GOVERNOR PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE INSTEAD OF APPROVING:
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR:
GOVERNOR PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE INSTEAD OF APPROVING:
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR:
There was a lot of interest on social media in Jesse Singal's analysis of how President Trump deals quickly and authoritatively with issues he admittedly knows nothing about. Singal was thunderstruck at how monstrously dangerous it was to have major decisions made in cheerfully-admitted ignorance, by what the decision-maker thinks is simple common sense. But as a family law attorney, I really couldn't tell any difference between the President's performance and watching a judge who's new to Family Law, trying to puzzle out why the law seems to want both parents involved in a child's life after a breakup, why unwed fathers have the few rights they do have, etc. Or what the Hague Convention on child abduction is for, and what in the world is wrong with a mom taking her children halfway around the world just to get them far away from the father. Or the times I've watched Supreme Court Justices do the same thing as they debate the Hague Convention, or paternity law, assume the validity of wildly wrong speculations about what happens in custody litigation, and snort with equal contempt at the parents in these cases and the Congress that passed such seemingly pointless laws and treaties. Even experienced trial judges sometimes just reinforce their bias and irrational rules-of-thumb over time.
Here's the Trump version of this routine:
SHERIFF AUBREY: And the other thing is asset forfeiture. People want to say we’re taking money and without due process. That’s not true. We take money from dope dealers —
THE PRESIDENT: So you’re saying – okay, so you’re saying the asset-taking you used to do, and it had an impact, right? And you’re not allowed to do it now?
SHERIFF AUBREY: No, they have curtailed it a little bit. And I’m sure the folks are —
THE PRESIDENT: And that’s for legal reasons? Or just political reasons?
SHERIFF AUBREY: They make it political and they make it – they make up stories. All you’ve got to do —
THE PRESIDENT: I’d like to look into that, okay? There’s no reason for that. Dana, do you think there’s any reason for that? Are you aware of this?
[Then-acting Attorney General Dana Boente]: I am aware of that, Mr. President. And we have gotten a great deal of criticism for the asset forfeiture, which, as the sheriff said, frequently was taking narcotics proceeds and other proceeds of crime. But there has been a lot of pressure on the department to curtail some of that.
THE PRESIDENT: So what do you do? So in other words, they have a huge stash of drugs. So in the old days, you take it. Now we’re criticized if we take it. So who gets it? What happens to it? Tell them to keep it?
MR. BOENTE: Well, we have what is called equitable sharing, where we usually share it with the local police departments for whatever portion that they worked on the case. And it was a very successful program, very popular with the law enforcement community.
THE PRESIDENT: And now what happens?
MR. BOENTE: Well, now we’ve just been given – there’s been a lot of pressure not to forfeit, in some cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Who would want that pressure, other than, like, bad people, right? But who would want that pressure? You would think they’d want this stuff taken away.
SHERIFF AUBREY: You have to be careful how you speak, I guess. But a lot of pressure is coming out of – was coming out of Congress. I don’t know that that will continue now or not.
THE PRESIDENT: I think less so. I think Congress is going to get beat up really badly by the voters because they’ve let this happen. And I think badly. I think you’ll be back in shape. So, asset forfeiture, we’re going to go back on, okay? I mean, how simple can anything be? You all agree with that, I assume, right?
See also, for example,
Perez v. City of Roseville, as described in:
UPDATED APRIL 10, 2018
MODIFICATION BY THE GOVERNOR
ENACTED, SIGNED BY GOVERNOR
KILLED (incl. passed by, stricken, tabled, continued to next year ...)
Compiled by John Crouch, updated by John Crouch and Sarah Araman
In the Clinton impeachment we decided that perjury isn't an impeachable offense, at least when it's basically about a president's private life and not the essential parts of his job, treason, murder, rape, subverting democratic elections, corruption ... .
But what about plain old criminal prosecutions? if presidents and candidates don't get prosecuted for obvious perjury either, then that tells everyone else to disregard that lying when testifying it's illegal and dangerous. And it gives lawyers and judges another reason not to believe what anyone says. Testifying to a court -- whether on the witness stand, in a deposition, or a written, notarized affidavit -- is under oath and "under penalty of perjury."
Newsweek has published clear proof that Donald Trump either: (a) lied in a deposition in a case against an ex-employee, about a failed attempt to bribe Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, or (b) lied about it to Bush's face in the second debate. Or both. (Even if bribe is the wrong word, that doesn't affect the specific question that the lie and contradiction were about: Whether Trump was trying to get Bush to reverse his opposition to casino gambling when he hired the Defendant to get Florida to allow him to build a casino and hosted a fundraising event for Bush.)
The lawsuit was in Broward County, Florida. Perjury in a deposition is a third-degree felony under Florida law, and can mean up to five years in prison. I haven't yet found out whether Trump was in Florida or another state when he gave his deposition testimony, and whether that would keep Florida from prosecuting him. But the head prosecutor in Broward County, and/or the county where Trump testified, needs to decide whether to pursue a perjury investigation and prosecution, preferably before the election.
Carl Forsling repeats several often-heard, and quite true, observations about how the military is bad for marriage, plus some insights that are original but intuitively very convincing once he points them out. Which explain why it's also so hard on divorce.
"Divorce — it’s no stranger to those in the military. At the same time, the military is a very tradition-minded institution, so divorce is often treated like the family secret no one talks about. ... some commanders have very black and white attitudes in regards to marriage. ... surprisingly prevalent in an institution where divorce is commonplace. The military attracts strong personalities, and they tend to either be very religious with very traditional views of morality or very not."
