Celebrate America! Happy Fourth of July!

The Fourth of July ~ Independence Day ~ marks our countries independence and celebrates our liberty. As you enjoy the day, with food, family, fireworks, and fun, remember how lucky we are to live in the greatest country in the world. Celebrate America!

"[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
--- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787 

In the summer of 1787, delegates from the 13 states convened in Philadelphia and drafted a remarkable blueprint for self-government -- the Constitution of the United States. The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included a strong executive branch, a representative legislature and a federal judiciary.

The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration - or bill - of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do.

The absence of a "bill of rights" turned out to be an obstacle to the Constitution's ratification by the states. It would take four more years of intense debate before the new government's form would be resolved. The Federalists opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, who were afraid of a strong centralized government, refused to support the Constitution without one. 

In the end, popular sentiment was decisive. Recently freed from the despotic English monarchy, the American people wanted strong guarantees that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech, press and religion, nor upon their right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures. So, the Constitution's framers heeded Thomas Jefferson who argued: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution's first ten amendments became the law of the land.

The provisions contained in the Bill of Rights were predated by the Magna Carta, which King John signed in 1215 to protect citizens against abuse of power by the King or Queen. Likewise, the authors (led by James Madison) sought to limit the role of the central government. Virginia's Declaration of Rights, drafted by George Mason immediately after independence in 1776, served as a model for other state bills of rights as well as the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

"CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS"

Democracy and liberty are often thought to be the same thing, but they are not. Democracy means that people ought to be able to vote for public officials in fair elections, and make most political decisions by majority rule. Liberty, on the other hand, means that even in a democracy, individuals have rights that no majority should be able to take away. 

The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that as human beings, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT

Early American mistrust of government power came from the colonial experience itself. Most historians believe that the pivotal event was the Stamp Act, passed by the English Parliament in 1765. Taxes were imposed on every legal and business document. Newspapers, books and pamphlets were also taxed. Even more than the taxes themselves, the Americans resented the fact that they were imposed by a distant government in which they were not represented. And they were further enraged by the ways in which the Stamp Act was enforced.

Armed with "writs of assistance" issued by Parliament, British customs inspectors entered people's homes even if they had no evidence of a Stamp Act violation, and ransacked the people's belongings in search of contraband. The colonialists came to hate these "warrantless" searches and they became a rallying point for opposition to British rule.

From these experiences came a uniquely American view of power and liberty as natural enemies. The nation's founders believed that containing the government's power and protecting liberty was their most important task, and declared a new purpose for government: the protection of individual rights.

The protection of rights was not the government's only purpose. It was still expected to protect the community against foreign and domestic threats, to ensure economic growth, and to conduct foreign affairs. It was not, however, the government's job to tell people how to live their lives, what religion to believe in, or what to write about in a pamphlet or newspaper. In this sense, the idea of individual rights is the oldest and most traditional of American values.

Once drafted, the Bill of Rights was quickly ratified by the states.

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 3
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment 7
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Florida Association of Legal Document Preparers - Axis of Justice

"He who represents himself has a fool for a client" ...

is a quote most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, who was, himself, a lawyer. And, of course, there is some truth to that statement, many attorneys recognize that they may not be their own best choice in handling their own legal matter. Even as qualified attorneys, their legal specialty, experience, and knowledge may not be sufficient. For example, a corporate attorney handling his own divorce, may be a very bad idea. Also, the personal nature of family legal matters means that emotions can be at an all time high.

However, for many people in Florida, hiring an attorney is simply not an option. The cost of representation is out of reach. Many people would prefer to hire an attorney if they could, but have no choice but to proceed pro se. The barriers that pro se litigants must overcome are substantial, as the court system has a profound bias against self-represented parties -- even though around 70% of litigants in Florida family courts are, in fact, pro se.

Florida legal document preparers attempt to bridge the gap by offering document preparation services to pro se litigants. Professionally prepared documents and information about procedural rules can go a long way in helping consumers navigate the court system.

However, just as there is a strong bias against pro se litigants, there is also a strong bias against legal document preparers. Legal document preparers face frequent harassment from attorneys and the Florida Bar. It is my belief that the attorneys who attack and malign legal document preparers do so because they are at the bottom of the pack. The attorneys who attack and malign document preparers are threatened by the very existence of document preparers. They fear that consumers will turn to document preparers for their simple uncontested legal matters. And rightly so. Why does anyone need an attorney for a simple uncontested matter anyway?

Document preparation and lawyering are two completely different ball games. Theoretically, although different ball games, we both want a positive outcome for the consumers we serve.

Strike One:

I have had a couple of recent run ins with attorneys for needlessly and publicly denigrating document preparers in general. One of these run ins was on linkedin and some other document preparers saw it, and some of those document preparers also posted comments. The attorney made statements that document preparers are at best incompetent and at worst perpetrating fraud. I disagreed. He then quoted me the Florida Bar UPL rules. I acknowledged that I am well aware of our limitations regarding UPL. Then several document preparers also commented, stating that they frequently refer customers to attorneys, and in turn attorneys frequently refer consumers to them. That attorney ultimately removed his post and all the comments along with it.

