIfYkFA Check out DeleteLawz: @deletelawz1984 Check out Angry Texan: @angrytexan25 As always, in this series, we aim to foster understanding and promote transparency in law enforcement, utilizing the good old banter between retired cops and lawyers. Your interactions, your likes , comments , and shares , help keep this important dialogue alive. So don't forget to engage with us! "Only through open discussions can we strive for a better system." Stick around till the end, as we have some thought-provoking points to cover: The legality of arrest procedures featured in DeleteLawz videos . The retired cop's take on it . The role and impact of such videos on society's perception of law enforcement . Remember, you play an integral part in this conversation. We look forward to hearing your thoughts and insights. Enjoy the video , spread the word , and let's work towards well-informed advocacy together. Tags: #LawyerReaction #CopReaction #GoodCopBadCop #DeleteLawz #ArrestVideo #RetiredCop #LawEnforcement#chilledecastro #judgezimmerman #personalinjuryattorney #accidentlawyer #heresthedeal #bzwatchdog #civilrights #2aaudits #firstamendmentaudits #federallaw #cops #lasvegaspolice #police #falsearrest #21footrule #ehline #audits #auditor #lawyerobservtion #torturecuffs #filmingpolice
Pat: Will It Reverse?
14 minutes, 44 seconds
The recent decision of Willson v. 1st Judicial District (2024), created a substantial revision to the Obstruction charge that Jose Chille DeCastro was convicted of. This law was passed in 1911, and has no legislative history or appellate history. I criticized heavily this statute as overbroad and unconstitutional. The Appellate Court tried to rework the statute because it is that bad, and made it a specific intent crime (e.g., you had the intent to do it), and it only applies to physical conduct and fighting words. However, the Appellate Court stated that conduct that impedes, even if not physical, can still be deemed obstruction. We will review the bodycam, and Chilles video and trial testimony, to see if there is enough evidence to conclude that Chille still violated the statute, as amended. The Appellate Court admits that the statute needed major revisions to prevent it from being unconstitutional. While it states that protected speech is not subject to this statute, it still leaves areas in dispute. I went through the evidence, and there looks to be sufficient grounds to uphold the conviction. The District Court will likely uphold the conviction, and its possible the Appellate Court for the Eighth District will revisit it and see if it can be clarified or changed further, and even so, at this stage, absent some good case authority, I see the conviction still standing. Appellate Courts look for errors in the case. They don't weigh witness credibility. They look for mistakes that affected the trial, such as overruling an objection in error, or admitting incompetent evidence, etc. In the video that Chille took, he made several statements that could be interpreted as specific intent. I will go over those statements. The cop told Chille to come over to his car, and Chille twice say "No." That would be specific intent. Specific intent can be inferred or based upon Chille saying that the cop gave him "unlawful commands." Saying the commands were "unlawful" could make it look like he really intended to disobey them, which is willful. This bodycam coverage wasn't what was admitted at trial. It gave a better audio of what Chille was saying. The new changes in the law allow for insults and irritating the cop. The statute prohibits "fighting words" - those that never get constitutional protection and which tend to incite. However, in the right context, even protected speech can be obstructionist. The Appellate Court admitted that "physical conduct" could include passive aggressive acts, such as impeding an officer by "going limp." The Appellate Court admits that it cannot draft a statute that fits all situations. They are on a short briefing schedule, which actually hurts Chille, as he has fewer pages to make his case, less time, and the same level of research. My prediction is that the District Court will uphold the conviction for obstruction. From there, Chille would need to file a writ and seek further appellate review. From my vantage point, and unless there is better authority out there that favors him, the conviction looks very difficult to overturn. Shout out to Caphalea for putting together this great combination of videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtA7-eFsGW8&t=373s
Christopher Wren vs Real Water
Apr 9, 2024, 1 hour, 37 minutes, 5 seconds
Presiding
The Honorable Joe Hardy, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 15, presiding over a hearing on motions to sever. Attorneys Will Kemp, Theodore Parker, and Eric Pepperman for Plaintiffs. Attorney Joel Odou for Real Water. Attorney James Kilroy for Milwaukee Instruments. Attorney Lew Brandon for Whole Foods. Attorney Kelly Evans for Hanna Instruments. Attorney Kevin Rising for Costco Wholesale. Attorney Chad Fears for Scientific Instruments. Case No. A-21-831169-B. Motions denied. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Pat: Bail Prediction
10 minutes, 35 seconds
I took a look at the docket for the appeal, and reviewed the motion. It's largely the same as the earlier 4/1/24 motion before Judge Zimmerman. The motion leaves a lot to be desired. No recent Constitutional authority, and no compelling reasons for bail to be issued. Chille's last name continues to be misspelled (e.g., "Castro"). It may be strategy by his current lawyers to play coy with the cases to prevent the DA from having advanced time to do counter legal research. I really don't know. This is just my perspective from California. It is not a legal opinion and I am not saying that any of the lawyers have made any mistakes or did anything wrong. No attorney client relationship is created. Trial strategy is kept close to the vest. Nothing herein can be relied upon, and all defenses are reserved for commenting on a public issue, including California's anti-SLAPP laws, most notably, CCP 425.16(e). My interest is in the Constitution, not the participants. This cases raises Constitutional questions.
