Advertisement  Advertisement 
2024 Election
Primary Election
Jun 11, 2024

93 candidates are vying for 64 seats in this election.

Ehline: Cop & Lawyer React
Perspectives, Apr 10, 2024

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: 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

Supreme Court logo
Case No: 84590
Court Of Appeals
Apr 11, 2024, 339 days since filing.

Filed Order of Reversal and Remand. "We reverse the district court's child support arrearages determination and remand this matter for further proceedings. On remand, the district court shall, among other things, address the nature and amount of DWSS' requested arrearages, as well as Shandell's entitlement to any arrears beyond those set forth in DWSS' audit report in light of the guidelines and requirements outlined above." fn1[We direct the clerk of the court to modify the caption for this mat

Weed And A’s Baseball Stadium Land Before State’s High Court
Nevada Current 
Apr 12, 2024
Photo of Russell, James Todd
Russell, James Todd
Russell's Baseball Stadium Ruling Lands Before State’s High Court
Photo of Hardy, Jr, Joseph Paul
Hardy, Jr., Joe
Hardy's Weed Ruling Lands Before State’s High Court
Photo of Pickering, Mary Kristina
Pickering, Kristina
Weed And A’s Baseball Stadium Land Before Pickering
Photo of Stiglich, Lidia S
Stiglich, Lidia S
Weed And A’s Baseball Stadium Land Before Stiglich
Pat: Will It Reverse?

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.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Apr 4, 2024

Our Nevada Judges files petition for writ of mandamus challenging District Court Judge Charles Hoskin's denial of motion to unseal.

Christopher Wren vs Real Water
Hearing, Apr 9, 2024

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: For inquiries, feel free to contact us through

Pat: Bail Prediction

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.

Supreme Court logo
Case No: 87391
Court Of Appeals
Apr 10, 2024, 58 days since filing.
Photo of Shirley, James C
Shirley, Jim

Filed Order of Affirmance. "ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED." COA-MG/BB/DW. (COA)

‘A Powder Keg’: What Drove Joseph Houston To Murder?
Las Vegas Review Journal   
Apr 12, 2024
Photo of Houston, Joseph W
Houston, Joe
What Drove Houston To Murder?
Photo of Schneider, Louis C
Schneider, Louis C
Schneider Remarks On What Drove Joseph Houston To Murder
A.F., a Mother vs J.F., a Father
Hearing, Apr 4, 2024

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: For inquiries, feel free to contact us through

Supreme Court logo
Case No: 86850
Court Of Appeals
Apr 10, 2024, 58 days since filing.

Filed Order of Affirmance. "ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED." COA-MG/BB/DW (COA)

 Advertisement  Advertisement 

©2024 Our Nevada Judges, Inc.

Terms & ConditionsVersion: 3.9.7Privacy Policy

An NRS Chapter 82  non-profit corporation. Recognized by the IRS as a Section 501(c)(3) organization.

Comodo SSL