Every once in a while a gem of a local case comes across the Courthouse News service wire. This is one of those days. The case is The Green Door et al. v. Budget Bail Bonds et al. If that doesn't pique your interest, perhaps the abstract will:
Workers at the Green Door, a swinger's club in Las Vegas, say bounty hunters stormed the building with guns drawn in search of a man they claim stole security cameras. One of the bounty hunters then shot a worker with a shotgun loaded with a beanbag round, which knocked the man to the ground. The bounty hunters then beat the man they were looking for. Another incident involves the bounty hunters storming a private residence in search of another man. Both incidents involve Katie Jones, who plaintiffs claim is a "convicted felon with a reputation for using violence" and who has links to the criminal underworld and police. The lawsuit also claims the editor of the Las Vegas Tribune was threatened after the paper ran an unfavorable story about the bail bond company.
You may all stop pretending you didn't know what The Green Door was before reading this post - we're amongst friends. If you really didn't know FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T CLICK THAT LINK!
I saw tht yesterday and wondered are the Brereton girls sisters? And if so, what the hell are they doing at a swinger’s club together? Is Lexis a guy? Or is Steven (also a Brereton) doing twins (or sisters)?
ReplyDeleteI should have posted the caption.
ReplyDeleteArthur Dias; Steven Brereton; Belinda Brereton; Lexis Brereton; Make-U-Sweat Inc.; The Green Door
v.
Robert Suckoll Sr.; Robert Suckoll Jr.; Katherine Jones; Diego Rodriguez; Ian Drazian; Budget Bonding Inc.; Budget Bail Bonds; Seneca Insurance Co.; Allegheny Insurance Co.; United States Fire Insurance Co.; State Of Nevada Division Of Insurance Bureau Of Industries
8/10/2009 2:09-cv-01482-RLH-GWF
(Las Vegas)
We have a paper called the "Las Vegas Tribune"?
ReplyDelete2:42 - yes, I saw a copy once when externing in the RJC. It's written by crazy LU-types, only ones who didn't go to law school. (Judging by the grammar I saw, I'm not sure they even went to high school.) Think letters to the editor in the RJ.
ReplyDelete@ 6:39 PM
ReplyDeleteI can't believe you stick your nose so high in the air, but are so active on this site. The weakest, argument that you and others have embraced is one of ignorance - you trivialize the person, the grammar, etc, but never respond to an argument. I've never had anyone respond to anything I've commented on in WWL in any reasonable way, other than insults. I like that, its funny and it just shows your ignorance. All you have to do is read the string on Judge Miley and its proof positive that I'm normal.
If anything, law school has made us dumber. It will take you years to overcome it, though you don't even know it.
LU-my noting that the Las Vegas Tribute is written by people who did not go to law school is not elitist - the point was that it is a "general" publication rather than a "legal" publication. Referencing grammar is relevant and not at all elitist when talking about a newspaper. But then you see black helicopters behind every tree. I'm actually not very active on this site - there's more than one here who thinks you're nuts. No one will debate you on the merits of any topic because your posts are unintelligible rambling. "Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level, and defeat you with experience!"
ReplyDelete— Dilbert's rules of order
@5:15 PM or Guy That Rarely Bothers To Visit WWL:
ReplyDeleteYour boy Dilbert also says, "The more crap you put up with, the more crap you are going to get."
You can't even read your own point. Your point was that with regard to the people that write at the Tribune, "Judging by the grammar [you] saw, [you're] not sure they even went to high school.” Now you have become a little more esoteric claiming some differentiation between a 'legal' publication and a 'general' publication as being “the point”. Nevada has no legal publications, though, so what are you talking about? (Oh Boy, here come the Boyd LR dogs).
You also claim that you are "actually not very active on this site..." Then, you inform us that "there's more than one [on WWL] who thinks [I'm] nuts." How would you know if you are hardly ever on here?
You are quite the simpleton, yourself, notwithstanding your elite demeanor. In fact, you are just merely part of a growing majority of bloggers, commenters and even lawyers, that put their common sense on the shelf for pithy, exaggerative, insulting excuses as to why they can’t respond to blogger comments with any substance.
And you think you are not an elitist? Let’s count . . . so far you spell better than Tribune writers, you are smarter than RJ Letter to the Editor Writers, your legal publications are better than general publications (whatever those are?), you are above people that didn't go to law school, you consider me an 'idiot' that fears 'black helicopters' behind every tree, yet you refuse to enter into any discussion with me of any kind for fear of getting into the mud and looking stupid, as I presumably am, and yet you waste your time responding in any substantive way.
My favorite though, you have to quote Dilbert’s laws in order to formulate a coherent thought.
Welcome to the LU-Haters Club my friend. I am a frequent guest speaker for your entertainment and your club leader must be that guy (@ August 14, 2009 1:35 PM) sucking himself off on the 8-14-09 SUPER LAWYER thread. Contact him for meeting times.