Someone who drives for Uber & Lyft is usually only doing it because they're unemployed from the job they want and just need cash until they find a new job. With unemployment, and even PPP loans open to Uber/Lyft drivers, why would they work when what they're getting presently is what they were earning while driving? I do consumer BK (7's/13's) and have done multiple Ch 7 BKs for Uber/Lyft drivers that didn't drive until their unemployment ran out recently.
I live in Summerlin, within about a half-mile of Red Rock and Downtown Summerlin. You'd think the area would be crawling with drivers looking for rides, yet I've gotten a "no cars available" message several times recently.
Uber-Lyft-After destroying Nevada's local taxi cab industry they are about to implode. It was a business model that can not work in the long run and only worked for a while.
12:34 please explain. Their stock price and amount of use across the country says differently. Other companies are popular in the world with the business model too.
Guest
Anonymous
April 30, 2021 5:10 pm
I am amazed DETR picked up on the fraud. Six months ago I emailed a question to DETR, which was urgent at the time. Today they emailed me back writing, "Sorry for the delay. How may we help you?"
DETER,
A wonderful example of how government is so, so, so efficient; and perhaps a lesson on why you can't rely on big government or a democratic governor to fix anything.
@10:27 — You are wrong. What this is is a wonderful example of government underfunded and ill-equipped by an erstwhile Republican governor (eyes on you, Sandoval) and by Republican state senators who BLOCK necessary tax increases. Repubs who advocate for small government starve the government, then they turn around and blame Democrats for the fallout. And you wonder why the nation is divided, cannot compete, and is the laughing stock of the rest of the civilized world. Did you watch Biden's speech and listen with an open mind? I bet not . . . .
@11:16
Beg pardon. DETER is a business exercise in management. The Dem governor has thrown money at the problem (typical of government) but has been ineffective in managing resources. The software problems are not huge, as technical things go. The basic concept of in-bound calling, data collection and investigation are every day issues solved years ago by credit card companies. DETER is a government failure.
10:39 AM-Dean Dan Hamilton–why isn't his family already here in Las Vegas? I wonder why folks accept a well paying presitgious position only to be flying back and forth to another time zone. Just saying.
She went too far with a lot of this, but there was some significant justification–she was trying to protect her daughter and other teenage girls by being exploited by dangerous criminals, and it seems that(whatever be the reasons) she could not persuade Metro to take action or to even take the matter seriously
3:10. Yes, there is no denying you are right, but that does not mean 3:08 must be wrong.
If you have read all the materials and all the allegations, you will see things like her performing her own stake-outs, following suspects in her car, kicking in the door of an apparently dangerous criminal, accepting a stipulated criminal negotiation against one of the targets of her efforts(without disclosing the connection) etc.
But 3:08 also acknowledges, and which is the point being made by 3:10, if a parent is out of options, and their child is in legitimate danger, the gloves come off.
The allegations, and counter-allegations, are so detailed,
inflammatory, voluminous, and in many cases probably distorted to the point of hyperbole that the truth presumably lies someone in the middle between the extremes alleged by each side.
It is doubtful that all these officials are as aloof, callous and corrupt as the judges insists, but it is likewise clear that she was probably never remotely as out-of-control as Law Enforcement(and the NJDC) insists she was.
But the Judicial Commission appears to be accepting, and be guided by, law enforcement's position on all this. Doesn't help the judge that our D.A. supports law enforcement on this one and there appears to be no love loss between our D.A. and the judge.
As in most matters this convoluted and multi-faceted, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. But in my view not directly in the middle, but instead somewhat significantly leaning toward the legitimacy and the credibility of the Judge's position.
At least that's how it seems to me, and my conclusion my be wrong in the eyes of many or most, but at least I can claim to be reasonably informed–having read every available article on the matter, and having read all the posted material and briefs in the Discipline matter.
