The resignation of Melanie Andress-Tobiasson frustrates the family of Sydney Land. [KTNV]
Attorneys defend tax extensions before the Nevadas Supreme Court. [Las Vegas Sun]
Economic rebound gives state funds it wasn’t expecting in state budget. [8NewsNow]
Attention young lawyers (those of you admitted in 2010 or later): A presenter at the Annual Meeting this summer is asking for your help in completing a survey on mental health and motivations of young lawyers. Results will be incorporated in the presentation. The survey is anonymous and can be found at this link. If you have any questions, ask in the comments so they can respond to you.
I'm confused about the Land family. Everything I've seen seems to indicate that Metro has behaved less than honorably and frankly is probably hiding some shady shit in that case, but the family is going after Tobiasson? Why aren't they going after Metro? Seems weird. Maybe I haven't gone down the rabbit hole far enough, but it seems like Sydney Land and Tobiasson's daughter were being targeted by the same group of criminals…or maybe criminals competing in the same market?
In some of the documents I read online, it sounded as if Land and Tobiasson started out on the same page, and then things turned somehow. There must be more to this story.
Let me start by saying I love Mel. When I got in trouble and it was pasted all over the RJ twice, she went to bat for me and knew it was bullshit. I have always been in her corner and if there is one thing people should know about her is that she is passionate. The problem arises when her passion cancels out her common sense. If people were privy to the entirety of the story you would be shocked at the actual facts of the case. When she talks about it she sounds bat shit crazy, but she's not lying. But in protecting her kid she went so far past what society would deem acceptable and she got smacked down at every opportunity. I don't agree with her outing other people, I wish she would have kept the focus on what happened to her personally and left it at that. I feel that the judicial discipline council went hard after her, and while she had the means to fight them, the cost on her family was too much. I respect her decision to resign and I completely understand why she did it. I feel the attacks on what she wore and cursing in general falls outside what the disciplinary commission jurisdiction should entail but I may be in the minority on that. Mel is and always will be good people, her husband is a rock star private investigator and I feel that the bench will be worse off without her. I don't think I'm alone in that. I will say that her off hand comments regarding law enforcement while running her courtroom could and did alarm the DA's that appeared in front of her, I personally found them entertaining. Mel was always fair and didn't cut me any breaks and I respect her for that.
Examples of her going too far(and you already mentioned at least one specific example–such as very publicly criticizing law enforcement from the bench) including performing her own stakeouts, kicking in a suspect's door, accepting a stipulated criminal case resolution involving one of the targets of her crusade(without disclosing the conflict), etc.
But, flipping the coin over, she did appear to have a case of arguable merit and seeming legitimacy that there was sound reason to believe that such clothing store may have been being used as a front for teen prostitution, that her daughter and other teenage girls were therefore in peril, and it did seem that law enforcement was not particularly interested in the matter.
Whether their seeming disinterest stems from the conspiracy theory motivations the judge cites, I don't know. But it did seem she brought them some viable support for her allegations, and she was repeatedly blown off.
She had apparently spent over $600,000, and without the great guidance and unbelievable skill, connections and influence of Bill Terry, it probably got so overwhelming and she felt like a ship lost at sea.
But if she was willing to resign anyway, and considering that removal from office was apparently the worst possible sanction the Commission could have imposed, a full, and multi-day, hearing could have really shed light on a lot of things that myself, and many others, are merely speculating on. And, who knows, she could have emerged form it all without losing her judgement, but instead some lesser discipline. After all, tremendous slack can be cut, and extreme mitigation provided, if someone is trying to save their child, or anyone's child, from something so horrible.
Now, I don't want to be one who is likewise indulging in conspiracy theories, but could there have potentially been more at stake than the loss of her position? Is it possible that she was informed that if she did not make this go away, and if she aired some law enforcement dirty laundry, that Metro. could have prosecuted her based on some of her actions in this matter? I doubt it, but does anyone have a sense, or any inside dope, as to whether there could have been more at stake than the loss of her judgeship, had she decided to keep up the fight?
