A California who placed a bug in the vehicle of an estranged spouse has gone to jail for that act... and others according to the American Bar Association Journal. But she also had, as they say--"Other Entanglements..."
A former California divorce lawyer who admitted bugging a car was sentenced on Monday to two years in prison for illegal eavesdropping and tax evasion.
Mary Nolan, 62, of Oakland pleaded guilty to charges of evading more than $400,000 in federal taxes and causing her staff to plant a listening device in the vehicle of “N.F.,” identified as a client’s estranged spouse by the Contra Costa Times and as a client’s ex-husband by the San Francisco Chronicle. Nolan gave up her law license and agreed to repay $469,000 in back taxes, according to an FBI press release.
Nolan was among the defendants caught up in the so-called “dirty DUI” scandal in which a private investigator hired alluring women to drink with the husbands of divorce clients at bars. The women would then invite the men to follow them in their cars, and police would be called to investigate a DUI.
A doctor said in court documents that Nolan suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the deaths of her grandparents at a young age and her parents while in college, according to the Contra Costa Times report.
Lesson: Don't wiretap, pay your taxes, and don't run a scam.
The ABA Journal story is here.
Lawmakers in Massachusetts are considering a bill that would prohibit people from dating or having a sexual relationship within their home while they are going through the process of getting a divorce.
An Act relative to divorce, Bill S.787, was filed by State Sen. Richard Ross, a Republican from Wrentham, on behalf of former Wrentham Selectman Robert LeClair.
Under the legislation, couples going through proceedings that involve children and a marital home would not be allowed to conduct relationships within the home until the divorce was finalized and custody issues were resolved. The only exception would be if they received "express permission" from the courts.
Query: Does this mean such activity is to be precluded when the children are around? Or even when the children are in the other parents home for the entire summer?
Some Courts in Texas insert a "morality clause" into their orders that prohibits a parent from having someone with whom they have an intimate relationship stay at the house between the hours of 10 pm and 8 am.
So we'll see if Massachusetts follows.
See the article here.
Under the Texas Standard Possession Order, April 1st of each year is the deadline for the non-primary parent to designate his or her 30 day extended summer possession period. The standard possession order states that April 1st is the deadline for the non-primary parent to give written notice of the extended possession period to the primary parent.
Remember, the non-primary parent still has the same 1st, 3rd, and 5th weekends as during the school year. The extended summer possession time is additional, and must be exercised in two periods. Each possession period must be at least seven consecutive days long. An extended possession period must end at least seven days prior to the child resuming school, and cannot begin before the child's school has ended for summer vacation.
As always, refer to the court's final decree/order if there's any confusion.
A Federal Judge in Detroit yesterday struck down Michigan's 10 year old constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down central provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last year, Michigan joins a parade of states where Federal Courts have stricken down similar statutes or constitutional provisions, including Texas. The states, besides Texas and Michigan where gay marriage bans have been struck down are: Utah, Ohio, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Virginia, Illinois, and Tennessee.
The Michigan decision was particular critical of arguments by the State that gay parents somehow raised children that were "less" than those raised in traditional families, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
A news story is here.
Ken Raggio spoke and presented TemporaryOrders -The First and Lasting (Perhaps Last) Impression? to the 1850+ registrants at the Texas Bar's 39th Advanced Family Law Course held this year in San Antonio. The paper is here.
Raggio also was a teacher in the Ipad workshops held throughout the day on August 6th. Ken served as faculty with other certifed family law specialist attorneys from around the state who are also renown techies.
Deion Sanders won custody of his kids in a jury trial this week; actually the sole right to determine where his three children live. He willl make all educational, health and extracurricular decisions for his two sons, ages 11 and 13, and share that responsibility for his 9-year-old daughter with his estranged wife, Pilar Sanders. He was obviously elated. His Wife commented: “If that’s not one-sided, you have to be blind, dumb, crazy and stupid.” I wonder whether she was describing her husband, the lawyers, the jurors, the judge, the legal system, or all the above but expressly excusing herself.
The contentious divorce slogs on. Pilar tried to contest a premarital agreement she signed after not only having an experienced family law attorney advise her about the agreement, but after she executed she went to Court and told a Judge she knew what she was doing and understood it. But the enforceability of the agreement has been upheld.
But the end is coming. Oh, yea, until the appeal...
This picture is taken with two of my law school classmates - Mark Bentley and Jim Phillips - who work in the General Counsel’s office of the University of Texas system in Austin. I met them for a visit this week, and also with the knowledge that the picture below would end up on the appropriate Facebook walls. Indeed, Mark had it up while we were just beginning our visit in Jim’s office downtown after taking the picture at the Capitol.
There may be bills about Facebook pending before the legislature now; I do not know. But I do know a whole lot about the bills that have been filed that affect Family Law.
I spent the week in Austin as a volunteer lobbyist for the Texas Family Law Foundation to help good legislation to be promulgated by the legislature. Experienced family law attorneys volunteer to spend a week in Austin to aid with that effort. Sometimes bills will be heard before the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee of the House or before the Jurisprudence Committee of the Senate. During the 2011 session, I testified before both the House and the Senate committees. I refer to the week that I, along with Heather King and Charla Bradshaw, testified as the “Superbowl” week of the 2011 session for Family Law, as the Fraud on the Community bill, the Alimony bill, and the Paternity Fraud bill all had hearings that week. Those three bills, all of which became law, were a main part of the Family Law Section’s - and Foundation’s - 2011 legislative package.
This week in February 2013 found the committees of the Senate and House just getting organized and not yet conducting hearings on bills. So my job this week was to assist the Foundation’s lobbyists, Steve Bresnan and Glenn DeShields, in reviewing bills and explaining some bills to either the staff of the committees, to the legislative aides of senators or representatives, or, in fact, to legislators themselves.
Steve would talk to the appropriate party, and would arrange a meeting . We would explain our request for refinement, clarification or express our concerns about a bill. I believe that the Texas Family Law Foundation and its lobbyists are well respected in Austin, due in part to the fact that the Family Law Bar speaks with one voice. Not to mention skilled and knowledgeable lobbyists.
An example is that a certain legislator’s bill would have caused an impermissible retroactive modification of a family law judgment. Steve notified the legislator’s staff of our concerns and arranged a meeting with the legislator and we were accompanied by a member of the Attorney General’s staff to the meeting. After our visit and by the end of the day, we were able to suggest insertions and deletions into the bill with which the legislator, the AG’s represenative and the Foundation were all very comfortable.
So not only did I get to see how “sausage is made” but I got to participate just a little bit in that process. And hopefully made for a little bit better sausage.
Mark Bentley, Jim Phillips, Ken Raggio, UT School of Law class of 1974