The Supreme Court’s review of New Jersey sports betting this fall could be a boon for Nevada gaming lawyers. [Las Vegas Sun; TNI]
AG Adam Laxalt’s road to the governor’s mansion is not a sure thing. [TNI]
The man who killed a dummy is taking a plea deal. [Now Report]
DLA Piper, a law firm that earlier this year touted its cyber security expertise, was hit hard by the latest ransomware attack. Lawyers had to resort to using their cell phones to conduct business. Is your firm prepared for something like this? [Above the Law]
That vet needs a new career. Complains about a surface scratch created by a dying dog getting a catheter? Can't believe the DA's office allowed this case past screening. Whoever let this case through probably needs to be assigned a different job as well.
The way the article describes this dog bite case, it really seems the facts, and who did or said whatever, are a moving target, confusing and difficult to pin down. All players being put under oath for extensive and detailed testimony as to everything that happened, may be the only way it all gets flushed out if it in fact proceeds forward and is not dismissed or resolved by negotiation.
The article seems to develop matters from the perspective of the judge(perhaps, in part, because she may be the only one discussing the matter extensively with the reporter), and it seems to have a sympathetic slant to the judge, and kind of assumes a tone that the judge is being victimized and that what she says is true.
Whether or not all her key representations are true, and with the understanding I don't have a dog in this fight(Real lame. I know. Please forgive me. I couldn't resist), what tends to largely support her version, and which so far stands uncontroverted, is that she keeps insisting on proof that a veterinarian, or anyone else, was bitten by a dog, and if so, proof that it was her dog that did the biting. Apparently, if she is telling it like it is, none of this has yet been presented to her.
There just seems to either be a lot missing from the story and/or the DA seems to be acting quite prematurely, and perhaps without sufficient justification by tendering these charges.
If proven her dog bit someone, that is generally resolved in civil, rather than criminal forum, and becomes a financial compensation type issue. The fact that the D.A. was able to locate some criminal charges that could potentially apply to the unique facts of this situation, does not necessarily mean they should have proceeded.
Putting a long-term family pet down is traumatic for all concerned. If she did something such as rather than leaving her dog for quarantine or for some other procedure to determine rabbis or other malady, instead took her dog somewhere else to finally complete the euthanasia process, it sounds like rational and understandable human behavior to me. But, apparently, that conduct, or some other conduct, was against statute.
Now, I assume the DA did not approve this prosecution not knowing the purported defendant was a judge–a judge, by the way, who A.D.A.s appear in front of on a daily basis. And it would appear, based on the limited and perhaps somewhat erroneous
info. available, that matters could have been reasonably resolved without criminal charges.
And I'm not implying she should have been afforded preferential treatment because she is a judge. In fact, if the relayed facts are accurate I'm not convinced that criminal charges is the first and preferred route against any individual who took this action.
Even if it turns out someone was bit, and even if it were her dog, if her dog was, as she insists, current on his rabbi vaccinations, and considering there being no reported rabbis case in Nevada since like forever, I hardly think she created some potential huge public health epidemic by taking her pet somewhere else to be put under and then, presumably, subsequently cremated, as opposed to leaving the pet with the original vet.–apparently for the purpose of being turned over by the vet.to health officials to decapitate the pet once dead in order to commence a rabbis analysis.
I'm just don't get any of this. So, borrowing a line from Denzel Washington in the movie "Philadelphia", explain it to me like I'm a six-year-old.
Hold on. Look I understand why Melanie is upset; however Town Center handled it correctly and within the law. I only know this because I went through this exact situation (at the risk of revealing my identity because this story is known amongst my friends). My dog was dying– whether a day or 3 weeks– he was dying. My vet came out to the house due to our inability to move him (and his inability to move himself). A decision was made (much against my wishes but with my compassion) that the humane thing would be to end his suffering (a decision which admittedly does not come easily and was full of sadness). In the course of trying to move him to a shady spot so we could start the process, he bit me. In fact it was not even really a bite; it was a scratch. But it was legally defined as a bite.