I am not sure that removing elected officials that don't adequately represent our issues, policies and values be considered cancel culture. Its called a representative republic. If they don't represent, they gotta go.
@1:33 you must realize that the right neither cares nor has the intellectual capacity to understand the depths of their hypocrisy. The GOP is now the GQP. They might scrape by for a few more election rounds, but the party is essentially dead. Millions of kids turn 18 every year in this country while the boomers are dying off. The next generation of voters are increasingly turned off by the insanity of the right…they're tired of shootings in their schools, they like their gay friends, they probably identify as something other than strictly straight, they understand and believe the science around climate change, and they aren't scared of brown people living next door. In fact, they're probably brown themselves. I just want to live long enough to experience the death rattle of the trump cult. Fun times
@201 You are going to be sorely and painfully surprised. But stick with Rachel Maddow and Jake Tapper for your info and you'll at least be content, for awhile. A touch laughable that a Dem calls the GOP hypocritical. Truly a Pot / kettle scenario. But, you can keep Cheney and Romney, they are as done as the radical left is. And your kidding yourself if you think that the youth of today is overwhelmingly left.
I'm curious, 9:59, what exactly is it that makes you dislike Cheney and Romney? Romney, who just 9 years ago, received more than 10 million votes from Republicans in the primaries, and more delegates than your Dear Leader? Romney, who as a loyal Republican, went along with Dear Leader's policy positions like 90% of the time? Is it because he disagreed with Dear Leader on Dear Leader's abhorrent behavior? Is it because he actually read the Mueller report? I mean, clearly it can't be Romney's policy positions that you dislike, so it must be his disloyalty to the One True Trump, is that it?
And if that's the case, you aren't a Republican. You are a Monarchist supporter of King Donald the Orange. And you can feel free to exit my party at any time.
I am not 9:59, but I can answer the question in two words: Insufficient fealty.
Guest
Anonymous
May 5, 2021 8:45 pm
Does anyone think that we are losing a fair and pretty good judge in Tobiasson? I would appear in front of her on a regular basis, and even though she would take the bench late and get on her soapbox, she would always hear an argument out and seemed prepared… Am I in the minority about this??
Complete loss who bucked the good ol' boy system and actually listened and cared about the parties. What made her a good judge for Justice Court is exactly what ultimately caused them to go after her.
Spot on 4:14 pm. Melanie's resignation is a huge loss to the judicial community.
Guest
Anonymous
May 5, 2021 9:23 pm
I know it's a topic we've discussed on here in the past, but I wanted to see what you all thought about vanity awards. I keep seeing newly barred attorneys (a couple of newer solos, in particular) flaunt generic "top ten trial lawyer of all time ever" plaques, AIOLC awards, and other credentials from unheard of organizations. It's nothing new, but it's crazy to me that people spend good money on this nonsense.
Do clients and opposing counsel take this stuff seriously? Are there accolades that people actually care about and aren't just popularity contests or plaque payments?
2:23 PM here. I've gotten those emails, the "who's who" ones, and a handful of other solicitations that are easy to ignore. Then I will happen across someone sharing a photo of their fancy $500+ award, and realize why it's profitable to market to lawyer egos.
So, I've joined one of these outfits which led to a nice plaque and declaration of my skill. Whether it's true or not it is decent marketing for the $400 or so it cost. I've had clients, even one in prison, say they hired me after seeing it on my webpage. Not the only reason but a factor. Second, the organization has decent access to the media and I was able to put out a press release through them at no cost once that did get picked up by the AP. Third they add you to their webpage which is a nice backlink. I would not suggest joining all, and some are better than others, but I found the limited cost of joining one of the more reputable of the bunch was in fact worth it.
Guest
Anonymous
May 5, 2021 9:49 pm
Looking at the Board of Governors options, I am seriously wondering why there isn't a "none of these" option.
