Justice of the Peace Melanie Andress-Tobiasson is facing (and fighting) potential discipline over allegedly using her position as a judge to contact police. [Nevada Current]
Here are some of Aaron Ford’s priorities as Attorney General. [Las Vegas Sun]
Confirming what was already rumored, the Coroner ruled Judge Laurel (Davis) Barbero’s death a suicide. [RJ]
Valid complaints are not prosecuted, and they pursue invalid complaints. Wow.
Guest
Andrew Anglin
December 17, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: the Judge who issued the order on "whiny" lawyers.
Congratulations: Diversity is our greatest strength.
Good luck whitey when you are in the minority
Welcome to Idiocracy
Guest
Anonymous
December 17, 2018 6:36 pm
Holy Crap – my full support for Melanie Tobiasson. She had a DUTY to report. She didn't use her "influence" for self interest- she used her access to METRO to report serious issues. Insanity to consider discipline against her.
This, 100%. Judicial discipline needs a new staff. They went after her for nothing now and before.
Guest
Anonymous
December 17, 2018 11:07 pm
I'm not disagreeing with 9;28, 9:32, 10;36, and the others.
In fact, on a personal level I entirely agree with them, and I in fact have a daughter.
And with the understanding that the Commission may be over-reacting and perhaps is too aggressive in filing formal charges(even after their own investigator found no probable violations), permit me a few observations.
1. A judge should only as a last resort be the one to tip off the cops to existing or pending criminal developments. This is even more of an issue if if one or more of the suspects in question have a pending case assigned to such judge, and this becomes even more pronounced if the judge's immediate family member is a purported victim of the defendant(s).The better and safer practice would have been to immediately recuse, and then speak to the Presiding Judge of her court, and her attorney, about the problem and in what manner the authorities should be alerted. If it can at all be avoided, she should not be the one to directly reach out to the authorities.
She then should have sought an advisory opinion form the Judicial Discipline Commission. They would have done one of four things. They would have refused to provide her any sort of declaratory opinion(likely),or advised her to directly contact the police(not likely), advised her to speak to her attorney or the Presiding Judge for guidance(possible),or to contact a third party to alert Metro(also unlikely).
But whatever they advised, or didn't advise, she would then have some arguments–e.g. I told the commission children(including my own) were in immediate danger and they offered no opinion on whether I should contact the police, or they told me I should not contact the police, so I did the best I could and sought guidance form the Presiding Judge and my attorney. This could possibly have provided her a little better coverage on the issue.
2. As to the issue of supposed lack of timely recusal, I think considering the extreme extenuating circumstances, and the fact she presided over no contested hearings, she should be fine. Her explanation of not immediately identifying that a purported victim was her daughter is quite defensible based on the likelihood of harm if the defendant then believes her daughter ratted him out. After that, it appeared the judge successfully and adroitly walked the tightrope by not yet revealing the relation(which she would have needed to do to justify the recusal, but which would have endangered her daughter) and waiting to see if the expected settlement was reached, so that she would not have to preside over any contested hearings. It appeared clear that if the prospective settlement fell through, that she was prepared to deal with the tough necessity of recusing, in order to avoid issuing orders on contested matters, and then take the further necessary steps to protect her daughter.
So, she was in an extremely difficult situation. But since she ultimately did not rule on contested issues, and had very valid safety concerns regarding her daughter, the delay in recusing is quite justified, IMO.
But I think as to #1, she should have sought a little more coverage and protection. But that said, ultimately the Commission will look very bad if they proceed, and I believe our Supreme Court will let them know that.
Agreed. In an ideal world, in a case with no disturbing dynamics, perhaps she could, and should, have handled matters somewhat differently.
But, considering the harrowing dynamics of this case, any less than ideal actions on her part are easily excused.
I think a key is that despite the delay in recusing(and I think she had very sound and compelling reasons to delay recusing) she ultimately did not preside over any contested matters on the case.
So, remind me of exactly what she did wrong. The person who is attempting to lure her daughter and others into prostitution may well kill anyone who informs on him, and he is apparently continuing his recruitment activities, and the judge should ignore all this and do nothing merely because the commission may later believe that if she attempts to save young lives that she is using the status of her office to advance a personal advantage? Balderdash.
I need a stiff drink, or some Dr. Beth pot edibles. This woman spoke out and thought she was protecting the public, and this is what the judicial discipline does????
According to the article, she didn't just report to the police, as she had the right to do like any other person (perhaps after recusing from any related cases). According to the article, she contacted the police through channels open to her only because of her position as a judge. In other words, she allegedly used her position as a judge to push the complaint in a way the average person couldn't do. That's an abuse of power if true.
I don't care. Have you ever tried to report a non-emergency to Metro? It's essentially impossible. They put you into a labyrinth phone tree without any possible way of speaking with a human being. I have lived here for seven years, and it is my observation that Metro does almost nothing beyond active emergencies. If you are burglarized or robbed or if you're an elderly person who is exploited, Metro is very unlikely to help you. I would suspect that this situation would be no different. So do you expect her to just sit on her hands after filling out a report that nobody will likely ever look at?
The Rippo case is an absolute blackmark on our Supreme Court and its refusal/failure to move even when ordered to move.
How could any parent be unsympathetic to the situation of Melanie Tobiasson? I wish her well.
