An interesting and useful article for those foolish, or poor enough, to go the do it yourself route.
..........................................

Do Judges Read Online Briefs Differently? Brief Writers May Need to Be Briefer - News - ABA Journal

By Debra Cassens Weiss 12/9/10

Do Judges Read Online Briefs Differently? Brief Writers May Need to Be Briefer

...need to adjust their writing style to account for differences in the way people read online.
That’s the conclusion of Houston appellate lawyer Martin Siegel in an article for Texas Lawyer.

Online readers “jump around, skimming and seizing on bits of text,” Siegel writes. “Eye-tracking studies show they seek content in an F-shaped pattern, looking down the left side for structural cues and then focusing on headings and first sentences of paragraphs. Heaven help the content provider with important text consigned to the bottom right of the screen.”

...writing with online readers in mind should put their most important points in headings and first sentences of paragraphs, use bullet points, and quickly get to the point.

Similarly, Crist endorses short paragraphs and condensing chunks of information into smaller pieces...

... judges looking at online documents will likely read differently than readers of newspapers, blogs and websites, according to the blog post by Nova Southeastern law professor James Levy.

The American Bar Association's Legal Guide to Independent Filmmaking


The American Bar Association's Legal Guide to Independent Filmmaking
By Lisa A. Callif, Michael C. Donaldson

This is the authoritative handbook you need to lead you through the legal morass of producing an independent film, from the moment you get the crazy idea to do such a thing, through financing, development, principal photography, distribution, and the too-often overlooked subject of delivery. Each chapter contains a general road map for the phase of filmmaking covered by that chapter, including the relevant forms and contracts, which come with plenty of explanatory info and some select negotiating tips.

It's a practical, prescriptive form book for legal professionals and burgeoning filmmakers and includes a CD-ROM with all the contracts, employment and nondisclosure agreements, and licensing deals you'll need.

This was listed as the #1 story of 2010 by the American Bar Association law journal:

Race & Gender of Judges Make Enormous Differences in Rulings, Studies Find - News - ABA Journal

A judge's race or gender makes for a dramatic difference in the outcome of cases they hear—at least for cases in which race and gender allegedly play a role in the conduct of the parties, according to two recent studies.

The results were the focus of a program about “Diversity on the Bench: Is the ‘Wise Latina’ a Myth?,” sponsored by the ABA Judicial Division at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Orlando on Saturday afternoon.

In federal racial harassment cases, one study (PDF) found that plaintiffs lost just 54 percent of the time when the judge handling the case was an African-American. Yet plaintiffs lost 81 percent of the time when the judge was Hispanic, 79 percent when the judge was white, and 67 percent of the time when the judge was Asian American...

A second study (PDF), looked at 556 federal appellate cases involving allegations of sexual harassment or sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The finding: plaintiffs were at least twice as likely to win if a female judge was on the appellate panel...

The program took its title from a much-debated comment made years ago by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor : “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

FLEXCOM - Family Law Section Executive Committee - California Bar
November 2010 FLEXCOM eNews

In this issue:
Message from the Editor, Andrew Cain
Family Law Judicial Officer of the Year Award – Commissioner Marjorie Slabach received the 2010 award at the State Bar Annual Meeting.
Changes in the Law – Reviewing important legislation signed by the Governor.
Filing Fee Increases – Are Family Law fees impacted?
Friendly Reminders – MCLE compliance and committee involvement
Section Members – Do you know what benefits come with your Family Law Section membership?

Letter from the Editor, Andrew Cain
Dear Family Law Section Member,

FLEXCOM wrapped up another successful year of business at last month's Annual Meeting of the State Bar of California in Monterey . Outgoing chair John Hodson passed the baton of leadership to Sherry Peterson, but not before taking the time to recognize each member of FLEXCOM for their service over the past 12 months. In return, FLEXCOM salutes John for his outstanding leadership and is grateful he will continue to provide his expertise and quick wit to the committee in the coming year.

Sherry hit the ground running by leading the committee in its effort to shape membership recruitment, section education and Family Law News content during her term. Sherry and the rest of FLEXCOM look forward to bringing the fruits of these efforts to the section in the very near future.

Along these lines, another webinar is on the horizon. On Tuesday, November 9 from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., the Family Law Section presents: Using a Vocational Expert in a Family Law Matter. Learn the latest information on the use of vocational experts and Vocational Examinations in family law matters. Vocational experts Susan W. Miller and Betty Kohlenberg will take you through the steps involved in a vocational examination. These examinations help attorneys and the courts determine a party's current and future employability and earning capacity, which is powerful evidence affecting both the amount and duration of spousal support.