So, I think it would be a reach to uncritically accept and swallow the myopic position, offered by the judge that she "did nothing wrong" in any of this messy nightmare, but I in no way judge her, and in fact may have done much of the same if I were in that nightmare.
I wish her the very best of luck. I believe her daughter is ultimately safe and is doing fine now, and I really Thank God for that.
I have a daughter about that age, as do probably many readers of this blog. So, what the judge went through must have been unremitting torture, I can only imagine.
Perhaps she went a bit overboard, but this should not have been a career ender. This prosecution should have never happened, or should have been resolved with a reprimand, at most.
She pissed in the wrong peoples' Cheerios. She took on Metro. She took on the District Attorney. She took on judicial discipline. She was right in each and every one of those instances but had to know this could never end well. When Bill Terry died, he lost the voice of reason that might have gotten her out of this. She got screwed, but we all knew that this would be the ending.
3:30–Yes and No. Agree with some of what you say, but some of it our paths diverge somewhat.
My view is a bit weighed more in her favor than yours, and I do actually view her as a victim in all this.
But as to your primary point–she may not have handled some of these matters ideally but nor would we if engulfed in such a nightmare concerning our child, I am on board with you.
3:10's post may be real short, but the implications are significant and could be discussed at length as to all the legal, social, moral and ethical implications of all this.
So, I think 3:10 has the best take on all this: the rule book is not our primary concern when our child is in serious danger.
But we all wish the judge and her daughter the very best, and that's a unanimous commonality of all the posts.
Remember, leaping into action is our immediate concern–and in fact our instinct. Our first reaction, when our child is in serious danger, should not be: if I as a judge(or whatever our position is in the legal community) contact this high-ranking Metro official in my desperate plight to save my daughter, would an ethics commission in the future argue that I used my position to gain preferential access as such Metro official would not be available to a working class person of no real societal stature or influence in the community, even if they were approaching Metro with the same set of facts.
All of which raises another highly disturbing issue. The high ranking Metro official should be available based on the severity, and the arguable legitimacy, of what is being alleged, not based on who the messenger is. If there was a case of arguable viability that this store was being used as a front to lure teens into prostitution, that is what should be significant enough to leap frog the Metro.totem poll and go straight to a high-ranking official. The position held by who brings such complaint should really not matter.
The implication is that the official only spoke with her because she(wrongfully, according to the Commission) invoked her judicial title, and(by implication) that if some retail cashier approached the official with the identical set of facts, an audience would not have been granted.
What does being a mother have to do with it. Are you joking? Have a daughter being sex trafficked, and you blame the women for trying to protect her??? Are you fucking kidding me?????
I agree with everyone above. As a mother, she did what she felt she needed to do. I feel the discipline authorities hounded her beyond what was appropriate. They lost credibility as to their sense of proportion and judgment with the public hearing conducted at UNLV against Tobiasson and Chelini.
Here is the problem: they did not lose hardly any credibility. They still have power; Tobiasson does not. They still have publicly shamed and gotten rid of someone who they did not like so that they can replace her with someone who they do like; none of them were removed or have lost anything. They are still in power; she is not. They still have jobs; she does not.
Short answer whether any of us like it or not: they won.
Sisolak, I am glad the judicial ethics commission went after a mother protecting her daughter who dif nothing wrong. I am glad the limited judicial discipline budget was used for Metro's own personal use.
@3:48 is substantially correct.
The politics of accusing Metro of corruption, attaching Wolfson, meddling in a criminal matter for personal reasons, and of course arguing and insulting the chief judge put her on the wrong track. Of course, the prior discipline matter didn't help.
Guest
Anonymous
April 30, 2021 9:57 pm
The adverse impact of NRS 52.380 (allowing plaintiffs an absolute right to have observers present and to record medical examines) on defendants is getting out of control. If the Plaintiffs have this right then defendants should have the right to have an observer present and record all medical treatment, and/or Plaintiffs should be subject to spoliation sanctions for having failed to record the medical sessions. F the legislature. Praying the NSCT can do the right thing.