3:42 Where do you get that out of 2:49? Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't qualified. Or perhaps they don't want to put up with the nonsense. As for me, I want to see someone who doesn't use the Board of Governors as a stepping stone to other positions. I believe Marisa Rodriguez is probably an excellent attorney. But her involvement with other causes (fellowship program, fundraisers etc seem to stretch her time. FUrther she cites her presidency of a bar association that she founded a scholarship fundraiser. Great. But how does that qualify her to benefit the profession? Her agenda is to 1) create awareness of mental health/stress, and 2) increase opportunities for the Bar's minority members. I am not against that, but is that the biggest priority. Augusta Massey has similar issues. Never met her so no idea on her practice, but she has the same distractions. Her agenda is 1) increasing civility etc (all grand sounding without detail) 2) increasing pro bono (hurrah) and 3) increasing engagemnt through "innovative ideas and communication". What ideas? Is there going to be a state bar twitter account? I think they both have the best intentions and applaud them for putting themselves out there, but i wouldn't be donating to their campaign. Goodey expanded on the blog, but its still a bit thin. Plus what has she really done on the State Bar? Honestly that place is a prime example of staff capture. In my experience it is not the Board of Governors that run the place, but rather the staff. Same with discipline, where the panels generally go along with staff recommendations. Its all well and good for the most part, but we need someone to increase transparency greatly. I think all of the candidates are good people ,but am not exactly enthusiastic. Plus its our constitutional right to complain without doing anything.
Just curious-what "qualifies" someone as a BOG candidate? Amount of time as a lawyer? A specific practice? Pro bono or community service? And, what do you want them to do that is not currently being done?
Station sold the Palms.
I'm confused about the Land family. Everything I've seen seems to indicate that Metro has behaved less than honorably and frankly is probably hiding some shady shit in that case, but the family is going after Tobiasson? Why aren't they going after Metro? Seems weird. Maybe I haven't gone down the rabbit hole far enough, but it seems like Sydney Land and Tobiasson's daughter were being targeted by the same group of criminals…or maybe criminals competing in the same market?
In some of the documents I read online, it sounded as if Land and Tobiasson started out on the same page, and then things turned somehow. There must be more to this story.
Let me start by saying I love Mel. When I got in trouble and it was pasted all over the RJ twice, she went to bat for me and knew it was bullshit. I have always been in her corner and if there is one thing people should know about her is that she is passionate. The problem arises when her passion cancels out her common sense. If people were privy to the entirety of the story you would be shocked at the actual facts of the case. When she talks about it she sounds bat shit crazy, but she's not lying. But in protecting her kid she went so far past what society would deem acceptable and she got smacked down at every opportunity. I don't agree with her outing other people, I wish she would have kept the focus on what happened to her personally and left it at that. I feel that the judicial discipline council went hard after her, and while she had the means to fight them, the cost on her family was too much. I respect her decision to resign and I completely understand why she did it. I feel the attacks on what she wore and cursing in general falls outside what the disciplinary commission jurisdiction should entail but I may be in the minority on that. Mel is and always will be good people, her husband is a rock star private investigator and I feel that the bench will be worse off without her. I don't think I'm alone in that. I will say that her off hand comments regarding law enforcement while running her courtroom could and did alarm the DA's that appeared in front of her, I personally found them entertaining. Mel was always fair and didn't cut me any breaks and I respect her for that.
Examples of her going too far(and you already mentioned at least one specific example–such as very publicly criticizing law enforcement from the bench) including performing her own stakeouts, kicking in a suspect's door, accepting a stipulated criminal case resolution involving one of the targets of her crusade(without disclosing the conflict), etc.
But, flipping the coin over, she did appear to have a case of arguable merit and seeming legitimacy that there was sound reason to believe that such clothing store may have been being used as a front for teen prostitution, that her daughter and other teenage girls were therefore in peril, and it did seem that law enforcement was not particularly interested in the matter.
