FaceBook can be used for comparing yourself to others and investigating persons you just met. It can also be used to brag on yourself, your child’s latest, cutest thing and driving up “hits” on your blog. However, it is NOT to air your DIVORCE DRAMA!
“81 percent of divorce attorneys surveyed by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers said they’d seen an increase in the number of cases using social networking evidence in the five years prior. The attorneys said Facebook was the number one source for finding online evidence, with 66 percent admitting they’d found evidence by combing the site.”
What are some of the things NOT to post on FaceBook?
Don’t put the sordid details of your case.
Don’t take cheap shots at the other’s parenting ability.
Don’t post inappropriate pictures of yourself or others.
Don’t call out the Judge or Court system on your page.
Don’t put out false information to garner sympathy.
Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in Mississippi and recommends you not post your business on FaceBook.
BowTieLawyer.ms was nominated for The Expert Institute’s third-annual Best Legal Blog Contest! More nominations than ever were received for this year’s competition and included a diverse field of legal blogs that span the full spectrum of the legal landscape.
For Immediate Release: BowTieLawyer.ms has been nominated for The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest. Vote here.
From a field of hundreds of potential nominees, BowTieLawyer.ms has received enough nominations to join one of the largest competitions for legal blog writing online today.
Now that the blogs have been nominated and placed into their respective categories, it is up to their readers to select the very best. With an open voting format that allows participants one vote per blog, the competition will be a true test of the dedication of each blog’s existing readers, while also giving up-and-coming players in the legal blogging space exposure to a wider audience.
Each blog will compete for rank within its category, while the three blogs that receive the most votes in any category will be crowned overall winners.
The competition will run from September 25th until the close of voting at 12:00 AM on November 3rd, at which point the votes will be tallied and the winners announced.
Founded in 2011, The Expert Institute is a technology-driven platform for connecting qualified experts in every field with lawyers, investment firms, and journalists looking for technical expertise and guidance. The Expert Institute combines a vast database of pre-screened experts with a talented case management team capable of custom recruiting experts to fit the specific needs of our clients. The Expert Institute also maintains one of the internet’s most visited blogs on expert witnesses, in addition to an extensive case study archive and expert witness resource center.
Mississippi has been sued in the Northern District Federal Court by self-proclaimed polygamists and a machinist. (*A “machinist” sexually objectifies tools and/or implements). Federal Lawsuit re: Polygamy.
One of the Plaintiffs wants to marry a MacBook. *(already married her/it in New Mexico)
Polygamy, the practice of having more than one wife or husband at the same time, made infamous by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and rooted in some Biblical precedent, is nonetheless unconstitutional.
Nearly 140 years ago Reynolds v. United States, (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1879), was decided and is still good law. Mr. Reynolds was convicted of bigamy, a crime in the territory of Utah, sentenced to two years hard labor and a $500 fine. At the trial, Mr. Reynolds sought to have a jury instruction that his religious belief allowed, or even required, multiple marriages at the same time and since he was practicing his religion he could not also be guilty of a crime, citing the First Amendment (freedom of religion).
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “here, as a law…of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.“ Id. at 166-167.
The bottom line in Reynolds is you can believe what you want, but you may not be able to practice, affirmatively, what you believe.
Fast forward to 2017, the now-pending lawsuit in Mississippi is seeking to prevent gay marriages, raising the constitutional Lemon Test of prohibition on government favoring one religious view over another.
The Plaintiffs argue that if gay marriage is legal, then polygamy marriage should be legal, as well as the right to marry things.
The Lemon Test details legislation concerning religion;
The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Purpose Prong)
The primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Effect Prong)
The statute must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. (Entanglement Prong)
Factors.
Character and purpose of institution benefited.
Nature of aid the state provides.
Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
***
The above treats this lawsuit as something to consider, however, it is not. The Plaintiffs are not residents of Mississippi, though have visited. One Plaintiff married his computer in New Mexico and is now complaining because Mississippi won’t recognize it as a marriage. Another Plaintiff, not a resident of Mississippi, wants to marry multiple persons, also not residents from Mississippi, in Pontotoc, and was refused a license to marry multiple persons at the same time. One Plaintiff, not a Mississippi resident, was engaged to a man who was “mean to her,” so she chose to “self-identify as a lesbian and legally marriage (sic) a woman only to discover it was ‘hell on earth.’ She now self-identifies as a polygamists” and demands the Government and Mississippi recognize it.
This lawsuit is a farce. The arguments are nonsense. The Clarion-Ledger reporting this as if it is remotely newsworthy, which is how I viewed the article initially, is misleading.
This will be dismissed so fast he won’t have time to reboot his wife…er…computer.
Matthew Thompson is an attorney that did a face-palm when reading the actual complaint.
“Splitting the Baby” is a phrase that is tossed around everyday. Its use refers to making decisions that leave both parties unhappy.