Earn 1.0 Total Participatory MCLE Credits, 1.00 of which may be applied toward Legal Specialization in Family Law (No Ethics) To register, see Using a Vocational Expert in a Family Law Matter or go to www.calbar.org/online-cle and select Tele-Seminars and Webinars.

The Family Law Section honored Commissioner Marjorie Slabach of San Francisco with the 2010 Family Law Judicial Officer of the Year award. Commissioner Slabach captivated the audience at her award reception with some straightforward guidance for both the Bar and the bench.

Another legislative session is in the books. FLEXCOM once again tackled a large number of bills impacting the practice of family law. Many of the bills signed by Governor Schwarzenegger will have profound impacts on our daily practice.

With the ever-increasing costs of litigation, our clients are watching every dollar. With that in mind, accessing justice is about to become just a bit costlier. Increased filing fees are on the horizon.

If you are new to the Family Law Section, do you know what your member benefits are? Did you know they include a subscription to the Family Law News, discounts on CEB passports or MCLE tickets, Family Law Case Studies from Judge Jeffrey Burke, and free access to BriefCase OnCall™, among other benefits?

Thank you for taking the time to review this edition of the Family Law Section eNews. Feedback is always appreciated. Please send feedback to andrewc@lawfoundation.org or (408) 280-2461.

Andrew Cain, Esq.

Editor, Family Law Section eNews

Family Law Judicial Officer of the Year Award – Commissioner Marjorie Slabach, San Francisco Unified Family Law Court

Blow up the System!! – This refrain lasted well through the night for anyone that attended the reception for the Family Law Judicial Officer of the Year(FLJOY). For these sterns words came directly from Commissioner Marjorie Slabach, this year's recipient of the FLJOY award. In a pointed, thought provoking acceptance speech, Commissioner Slabach offered this and other challenges to both the Family Law Bar and the very judicial system within which she operates.

Commission Slabach, calling upon her 27 years of experience as a member of the Bar and Commissioner, noted the consequences of the current movement away from assigning subordinate judicial officers to family law calendars. She noted that most judges assigned to these calendars are new, come with little family law experience and often take 12-18 months before developing a comfort level. “As the system works now, a judge coming into family court is set up for failure,”
Commissioner Slabach said. In remarking on the myriad responsibilities of a family law judge, including interaction with community organizations and courtroom innovation, she asked a very simple question. “Is there any surprise that he wants out as quickly as possible?”

While these remarks were often sharp and direct, Commissioner Slabach came armed with a solution. It is one that she recognizes will be deemed, by many, as radical and difficult to implement. Her approach? “Make Family Court a separate court with judicial appointments or elections directly to that court based upon expertise of the judicial applicant. And that judicial officer would stay in Family Court throughout his/her career until elevated to the Family Court Appellate Division.” She cited to other jurisdictions, both in this country and internationally, that have adopted a version of this model. Commissioner Slabach noted the benefits provided to the litigants of having certified family law specialists as bench officers in dismissing any concerns about this model leading to the creation of a “second-tier” court.

Perhaps knowing that California is unlikely to adopt this model anytime in the near future, Commissioner Slabach concluded by issuing a challenge to the Family Law Bar. She asked each of us to “…rouse the power of the Family Law Bar and lobby for certified Family Law Specialists to be appointed in every court as Superior Court judges.” It is within this action that Family Law attorneys can have a profound impact on the judiciary. Or, in her words, this provides an opportunity for members of the Family Law Section to “Blow up the system!”

For more information on Commissioner Slabach's background and accomplishments, please navigate to the following link: Judicial Officer of the Year

Legislation Recap – Another Interesting Year in Sacramento

Do you want to read 207 pages of legislative bill text? FLEXCOM thinks the answer to that question is obvious. That's why we do it for you. Below, you will find a summary of key legislation signed by the Governor during the recently concluded legislative session. These new laws will have varying impacts on the practice of section members across the state. Before reviewing the summary, please take note of the following points:

#
Of the bills reviewed by FLEXCOM, 29 were signed into the law. The following summary contains those bills deemed most important to the practice of our section.
#
As with all “summaries” of new law, the reader should take care to do his or her own comprehensive research.
#
Those 207 pages? That was just one bill. Kudos to Julie Saffren of San Jose for tackling that one on behalf of FLEXCOM.

