Blog

Nevada abortion advocates announced on Monday, May 20, that they gathered nearly double the number of petition signatures required to place a measure on the November ballot to enshrine reproductive rights in the state constitution.

Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom President Lindsey Harmon reported that supporters collected and submitted over 200,000 signatures, significantly exceeding the 102,000 valid signatures needed by Wednesday, June 26, to qualify for the ballot.

“The majority of Nevadans agree that the government should stay out of their personal and private decisions … about our bodies, our lives, and our futures,” Harmon stated during a rally of about 25 supporters outside the Clark County Government Center in Las Vegas.

The proposed measure would ensure “a fundamental, individual right to abortion” while allowing regulation of the “provision of abortion after fetal viability…except where necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual.”

Election officials in all 17 counties must now verify the signatures, a process with an uncertain timeline.

In 1990, Nevada voters approved a law making abortion available up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. However, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, there has been a push to further abortion access.

Several Republican-controlled states have tightened abortion restrictions or bans, while 25 states, including Nevada, allow abortions up to 24 weeks or later with limited exceptions. Most states with Democratic legislatures, including California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, and Vermont, have implemented laws or executive orders to protect abortions.

Melissa Clement, Nevada Right to Life director, expressed opposition, saying her organization will continue to fight the proposed amendment in courts and at the ballot box. She criticized the Democrat-controlled legislature for politicizing a difficult and traumatic decision for women.

The effort to secure the measure on the ballot follows two tracks.

To amend the Nevada Constitution, voters must approve a measure twice. If the abortion amendment qualifies and is approved this year, it will go before voters again in 2026.

Additionally, Nevada lawmakers passed a 24-week right-to-abortion measure last year along party lines, setting up another vote in the next legislative session in Carson City. If it is approved, the proposed constitutional amendment will appear on the 2026 statewide ballot.

The Biden administration announced it intends to reclassify the drug from its current Schedule I status to Schedule III.

The decision signals a departure from the longstanding classification of marijuana alongside substances like Heroin and Ecstasy. Instead, the drug will now be categorized under Schedule III, placing it in the company of drugs such as Ketamine and Anabolic Steroids.

While the reclassification holds symbolic significance, its practical implications are far-reaching. One of the most immediate impacts will be felt by the burgeoning cannabis industry, particularly in states like Nevada, where marijuana is legal for both medical and recreational use.

By moving marijuana to Schedule III, businesses in the industry stand to benefit from tax write-offs previously unavailable to them, alleviating a significant financial burden and potentially boosting profitability. However, the effects of the reclassification may not be immediately apparent for Nevada businesses.

Clark County Commission Chairman Tick Segerblom, a longtime cannabis advocate who claims having toked on the White House roof, said the 280E burden has significantly handicapped the cannabis industry in Nevada.

“It’s just so hard to make money when you can’t deduct your expenses,” he said in an interview.

“Hotels maybe can’t sell yet, but there’s no reason they couldn’t have a room or multiple rooms where guests are allowed to go smoke,” he said, adding that he has already discussed the idea with hotel operators.

Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code is a tax provision that denies standard business deductions and credits to companies engaged in federally illegal activities. Meanwhile, other challenges remain, particularly in banking and financial services.

The conviction of former President Donald Trump has sparked controversy across political lines. The fairness of the legal proceedings has come under intense scrutiny, raising fundamental questions about the principles of justice and the impartiality of the legal system.

The trial, which centers around alleged financial irregularities and campaign finance violations, has been marred by contentious developments. From the composition of the jury to the conduct of the presiding judge, numerous aspects of the legal proceedings have drawn sharp criticism from Trump’s supporters and legal experts.

One point of contention revolves around the jury composition drawn from a district dominated by Democrats. Critics argue that this demographic makeup may have skewed the jury pool, potentially depriving Trump of a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

Concerns about impartiality continue regarding the presiding judge, Judge Juan Merchan, who has a history of political donations to Democratic candidates and affiliations with anti-Trump groups. Additionally, Merchan’s daughter is actively involved in Democratic organizing efforts, raising questions about his ability to preside over the case without bias.