Quacks that never saw a soft tissue injury that didn't require multiple spinal fusions scare me. Makes me wonder if they might have a financial interest in a medical center that bills obscene rates for spinal fusions.
You are comparing apples to oranges. A DME is similar to a depo, not medical treatment.
Guest
Anonymous
May 1, 2021 12:47 am
There is frequent chatter on this Blog about the lack of civility amongst the Family Bar. The reasons is because the family court judges allow it (and some encourage and embolden it). The name calling and vile pleadings are met with no issue or reprobation. Someone sent me a brief filed by one of the names frequently mentioned on this blog of being one of the scuzzier of the family attorneys and I read it and could not believe my eyes. The only times I have ever seen such garbage filed downtown resulted in the judges calling counsel to the bench and asking if they would like to withdraw the brief or just have the court strike the portions that were so far out of bounds as to shock the conscience. Judges– you want to clean up the way that attorneys practice? Clean it up. The reason attorneys act like scumbags is because you allow us/them to do it.
I am the only lawyer I know of that clerked for three different family law judges (yes, I passed the Bar but it's a long story) so I have some fair experience behind the scenes and you are 100% correct. Most of them do not know the basic rules of civil procedure and do not enforce any rules. They hide behind "best interests" as a catch-all for anything they want to do.
5:47 you're absolutely right. Here's a fun little experience I had in family court…opp party lied in their filings multiple times. I had evidence they lied. As in independent third party evidence and witness – not someone's grandma backing them up or he said – she said, but real evidence. I filed to hold OP in contempt. Judge chewed my ass in the hearing. Then after the trial judge issued an order and made the express finding that what we said was true (and by implication accepting the fact that OP had lied) and then the judge tied themselves in knots to justify granting OP fees…because we had multiplied proceedings. Client was justifiably pissed. Moral of the story…lie all you want in family court because it is definitely rewarded.
7;36–We don't know any of the facts. Just your conclusions that the judge loves to punish truth tellers and reward liars. It reads like the kind of post that angry pro pers provide.
BTW, I'm not sticking up for any of those judges, and agree with the posts about how many of them are lax with the rules of evidence and procedure(to the extent that some of them even have a reasonable grip o such rules).
But your comment, come on.
I also take issue with the post that suggest the judges enjoy and encourage the venom. Being ineffective at controlling it, or unwilling to control it when it comes from an influential Family Court practitioner, is not the same as enjoying or encouraging it.
They should not tolerate it, but I doubt they all have some serious psychological disturbance wherein they adore malicious people.
So we can criticize, and even condemn these judges, without losing credibility by resorting to such ludicrous hyperbole.
If we keep things sensible and proportionate, people may finally listen and change may come. I can dream, can't I?
7:36 here. I'm not an angry pro se. I'm a family law attorney who has appeared in front of that judge numerous times. I never thought they were a particularly good or bad judge, but I was appalled at this ruling. It really is as bad as I stated. I have receipts (i.e. the order, witness statements, evidence, etc.) If you'd like to leave your email address, I'll redact it and send it all to you.
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2021 4:36 pm
Patricia Donninger (sp?) was as a sadist and IMHO loved to see the wrong side win – lookup the LVRJ sexual assault case and look at the video and her face while the woman was screaming – shear delight and satisfaction.
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2021 6:01 pm
I tend to agree with 8:25 that even though there are bad judges,it is still perhaps a bridge too far to argue that all the Family Court judges encourage maliciousness, and I also agree that a vague post(7:36) about how a judge messed up a case may be selective as to what it emphasizes, as well as what it omits.
As far as encouraging conflict, judges generally want to avoid that as it just raises the judge's blood pressure and makes the cases more time-intensive for the judge. How many judges do you know that really want to work a lot harder, and spent a lot more time, than they currently do?
But that said, as 9:36 discusses, there may be an occasional judicial officer who does encourage the conflict.