AB 939 – Implements various recommendations of the Elkins Task Force. Among the most significant aspects of this new law is the requirement of “live, competent testimony” at any hearing on a motion or OSC. This requirement, found in the newly added section 217 of the Family Code, comes with a corollary provision that a party introducing testimony file a witness statement prior to the hearing. The court is vested with authority to refuse testimony upon a finding of good cause. The Judicial Council, prior to January, 2012, is mandated with developing factors for the court to apply when making this good cause determination. The law also makes a critical change to the role of minor's counsel. While maintaining the role of minor's counsel as a representative of best interests, this can be done only through the presentation of “admissible evidence”. This is a change from previously existing law in which minor's counsel was responsible for presenting “facts” to the court, with no mandate regarding admissibility. Further, the requirement of a statement of issues from minor's counsel has been deleted. In its place comes directives on service of notices and pleadings. Also included in this new law are changes or clarifications to case management, summary dissolution and the service of post-judgment motions. AB 939 will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the practice of Family Law moving forward. While FLEXCOM recommends that practitioners familiarize themselves with each new law that comes down the pike, special attention should be directed to this progeny of Elkins.

AB 1050 – Specifies that a child age 14 or older has the right to address the court on custody and visitation issues. The court may find that addressing the court is not in the best interest of the child. If the court finds that testifying is not in the child's best interest, “alternative methods” shall be exercised for gathering information on the child's wishes. The Judicial Council is charged with setting out rules that describe these methods. These changes to existing law do not take effect until January, 2012.

AB 2763 – Follows the trend of existing law authorizing the conversion of subordinate judicial officer positions by allowing for 10 additional positions in eligible superior courts to become judgeships if they are in family or juvenile law. This has the potential to turn more positions currently held by commissioners into judgeships. The remarks by Commissioner Slabach couldn't have been timelier.

SB 580 – Requires a court in a child support matter to find that the cost of covering health insurance is “reasonable” if it exceeds no more than 5% of the obligor's gross income. It also requires the court to find that medical services are accessible for the purposes of determining insurance obligations if those services are within 50 miles of the child's residence.

SB 1355 – Suspends the obligation to pay child support if the obligor is incarcerated or involuntary institutionalized for a period exceeding 90 consecutive days. Right to suspension can be rebutted if the obligor has the means to pay support during the period or the incarceration was the result of an act of domestic violence against the obligee.

SB 1482 – FLEXCOM doesn't just review legislation. As exhibited by SB 1482, affirmative legislation sponsored by FLEXCOM is an important part of our role. This law amends Family Code section 4326 by extending until 2014 the requirement that a court consider the termination of a child support order as a change of circumstances in a spousal support modification proceeding. It also requires the motion to be filed within six months of the child support termination. Lastly, it allows for the appointment of a vocational counselor in the spousal support modification proceeding. The State Bar's website contains a full listing of the bills reviewed by FLEXCOM, as well as other sections, over the past year. You'll find links to bill text, analysis, and FLEXCOM's position on each bill here: http://ct2k2.capitoltrack.com/report.asp?rptid=U36307

Filing Fee Increases – Coming Soon to a Jurisdiction Near You

The Legislature wasn't just busy with Elkins and other substantive changes to the practice of family law. In these tight economic times our clients will be hit where it hurts the most: their wallets. SB 857 imposes various new surcharges and other fees on the filing of actions in almost all branches of the court. As it pertains to Family Law, the change of greatest significance is to the initial filing fee.

• Current Cost: $355 for the filing of a petition in a dissolution or other family law matter.

• New Cost: $395 . This comes in the form of a $40 “supplemental fee” tacked on to the uniform fee applied under Government Code section 70670.

Each county is charged with developing procedures for collection of this new fee. Thus, you can expect different start times for the new fee across the state. Additionally, certain counties, including Riverside , San Bernardino and San Francisco maintain the right to impose additional surcharges on initial filings. Other fees, including the $40 fee for filing an OSC or notice of motion, remain in place and untouched.

Friendly Reminders

• It's never too early to consider serving on a State Bar Committee. FLEXCOM expects four vacancies for the 2011-2012 term that will begin next September. If you are interested in serving on FLEXCOM, the application must be submitted no later than February 1, 2011. For a full description of the application and appointment process, see the State Bar's Committee and Commissions page: Family Law Executive Committee

• MCLE reporting time is just around the corner. The compliance period for Group 3(Last names N-Z) ends on January 31, 2010. Are you short of credits? It just so happens that the Family Law Section has your answer. In addition to the upcoming webinar on November 9, a rich library of family law related materials is housed on the State Bar's website. Select from any of the 52 titles currently stored on the site, including webinars that fulfill the MCLE ethics requirement. State Bar of California - Online CLE

Member Benefits for the State Bar Family Law Section

In addition to discounts on programs and top line continuing education, what better way to keep up with the dynamic world of family law.

