User profile: LasVegasLawyerGal

CynicalObserver: Thanks for the 411 re 11 USC 959. Out of curiosity, assuming for present purposes Judge Zive decides to appoint a receiver who then applies for licensure, is there any burden on the Gaming Commission or GCB not to "unreasonably withhold" licensure? In other words, assume the receiver is a qualified insolvency attorney or accountant but not one of the annointed members of the gaming community. Can the state say, a la the soup nazi in "Seinfield", "No license for you!" and thereby frustrate Judge Zive's order?

Once again, everyone goes for the sizzle and misses the steak. The Salahis didn't testify because they were "invited", not supboenaed, by the committee. Moreover, if they *had* been subpoenaed, any competent lawyer would have advised them to take the Fifth Amendment. Rep. Titus, et al., could have stripped them of this by granting them immunity--which would require them to testify--but that would effectively preclude any criminal prosecution down the road (as we learned in U.S. v. Oliver North). It is also bit rich for the Republicans and Birthers to slam the White House for having their Social Secretary decline an invitation to testify when the Bush White House spent several years ignoring subpoenas for Karl Rove to testify before Congress without consequence. While I personally disagree with the idea that the President's executive privilege extends to every employee in the executive branch, this is hardly a new development.

I'm jealous of Judge Zive, as he's got a unique opportunity to decide some very interesting choice-of-law issues. Put simply, since bankruptcy is by definition a federal proceeding, does he even have to entertain objections from the state Gaming Control Board and Gaming Commission or can he override them in the best interest of creditors? Stay tuned :)

DT0702: I don't disagree with any of your comments. As a number of folks have pointed out, none of us were there and so we don't have anything close to all of the facts. The resolution I mentioned is what the case would probably end with if it didn't involve a celebrity--and while I'd hate to see Mr. Amador get a better deal as a result of his local status, I don't think he should get a worse deal because of it either. (I realize there's a counterargument that lawyers, judges, police officers and other public servants should be held to a higher standard, but as that's more honored in the breach locally than the observance, it's not a strong argument in this case which involves strictly property damage).

Were I a betting woman, here's what I think this case will resolve as:

Submittal to Misdo Destruction of Pvt Property; Amador makes full restitution to guy whose windshield was shattered; Amador surrenders gun (this is a fetish of the DA gun crimes unit whether it makes sense or not); if Amador stays out of trouble for six months and meets reqts, case dismissed :) We'll see if I'm right.