Throughout the trial, Merchan’s rulings have come under scrutiny, with critics pointing to instances where testimony from Trump’s experts was restricted or blocked while allowing “immaterial, prejudicial, salacious testimony” from witnesses such as Stormy Daniels. Merchan’s decision to impose gag orders on Trump and his legal team, and not similar restrictions to the prosecution, fuels allegations of unequal treatment under the law.

Critics argue that the very basis of the prosecution has been called into question, with concerns about the expiration of the statute of limitations for the alleged misdemeanor and the absence of clarity regarding the underlying crime that elevated the charges to a felony. The prosecution’s reliance on the testimony of Michael Cohen, a former associate of Trump with a history of perjury, has raised serious doubts about the credibility of the case.

The legal battle surrounding Trump’s trial has broader implications for the legal rights and privileges afforded to current and former presidents. Critics argue that the proceedings have set dangerous precedents, eroding protections such as executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, and the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the potential chilling effect on free speech and the erosion of presidential immunity.

Beyond the specifics of the trial, the case has raised broader constitutional questions, including the authority of vice presidents to challenge disputed electoral votes and the procedures for resolving contested election results. The trial’s outcome will have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between branches of government and the integrity of the electoral process.

As the legal wrangling unfolds, the fairness of the proceedings and the principles of justice hang in the balance. With the eyes of the nation watching, the trial of former President Donald Trump has become a lightning rod for debate, raising fundamental questions about the rule of law and the principles upon which the American legal system was built.

He met her at the Silver Queen. She asked if he would like to go upstairs to her hotel room and get lucky.

Once in her room, she said, “Make yourself comfortable, I am getting my baby dolls.”

He quickly undressed, leaving on only his boxers, before he climbed atop the four-poster bed.

She had appeared from the bathroom, shutting off the overhead light with a click. Now, only the glow from C Street provided light for the room.

He leaned back smiling, waiting, when suddenly he was overwhelmed by dozens of baby dolls, scratching and tearing at his skin.

A web of political connections and land use policies has ignited controversy, raising ethical questions about the intersection of public office and private interests.

At the center of the storm is Sandra Jauregui, Nevada Assembly Majority Leader, whose recent opposition to Governor Joe Lombardo’s calls to release federal lands for affordable housing development has drawn scrutiny. Jauregui’s stance, contrasting her Congressional colleagues and Governor Joe Lombardo, has left many questioning her motivations.

Jauregui’s ties to Hilltop Public Solutions, a left-of-center political consulting firm with a history of managing Democratic campaigns and advocacy efforts, are being questioned. The firm’s client list, which includes prominent Democratic figures like Hillary Clinton and environmental advocacy groups, raises concerns about conflicts of interest. Doubts remain about Jauregui’s stance on affordable housing aligning with her constituents or her connection to Hilltop.

Adding fuel to the fire is the involvement of Megan Jones, a partner at Hilltop and Senior Political Advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris. Her marriage to Clark County Commissioner Justin Jones, while embroiled in a housing development scandal adjacent to Red Rock National Park, adds to the situation because of an ongoing lawsuit by Gypsum Resources against Clark County.

Lombardo has cautioned against limiting the use of federal lands for development, citing concerns about the potential effects on the economy and society, especially considering the recent designation of Avi Kwa Ame as a national monument, stating that while environmental conservation is crucial, it should not come at the cost of accessible and affordable housing.

When I was but a young sprout, I spent a fair portion of my early days with my grandparents in Rohnerville. They were a pair of seasoned souls who imparted upon me a wealth of knowledge—bits and pieces that have clung to me like burrs to the tail of a dog.

They taught me to be kind and respectful, to mind my manners, and to speak only when I had something worth saying. They hammered into me the virtues of standing my ground and giving folks the benefit of the doubt. They were firm as granite in their ways when it came to discipline.

Now, as a child, those lessons of discipline often felt as if they lacked a certain softness or tenderness. Only later in life did I understand their intentions were rooted in love. More than once, I found myself on the receiving end of a switch, my grandparents debating whether they were “whippin’ the devil” out of me or “switchin’ some sense” into me.”

Either way, it sure got my attention “right quick.”