As a Family Law Section member, you receive a wide array of benefits unavailable to the general public. These benefits include:

- A subscription to the Family Law News , a quarterly publication containing a variety of articles of practical interest to attorneys at all levels of experience.

- A $75 discount on either CEB's Gold CLE Passport or any single full-priced MCLE ticket, which if used, entirely offsets the costs of your section dues. Many of these programs are presented in the webinar format where you don't have to leave your desk! You are also eligible for 10% off selected CEB print or online books.

- Free access to Family Law Case Studies , a monthly analysis of published and unpublished Appellate Court Opinions, by Judge Jeffrey Burke of San Luis Obispo .

- Free access to BriefCase OnCall™ , an online updating service from Attorney's BriefCase® Legal Research Software. OnCall™ provides indexed summaries of all cases going back approximately six months relating to California Family Law, Juvenile Law, Evidence and PreTrial Adjudication.

- Free or low-cost programs on cutting-edge issues of Family Law, presented as webinars so you don't have to travel to participate. Recent webinars include Juvenile Dependency, Basics of Business Valuation and Application of Parentage Presumptions for Same-Sex Couples.

- Free access to Family Law eNews bulletins, keeping you abreast of developments statewide.

- The opportunity to network with family lawyers throughout California through standing committee membership , and Section-sponsored events and activities.

- Access to Family Law groups in e-circles , a social medium limited to members of the California State Bar, that provides a platform to network, communicate, blog and connect with other California attorneys in your practice area. You can access e-circles through your State Bar profile. To set up your State Bar profile if you have not already done so, please visit My State Bar Profile.

- Unlimited access to the members-only portion of the Section website , which contains valuable information for family lawyers and provides electronic access to current and past issues of Family Law News, Family Law Case Studies and many other Section publications.

- Leadership opportunities, including eligibility to apply for service on FLEXCOM, and to nominate family law attorneys and judicial officers for statewide family law awards and recognition.

The Family Law Section encourages you to continue to take advantage of these and other valuable benefits . If you have any questions concerning the Family Law Section or the benefits available to you with your membership, please feel free to contact the Chair of our Member Services Subcommittee, John Lazor at jlazor@fmbklaw.com or ( 310) 447-8675 or FLEXCOM Chair, Sherry Peterson at sherry@famlaw.com or (925-833-6990).

Links Used in this eNews

* Family Law Section Home Page Family Law
* California State Bar Online Education Library www.calbar.org/online-cle
* Direct Link to "Using a Vocational Expert" Webinar: State Bar of California - Phone Seminars
* Family Law Judicial Officer of the Year Award: Judicial Officer of the Year
* Bills Track by Family Law Section as of 10/29/2010:
http://ct2k2.capitoltrack.com/report.asp?rptid=U36307
* Executive Committee Application:
Family Law Executive Committee
* Family Law Online CLE Catalog:
State Bar of California - Online CLE

Family Law: Winning Strategies
Wednesday, Jan. 19, 12:00 PM (Eastern Time)
90-Minute Live Telephonic Seminar

Last Chance for Early Bird Discount

The Rossdale Group, LLC
A National Leader in Legal Education

Registered attendees may obtain a complimentary electronic recording or Podcast of the seminar and FULL CLE & MCLE CREDIT if they cannot attend the live teleconference.

Benefits View Benefits

From the underlying substantive law to practical aspects of family and matrimonial law, this live telephonic seminar covers the latest and best practices for trial skills, preparing witnesses for depositions, discovery, pre-trial strategies to best advantage your client, and the skills to win at negotiation in matrimonial cases.

Our distinguished seminar faculty will cover specific approaches and solutions, including negotiation tactics, effective preparation of witnesses for trial & deposition, trial strategies, winning approaches to discovery, and the role of caregivers. This seminar is designed to help attendees achieve an efficient outcome for clients and provide current legal trends.

The Rossdale faculty for this seminar includes the Chair of the American Bar Association’s Family Law Section, a nationally recognized matrimonial litigator who has handled numerous celebrity divorces as well as one of the leading matrimonial attorneys in the country. Registration includes course and reference materials that serve as a helpful guide to the cutting-edge tactics and skills discussed in the live teleconference. Register today to learn the most effective strategies and latest law in family and matrimonial practice.