However the process stopped immediately. The Vet stated that he was legally prohibited from carrying out the euthanasia and was required under law to mandatorily report the bite to Animal Control. He could not just pretend that it did not happen; he was required to report. We didn't have up to date shot records with us. Animal Control came out and gave us the choice: 10 day hold at the Pound or 10 day hold at our home with legal quarantine requirements. Without shot records, no one could legally euthanize him. At the end of 10 days, Animal Control could release him from quarantine and he could be legally euthanized as beyond the rabies holding period without further conditions.
Unlike Melanie's situation, I was honestly relieved that he would get up to 10 more days. Our dog passed naturally after 7 days of effectively hospice in quarantine. However because he died within the 10 day hold period, we were legally required to turn him over for testing by the State. And yes, as horrific as it is, the test involves cutting off their head. I fought this tooth and nail. But legally it is required.
So I completely understand Melanie acting out, grabbing her dog and making a break for it. However Town Center was legally required to call Animal Control. Town Center was legally required to halt the euthanasia. Certainly the Judge does not fault this facility for following the law. For Channel 13 to air a hit piece against this vet for following the law is typical Channel 13. Had Melanie NOT grabbed her dog, she would have learned from Animal Control what her rights and the law are.
If you want to excoriate the District Attorney for proceeding with this case, I have no problem. But she did break the law. But leave the poor vet out of this for doing exactly what its licensure required it to do.
I agree wholeheartedly with 6:49. As an officer of the courts, I am duty bound to report all law-breakers. Therefore, every time I drive on I-215, I spend the entire drive on the phone with 911, reporting every speeding vehicle and every vehicle that does not use its turn signal. I wish I didn't have to, but I have no choice. My oath to the law requires me to do this.
This is shameful practice by a vet. They should have checked the rabies records if this is such a big deal and if the dog did not have current certifications worn protective gear for the catheterization preface to the euthanization procedure. That a terminally ill dog might nip the person inserting the catheter is hardly surprising; as a licensed veterinary clinic, if it is indeed the law as represented above which I doubt, they presumably know it and should have anticipated and guarded against the risk of turning an already heartbreaking experience for these kids and their mom into a horror-movie nightmare. The family took the dog in for a humane euthanization and ended up having to have the head cut off because the vet didn't check rabies records or anticipate a bite? Stay away from this vet.
8:18, you are a snarky retard. The vet was legally required to do what he/she did and would have put his/her license in danger by not complying – well, trying to comply, before the judge broke the law and walked off with the dog. You are not legally required to report speeders. Seriously, if the argument you made was instinctual, find a new line of work.
@8:18– You do not commit a crime if you fail to report a speeder. This vet would have committed a crime by not reporting this to Animal Control, a crime with which the Judge was charged. This wasn't a professional code of ethics; it was a crime. But this Judge loses the argument by asserting how dare Town Center comply with the law.
@7:10- Before you doubt that it is the law, check the law. Second of all, the family did not have the head cut off because the vet did not check the records; the family broke the law by going to another vet and ignoring the law. The veterinarian did nothing wrong by following the law.
9:13 you miss the point. Before initiating euthanasia the vet should have checked to see if it had the records to avoid all this if the dog nipped while being catheterized. If not, and it was necessary to proceed without the records, the vet should have taken precautions to avoid being bitten, i.e., worn protection or muzzled the dog. This is terrible, substandard veterinary practice and was entirely avoidable by the clinic.
ps before everyone says muzzling a dying dog is distressing to the family, the vets I've done this with take the animal back to catheterize it then bring it back out to be with the family when it is euthanized. We all have choices as to the vets we use and I will never use or recommend this clinic.
DA has direct conflict of interest and CANNOT prosecute a JP who his office practices in front of. A special prosecutor needed to be appointed. Major Fail!!!
10:37/10:41– No miss the point. Your protocol for catheterization is exactly what the story states was done in this case. The dog was taken in the back to be catheterized. Dogs will lash out when in pain, including against those attempting to put a muzzle on them. You presume (without any real factual basis) that the vet in this case took no precautions to avoid being bitten; precisely upon what you base this conclusion is unknown. Dr. Kyle is not the one who called Animal Control and yet she has been vilified for AC being called. Her career has been ruined because 2 harpies (Darcy Spears and Melanie Tobiasson) have no legal idea of what they are speaking. And clearly, neither do you.