As far as the rather vague, conclusion-based post of 7:36, they post again at 9:23, and who knows? Perhaps it's as bad as they say.
But the point is it may not be. When people are upset about a conflict, they tell us what they want us to know, and omit what they don't want us to know. That's basic human nature. And attorneys are not immune to that.
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2021 6:07 pm
11:01–I'm not arguing against your points, but I have encountered the dynamic 7:36(and again at 9:23) discusses, wherein a judge who seems okay(not great, but serviceable) makes an unbelievable hash out of a Family Court case.
I have encountered a far more disturbing situation wherein a Family Court judge I held in quite high esteem made a complete disaster out of a case.
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2021 6:25 pm
7:36 and 9:23 here. I know the story seems outrageous. It is outrageous. It's bullshit. I'll repeat my offer – if you want to post an email address, I'll redact the docs and send them to you.
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2021 6:54 pm
Your board of governor, Richard Dreitzer, went after Melanie Tobiasson. A mother whose daughter was sex trafficked. Judicial ethics commission is metro's own mob. This what our profession has become. Let the shit flow down. An absolute disgrace.
Someone who drives for Uber & Lyft is usually only doing it because they're unemployed from the job they want and just need cash until they find a new job. With unemployment, and even PPP loans open to Uber/Lyft drivers, why would they work when what they're getting presently is what they were earning while driving? I do consumer BK (7's/13's) and have done multiple Ch 7 BKs for Uber/Lyft drivers that didn't drive until their unemployment ran out recently.
I live in Summerlin, within about a half-mile of Red Rock and Downtown Summerlin. You'd think the area would be crawling with drivers looking for rides, yet I've gotten a "no cars available" message several times recently.
Uber-Lyft-After destroying Nevada's local taxi cab industry they are about to implode. It was a business model that can not work in the long run and only worked for a while.
12:34 please explain. Their stock price and amount of use across the country says differently. Other companies are popular in the world with the business model too.
I am amazed DETR picked up on the fraud. Six months ago I emailed a question to DETR, which was urgent at the time. Today they emailed me back writing, "Sorry for the delay. How may we help you?"
DETER,
A wonderful example of how government is so, so, so efficient; and perhaps a lesson on why you can't rely on big government or a democratic governor to fix anything.
@10:27 — You are wrong. What this is is a wonderful example of government underfunded and ill-equipped by an erstwhile Republican governor (eyes on you, Sandoval) and by Republican state senators who BLOCK necessary tax increases. Repubs who advocate for small government starve the government, then they turn around and blame Democrats for the fallout. And you wonder why the nation is divided, cannot compete, and is the laughing stock of the rest of the civilized world. Did you watch Biden's speech and listen with an open mind? I bet not . . . .
@11:16
Beg pardon. DETER is a business exercise in management. The Dem governor has thrown money at the problem (typical of government) but has been ineffective in managing resources. The software problems are not huge, as technical things go. The basic concept of in-bound calling, data collection and investigation are every day issues solved years ago by credit card companies. DETER is a government failure.
Free DETR
Boyd Nation what is the story on Dean Dan Hamilton leaving??
https://law.unlv.edu/news/publications/boyd-briefs/thank-you-dean-dan
No story, really! He's leaving to be closer to his family.
@ 10:39 isn't that euphemism used by politicians caught in scandal?
10:39 AM-Dean Dan Hamilton–why isn't his family already here in Las Vegas? I wonder why folks accept a well paying presitgious position only to be flying back and forth to another time zone. Just saying.
They were, at least when he took the position. She was in the UNLV Provost's office. Looks like she was employed from 2013 – 2019. Then, in Feb. 2019, she started working at Brandeis. Boston is a very long flight from Las Vegas.
https://law.unlv.edu/news/dan-hamilton-joins-boyd-school-law-dean
https://www.brandeis.edu/provost/letters/2018-2019/2019-02-22-mary-ann-winkelmes-ctl.html
Justice of the Peace Melanie Tobiasson to resign:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/las-vegas-judge-facing-ethics-charge-to-resign-2342935/
Stipulated dismissal of discipline charges with prejudice with immediate resignation from office.
https://judicial.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/judicialnvgov/content/Discipline/Dicisions/Certified%20Copy%20of%20Stipulation%20and%20Order%20of%20Consent%20to%20Resignation%20and%20Resolution%20of%20All%20Pending%20Matters.pdf
I have a great deal of empathy for her.