“Jesus Loves the Little Children,” my mother would say whenever I grumbled about the latest chastisement from her mother.

One particular Saturday morning, I got the rare permission to run errands in town with a friend. We ended up at some rickety old wooden buildings we had no business entering, all for the lure of a couple of Milky Way bars.

In that store, I met a younger Indian boy about my age. On a whim, I invited him home for lunch. I could tell by his tattered clothes that he was poor.

His eyes lit up when I mentioned having bacon-lettuce-and-tomato sandwiches and soup. I figured we would shoot some marbles after we ate, maybe run around the yard, toss a ball, or climb a tree.

As we were about to say blessings, Grandma turned around and did a double-take. Children did not sit at the table in our house—that is how things were.

An uneasy silence settled over us, and I could tell I was about to find myself on the short end of the stick, as it were. Thinking fast, I started singing “Jesus Loves the Little Children.”

It touched Grandma, but because I knew the rules, it did not spare me the rod from Grandpa after my two friends had gone home. Often, I wondered why the Holy Spirit saw fit to step into the kitchen that day but did not follow me out to the woodshed later.

Dayton Pop Warner is holding a two-day strength and conditioning camp set to kick off on Saturday, June 29, and Sunday, June 30.

Hosted at Dayton High School, this camp is to refine the skills of aspiring football stars from across Northern Nevada, including participants from Dayton Pop Warner and Biggest Little City Football Academy. Led by a team of seasoned coaches and fitness experts, the camp offers participants a comprehensive training experience to enhance their physical strength, agility, and endurance using proven football-specific conditioning drills and techniques.

The camp’s itinerary features strength training sessions, speed and agility drills, and nutrition and recovery workshops. Participants will have the chance to learn from experienced coaches and trainers who have honed their craft with athletes at various levels, from local leagues to the professional ranks.

Beyond refining their athletic prowess, participants will also have the opportunity to forge connections with fellow athletes and coaches, fostering a sense of camaraderie and teamwork crucial for success in football and beyond. With limited spots, organizers urge interested athletes to register promptly to secure their place at the Dayton Strength and Conditioning Camp.

For further details and registration information, visit blcfa.com or 775-220-7322. Start time to be determined.

From as far back as I can remember, attention to detail has been a hallmark of my memories in the form of ‘mental pitchers.’ Though I may not recall exact dates, I can vividly recount where I was, the weather, and the people I encountered decades ago.

Ask me about my activities last week or yesterday, and I could not tell you. There is not much out there these days that feels worth remembering.

There is a yearning in me to reconnect with my roots, to return to a time when community, love for life and one another, and a strong belief in a higher power were the pillars of society. They are core values.

My childhood memories are particularly cherished. Growing up in the countryside, I have always believed that being close to nature brings one closer to God. I recall a blue-cold day with a red fox darting across a field, sitting with an aged marmot on a stump, offering comfort in the final hour of its life and the simple pleasure of watching the sun rise and set.

These memories are more than just visual; they are almost panoramic, filled with the sounds, smells, and emotions of the time. I remember the changing seasons, from the green of summer to the crimson hues of fall and the bare, skeletal trees of winter.

How vividly do I remember the cows by the creek, their peaceful demeanor, and the soft jangle of bells collared around their necks. I also remember lying under aspen trees by a wood bridge, daydreaming about catching a legendary fish named George. Despite numerous attempts, George eluded capture, flip-flopping about as I tried pulling the hook out.

As a child, I spent lonely hours watching clouds transform into shapes of dogs, pirates, and angels before reverting to their original forms. I remember standing in a pasture with my dog, King, as a summer storm approached. Racing the storm back home, King and I got soaked, an exhilarating experience that made the warmth of home even more comforting.

Not all memories come without hazards, having stripped off my wet clothes and stood before the fireplace to dry off. I recall winching from standing too close and burning my behind. It was like being branded.

Running in the rain, the smell of fresh-cut summer lawns, and the feel of a pat on the back from an approving parent are memories that many can relate to. These experiences are part of my human experience, especially for those who grew up like I did.

In a world where we reportedly use only six percent of our brains, memories are an untapped potential. They are a mental escape from reality, a source of joy and comfort that costs nothing.