Key Agenda Points View Complete Agenda

* Utilizing Effective Negotiation Tactics
* Trial Strategies for Matrimonial Law
* Cutting-edge Preparation of Witnesses for Trial
* Mediating to Victory
* Effectively Challenging & Defending Prenuptial Agreements
* Best Practices on Preparing Your Client for Deposition
* Effective Tools for Discovery in Family Law
* Requests for Production: What You Need to See Before Going to Court
* Tracing & Locating the Assets
* Formulating A Winning Approach Before Trial

Faculty Detailed Faculty Information

* James Fox Miller, Partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner & Nationally Recognized Matrimonial Attorney
* Randall M. Kessler, Chair of the American Bar Association's Family Law Section & Celebrity Divorce Attorney

Credit Detailed CLE Credit Information

*
CLE ACCREDIATION: The Rossdale Group, LLC is a national leader in attorney education and has trained thousands of attorneys, paralegals, and other legal professionals. CLE & MCLE credit, including ethics credit, is available in states and jurisdictions across the country. Visit the seminar webpage to learn more about CLE & MCLE credit for the program.

Only registered attendees will receive continuing education credit.

Who Should Attend?
Attorneys, paralegals, and legal assistants.

Registered attendees may obtain a complimentary electronic recording or Podcast of the seminar and FULL CLE & MCLE CREDIT if they cannot attend the live teleconference.

Some Highlights from the ABA (amerkian bar ass.) Journal, highlighting issues of potential importance to those facing Judges - On Their Turf.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>

ABA Brief Supports Right to Counsel for Civil Contempt Defendants Facing Possible Jail Time - News - ABA Journal

... The ABA argues in a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief that poor people should have the right to a lawyer in civil contempt proceedings carrying a threat of jail time.

The petitioner in the case, Michael Turner, served a year in prison for failing to pay child support. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled the sentence was coercive, rather than punitive, and Turner had no right to a lawyer.

Criminal Justice
Ex-Con Allegedly Worked as Bogus Lawyer for 5 Years, May Have Watched TV Legal Dramas to Hone Skills - News - ABA Journal
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart suspects the accused bogus barrister picked up his trial skills from his own experiences of being arrested and prosecuted as a defendant... & nontraditional legal training, his father told the Chicago Tribune—watching legal dramas on television.

Jan 12, 2011, 10:21 am CST
E-Discovery Sanctions Reach All-Time High for Litigants and Lawyers - News - ABA Journal
...All four of the negligence cases were based on the lawyers’ failure to turn over materials in a timely manner. The gross negligence cases involved failure to advise clients to preserve evidence, failure to supervise a client search for responsive information, and failure to produce a critical document.
Reckless disregard cases involved failure to comply with court-ordered discovery and lawyer misrepresentations. Lawyer sanctions for intentional or bad-faith conduct “typically resulted from multiple egregious failures to oversee the client’s preservation, search, and production efforts, followed by misrepresentations to the court over an extended period of time.”

Federal Judge Recommends Criminal Charges for Lawyers Who Questioned His Impartiality - News - ABA Journal

Two of the biggest problem areas for newbies trying to defend themselves in court cases without hyper expensive law school education - are the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules for Citations.

Civil Procedure is a set of rules that provide for the 'orderly' processing of a case, whereby issues such as 'Standing' (the right to sue) and Jurisdiction (where you have the right to sue and about what) are hashed out.

Citation Rules are manners in which the supporting Cases, Laws and other rulings / opinions are introduced and referenced in to the case Pleadings and Rejoinders. If the Supreme Court said in one case that someone similarly situated as you was correct - you certainly want to be able to point out that case using proper citations for looking it up.

The "Blue Book" is one such citation manual, as is the ALWD ('allwood') manual - and the following provides some insight in to a respected Jurist's (Posner) view of them and their ilk...

http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/art...n=weekly_email

"...Posner doesn’t use The Bluebook in his judicial opinions. Instead, he hands his court clerks a manual with a short section on citation form, complete with a “cheat sheet” of examples. “I think that if one compares my citation system to that of The Bluebook, one will at least begin to question The Bluebook’s utility,” he writes.

'Same faith' hiring policy OK, says courtRuss Jones - OneNewsNow - 1/28/2011

With a court's rejection of a petition to re-hear a case involving three former World Vision employees, the Christian organization recently won legal protection to hire people who share the same faith.