Don't know her, never met her, have a tremendous amount of sympathy for her as well.
All of this is a disgrace. I stand with Melanie as a judge and a mother.
She went too far with a lot of this, but there was some significant justification–she was trying to protect her daughter and other teenage girls by being exploited by dangerous criminals, and it seems that(whatever be the reasons) she could not persuade Metro to take action or to even take the matter seriously
What does a mother do when her child is on the wrong path? Doesn't she do anything and everything to save her child?
3:10. Yes, there is no denying you are right, but that does not mean 3:08 must be wrong.
If you have read all the materials and all the allegations, you will see things like her performing her own stake-outs, following suspects in her car, kicking in the door of an apparently dangerous criminal, accepting a stipulated criminal negotiation against one of the targets of her efforts(without disclosing the connection) etc.
But 3:08 also acknowledges, and which is the point being made by 3:10, if a parent is out of options, and their child is in legitimate danger, the gloves come off.
The allegations, and counter-allegations, are so detailed,
inflammatory, voluminous, and in many cases probably distorted to the point of hyperbole that the truth presumably lies someone in the middle between the extremes alleged by each side.
It is doubtful that all these officials are as aloof, callous and corrupt as the judges insists, but it is likewise clear that she was probably never remotely as out-of-control as Law Enforcement(and the NJDC) insists she was.
But the Judicial Commission appears to be accepting, and be guided by, law enforcement's position on all this. Doesn't help the judge that our D.A. supports law enforcement on this one and there appears to be no love loss between our D.A. and the judge.
As in most matters this convoluted and multi-faceted, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. But in my view not directly in the middle, but instead somewhat significantly leaning toward the legitimacy and the credibility of the Judge's position.
At least that's how it seems to me, and my conclusion my be wrong in the eyes of many or most, but at least I can claim to be reasonably informed–having read every available article on the matter, and having read all the posted material and briefs in the Discipline matter.
So, I think it would be a reach to uncritically accept and swallow the myopic position, offered by the judge that she "did nothing wrong" in any of this messy nightmare, but I in no way judge her, and in fact may have done much of the same if I were in that nightmare.
I wish her the very best of luck. I believe her daughter is ultimately safe and is doing fine now, and I really Thank God for that.
I have a daughter about that age, as do probably many readers of this blog. So, what the judge went through must have been unremitting torture, I can only imagine.
Perhaps she went a bit overboard, but this should not have been a career ender. This prosecution should have never happened, or should have been resolved with a reprimand, at most.
She pissed in the wrong peoples' Cheerios. She took on Metro. She took on the District Attorney. She took on judicial discipline. She was right in each and every one of those instances but had to know this could never end well. When Bill Terry died, he lost the voice of reason that might have gotten her out of this. She got screwed, but we all knew that this would be the ending.
3:30–Yes and No. Agree with some of what you say, but some of it our paths diverge somewhat.
My view is a bit weighed more in her favor than yours, and I do actually view her as a victim in all this.
But as to your primary point–she may not have handled some of these matters ideally but nor would we if engulfed in such a nightmare concerning our child, I am on board with you.
3:10's post may be real short, but the implications are significant and could be discussed at length as to all the legal, social, moral and ethical implications of all this.
So, I think 3:10 has the best take on all this: the rule book is not our primary concern when our child is in serious danger.
But we all wish the judge and her daughter the very best, and that's a unanimous commonality of all the posts.