10:37 here – my only point is that a decent vet could and would have avoided all this and that I, personally, will never use or recommend Dr. Kyle. Others are free to do so. There is nothing sadder to a family with little kids than losing a pet they love. In many instances, this is the first death the children experience. Vets should know this. I cannot believe a terminally ill dog known to not have the rabies papers could not have either been referred to its main vet for euthanization or appropriately handled to avert all this. We just disagree — not personal, just sad. My only point is I would never go to or recommend thsi vet as I believe, am convinced, even, this was avoidable.
How do we expect the judge, while she is under great emotional stress no less, to know the intricacies of arcane protocol and rules for the quarantine and euthanasia of ill domestic animals, when she is apparently unaware that as a Las Vegas J.P. she is not permitted to issue orders in foreign divorce proceedings?
Very difficult to understand the protocols and rules and laws for quarantine and euthanasia after the veterinary clinic just explained them to you and you say "F-U I am not going to allow you to do that." And then you go on TV and say "Yeah I am expressly not going to do what the law says." 9:49 you are exactly correct- she is a judge who does what she wants when she wants. Never let the law get in the way of self-determination.
Guest
Anonymous
June 28, 2017 6:27 pm
How about the guy who rammed the Alabama Ten Commandments display? Definitely blog-worthy.
And in other news http://www.ktnv.com/news/contact-13/judge-bites-back-after-dying-dog-bites-vet RE: Judge Melanie Tobiasson
Sounds like a terrible day made all the worse by a bunch of numbskulls.
That vet needs a new career. Complains about a surface scratch created by a dying dog getting a catheter? Can't believe the DA's office allowed this case past screening. Whoever let this case through probably needs to be assigned a different job as well.
What the literal f?
Wolfson the animal lover.
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen and I deal with insurance defense lawyers so I see a lot of dumb shit.
So if I take my dog to the vet and the vet does something to upset it and it bites, I can be charged with crimes? Total BS!
Tobiasson has great hair extensions!
Wow. I feel really bad for the Judge. I'll never take my pets to that vet. That's just a really sad situation made way worse by the DA's office.
Doesn't the vet assume that type of risk of getting nipped when treating scared/sick animals?
The way the article describes this dog bite case, it really seems the facts, and who did or said whatever, are a moving target, confusing and difficult to pin down. All players being put under oath for extensive and detailed testimony as to everything that happened, may be the only way it all gets flushed out if it in fact proceeds forward and is not dismissed or resolved by negotiation.
The article seems to develop matters from the perspective of the judge(perhaps, in part, because she may be the only one discussing the matter extensively with the reporter), and it seems to have a sympathetic slant to the judge, and kind of assumes a tone that the judge is being victimized and that what she says is true.
Whether or not all her key representations are true, and with the understanding I don't have a dog in this fight(Real lame. I know. Please forgive me. I couldn't resist), what tends to largely support her version, and which so far stands uncontroverted, is that she keeps insisting on proof that a veterinarian, or anyone else, was bitten by a dog, and if so, proof that it was her dog that did the biting. Apparently, if she is telling it like it is, none of this has yet been presented to her.
There just seems to either be a lot missing from the story and/or the DA seems to be acting quite prematurely, and perhaps without sufficient justification by tendering these charges.
If proven her dog bit someone, that is generally resolved in civil, rather than criminal forum, and becomes a financial compensation type issue. The fact that the D.A. was able to locate some criminal charges that could potentially apply to the unique facts of this situation, does not necessarily mean they should have proceeded.
Putting a long-term family pet down is traumatic for all concerned. If she did something such as rather than leaving her dog for quarantine or for some other procedure to determine rabbis or other malady, instead took her dog somewhere else to finally complete the euthanasia process, it sounds like rational and understandable human behavior to me. But, apparently, that conduct, or some other conduct, was against statute.
Now, I assume the DA did not approve this prosecution not knowing the purported defendant was a judge–a judge, by the way, who A.D.A.s appear in front of on a daily basis. And it would appear, based on the limited and perhaps somewhat erroneous
info. available, that matters could have been reasonably resolved without criminal charges.
