James Hardesty will become chief justice of Nevada Supreme Kangaroo Court

Nevada Supreme Court

Nevada Supreme Court

James Hardesty will assume the title of Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court with the new year.

Hardesty takes over from Justice Mark Gibbons in the post, which rotates among the justices each year. Justices become eligible to sit as chief during the final two years of their six-year terms.

Hardesty previously served as chief in 2009.

The chief justice presides when the full court hears cases and chairs the Commission on Judicial Selection and Judicial Council of the State of Nevada. He also presents the court’s proposed budget before the Nevada Legislature and gives lawmakers the biennial report on the State of the Judiciary.

FUCK the Nevada “Supreme” Kangaroo Court – Strippers have 1st Amendment Rights

stippersRENO, Nev. (MyNews4.com & KRNV) — The Nevada Supreme Court has decided a 10 percent tax on strip club admission doesn’t violate exotic dancers’ first amendment rights of free expression. vince neil

Justices ruled it was constitutional to tax the clubs and other live entertainment because the tax is content-neutral, doesn’t target a small group of people, and doesn’t threaten to suppress ideas or viewpoints.

The broad-based tax applies to many events but exempts some live entertainment, including boxing, Nascar races and minor league baseball.

nevada supreme court

judge tatroStrippers Argue Free Speech In Court, Don’t Stay In Vegas
Comment Now Follow Comments

The Nevada Supreme Court will decide whether Vegas strip clubs must pay a 10% entertainment tax imposed by state law. The tax covers fees, food and drinks. Although the clubs have been forced to pay it since 2003, they claim it’s unconstitutional and want a refund.

Why? Exotic dancers have First Amendment rights, the clubs say. This tax violates the Constitution. Sound crazy? It depends.

Lawyers for eight strip clubs say the tax violates the right to free speech. But the Nevada Department of Taxation sees the tax as just another excise tax on business transactions. An excise tax is like a sales tax only more targeted. Some people call these sin taxes, and that’s a name that seems apt here. vegas strip bus

Several courts have heard the case since 2006. But in case after case, Nevada’s tax has been upheld so far. Now Nevada’s highest court will take a look. Most observers think the tax will be upheld.

In fact, in other states taxes on similar activity have generally passed constitutional muster. In New York, court battles brewed for years over a sales tax exemption that was applied to artistic performances like ballet but not to so-called exotic dance. The question was whether lap dances could be classified as “art” and therefore be tax-exempt.

A key suit was filed by a New York club called Nite Moves. An adult juice bar, the club serves no alcohol but does serve lap dances. The club claimed lap dances were art so were tax-exempt, but the club consistently lost. See 677 New Loudon Corp., dba Nite Moves v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal.
strip clubsThe club’s revenue comes from admission charges, sales of non-alcoholic beverages, and exotic dances. New York is collecting sales tax on the dances. The club relied on an exemption for musical performances.

Some argued only choreographed dances count, while lap dances are more extemporaneous. After losing in New York’s highest court, Nite Moves fired off a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal. That petition was rejected by SCOTUS.

Texas also has a Sexually Oriented Business Fee, generally referred to as a pole tax. It collects $5 from each patron of clubs featuring nudity and serving alcohol. There have been court battles over this tax too, but the Texas Supreme Court eventually upheld it. Dancing may be a way of expressing yourself, but the pole tax doesn’t violate the First Amendment, the court ruled.men strip

Even Illinois now has a pole tax. Getting any tax ruled as unconstitutional is tough. And while the specific language and effect of any tax must be examined, the likelihood of the free speech argument carrying the day seems small.

You can reach me at Wood@WoodLLP.com. This discussion is not intended as legal advice, and cannot be relied upon for any purpose without the services of a qualified professional.

source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/07/strippers-argue-free-speech-in-court-dont-stay-in-vegas/

stip club

1st amendment9th Circuit to strip-club dancers: Keep your distance

Friday, January 28, 2005

LA HABRA, Calif. — A federal appeals court has upheld La Habra’s ordinance requiring strip-club dancers to stay at least 24 inches from customers.

 

The ordinance was designed to target lap dancing, which the city claims is responsible for prostitution, crime, drug use and disease.

 

In a 3-0 ruling on Jan.26, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments by Bill Badi Gammoh, owner of the city’s only adult-entertainment club, and by several lap dancers that the ordinance is unconstitutional.

 

The 2-foot limit does not deny the dancers their ability to perform, the judges said in Gammoh v. City of La Habra.

 

Attorney Deborah Fox, who represented the city in its fight with the owner of Taboo Gentleman’s Club, said it was an important ruling because “lap dancing is the financial linchpin of the adult industry and this is the end of the argument about its prohibition.”

 

Gammoh’s fight with the city began shortly after he opened the strip club in 1998 and filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s anti-lap dance ordinance as vague and unconstitutional.

 

The ordinance “unfairly impedes on (a dancer’s) right to expression and speech,” attorney Scott Wellman said.

 

The 9th Circuit disagreed. “The 2-foot rule,” Judge Richard Tallman wrote, “merely requires that dancers give their performances from a slight distance; it does not prohibit them from giving their performances altogether.”

 

Meanwhile, a Nevada judge ruled on Jan. 21 that a Las Vegas law prohibiting strippers from fondling customers during lap dances is unconstitutionally vague.