Remember, leaping into action is our immediate concern–and in fact our instinct. Our first reaction, when our child is in serious danger, should not be: if I as a judge(or whatever our position is in the legal community) contact this high-ranking Metro official in my desperate plight to save my daughter, would an ethics commission in the future argue that I used my position to gain preferential access as such Metro official would not be available to a working class person of no real societal stature or influence in the community, even if they were approaching Metro with the same set of facts.
All of which raises another highly disturbing issue. The high ranking Metro official should be available based on the severity, and the arguable legitimacy, of what is being alleged, not based on who the messenger is. If there was a case of arguable viability that this store was being used as a front to lure teens into prostitution, that is what should be significant enough to leap frog the Metro.totem poll and go straight to a high-ranking official. The position held by who brings such complaint should really not matter.
The implication is that the official only spoke with her because she(wrongfully, according to the Commission) invoked her judicial title, and(by implication) that if some retail cashier approached the official with the identical set of facts, an audience would not have been granted.
What does being a mother have to do with it. Are you joking? Have a daughter being sex trafficked, and you blame the women for trying to protect her??? Are you fucking kidding me?????
I agree with everyone above. As a mother, she did what she felt she needed to do. I feel the discipline authorities hounded her beyond what was appropriate. They lost credibility as to their sense of proportion and judgment with the public hearing conducted at UNLV against Tobiasson and Chelini.
Here is the problem: they did not lose hardly any credibility. They still have power; Tobiasson does not. They still have publicly shamed and gotten rid of someone who they did not like so that they can replace her with someone who they do like; none of them were removed or have lost anything. They are still in power; she is not. They still have jobs; she does not.
Short answer whether any of us like it or not: they won.
Sisolak, I am glad the judicial ethics commission went after a mother protecting her daughter who dif nothing wrong. I am glad the limited judicial discipline budget was used for Metro's own personal use.
Did
What judges will judicial discipline not go after? It seems like all of them except Potter and Michele Leavitt.
How does Tobiasson have mob ties?
What is the status on Chelini?
I was told it was slightly better. Tobiasson was a debacle. Catching wind 5hat some of the judges fear Paul Dehyle.
This is yet another sad chapter in the sordid history of our wild west gambling town…
@3:48 is substantially correct.
The politics of accusing Metro of corruption, attaching Wolfson, meddling in a criminal matter for personal reasons, and of course arguing and insulting the chief judge put her on the wrong track. Of course, the prior discipline matter didn't help.
The adverse impact of NRS 52.380 (allowing plaintiffs an absolute right to have observers present and to record medical examines) on defendants is getting out of control. If the Plaintiffs have this right then defendants should have the right to have an observer present and record all medical treatment, and/or Plaintiffs should be subject to spoliation sanctions for having failed to record the medical sessions. F the legislature. Praying the NSCT can do the right thing.
The insurance companies could always just quit hiring liars.
Thank you for your input, Dr. Duke.
What are you so afraid of?
Yeah, its always the defendants hiring the "liars" and never the over-reaching plaintiffs.
Quacks that never saw a soft tissue injury that didn't require multiple spinal fusions scare me. Makes me wonder if they might have a financial interest in a medical center that bills obscene rates for spinal fusions.
You are comparing apples to oranges. A DME is similar to a depo, not medical treatment.
There is frequent chatter on this Blog about the lack of civility amongst the Family Bar. The reasons is because the family court judges allow it (and some encourage and embolden it). The name calling and vile pleadings are met with no issue or reprobation. Someone sent me a brief filed by one of the names frequently mentioned on this blog of being one of the scuzzier of the family attorneys and I read it and could not believe my eyes. The only times I have ever seen such garbage filed downtown resulted in the judges calling counsel to the bench and asking if they would like to withdraw the brief or just have the court strike the portions that were so far out of bounds as to shock the conscience. Judges– you want to clean up the way that attorneys practice? Clean it up. The reason attorneys act like scumbags is because you allow us/them to do it.