I have even heard a Judge say that if both parties leave unhappy then they must have gotten the result right. There may be some instances where this holds true, however there was no splitting of the baby in the Biblical account of Solomon’s decision. King Solomon’s decision was between two competing mothers embroiled in a custody dispute over a child, each claiming the child to be their own. 1 Kings 3:16 KJV
In the Biblical Custody Battle, King Solomon was faced with one infant and two mothers. Solomon did not know which woman was the child’s real mother, so he arranged a test to see if he could determine the true mother. In Solomon’s case, the real mother was willing to let the other woman have her child in order to spare the child’s life, while the other woman (whose own baby previously died) agreed with King Solomon that the baby should be cut in half, with each woman receiving a portion. The real mother in King Solomon’s court was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice of giving the child up, so that the child would survive. The Holy Bible, King James Version, 1 Kings 3:16.
Splitting the baby may be a solution if it’s not an actual baby. However, the true wisdom of Solomon was that he did NOT split the baby.
Matthew Thompson is a Child Custody attorney in Mississippi and has quoted the Bible as authority in legal arguments.
Whether to use child testimony is a difficult issue to resolve between parents and attorneys involved in child custody cases. Children know more than you think and also may have an opinion. However, child testimony is discouraged in most instances…
“We reiterate that parents in a divorce proceeding should if at all possible refrain from calling any of the children of their marriage, of tender years at least, as witnesses, and counsel should advise their clients against doing so except in the most exigent cases.”- Jethrow v. Jethrow
So, do the children testify or not? For Family Law cases the leading authority is Jethrow vs. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270 (Miss. 1990). This case lays the groundwork that the Court should use when assessing child testimony. Different Courts and different Judges apply Jethrow in varying ways, but the basic premise is, as follows;
A child witnesses of tender years, 12 and under for testimony purposes, testifying is subject to the discretion of the Judge.
Before allowing such testimony the Judge “should satisfy himself that the child has the ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently, and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness.”
Before excluding the testimony of a child witness of tender years in a divorce proceeding, the chancellor at a minimum should follow the procedure required by Crownover v. Crownover, 33 Ill.App.3rd 327, 337 N.E.2d 56 (1975):
The first hurdle is whether the child is competent to testify.
The Judge should confer in camera (meaning in the Judge’s chambers/office) with the child and determine whether or not the child’s testimony should be heard
The Judge has considerable discretion in conducting proceedings of this type, meaning it’s the judge’s decision.
The court should not, however, reject outright proposed testimony of a child in custody proceedings, where the omission of such crucial testimony might be harmful to the child’s best interests.
The trial court should take great pains to have an in camera conference with the child to determine the competency of the child,
as well as the competency of any evidence which the child might present.
The court should also then determine whether the best interests of the child would be served by permitting her to testify, or
Whether the child should be sheltered from testifying and being subjected to a vigorous cross-examination.
The Judge should report the essential material matters developed at the in camera conference on the record.
The Court should state the reasons for allowing or disallowing the testimony of the child, and
The Court should note the factual information which the court developed from the conference with the child which would be considered by the court in its ultimate determinations in the case.
A child testifying should be avoided if at all possible.
First things first. It’s pronounced “Dow-Burt.”It’s been pronounced “dough-bear” and “daw-Burt,” but the plaintiff’s attorney has set the record straight.
Daubert and its progeny stand for several essentials on expert testimony.
First, the Judge is gatekeeper: Under Rule 702, the task of “gatekeeping”, or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from “scientific knowledge”, rests on the trial judge.
Relevance and reliability: This requires the trial judge to ensure that the expert’s testimony is “relevant to the task at hand” and that it rests “on a reliable foundation.” The Judge must find it more likely than not that the expert’s methods are reliable and reliably applied to the facts at hand.
Scientific knowledge = scientific method/methodology: A conclusion will qualify as scientific knowledge if the expert can demonstrate that it is the product of sound “scientific methodology” derived from the scientific method.
The Court defined “scientific methodology” as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis, and provided a set of factors in determining whether these criteria are met:
RULE 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESS
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Expertise in Court cases are subject to the tenets of Daubert and the Rules of Evidence concerning expert witness testimony. ~ Wikipedia.
Matthew Thompson is a Mississippi divorce and child custody attorney and advises that experts can be a valuable tool in the litigation toolbox.
I have even heard a Judge say that if both parties leave unhappy then they must have gotten the result right. There may be some instances where this holds true, however there was no splitting of the baby in the Biblical account of Solomon’s decision. King Solomon’s decision was between two competing mothers embroiled in a custody dispute over a child, each claiming the child to be their own. 1 Kings 3:16 KJV
should if at all possible refrain from calling any of the children of their marriage, of tender years at least, as witnesses, and counsel should advise their clients against doing so except in the most exigent cases.”- Jethrow v. Jethrow
(601) 850-8000 - - BowTieLawyer.MS 