After working several years for the Christian humanitarian organization, Silvia Spencer, Ted Youngberg and Vicki Hulse sued World Vision for being terminated in 2007 because they no longer agreed with the organization's statement of faith, specifically concerning the sanctity of the Trinity.

"Today's ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for any Christian organization in the United States that wants to hire and prefers to hire only people of the same faith," explains Dean Owen, spokesperson for World Vision. "It also, of course, can be applicable to organizations of other faiths, whether they're Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc."

The court ruled 2-1 last August that World Vision qualifies as a religious organization under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, thereby upholding the terminations.

"It certainly reaffirms the right of faith-based groups to hire like-minded [people] who share the same faith," Owen adds. "So for Christian organizations who indeed have that hiring policy, this is indeed very, very good news. This goes far beyond World Vision."

He explains that anyone who applies for employment at World Vision is screened for Christian beliefs. Applicants are asked about their relationship with Jesus Christ, their spiritual journey, and their understanding of biblical principles.

Another glimpse behind the purple robes of the self anointed legal elitez...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

*Note how the ABA considers the "Morale" issue of monstrous profits - but avoids the Moral ones the system creates...

Pay of $10M for Top Rainmaking Lawyers Creates Growing Morale Issues - News - ABA Journal

ABA Launches New Website - News - ABA Journal

Coffee Shop Owner Guilty of Indecent Exposure Due to Skimpy See-Through Shorts on 'Bikini Barista' - News - ABA Journal

Appearance Matters - often with jury trials it matters more than facts, particularly if it is a woman on the stand (remember Zel-wigglers performance in Chicago) and it is a He Said / She Said case...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jurors Less Likely to Convict Defendants Wearing Glasses, Say Lawyers and 2008 Study - News - ABA Journal

Do juries take passes on criminal defendants who wear glasses?

Criminal defense lawyers apparently believe it’s the case, the New York Daily News reports. Increasingly they are asking their clients to wear glasses during jury trials.

The Daily News spoke to lawyer Harvey Slovis, who said defendants don’t look like they are capable of committing crimes when they wear glasses. "I've tried cases where there's been a tremendous amount of evidence, but my client wore glasses, dressed well and got acquitted."

One prosecutor agreed, calling glasses “an unspoken nerd defense.”

The newspaper also cites a 2008 study (PDF) that found eyeglasses lead to more acquittals because they make defendants look more intelligent.

Friday’s Basic Family Law Enforcement Webinar:

Basic Family Law Enforcement
Friday, February 25, 2011, 12 P.M. to 1 P.M., Pacific Time.
1.0 Total Participatory MCLE Credits, 1.0 of which may be applied toward Legal Specialization in Family Law (No Ethics)

An in depth program re: enforcement of Court Orders (support, equalization & fees), including wage assignments, execution & levies, affidavits of identity, EWOs, personal property liens, examinations and DCSS and SDU issues.

Presented by: Raymond Goldstein, Managing Partner, Center for Enforcement of Family Support

Click here for more information: State Bar of California - Phone Seminars

Mitch Wood
Office of Sections and Meeting Services
The State Bar of California
180 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105
voice: 415-538-2594
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

See Also:
A very insightful discussion of the difference between Democracy & a Republic - with emphasis on the middle east vs. USA.

Democracy Versus Liberty - Page 1 - Walter E. Williams - Townhall Conservative

More on the Legal FYI Front:

* It will not be long before 'watson like' devices are available in Court - for those who can afford them. The question is whether this gives an unfair advantage to one side.

However, given the endemic pervasive Misandry in the 'justice' system - giving an unfair advantage to Msiandrists would be repetitious

Watson Computer, Making 'Jeopardy' Debut, Could Do Associate Research, IBM GC Says - News - ABA Journal

Wi-Fi Users Are At Risk for Widespread Hacking, New York Times Says - News - ABA Journal

Many Usernames Can Be Used to ID and Track Individuals, Researchers Say - News - ABA Journal

Google Transforms Jury Selection Process - News - ABA Journal

I include this article / link here because it relates to the question of "Standing" - which is Always Relevant in Any Case as a Threshold Issue... And thus worth knowing something about.
.................................................. .......................


County clerk launches defense of Prop 8 traditional marriage
WND Exclusive QUEERLY BELOVED

County clerk launches defense of Prop 8 traditional marriage
Claims standing in court war over constitutional definition
Posted: February 27, 2011 By Bob Unruh © 2011 WorldNetDaily

A newly elected county clerk in California says he has the answer to the question of "standing" being considered right now by the state Supreme Court in response to a query from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering Proposition 8 – the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman only.