Yes! She spoke up against corruption to protect children. I am suspicious of this "discipline" and she has my full support.
If I put on a robe, I love my ability to report crime? smh
Yet another instance of regulators trying to be relevant by being an EFF-ing moron.
Valid complaints are not prosecuted, and they pursue invalid complaints. Wow.
Re: the Judge who issued the order on "whiny" lawyers.
Congratulations: Diversity is our greatest strength.
Good luck whitey when you are in the minority
Welcome to Idiocracy
Holy Crap – my full support for Melanie Tobiasson. She had a DUTY to report. She didn't use her "influence" for self interest- she used her access to METRO to report serious issues. Insanity to consider discipline against her.
This, 100%. Judicial discipline needs a new staff. They went after her for nothing now and before.
I'm not disagreeing with 9;28, 9:32, 10;36, and the others.
In fact, on a personal level I entirely agree with them, and I in fact have a daughter.
And with the understanding that the Commission may be over-reacting and perhaps is too aggressive in filing formal charges(even after their own investigator found no probable violations), permit me a few observations.
1. A judge should only as a last resort be the one to tip off the cops to existing or pending criminal developments. This is even more of an issue if if one or more of the suspects in question have a pending case assigned to such judge, and this becomes even more pronounced if the judge's immediate family member is a purported victim of the defendant(s).The better and safer practice would have been to immediately recuse, and then speak to the Presiding Judge of her court, and her attorney, about the problem and in what manner the authorities should be alerted. If it can at all be avoided, she should not be the one to directly reach out to the authorities.
She then should have sought an advisory opinion form the Judicial Discipline Commission. They would have done one of four things. They would have refused to provide her any sort of declaratory opinion(likely),or advised her to directly contact the police(not likely), advised her to speak to her attorney or the Presiding Judge for guidance(possible),or to contact a third party to alert Metro(also unlikely).
But whatever they advised, or didn't advise, she would then have some arguments–e.g. I told the commission children(including my own) were in immediate danger and they offered no opinion on whether I should contact the police, or they told me I should not contact the police, so I did the best I could and sought guidance form the Presiding Judge and my attorney. This could possibly have provided her a little better coverage on the issue.
2. As to the issue of supposed lack of timely recusal, I think considering the extreme extenuating circumstances, and the fact she presided over no contested hearings, she should be fine. Her explanation of not immediately identifying that a purported victim was her daughter is quite defensible based on the likelihood of harm if the defendant then believes her daughter ratted him out. After that, it appeared the judge successfully and adroitly walked the tightrope by not yet revealing the relation(which she would have needed to do to justify the recusal, but which would have endangered her daughter) and waiting to see if the expected settlement was reached, so that she would not have to preside over any contested hearings. It appeared clear that if the prospective settlement fell through, that she was prepared to deal with the tough necessity of recusing, in order to avoid issuing orders on contested matters, and then take the further necessary steps to protect her daughter.
So, she was in an extremely difficult situation. But since she ultimately did not rule on contested issues, and had very valid safety concerns regarding her daughter, the delay in recusing is quite justified, IMO.
But I think as to #1, she should have sought a little more coverage and protection. But that said, ultimately the Commission will look very bad if they proceed, and I believe our Supreme Court will let them know that.
Agreed. In an ideal world, in a case with no disturbing dynamics, perhaps she could, and should, have handled matters somewhat differently.
But, considering the harrowing dynamics of this case, any less than ideal actions on her part are easily excused.
I think a key is that despite the delay in recusing(and I think she had very sound and compelling reasons to delay recusing) she ultimately did not preside over any contested matters on the case.
So, remind me of exactly what she did wrong. The person who is attempting to lure her daughter and others into prostitution may well kill anyone who informs on him, and he is apparently continuing his recruitment activities, and the judge should ignore all this and do nothing merely because the commission may later believe that if she attempts to save young lives that she is using the status of her office to advance a personal advantage? Balderdash.
I have no idea how you people at the judicial discipline sleep at night. I know it is not well.
I need a stiff drink, or some Dr. Beth pot edibles. This woman spoke out and thought she was protecting the public, and this is what the judicial discipline does????
Don't mess with Metro. You will not live to tell about it.
I am sure you will.
According to the article, she didn't just report to the police, as she had the right to do like any other person (perhaps after recusing from any related cases). According to the article, she contacted the police through channels open to her only because of her position as a judge. In other words, she allegedly used her position as a judge to push the complaint in a way the average person couldn't do. That's an abuse of power if true.
8:33 AM,
I don't care. Have you ever tried to report a non-emergency to Metro? It's essentially impossible. They put you into a labyrinth phone tree without any possible way of speaking with a human being. I have lived here for seven years, and it is my observation that Metro does almost nothing beyond active emergencies. If you are burglarized or robbed or if you're an elderly person who is exploited, Metro is very unlikely to help you. I would suspect that this situation would be no different. So do you expect her to just sit on her hands after filling out a report that nobody will likely ever look at?
Lived here for 39 years and 8:44 is correct re: response and response time.
8:44, if true, that is awful. Doesn't change the analysis one bit as to whether she abused her position as a judge.
Speaking of people who should be pounding the Ambien, anyone hear about another round of defections from the Office of Bar Counsel?