Very true. I'm more familiar with the strong personalities who are very non-traditional about marriage -- well, they may be traditional and sentimental about it in some ways, but in ways that get them married five times and divorced four times, if they're lucky. And hopefully with a divorce between each marriage. Or divorced early and married never again. Sometimes getting taken advantage of royally, as they see it, in their first divorce, and then becoming determined that next time, and every next time, they will be the ones in the relationship with the power, the knowledge, the leverage and the manipulation. Whether that's in a divorce or in devoutly unwed cohabitation.
On the other hand, there are many who are honorable and generous to a fault. Or who want what's best for their kids even if it isn't best for themselves.
Many, whether honorable or manipulative, are gung-ho and unashamed of whatever course they're pursuing, in divorce, adultery or whatever. If they're war veterans, they usually have a sense of entitlement, understandably. The military rightly tells them that they and their jobs are important, and that the civilian world should accommodate them. They may see divorce and other family breakups as just part of the petty civilian-life BS that the military requires them to take care of, but that could never be compared in importance to their mission or their careers.
And yet again, there's another side of this: Timid careerists who are always looking over their shoulders. Junior officers who are expert at creating paper trails to shift blame and responsibility to others, and who think that will work for them in family court.
I've only recently begun to see the very religious and neo-traditional officers and servicemembers the author talks about, but I know they have been out there for quite a while now.
He has a refreshing point of view on a practice that is widespread, widely advised, encouraged by regulations, but which also can make civilian courts get really mad at spouses and treat them like stalkers who are trying to destroy the careers they have benefited from:
"On top of that, some hurt soon-to-be former spouses have in the past called up commanding officers and sergeants major, and in today’s “pro-family” military, those leaders usually picked up the phone to an earful of often highly exaggerated drama. Sometimes those senior leaders rightfully take it with a grain of salt. Other times, service members get chewed out or worse based on the spouse’s account of events that may or may not have happened as described. ... Many units now have “human factors” or “commander’s safety” councils, wherein members’ personal lives are aired out in the name of “safety.” Guess who gets talked about in those? In today’s environment, where the phrase “perception is reality” is too often said without irony, too many service members end up with their reputations tarred."
(That's not just "in the past", by the way.)
As for two well-known factors that weaken military families, he describes them freshly and eloquently:
"Service members often marry young. Part of that is the rapid maturation the military forces on people, part of it is undoubtedly bad decisions based on housing allowance rates, and part of it is ironically likely the military’s old-fashioned views on marriage. Whatever the reason, marrying young is not a good indicator of matrimonial success."
"Add in the deployments, long hours, etc., and things don’t bode well for military couples. There are some marriages that thrive despite the challenges — as those in the military are fond of saying, 'What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.' For others, though, what doesn’t kill them severely damages their relationships."
Another factor Forsling doesn't mention: The continuing reluctance to seek mental health treatment for reputation and career reasons. That has been a huge problem in many of my cases.
The military has made a big push to be more family friendly in recent years. ... As it tries to be better for traditional families, it needs to improve the culture for non-traditional ones, as well."
That's so true. Our society needs to understand that being pro-family means strengthening intact nuclear families, but also honoring all family bonds and strengthening what's left of "broken" families too.
A bipartisan coalition, including Virginia's Rep. Robert Scott and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, is working with the American Bar Association to update the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act to incorporate the latest scientific findings on juvenile psychology and development, crime prevention and community safety. A key feature is the end of jailing youth for "status offenses" -- things that would not be crimes if committed by adults -- and jailing them even temporarily with adult criminals.
The development of holistic, therapeutic juvenile courts over the past 100 years has done much good, but has also given them great power and discretion and little accountability. Children who merely misbehave can be sucked into the system, bring their whole families with them, get permanently defined as troubled youth, and be supervised so constantly that they can never get out of the legal system until they age out, having missed the opportunity to grow up. My father and law partner Richard Edelin Crouch sounded the alarm about this in the William & Mary Law Review 50 years ago, inspired by the Juvenile Court saga of his younger brother, the late Howard R. Crouch, which started when he idly walked by a restaurant, stuck his head in the door and yelled, "This place stinks!". The police were called, the social workers who followed in their wake declared the Crouches a "broken family" because their father had died, and it all helped inspire Richard's lifelong work for civil liberties and the rights of children, parents and families.
BY RHONDA MCMILLION @ abajournal.com, SEP 1, 2015
Virginia appellate court expert J. Steven Emmert put his finger on the main reason I founded this blog:
"News reporting of a trial is often not a good indicator of how the case is actually going. You may have seen skeptical views of the evidence from this news story or that opinion writer, but trust me: you cannot evaluate the evidence in a case unless you watch the evidence and listen to the testimony, just as the jurors do. News reports sometimes don’t convey the main thrust of the evidence or the nuances of the testimony."
Emmert, "FOURTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS McDONNELL’S CONVICTION", posted July 13, 2015.
Reading the fact summary in a court opinion can also be a lousy way to learn the real facts -- my father and law partner Richard Crouch used to say that when he read the opinion in one of his own cases, he could barely even recognize that it was the same case. One reason is, as Emmert writes about gov. Bob McDonnell's case:
"An appellate court has to set out the facts in the light most favorable to the lower-court winner. So if today’s factual recitation seems slanted in favor of the government, that’s both understandable and completely normal."
>As more single-led households emerge, the issue of free-range parenting becomes more evident. Issues abound, such as how old should a child be to walk to school alone, for how many blocks, or what age can children be left alone by themselves and for how long? We’ve even seen cases where parents have been threatened with jail if their child was overweight. Where is the line drawn between free-range parenting and neglect? Hear from our esteemed panel and special guest Lenore Skenazy, Founder, Free-Range Kids movement, as they discuss:
• Handling media-distorted perceptions of risk
• Vagueness of child neglect statues
• Using expert testimony
• 14th Amendment Due Process
Tuesday, July 7, 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM Eastern Time.
1.5 CLE credit hours depending on state