Whether their seeming disinterest stems from the conspiracy theory motivations the judge cites, I don't know. But it did seem she brought them some viable support for her allegations, and she was repeatedly blown off.
She had apparently spent over $600,000, and without the great guidance and unbelievable skill, connections and influence of Bill Terry, it probably got so overwhelming and she felt like a ship lost at sea.
But if she was willing to resign anyway, and considering that removal from office was apparently the worst possible sanction the Commission could have imposed, a full, and multi-day, hearing could have really shed light on a lot of things that myself, and many others, are merely speculating on. And, who knows, she could have emerged form it all without losing her judgement, but instead some lesser discipline. After all, tremendous slack can be cut, and extreme mitigation provided, if someone is trying to save their child, or anyone's child, from something so horrible.
Now, I don't want to be one who is likewise indulging in conspiracy theories, but could there have potentially been more at stake than the loss of her position? Is it possible that she was informed that if she did not make this go away, and if she aired some law enforcement dirty laundry, that Metro. could have prosecuted her based on some of her actions in this matter? I doubt it, but does anyone have a sense, or any inside dope, as to whether there could have been more at stake than the loss of her judgeship, had she decided to keep up the fight?
In this profession, all the bat shit crazy story stories are usually true. Have you been in front of Jen Dorsey?
Excuse typo
Woe is me. The survey includes four different christian religions but omits "atheist/agnostic."
I swear there's got to be at least a couple of us!
I am one of those scorned Mormon males, but I have to say that atheists and nones don't get any respect in this country. Shouldn't be that way.
This has been fixed. Thank you for your feedback.
12:16 here, I was just joking but I appreciate it!
It's very evident that you tried hard to be inclusive in the survey and you did a great job.
Where is the "Non-Trumpist Republican" option?
Non-Trumpist Republican is no longer a thing. All have been purged, except Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney, and Liz is on the way out.
So is Mitt. BOOOO!
Can anyone one the right ever cry again about "Cancel Culture?"
I am not sure that removing elected officials that don't adequately represent our issues, policies and values be considered cancel culture. Its called a representative republic. If they don't represent, they gotta go.
@1:33 you must realize that the right neither cares nor has the intellectual capacity to understand the depths of their hypocrisy. The GOP is now the GQP. They might scrape by for a few more election rounds, but the party is essentially dead. Millions of kids turn 18 every year in this country while the boomers are dying off. The next generation of voters are increasingly turned off by the insanity of the right…they're tired of shootings in their schools, they like their gay friends, they probably identify as something other than strictly straight, they understand and believe the science around climate change, and they aren't scared of brown people living next door. In fact, they're probably brown themselves. I just want to live long enough to experience the death rattle of the trump cult. Fun times
They have "Agnostic/non-religious" which is damn confusing.
Atheist ex Mormon here, agnostic or non-religious are not equivalent.
@201 You are going to be sorely and painfully surprised. But stick with Rachel Maddow and Jake Tapper for your info and you'll at least be content, for awhile. A touch laughable that a Dem calls the GOP hypocritical. Truly a Pot / kettle scenario. But, you can keep Cheney and Romney, they are as done as the radical left is. And your kidding yourself if you think that the youth of today is overwhelmingly left.
I'm curious, 9:59, what exactly is it that makes you dislike Cheney and Romney? Romney, who just 9 years ago, received more than 10 million votes from Republicans in the primaries, and more delegates than your Dear Leader? Romney, who as a loyal Republican, went along with Dear Leader's policy positions like 90% of the time? Is it because he disagreed with Dear Leader on Dear Leader's abhorrent behavior? Is it because he actually read the Mueller report? I mean, clearly it can't be Romney's policy positions that you dislike, so it must be his disloyalty to the One True Trump, is that it?