I am the only lawyer I know of that clerked for three different family law judges (yes, I passed the Bar but it's a long story) so I have some fair experience behind the scenes and you are 100% correct. Most of them do not know the basic rules of civil procedure and do not enforce any rules. They hide behind "best interests" as a catch-all for anything they want to do.
5:47 you're absolutely right. Here's a fun little experience I had in family court…opp party lied in their filings multiple times. I had evidence they lied. As in independent third party evidence and witness – not someone's grandma backing them up or he said – she said, but real evidence. I filed to hold OP in contempt. Judge chewed my ass in the hearing. Then after the trial judge issued an order and made the express finding that what we said was true (and by implication accepting the fact that OP had lied) and then the judge tied themselves in knots to justify granting OP fees…because we had multiplied proceedings. Client was justifiably pissed. Moral of the story…lie all you want in family court because it is definitely rewarded.
You people are crazy. Why would anyone want to practice family law?
7:55 You're absolutely right.
7;36–We don't know any of the facts. Just your conclusions that the judge loves to punish truth tellers and reward liars. It reads like the kind of post that angry pro pers provide.
BTW, I'm not sticking up for any of those judges, and agree with the posts about how many of them are lax with the rules of evidence and procedure(to the extent that some of them even have a reasonable grip o such rules).
But your comment, come on.
I also take issue with the post that suggest the judges enjoy and encourage the venom. Being ineffective at controlling it, or unwilling to control it when it comes from an influential Family Court practitioner, is not the same as enjoying or encouraging it.
They should not tolerate it, but I doubt they all have some serious psychological disturbance wherein they adore malicious people.
So we can criticize, and even condemn these judges, without losing credibility by resorting to such ludicrous hyperbole.
If we keep things sensible and proportionate, people may finally listen and change may come. I can dream, can't I?
7:36 here. I'm not an angry pro se. I'm a family law attorney who has appeared in front of that judge numerous times. I never thought they were a particularly good or bad judge, but I was appalled at this ruling. It really is as bad as I stated. I have receipts (i.e. the order, witness statements, evidence, etc.) If you'd like to leave your email address, I'll redact it and send it all to you.
Patricia Donninger (sp?) was as a sadist and IMHO loved to see the wrong side win – lookup the LVRJ sexual assault case and look at the video and her face while the woman was screaming – shear delight and satisfaction.
I tend to agree with 8:25 that even though there are bad judges,it is still perhaps a bridge too far to argue that all the Family Court judges encourage maliciousness, and I also agree that a vague post(7:36) about how a judge messed up a case may be selective as to what it emphasizes, as well as what it omits.
As far as encouraging conflict, judges generally want to avoid that as it just raises the judge's blood pressure and makes the cases more time-intensive for the judge. How many judges do you know that really want to work a lot harder, and spent a lot more time, than they currently do?
But that said, as 9:36 discusses, there may be an occasional judicial officer who does encourage the conflict.
As far as the rather vague, conclusion-based post of 7:36, they post again at 9:23, and who knows? Perhaps it's as bad as they say.
But the point is it may not be. When people are upset about a conflict, they tell us what they want us to know, and omit what they don't want us to know. That's basic human nature. And attorneys are not immune to that.
11:01–I'm not arguing against your points, but I have encountered the dynamic 7:36(and again at 9:23) discusses, wherein a judge who seems okay(not great, but serviceable) makes an unbelievable hash out of a Family Court case.
I have encountered a far more disturbing situation wherein a Family Court judge I held in quite high esteem made a complete disaster out of a case.
7:36 and 9:23 here. I know the story seems outrageous. It is outrageous. It's bullshit. I'll repeat my offer – if you want to post an email address, I'll redact the docs and send them to you.
Your board of governor, Richard Dreitzer, went after Melanie Tobiasson. A mother whose daughter was sex trafficked. Judicial ethics commission is metro's own mob. This what our profession has become. Let the shit flow down. An absolute disgrace.
When does his term end?
Will not be voting for Richard again.