So, take a moment to sit quietly and let your mind wander. Close your eyes, revisit your fondest memories, and maybe write down a few later.

Memories and the ‘mental pitchers,’ they bring are your defense to keeping your mind healthy and vibrant. In a time when many of us are overwhelmed by the present, embracing our past can provide a much-needed respite and a reminder of the simple joys that make life worthwhile.

Americans For Prosperity (AFP) has launched a new campaign targeting Representative Susie Lee and Senator Jackie Rosen, accusing them of endorsing “Bidenomics” and attributing high inflation rates to their support for the Inflation Reduction Act.

The $740 billion Inflation Reduction Act, championed by Lee and Rosen and passed by both chambers in August 2022, has come under fire for its alleged failure to alleviate inflationary pressures. Despite warnings from 230 economists that the bill would not effectively address inflation and could exacerbate the issue, Democrats proceeded with its passage.

A non-partisan analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation predicted that working families would be worse under the legislation. Unfortunately, this prediction has materialized, with Nevada households experiencing tripling household expenses over two years.

In March 2024, Nevada’s inflation rate surged to a staggering 21.6 percent, resulting in an additional $27,782 per year in basic household expenses for Nevadans compared to January 2021 prices. Governor Joe Lombardo condemned the Biden administration’s handling of inflation, urging them to rein in federal spending to prevent further economic turmoil. Lombardo warned that excessive government expenditure could lead to irreversible damage to Nevada’s economy and beyond.

Before the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats signaled their intention to raise additional taxes on individuals and businesses if they gained control of Congress after the midterms. With interest payments on the national debt consuming nearly 40 percent of individual personal income taxes, further tax hikes became necessary to fund government spending.

Biden’s proposed five trillion dollars in additional taxes, aimed at the middle class rather than the wealthy, has sparked controversy. Meanwhile, wages have stagnated or decreased since Biden took office, exacerbating financial strain for many Americans.

According to Statista, the median hourly wage in the U.S. decreased from $18.12 in 2022 to $16.75 in 1979 when adjusted for inflation. As a result, Americans now require an additional $11,400 to cover basic expenses, with over 60 percent living paycheck to paycheck.

Nevadan Robert Beadles has intensified his legal battle with the Nevada Supreme Court, filing a Rule 40 Petition for Rehearing and a motion to expedite the process.

It comes after the court, comprising Justices Pickering, Parraguirre, and Stiglich, affirmed a lower court ruling to dismiss his case, a decision Beadles and several legal experts find perplexing. His latest filing includes several binders filled with exhibits and disclosures, reinforcing his argument that the previous ruling failed to address critical points of his appeal.

He asserts that the dismissal overlooked substantial evidence he presented, which directly countered the reasons cited for the initial dismissal.

The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the decision of the First Judicial District Court to deny Robert Beadles’ motion to change venue and to dismiss his complaint. The ruling, involving a pro se appeal from Beadles, addressed allegations of election law violations in the 2020 election.

Beadles had informed the respondents of his belief in ongoing breaches of legal procedures related to the election. When the respondents did not respond to his claims, Beadles filed a complaint.

He alleged that the respondents violated several sections of the Nevada Constitution and state law, and he sought their removal from office due to their failure to address his allegations. The Supreme Court noted that it considered Beadles’ pro se brief and found that no response was necessary from the respondents.

The appeal was decided on Beadles’ brief, a supporting amicus brief, and the case record.

It first addressed Beadles’ motion to change venue. Beadles had filed the action in the Second Judicial District Court and successfully had the venue changed. However, instead of moving the case to the Third Judicial District Court as Beadles requested, they transferred it to the First Judicial District Court, for “the convenience of witnesses.”

The Supreme Court agreed with the district court’s decision, noting that Beadles failed to demonstrate a need for another venue change and that the First Judicial District Court could hold an impartial trial.

It then examined the dismissal of Beadles’ complaint. It concluded that, even when assuming all the factual allegations in the complaint were true, Beadles could not prove any facts that would entitle him to relief. The Justices also upheld the district court’s decision to deny Beadles’ alternative request for a writ of mandamus, agreeing that the respondents had no duty to respond to his allegations as required by the cited constitutional and statutory provisions.