And if that's the case, you aren't a Republican. You are a Monarchist supporter of King Donald the Orange. And you can feel free to exit my party at any time.
2:01 here *you're
I am not 9:59, but I can answer the question in two words: Insufficient fealty.
Does anyone think that we are losing a fair and pretty good judge in Tobiasson? I would appear in front of her on a regular basis, and even though she would take the bench late and get on her soapbox, she would always hear an argument out and seemed prepared… Am I in the minority about this??
No question that she is a loss to justice. and to the J.Ct. Will miss her.
Complete loss who bucked the good ol' boy system and actually listened and cared about the parties. What made her a good judge for Justice Court is exactly what ultimately caused them to go after her.
Spot on 4:14 pm. Melanie's resignation is a huge loss to the judicial community.
I know it's a topic we've discussed on here in the past, but I wanted to see what you all thought about vanity awards. I keep seeing newly barred attorneys (a couple of newer solos, in particular) flaunt generic "top ten trial lawyer of all time ever" plaques, AIOLC awards, and other credentials from unheard of organizations. It's nothing new, but it's crazy to me that people spend good money on this nonsense.
Do clients and opposing counsel take this stuff seriously? Are there accolades that people actually care about and aren't just popularity contests or plaque payments?
I keep getting nominated for "lawyers of distinction." It turns out you have to pay $500 for the plaque.
2:23 PM here. I've gotten those emails, the "who's who" ones, and a handful of other solicitations that are easy to ignore. Then I will happen across someone sharing a photo of their fancy $500+ award, and realize why it's profitable to market to lawyer egos.
So, I've joined one of these outfits which led to a nice plaque and declaration of my skill. Whether it's true or not it is decent marketing for the $400 or so it cost. I've had clients, even one in prison, say they hired me after seeing it on my webpage. Not the only reason but a factor. Second, the organization has decent access to the media and I was able to put out a press release through them at no cost once that did get picked up by the AP. Third they add you to their webpage which is a nice backlink. I would not suggest joining all, and some are better than others, but I found the limited cost of joining one of the more reputable of the bunch was in fact worth it.
Looking at the Board of Governors options, I am seriously wondering why there isn't a "none of these" option.
Better question, why didn't you run as you are clearly more qualified?
Marisa FTW
3:42 Where do you get that out of 2:49? Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't qualified. Or perhaps they don't want to put up with the nonsense. As for me, I want to see someone who doesn't use the Board of Governors as a stepping stone to other positions. I believe Marisa Rodriguez is probably an excellent attorney. But her involvement with other causes (fellowship program, fundraisers etc seem to stretch her time. FUrther she cites her presidency of a bar association that she founded a scholarship fundraiser. Great. But how does that qualify her to benefit the profession? Her agenda is to 1) create awareness of mental health/stress, and 2) increase opportunities for the Bar's minority members. I am not against that, but is that the biggest priority. Augusta Massey has similar issues. Never met her so no idea on her practice, but she has the same distractions. Her agenda is 1) increasing civility etc (all grand sounding without detail) 2) increasing pro bono (hurrah) and 3) increasing engagemnt through "innovative ideas and communication". What ideas? Is there going to be a state bar twitter account? I think they both have the best intentions and applaud them for putting themselves out there, but i wouldn't be donating to their campaign. Goodey expanded on the blog, but its still a bit thin. Plus what has she really done on the State Bar? Honestly that place is a prime example of staff capture. In my experience it is not the Board of Governors that run the place, but rather the staff. Same with discipline, where the panels generally go along with staff recommendations. Its all well and good for the most part, but we need someone to increase transparency greatly. I think all of the candidates are good people ,but am not exactly enthusiastic. Plus its our constitutional right to complain without doing anything.
*not in private forums. public only.
Qualified does not = good for the Bar.
Just curious-what "qualifies" someone as a BOG candidate? Amount of time as a lawyer? A specific practice? Pro bono or community service? And, what do you want them to do that is not currently being done?