And I'm not implying she should have been afforded preferential treatment because she is a judge. In fact, if the relayed facts are accurate I'm not convinced that criminal charges is the first and preferred route against any individual who took this action.
Even if it turns out someone was bit, and even if it were her dog, if her dog was, as she insists, current on his rabbi vaccinations, and considering there being no reported rabbis case in Nevada since like forever, I hardly think she created some potential huge public health epidemic by taking her pet somewhere else to be put under and then, presumably, subsequently cremated, as opposed to leaving the pet with the original vet.–apparently for the purpose of being turned over by the vet.to health officials to decapitate the pet once dead in order to commence a rabbis analysis.
I'm just don't get any of this. So, borrowing a line from Denzel Washington in the movie "Philadelphia", explain it to me like I'm a six-year-old.
Hold on. Look I understand why Melanie is upset; however Town Center handled it correctly and within the law. I only know this because I went through this exact situation (at the risk of revealing my identity because this story is known amongst my friends). My dog was dying– whether a day or 3 weeks– he was dying. My vet came out to the house due to our inability to move him (and his inability to move himself). A decision was made (much against my wishes but with my compassion) that the humane thing would be to end his suffering (a decision which admittedly does not come easily and was full of sadness). In the course of trying to move him to a shady spot so we could start the process, he bit me. In fact it was not even really a bite; it was a scratch. But it was legally defined as a bite.
However the process stopped immediately. The Vet stated that he was legally prohibited from carrying out the euthanasia and was required under law to mandatorily report the bite to Animal Control. He could not just pretend that it did not happen; he was required to report. We didn't have up to date shot records with us. Animal Control came out and gave us the choice: 10 day hold at the Pound or 10 day hold at our home with legal quarantine requirements. Without shot records, no one could legally euthanize him. At the end of 10 days, Animal Control could release him from quarantine and he could be legally euthanized as beyond the rabies holding period without further conditions.
Unlike Melanie's situation, I was honestly relieved that he would get up to 10 more days. Our dog passed naturally after 7 days of effectively hospice in quarantine. However because he died within the 10 day hold period, we were legally required to turn him over for testing by the State. And yes, as horrific as it is, the test involves cutting off their head. I fought this tooth and nail. But legally it is required.
So I completely understand Melanie acting out, grabbing her dog and making a break for it. However Town Center was legally required to call Animal Control. Town Center was legally required to halt the euthanasia. Certainly the Judge does not fault this facility for following the law. For Channel 13 to air a hit piece against this vet for following the law is typical Channel 13. Had Melanie NOT grabbed her dog, she would have learned from Animal Control what her rights and the law are.
If you want to excoriate the District Attorney for proceeding with this case, I have no problem. But she did break the law. But leave the poor vet out of this for doing exactly what its licensure required it to do.
I agree wholeheartedly with 6:49. As an officer of the courts, I am duty bound to report all law-breakers. Therefore, every time I drive on I-215, I spend the entire drive on the phone with 911, reporting every speeding vehicle and every vehicle that does not use its turn signal. I wish I didn't have to, but I have no choice. My oath to the law requires me to do this.
Prosecutions like this are why the concept of jury nullification exists.
This is shameful practice by a vet. They should have checked the rabies records if this is such a big deal and if the dog did not have current certifications worn protective gear for the catheterization preface to the euthanization procedure. That a terminally ill dog might nip the person inserting the catheter is hardly surprising; as a licensed veterinary clinic, if it is indeed the law as represented above which I doubt, they presumably know it and should have anticipated and guarded against the risk of turning an already heartbreaking experience for these kids and their mom into a horror-movie nightmare. The family took the dog in for a humane euthanization and ended up having to have the head cut off because the vet didn't check rabies records or anticipate a bite? Stay away from this vet.
8:18, you are a snarky retard. The vet was legally required to do what he/she did and would have put his/her license in danger by not complying – well, trying to comply, before the judge broke the law and walked off with the dog. You are not legally required to report speeders. Seriously, if the argument you made was instinctual, find a new line of work.