A.F., a Mother vs J.F., a Father
Apr 4, 2024, 2 minutes, 27 seconds
Presiding
For the Mother
The Honorable Mari Parlade, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department A, Family Division, presiding over a hearing on order to show cause. Attorney Lisa Szyc appeared on behalf of the Mother. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
A.F., a Mother vs J.F., a Father
Apr 3, 2024, 16 minutes, 43 seconds
Presiding
For the Mother
The Honorable Mari Parlade, Eighth Judicial District Court, Department A, Family Division, presiding over a calendar call. Attorney Sheila Tajbakhsh appeared on behalf of the Father. The Mother failed to appear. The Court strikes portions of pretrial memorandum and imposes attorney fee sanction. You can join as a member by clicking this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPb0hCUcufpuk7QhxVxwKA/join For inquiries, feel free to contact us through www.ournevadajudges.com
Pat: Failed Bail
16 minutes, 48 seconds
Analyzed
This is just my insight from being in the trenches for 18 years. I am not accusing any lawyer of doing something wrong, or anything that would amount to malpractice. Lawyers have their own style. Some may decide it isn't a good idea to show your cards too early. Others may need more time to develop the strategy, and aren't forced to make a decision just yet. In this bail hearing, I would have - and again - this is just my approach - "beefed up" the wafer-think bail motion, and included the Constitutional authorities and relevant Nevada case law allowing the judge to even reconsider her ruling, and at the very least, get all of this into the record for Judge Leavitt. In addition, the new lawyer for Chille looks like he is throwing Michael Mee "under the bus." The new lawyer mentioned how the "briefing" on the First Amendment "issues" should have been done. I remember Chille saying that Mee didn't do a good job, but that he liked him as a person. It was along those lines. Making these statements about your lawyer in public will make other lawyers shun working with Chille. Mee is a fine lawyer, and we don't know the arrangements that Chille wanted that blocked Mee from doing his job. However, Mee said the briefing was submitted on March 18, 2024, the day before trial. The DA got it in the morning of the trial. Mee didn't specifically mention any case authority during closing argument. Also, was it Chille's job to do this, since he apparently wanted to first chair the case? We really don't know. Further complicating this is that Mee appeared on the notice of appeal, which would undermine any arguments that he was "ineffective," and make it much harder to raise such an argument. The "goal" here - at least from my perspective - is to transform this "bail" hearing into a new briefing schedule, where the new lawyer includes what Mee had as case law and then adds it to the motion. Then, seek approval to postpone the hearing so that the DA could file a written opposition, and if the authorities are strong, give some credence to the idea that bail is appropriate if the conviction is at risk. In this hearing, the marching orders are simple: the DA must uphold the conviction; the Judge must stay consistent in her reasons for conviction; Chille's lawyer must try to build a stronger record for the appeal. As it stands, the Judge very easily affirmed the record of her decision. The new lawyer for Chille was understandably in a bind - he just got done with a murder case, and had a lot of information to deal with and very little time. Chille is always talking to the public, which makes a lawyer's job maddening. I wouldn't doubt that Chille was trying to run Mee, who I think is a fine lawyer, into a subservient role and not allowing him to really argue and defend the case. The DA was well-prepared, and held the line. The new lawyer go it wrong on thinking the Judge added extra time for Chille's outbursts. In any event, how a lawyer runs a case is their idea. It doesn't make me right and them wrong. They may want to hold back on their arguments at this time, and have a plan in the works that would maximize the chance for reversal. These are the types of battles that are drawn out everyday in the courtroom. I am not a Nevada lawyer and none of this is legal advice. Grab some popcorn. Do not rely on this information, and always hire a locally licensed attorney for any legal questions. No attorney client relationship is implied or expressed, and this information cannot be relied upon.
©2024 Our Nevada Judges, Inc.
Terms & ConditionsVersion: 3.10.5Privacy Policy
An NRS Chapter 82 non-profit corporation. Recognized by the IRS as a Section 501(c)(3) organization.
