1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kathleen M. Paustian, Esq. SBN 3785 Law Office of Kathleen M. Paustian 3205 Skipworth Drive Las Vegas, NV 89107 Tele_phone (702) 321-2222 Facsimile (702) 369-5727 kathleen:paustian@cox.net Prosecutmg Officer for the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline

FILED PuBLIC

NOV 2 1 2016

BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

IN THE MATTER OF THE ) HONORABLE Melanie Andress-Tobiasson,) Las Vegas Township Justice Court, ) Clark County, State ofNevada, )

) Respondent. )

CASE NO.: 2014-094-P

OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, FOR ELECTRONIC TESTIMONY

COMES NOW Kathleen M. Paustian, Prosecuting Officer for the Nevada Commission on

Judicial Discipline ("Commission" or ''NCJD"), and files this Opposition to Respondent's Motion

for Change of Venue or, in the Alternative, for Electronic Testimony ("Opposition") pursuant to

Exhibit A to the Commission's Procedural Rules, Procedure 2(1), "Content of Motions; Response;

Reply". This pleading is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the

documents on file in this case, along with any oral arguments should the Commission order a

hearing on the issues raised by Respondent's Motion for Change of Venue or, in the Alternative, for

Electronic Testimony ("Motion").

I. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

In its November 4, 2016 Order Setting Public Hearing and Notice of Panel Members; Order

Regarding Media Access ("Order"), the Commission exercised its authority to select Reno as the

best location for the Hearing and to set the date for February 10, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The

location was picked, in part, because five ( 5) of the seven (7) Commissioners assigned to the

matter would have been required to travel to Las Vegas in the event the Hearing had been held in

Southern Nevada. The Commission is comprised of members of the judiciary, attorneys and

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

laypersons. All of them have extremely busy calendars, due to their work schedules and

involvement in their communities. Had this hearing been set in Las Vegas, it would have been

pushed much farther into the New Year. The Commission is mindful of the obligation to schedule

hearings as expeditiously as possible, under the circumstances.

Procedural Rule 18 (1), "Formal Hearing", instructs the Commission to consult with

respondent and counsel regarding scheduling the date and time of the hearing and to, "where

possible", accommodate their schedules. That was done in this instance. Accordingly, the

location was not selected out of any intent to be punitive to the Respondent. Instead, it was

picked to offer Respondent an opportunity to be heard on the Charges against her as quickly as

reasonably possible, given the schedules of all involved, including her schedule and that of her

attorney.

In addition, the Commission has an obligation to afford the Commissioners the

opportunity to observe the demeanor of the Respondent and any witnesses. Electronic testimony

renders such observation very difficult.

Finally, there is no provision in Commission Rules for a change of venue. Regardless,

Respondent argues the location ofthe actions alleged in the Formal Statement of Charges should

control the venue, thus dictating that the Hearing be held in Las Vegas. If such a consideration

was always the deciding factor, the Commission would be required to hold hearings wherever state

judges preside, with locations ranging from Elko to Tonopah. This method of selection of venue

would not be feasible.

II. CONCLUSION

Given the Commission's concern with setting this Hearing as expeditiously as possible and

its obligation to afford the Respondent an opportunity to best present her case, the scheduling of

this Hearing in Northern Nevada, with in-person testimony, is appropriate under the Commission

Rules and the circumstances. To delay the hearing to move it to Southern Nevada would not be in

keeping with hearing the case in a reasonable timeframe. On the other hand, to keep it in Reno,

but allow electronic testimony, could negatively impact the Respondent's ability to most

effectively plead her case. Both the original request from the Respondent and her alternative must

be denied.

2

1 DATED this 16th day ofNovember, 2016

2

3 by~ Submitted 4

5 Kathleen M. Paustian

6 Prosecuting Officer for the NCJD

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Change

of Venue or, in the Alternative, for Electronic Testimony, was served via e-mail and placed in U.S.

mail, postage pre-paid, on this 16th day ofNovember, 2016, addressed to:

William B. Terry, Esq. Law Offices of William B. Terry, Chartered 530 South Seventh Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Counsel for the Respondent Sarah@WilliamTerrvLaw.com Info@ William TerryLaw.com

By:~/1;-~ Kathleen M. Paustian

Prosecuting Officer for the NCJD

4