@8:18– You do not commit a crime if you fail to report a speeder. This vet would have committed a crime by not reporting this to Animal Control, a crime with which the Judge was charged. This wasn't a professional code of ethics; it was a crime. But this Judge loses the argument by asserting how dare Town Center comply with the law.
@7:10- Before you doubt that it is the law, check the law. Second of all, the family did not have the head cut off because the vet did not check the records; the family broke the law by going to another vet and ignoring the law. The veterinarian did nothing wrong by following the law.
9:13 you miss the point. Before initiating euthanasia the vet should have checked to see if it had the records to avoid all this if the dog nipped while being catheterized. If not, and it was necessary to proceed without the records, the vet should have taken precautions to avoid being bitten, i.e., worn protection or muzzled the dog. This is terrible, substandard veterinary practice and was entirely avoidable by the clinic.
ps before everyone says muzzling a dying dog is distressing to the family, the vets I've done this with take the animal back to catheterize it then bring it back out to be with the family when it is euthanized. We all have choices as to the vets we use and I will never use or recommend this clinic.
DA has direct conflict of interest and CANNOT prosecute a JP who his office practices in front of. A special prosecutor needed to be appointed. Major Fail!!!
10:37/10:41– No miss the point. Your protocol for catheterization is exactly what the story states was done in this case. The dog was taken in the back to be catheterized. Dogs will lash out when in pain, including against those attempting to put a muzzle on them. You presume (without any real factual basis) that the vet in this case took no precautions to avoid being bitten; precisely upon what you base this conclusion is unknown. Dr. Kyle is not the one who called Animal Control and yet she has been vilified for AC being called. Her career has been ruined because 2 harpies (Darcy Spears and Melanie Tobiasson) have no legal idea of what they are speaking. And clearly, neither do you.
10:37 here – my only point is that a decent vet could and would have avoided all this and that I, personally, will never use or recommend Dr. Kyle. Others are free to do so. There is nothing sadder to a family with little kids than losing a pet they love. In many instances, this is the first death the children experience. Vets should know this. I cannot believe a terminally ill dog known to not have the rabies papers could not have either been referred to its main vet for euthanization or appropriately handled to avert all this. We just disagree — not personal, just sad. My only point is I would never go to or recommend thsi vet as I believe, am convinced, even, this was avoidable.
How do we expect the judge, while she is under great emotional stress no less, to know the intricacies of arcane protocol and rules for the quarantine and euthanasia of ill domestic animals, when she is apparently unaware that as a Las Vegas J.P. she is not permitted to issue orders in foreign divorce proceedings?
Very difficult to understand the protocols and rules and laws for quarantine and euthanasia after the veterinary clinic just explained them to you and you say "F-U I am not going to allow you to do that." And then you go on TV and say "Yeah I am expressly not going to do what the law says." 9:49 you are exactly correct- she is a judge who does what she wants when she wants. Never let the law get in the way of self-determination.
How about the guy who rammed the Alabama Ten Commandments display? Definitely blog-worthy.
FREEEEEDOM!!!!
https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/06/28/10-commandments-monument-broken-up
For all of LV's faults, I feel like this is a good opportunity to express gratitude to live in a place that is (mostly) free of stupid culture wars.
@11:49 – agreed
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=43405
Herpes and self-imposed alimony. I cannot stop laughing. It will be another win for John Jones.
Please 'splain
Herpes and self imposed alimony for perpetuity.
WTF, pretty sure a contract providing for palimony if one party cheats is unenforceable for about a dozen reasons, especially in Nevada.
Why does it take a month for court minutes to post? Wow. I need to get a job at the clerk's office.
They are probably still processing your application . . .since 1995!
Give Grierson a ring.
I tried that. The only thing I could get out of him was "It's 3 am," and "How did you get this number?"
Dumb dumb dumb, my next crime novel will be titled , "the man who killed a dummy."
It should be titled, "The Man who Tried to Kill a Person but Only Smashed a Dummy."
"Haven't we had this conversation before?"
-George Costanza
My next court case will be my client is suing bc he was scared by a dummy in the hotel room. I want T. Williams presiding.