Specifically, the Justices explained that Article 1, Section 10 of the Nevada Constitution, which guarantees the right to petition, does not obligate the respondents to reply to Beadles’ claims. Additionally, Article 2, Section 1A, Subsection 11 of the Nevada Constitution, and NRS 293.2546(11) allow voters to file complaints about elections but do not mandate responses from the respondents.

Further, Article 15, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution, which requires public officers to take an oath of office, does not extend to the respondents’ obligation to answer Beadles’ allegations. It also found that Beadles misinterpreted NRS 266.430 and NRS 283.440, which outline procedures for removing certain public officers, noting that none of the respondents fell under these categories.

The Supreme Court concluded that Beadles’ complaint did not present grounds for removing the respondents from office. Moreover, any allegations of election law violations should go to the Secretary of State.

Finally, it addressed Beadles’ assertion regarding the district court’s award of attorney fees to the respondents. It noted that the district court had withdrawn this order, and Beadles had not appealed any subsequent order regarding attorney fees.

He emphasizes the gravity of the case, which alleges severe election violations by three Nevada officials, and outlines potential remedies to ensure electoral integrity. Beadles has made it clear that if Justices Pickering, Parraguirre, and Stiglich do not correct their decision, he is prepared to take the matter to the full bench of the Nevada Supreme Court via an En Banc review, which involves all seven justices.

He urged the justices to follow the law and rectify what he sees as a gross oversight. In his appeal, Beadles highlighted numerous election violations and proposed court-enforced measures to hold officials accountable for ineptitude and safeguard future elections.

The case has garnered attention due to its implications for the electoral system in Nevada and public trust in judicial processes. He expressed frustration over the procedural hurdles and financial burdens he has faced, which he believes should not have been necessary for a straightforward trial.

If need be, he plans to file a Rule 40a, ensuring all seven justices review the decision if the current justices do not grant his rehearing request. The legal community and public are watching closely to see whether Justices Pickering, Parraguirre, and Stiglich will adjust their ruling in light of the new evidence presented.

Beadles has also made his recent filings publicly available for those following the case. Here it is in a nutshell:

The Nevada Supreme Court continues processing an appeal filed by Robert Beadles on Thursday, November 30, 2023. The case involved multiple procedural steps and filings as the appellant, Beadles, navigated the appeals process.

On that date, Beadles submitted a Notice of Appeal in proper person (pro se), and the Supreme Court issued notices regarding deadlines and filed the necessary documents, including the Case Appeal Statement and Docketing Statement for Civil Appeals. On Friday, December 1, 2023, Coral Bay paid the $250 filing fee on behalf of Beadles.

Beadles then filed a Certificate of No Transcript Request on Monday, December 4. Subsequently, on the following Monday, he submitted his Opening Brief, and the court issued a procedural order to transmit the record from the district court, which was due in 30 days.

Beadles filed a motion to transfer exhibits to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, December 13, 2023. A motion for “leave to file an amicus brief” was submitted by Oscar Williams, Janice Hermsen, Lena Alexander, and David Chamberlain six days later.

By Friday, January 5, 2024, the district court record on appeal, consisting of multiple volumes, was filed with the Supreme Court. On the same day, the Supreme Court issued a procedural order denying the motions to transfer exhibits and to file an amicus brief, citing insufficient detail in the exhibit request and procedural deficiencies in the amici’s motion.

The following Friday, Beadles and the proposed amici filed additional motions related to transferring exhibits and expediting the ruling. Two weeks later, on Friday, January 26, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the motion to file the amicus brief but denied the motion to transfer exhibits without prejudice. It also agreed to expedite the ruling as much as its docket allowed.

Beadles made further expedited ruling requests on Tuesday, March 5, and Friday, March 8, 2024, but it denied the requests, reaffirming it would expedite it as much as possible within its schedule. Finally, on Friday, May 15, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order affirming the district court’s judgment.

Subsequently, on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, Beadles filed a petition for rehearing, including exhibits, and paid the rehearing fee.