"I took an oath of office to uphold the California Constitution, and Prop 8 is part of the Constitution," said Chuck Storey, the new county clerk for the County of Imperial, in a statement released by officials with the Advocates for Faith & Freedom.

The organization has been involved in the arguments over homosexual "marriage" since Proposition 22, a California law defining traditional marriage, was ignored by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004 when he issued same-sex "marriage" licenses...

The dispute over "standing" is critical in the battle over the voter-approved definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman because the then-attorney general, Jerry Brown, who now is governor, and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, both refused to fulfill their state office obligations and defend what now is one section of the state constitution.

Those who organized the petition through which voters adopted the definition have been working with a number of law firms in defense of the law, but the U.S. District Court judge, Vaugh Walker, an open homosexual, who struck down the law, raised the question about "standing."

That would involve the question of exactly who has the right to mount a defense of the law, and Walker suggested that since the state, which is the defendant in the lawsuit, refused to provide a defense, the case essentially is finished.

That very question was raised when the 9th Circuit started considering the dispute, and judges there asked the state Supreme Court to decide whether those interested in the dispute, but not named as defendants, could provide a defense.

The state Supreme Court has not yet released its opinion on the question, but officials with Advocates for Faith & Freedom say in a motion to the 9th Circuit that the county clerk should have "standing" – no matter what the state Supreme Court would decide.


Rally on Prop 8

The organization's motion to intervene on behalf of Storey brings a "new perspective" to the case, officials said.

"This is a very significant development," said Robert Tyler, one of the Advocates' lawyers who have been working on the issue. "Our filing now provides a party that we believe should unquestionably have legal standing to defend Prop 8."

The legal team earlier had sought to intervene on behalf of a deputy clerk, but the 9th Circuit refused permission. The status of Storey as an elected official, Advocates said, should change that.

"The court did leave open the question as to whether a county clerk has sufficient standing," Tyler said. "It certainly seems to indicate it believes the county clerk would be appropriate."

"Twice the voters of California have voted to uphold Proposition 8 and defend marriages," said Tyler, "and twice they have been challenged in the courts. We believe we have a government defendant who has a sufficient and compelling interest in defending Prop 8."

"This case is not only important for influencing nationwide law regarding marriage," added Jennifer Monk, associate general counsel for Advocates. "But it is also important for the people of California to have their vote respected."

...According to a statement from the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been working on behalf of Proposition 8's supporters, that decision would, in effect, allow a politician to overrule the voters' will on a constitutional amendment simply by refusing to do his or her job.

"Politicians should not be able to nullify a democratic act of the people by refusing their duty to defend it," said ADF Litigation Counsel Jim Campbell. "The people of California have the right to be defended, and thus the official proponents of Proposition 8 must have standing to defend that law.

"Otherwise, the governor and attorney general will succeed in indirectly invalidating a measure that they had no power to strike down directly. With this recent development, the Alliance Defense Fund and the rest of the Protectmarriage.com legal team remain confident that the right of the people of California to protect marriage in their constitution will ultimately be honored," he said.

Voters originally approved a state law defining marriage as one man and one woman back in 2000, only to see it undermined by the state legislature. In fact, the state Supreme Court only months before the 2008 election had struck the state law from the books, opening the door for same-sex "marriage."

But the voters overturned that court decision in the 2008 election, and the dispute has resided in court files ever since.

Earlier, when the California Supremes created same-sex "marriage," Justice Marvin Baxter was alarmed in his dissent.

"The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy," Baxter warned.
"Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex.
The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter wrote.

That argument, in fact, is being made now in a court case in Canada, where the acknowledgement of "marriage rights" for same-sex duos is being cited as a reason to strike polygamy laws.

...The ADF said the case has the potential to create "years of chaos and confusion in the legal battle to preserve marriage. It could impact marriage laws in up to 45 other states – including the … states where voters overwhelmingly adopted state constitutional amendments…"

The ADF report said also at stake is:

* The common sense idea that every child should have a right to be raised in a home with both a mom and a dad

* Whether America will be forced to accept the bizarre, court-invented claim that men and women are interchangeable

* Whether Americans will be forced to surrender their freedom to set public policy to a small group of wealthy activists who wish to impose their will on a state or an entire nation

* Whether marriage will remain a unique institution that promotes the important interests of children and society…

* Whether voters may freely consider their own moral and religious views about marriage … or be forced by violence and intimidation to remain silent

* Whether voters may collectively decide through the democratic process that marriage between one man and woman should be protected

Traditional marriage advocates are trying to turn back the stunning conclusions of Walker, an open homosexual, who trashed the votes of more than seven million Californians in his decision.