 

District Court Judge Sally Loehrer affirmed a lower court ruling that as many as five misdemeanor criminal cases filed against Las Vegas strippers should be dismissed.

 

The Jan. 21 ruling affects only dancers within city limits. The Clark County Commission in 2002 limited touching between strippers and patrons during private lap dances, specifically barring strippers from touching or sitting on the customer’s genital area. But the municipal code was not as specific, saying only that strippers and their patrons should not “fondle” or “caress” each other.

Under Loehrer’s ruling, no dancer in the city can be arrested for violating the municipal code. The city is considering an appeal.

Hagar: Nevada Supreme justices suffer ‘personal toll’

Nevada Supreme Court

Nevada Supreme Court

nevada supreme court

Nevada Supreme Court protest

Nevada Supreme Court protest

FRAUD UPON THE COURT Reno, NV Judge Patrick Flanagan and 5 Nevada Supreme Court Justices completely fabricated an entire caseNevada Supreme Court Justice James Hardesty is the main spokesman for Question One on the November general-election ballot.

If passed by voters, it would establish an appeals court in Nevada. It would ease the overwhelming pressure on the state Supreme Court, which now is the only appeals court in the state.

Nevada is just one of 10 states that doesn’t have an intermediate appeals court. Because of that, the Nevada Supreme Court’s backlog on undecided cases has mushroomed from 1,515 five years ago to more than 2,200 today.

It can take up to four years, in some cases, to get an appeal decided in Nevada. No wonder the theme of the campaign for Question One is: Justice delayed is justice denied.

Not only does the current system take its toll on justice, it also takes its toll on the justices who decide the cases.

“There is a considerable personal toll,” Hardesty said. “You’re exhausted.

“As you may know, I read until midnight, 1 or 2 o’clock in the morning four nights a week,” Hardesty said. “When you do that, day in and day out, it takes quite a toll. And yet, quite frankly, you see these cases languishing in the system and you’re doing everything you possibly can to get them decided as soon as you can.

“Personally, it is very frustrating not to be able to resolve more cases more quickly because you know people’s lives are put on hold and it directly impacts them and their emotional state,” Hardesty said

 

Sounds like Nevada’s justices are overworked. And that is a terrible situation for anyone who is seeking a fair ruling from the state’s Supreme Court.

Child custody cases can take up to four years to resolve, Hardesty said. Lengthy time frames also apply to death-row appeals and criminal cases. Kids could be almost grown – and their childhoods ruined — by the time the Supreme Court renders its decision.

Perhaps the justices have made decisions on very important matters while they are mentally fatigued, which is good for no one.

Despite the potential for mental fatigue, the current overwhelming case load can also cause sleepless nights for the justices.

Journalist Jon Ralston, on his Ralston Reports TV show, asked Hardesty if he ever woke up worrying if the court didn’t spend enough time on any particular case.

Hardesty softly replied “yes,” then elaborated:

“It leaves you with sleepless nights,” Hardesty said. “And everyone of us probably has some real misgivings about whether we have given adequate time to some of the serious questions that are in front of us.”

justice denied

THIS ISSUE WITH THE NEVADA Supreme Court is nothing new. Voters have rejected the establishment of an intermediate or appeals court four times since the late 1970s. The latest rejection came in 2010.

Then, the issue was tied to an initiative where judges would first be appointed by the governor instead of being elected. They would retain their jobs if they could then garner 55 percent of the vote in an election.

The initiative passed in Clark County but ultimately was defeated, since it lost in Nevada’s 16 other counties. Hardesty noted that the 2014 campaign for an appeals court doesn’t have to carry that “appointment” baggage into the election.

But really, it kinda does.

First, the court of appeals would consist of three judges. The governor would appoint them after nominations from the Commission on Judicial Selection. The three initial judges would be appointed to two-year terms. Then they would face election for a six-year term.

Could the governor stack the appeals court with his cronies?

Then, once appointed, they would have the power of incumbency heading into their elections. And a six-year term? That’s a long as a U.S. senator.

STATE SEN. GREG BROWER, R-Reno, is heading a political action committee (along with Sen. Tick Segerblom, D-Las Vegas) to raise money for an “educational campaign” to inform the voters about the need for an appeals court.

Some expected Brower to run for attorney general this year. But he didn’t. Instead, the GOP candidate for that office is Adam Laxalt, the grandson of former U.S. Sen. and Nevada Gov. Paul Laxalt.

Brower has yet to endorse Laxalt, even though they belong to the same party.

“I just really have not been focused on that or involved in that,” Brower said of the AG’s race. “I’m working very hard on getting our (state) senate candidates elected. As you know, we are one seat shy of a majority (in the state senate). We have three very tough races in Southern Nevada that will determine the balance of power in the senate, so we are working very hard on that. And that is where my focus is.”

Brower noted that his name was tied to the AG’s race as the presumed Republican candidate long before Laxalt came into the picture.

“I just really was not interested in running,” he said. “I know there was scuttlebutt, but there’s scuttlebutt about a lot of things. But I am committed to the work I am doing in the (state) senate and I have a very busy law practice and I was just not interested in doing that (running for AG).”

1LINKEDINCOMMENT