#383 A Nation Of Sheep
Guess what?
What You Thought Was Your Government is lying to you. Uh-huh.
Oh, and you know what else?
What You Thought Was Your Government is also spying on you. Seriously, dude.
And, for those of you who happen to go abroad and exercise your First Amendment rights in ways that What You Thought Was Your Government may not approve, well ...
What You Thought Was Your Government is killing you, too. For real, man.
Surprise!
Now, you have to ask yourself, why on earth would What You Thought Was Your Government be lying to you? What did you do to be lied to?
And, stranger still, why would What You Thought Was Your Government be spying on you? After all, what the hell did you do to be spied on?
And, most chillingly of all, why would What You Thought Was Your Government be killing you without a trial, a hint of due process, or so much as a fart in the direction of the Bill of Rights? KILLING. YOU.
Well, I'm glad you're finally asking these long overdue questions. I'm glad that you're finally waking up. I'm glad that you are suddenly curious. Because it's about damned time!
But I don't think you're going to like the answers. And you probably should have woken up a lot sooner than you did.
Because the answers are all the same: THIS. IS. NOT. YOUR. GOVERNMENT!!!!! This is THEIR GOVERNMENT, the government of those who now seek to lie to you, to spy on you, and to kill you.
Wake up, you reality tv-addicted nation of sheep! Wake the hell up! Look at what is being done in your name! Look at what is being done TO you, in your name!
What You Thought Was Your Government has been lying to people and spying on people and killing people for years and years and years. For generations even. But that was being done to Other People. To People Outside Your Nation's Borders. To foreigners. People you didn't have to think twice about. Because What You Thought Was Your Government could do all that hard thinking for you.
I LOVE the first case because, as much as I might rag on the Third Department for what is, in my opinion, cutting corners in certain areas and on certain kinds of cases (SORA appeals? Anyone? Bueller?), they make me proud when I see them adamantly demand strict compliance with the due process requirements of statutes.
I thought it might be nice to finish off the caselaw round-ups for the month of May, 2012, since it's now June, 2013 (d'oh!). Work has kept me from posting more often. I also got addicted to reading the five available A Game of Thrones books for a month as well (for 4,200+ pages, they were a very quick read!). Anyway, I hope to be back to posting at least once a day, and maybe more.
First, some housekeeping issues. I have not published any blog posts since May 3, 2013, because I have been quite busy. Apart from my personal and professional obligations, I am in the midst of overhauling both this web site and the blog as well.
The first case illustrates the rarely seen doctrine of equitable estoppel. However, when this doctrine appears, it always seems to be in the context of paternity, at least in family court proceedings. The crux of this doctrine, in family law, is this: what is the child's perspective?
The first case is the classic application of Tropea to the fact pattern. Mom wants to relocate. Dad opposes the relocation. Mom has a number of factors she needs to prove in order to be able to relocate.
We'll call this one Bad Father, Good Father.
The first case asks more questions than it answers. It also illustrates the dangers of an inartfully drafted stipulation of settlement that makes assumptions about the law.
Sometimes, things are not always as they appear. And, sometimes, decisions are not as clear as they really need to be. And, sometimes, it makes one wonder what the hell is really going on.
The first case illustrates what occurs in an FCA Article 10 case when a non-final order is appealed and then the underlying case is resolved. It also shows the importance of appealing dispositive orders.
The first case involves a very stupid person who rolled the dice and lost. Big time.
The first case is concerns how joint legal custody can easily become sole legal custody when one parent decides that they are not going to be cooperative with the other parent.
The first case involves ... another sex offender. Jesus, they're everywhere! I think you know the drill: affirmed.
The first case is one concerning a sex offender appealing his risk assessment level. Silly sex offender.
The first case is short and sweet. Here's an idea: if you don't want to be found in willful violation of an order of child support, then it is probably best not to admit to being in arrears on the record. D'oh!