It has been said that Hard Cases make for Bad Law - but in the case of the Westboro bunch (who I do Not support or approve of) the Court got it Right...

Which is no comfort to those laying the fallen to rest - but does uphold the First Amendment...

Which itself is targeted for burial under a pile of PC-BS marketed as 'tolerance'

Because after all - in an Age of Abomination, Tolerance Macht Frei

Ohso
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Link to Ruling: http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/at...lps_030211.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Free Speech in Funeral Protest Case
Liberty Counsel

Washington, DC – This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld free speech rights in a case that could have had significant negative repercussions for those who seek to express unpopular views.

The Court’s ruling is in keeping with the position that Liberty Counsel advocated in the Amicus Brief it filed in the matter. In Snyder v. Phelps, Albert Snyder filed suit seeking monetary damages from the Fred Phelps family and its Westboro Baptist Church for protesting at the funeral of his son, a fallen war hero.
Snyder did not actually see the protest prior to the funeral, as the protesters were more than 1,000 feet from the location, but was later told about it.

Although Liberty Counsel expressly condemns the offensive tactics employed by the Phelpses and deplores the content of their rhetoric, Liberty Counsel filed an Amicus Brief in support of the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans that could be affected by the outcome of this case.

Writing for the majority in an 8-1 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to ‘special protection’ under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.

‘If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.’ Indeed, ‘the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.’”

Phelps and his family have been protesting for years and, in fact, protested the funeral of the late Dr. Jerry Falwell.

Although Liberty Counsel recognizes that such protests and picketing events are offensive and in poor taste, the group also recognizes that the bad facts of this case could have negatively affected the legitimate free speech rights of law-abiding Americans.

This case could give a veto right to anyone who claims the speech of another is “offensive.” Today the offensive speech of the Phelpses was on trial, but tomorrow it could be religious, pro-life or pro-family speech, or any other speech for that matter.

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel, commented: “The Supreme Court clearly recognized that the bad facts of this case could lead to the restriction of legitimate free speech rights of law-abiding citizens. The First Amendment does not grant to anyone a veto right over another person’s speech, simply because it might be offensive. Free speech needs breathing room. I would rather tolerate a person’s offensive speech than be silenced by the force of law.”

Had the westboro bunch engaged in the same tactics as these radical homosex mau mau artistes did - the Supreme Court would have issued a quite different decision.

There is a huge difference between a protest that Blocks Entrance to a Church from the Front Steps - and one that is segregated a distance away and does Not effect access, which is even enshrined in abortion protest jurisprudence.

But then there is One Law for the masses, and a different one for the special friends of the ObamAcorn, particularly in Chicago - where Al Capone once observed that 'you can get a lot further with a smile and a gun, than with just a smile'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

YouTube - Organized Gay Protest Denounces Catholics as Bigots in Front of Chicago Cathedral
CHICAGO, February 25, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The city of Chicago ordered its police force not to enforce the law against a mob of homosexualist activists who disrupted Mass at the Holy Name Cathedral to protest,,,

The Gay Liberation Network staged the rally on the eve of Valentine’s Day, shouting and chanting loudly as churchgoers entered to celebrate Sunday Mass. The demonstration’s primary target was Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who has spoken out in defense of traditional marriage...“No matter the issue, Catholics should be able to worship in peace, without fear of harassment.”

While it was illegal for the protesters to disrupt a religious service, the Chicago City Council announced that police would not enforce the law in this instance - a move that NOM castigated.

“It’s outrageous that the city of Chicago stepped in and basically told police not to enforce a law for this one occasion,” said NOM president Brian Brown.

“Gay Liberation Network is not above the law. If the city believed the ordinance was unconstitutional they should either repeal it for everyone, or go to court to get a determination. What happened instead was indefensible: stripping Catholics of their legal right to attend religious services peacefully.”

“We don’t know yet if this signals a new phase in the gay marriage movement: organized protests at churches nationwide.”

Jeff Field, a spokesman for the Catholic League, told LifeSiteNews.com that the city council’s refusal to protect the Catholic worshippers was “disappointing to say the least.”

“Everybody has a right to practice their religion. For the city council to deny that right for Catholics is disappointing,” said Field, who pointed out that Muslims and Orthodox Jews shared a religious dedication to traditional marriage. “You wonder if they would allow protests in front of a mosque or a synagogue during their religious services,” he said.