Yep. For fees, its the race to the bottom. See Legal Zoom and Avvo for generous fees for referrals.
(Off topic rant, but since I mentioned Legal Zoom, there is unauthorized practice of law that SBN is not tackling. It does not matter that the consumer steps through a series of question generated by a computer, the recommendation is legal advice.)
Guest
Anonymous
October 14, 2019 4:33 pm
I personally like Judge Tobiasson. And the BPE seemed very pro-Melanie for a long time. But you cannot be a judge and do this. If she wants to do these things, then leave the bench and be a private citizen.
"I call his attorney and I said, hey you might want to get your client a message that, if he calls my daughter again, I’m going to take care of it myself. So, he does, he gives him the message. You know, we really don’t want to report that. But I was at the point if this guy is going to continue to mess with my daughter, clearly the police don’t give a shit, they’re not going to protect her,” Tobiasson said during the interview. “I was the one who went to Shane Valentine’s house, kicked in the door,” Tobiasson told the Baltimore Post-Examiner.
Guest
Anonymous
October 14, 2019 5:43 pm
Judge Melanie Andress-Tobiasson
It seems that the Baltimore Post-Examiner is obsessed with Judge Tobiasson because, as far as I know, it is the only media that keeps bringing this issue up. Anyone know more? Is there more?
"Las Vegas City Council members will consider a bill that would allow people accused of domestic violence to keep their firearms at Wednesday's full council meeting." What a loaded statement when the alternative is not being able to prosecute any domestic violence charges at all.
I love that we live in a country where letting violent men keep guns is self-evidently preferable to giving criminal defendants due process and access to counsel.
The muni-courts/cities don't want to lose the revenue generated from fines for DV cases otherwise they would simply refer them all up to the justice court level with the county, who is setup for jury trials.
That the Constitution requires jury trials when a defendant is at jeopardy of losing the ability to lawfully bear arms as a result of a domestic violence conviction does not necessarily mean that municipal courts must be permitted to conduct jury trials.
If the legislature has determined that jury trials cannot be conducted in municipal court, then by implication the legislature has determined that the proper venue for jury trials must be elsewhere, like justice court.
Or, it's possible, given the mess the Nevada Supreme Court has created, under existing statutory law there is no proper venue to try these cases, i which case this may take a legislative fix.
Cities are a creature of statute and only have the powers bestowed upon them by the legislature. Sure, under Nevada's modified Dillon's Rule, cities can have some other "necessary and proper" powers, but that clearly doesn't come into play when the legislature has spoken on the issue. Here, the legislature has spoken. Simply because the legislature set up a system that is unconstitutional, that doesn't mean the cities magically gain power expressly prohibited under city charters and statute. A legislative fix is needed. Either they need to go to justice court (lots of administrative and funding headaches) or the restrictions on muni courts holding jury trials (not sure why that was necessary anyway) needs to go away.
At base, it was probably equal parts "we don't need juries for misdemeanor cases since municipal courts can only try misdemeanor cases" and "we don't have the money to let cities try jury cases."
Here's an interesting article on Limited Scope Representation (LSR). Any thoughts? http://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article3758.pdf
Yep. For fees, its the race to the bottom. See Legal Zoom and Avvo for generous fees for referrals.
(Off topic rant, but since I mentioned Legal Zoom, there is unauthorized practice of law that SBN is not tackling. It does not matter that the consumer steps through a series of question generated by a computer, the recommendation is legal advice.)
I personally like Judge Tobiasson. And the BPE seemed very pro-Melanie for a long time. But you cannot be a judge and do this. If she wants to do these things, then leave the bench and be a private citizen.
"I call his attorney and I said, hey you might want to get your client a message that, if he calls my daughter again, I’m going to take care of it myself. So, he does, he gives him the message. You know, we really don’t want to report that. But I was at the point if this guy is going to continue to mess with my daughter, clearly the police don’t give a shit, they’re not going to protect her,” Tobiasson said during the interview. “I was the one who went to Shane Valentine’s house, kicked in the door,” Tobiasson told the Baltimore Post-Examiner.
Judge Melanie Andress-Tobiasson
It seems that the Baltimore Post-Examiner is obsessed with Judge Tobiasson because, as far as I know, it is the only media that keeps bringing this issue up. Anyone know more? Is there more?
Nevada Current is doing that also but not to the same extent as BPE.
I believe the writer used to live in Las Vegas.
"Las Vegas City Council members will consider a bill that would allow people accused of domestic violence to keep their firearms at Wednesday's full council meeting." What a loaded statement when the alternative is not being able to prosecute any domestic violence charges at all.
Start building jury boxes.
Violation of City Charter/NRS 266. Try again.
I love that we live in a country where letting violent men keep guns is self-evidently preferable to giving criminal defendants due process and access to counsel.
Who says it's self-evident? I doubt the city would be doing this if their charter and NRS 266 didn't prohibit the muni court from holding jury trials.
If the Nevada Supreme Court says the Nevada Constitution requires jury trials, why doesn't that trump the City Charter and NRS 266?
Seems like an excuse to not even try to hold jury trials.
The muni-courts/cities don't want to lose the revenue generated from fines for DV cases otherwise they would simply refer them all up to the justice court level with the county, who is setup for jury trials.
That the Constitution requires jury trials when a defendant is at jeopardy of losing the ability to lawfully bear arms as a result of a domestic violence conviction does not necessarily mean that municipal courts must be permitted to conduct jury trials.
Shitty logic.
If the legislature has determined that jury trials cannot be conducted in municipal court, then by implication the legislature has determined that the proper venue for jury trials must be elsewhere, like justice court.
Or, it's possible, given the mess the Nevada Supreme Court has created, under existing statutory law there is no proper venue to try these cases, i which case this may take a legislative fix.
Cities are a creature of statute and only have the powers bestowed upon them by the legislature. Sure, under Nevada's modified Dillon's Rule, cities can have some other "necessary and proper" powers, but that clearly doesn't come into play when the legislature has spoken on the issue. Here, the legislature has spoken. Simply because the legislature set up a system that is unconstitutional, that doesn't mean the cities magically gain power expressly prohibited under city charters and statute. A legislative fix is needed. Either they need to go to justice court (lots of administrative and funding headaches) or the restrictions on muni courts holding jury trials (not sure why that was necessary anyway) needs to go away.
At base, it was probably equal parts "we don't need juries for misdemeanor cases since municipal courts can only try misdemeanor cases" and "we don't have the money to let cities try jury cases."