I do have some sympathy for attorneys. They have painted themselves into a corner. Law schools have lowered standards considerably; and there are now something like 94,000 attorneys in Florida. And with a Florida adult population of around 16 million - that's around one attorney to every 170 Florida adults. Since many people never need an attorney, that could be some slim pickins. Also, attorneys have monumental self-induced PR problems. I don't go out of my way to malign attorneys,

And as the attorney on linkedin discovered, I don't appreciate attorneys going out of their way to malign document preparers.

Strike Two:

We recently came across an attorney site advertising family law document preparation. The attorney site states:

"Divorce is never trouble-free, but why make it harder than you have to?

For simple, uncontested cases, it’s as low as $399, and we make it as easy as 1, 2, 3:

• We’ll give you Florida Supreme Court approved forms absolutely free
• You’ll fill out the forms
• You’ll meet one-on-one with a member of our legal team to review the forms after you complete them

It’s that simple.  We’ll also explain local Court rules and give you advice about filing your case and appearing before the Court.  Plus, we’ll also provide a Notary Public service for free!

 

The clerk’s office charges fees for the necessary Florida Supreme Court approved forms and doesn’t even provide assistance when filling them out.

..., we give you the forms for free and our attorneys provide legal advice for a nominal fee".

So apparently the consumer has the pleasure of paying $399 to prepare the forms themselves. For that $399 they get handed a stack of forms, go home, fill them out, come back and review them with a "member of their legal team", who I'm guessing is a paralegal. In the real world, the forms are free, all the Supreme Court approved forms are free. Patting themselves on the back for giving away what is free seems a bit disingenuous to me. Notary services can also be free. Most banks offer free notary services to their customers providing no witness is required. Then comes the kicker the undisclosed "nominal fee". Who knows what constitutes a nominal fee in attorney world?

Strike Three:

Another family attorney site claimed the following. I do not include the site, as I do not want to provide him with free advertising. However, if you message me I'll send you the link and you can see for yourself. The site boldly claims:

We want to put the document preparation companies out of business.

"They aren't lawyers. They haven't the foggiest idea about Florida divorce law. Most are from out of state. They sell access to a software program that fills in blanks on a form. No lawyers. No real help. Mostly they get it wrong. Mostly they don't include all of the required papers. They charge too much. Some are practicing law without a license, which is a 5 year felony in Florida. The Florida Bar goes after some of them but doesn't have the manpower to shut them all down. Cyberspace can be hard to get a handle on. We aim to put them out of business, which is why we are charging so little."

This little paragraph is chock full of lies and disinformation. I won't even dignify the comments with an answer. This is a shame for consumers. Adding to consumers' confusion as to what to do and how to navigate the legal system is a true disservice.

You're OUT!

The silver lining for pro se litigants is that despite their lack of knowledge of the law, they are their own best experts on their case. It is the pro se litigant's life. To an attorney it is just another case.

About Fundamental Fairness

It is about fundamental fairness. Truth in advertising. Keeping a promise. If I promise something, and then I don't keep my promise, there should be consequences. Sometimes a promise is broken because its impossible to keep, external events interfere. But, maybe there should still be consequences for a broken promise, even if the breaking of it was unavoidable. Or maybe the breaking of that promise should just be forgiven. But, making a promise with no intention of keeping it? Isn't that simply unfair, deceptive?

If I advertise a car for sale at a certain price. And someone comes along and says, ok, I'll give you the price you're asking -- I have cash; can I then turn around and say, no I want more money than that? Or can I say, no I'm going to think about it. Is it ethical to advertise a price for a thing when you have no intention of accepting that amount? Is it legal?

Can I, as a seller, say to the wannabe buyer that I want to hold out for more money?

Can I, as a seller, say to the wannabe buyer, I'll let you know later whether I'll sell it to you and for what amount. And when later comes, I tell the wannabe buyer that now there are others offering me more money for the same car. So, I say to the wannabe buyer, what is your highest and best price? Is this legal and ethical?

What if I never had any intention of selling the car for the advertised price? Is that bait and switch?

Probably not, since no other car was being switched. But is it deceptive? I think so, The following is from the FTC website:

"WHAT MAKES AN ADVERTISEMENT DECEPTIVE?

According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

• Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
• Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

Certain elements undergird all deception cases.

First, there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer. Practices that have been found misleading or deceptive in specific cases include false oral or written representations, misleading price claims, sales of hazardous or systematically defective products or services without adequate disclosures, failure to disclose information regarding pyramid sales, use of bait and switch techniques, failure to perform promised services, and failure to meet warranty obligations.

Second, we examine the practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances. If the representation or practice affects or is directed primarily to a particular group, the Commission examines reasonableness from the perspective of that group.

Third, the representation, omission, or practice must be a "material" one. The basic question is whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or service. If so, the practice is material, and consumer injury is likely, because consumers are likely to have chosen differently but for the deception. In many instances, materiality, and hence injury, can be presumed from the nature of the practice. In other instances, evidence of materiality may be necessary.

Thus, the Commission will find deception if there is a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer's detriment. 

The Commission also considers claims or omissions material if they significantly involve health, safety, or other areas with which the reasonable consumer would be concerned. Depending on the facts, information pertaining to the central characteristics of the product or service will be presumed material. Information has been found material where it concerns the purpose, safety, efficacy, or cost, of the product or service. Information is also likely to be material if it concerns durability, performance, warranties or quality. Information pertaining to a finding by another agency regarding the product may also be material."

I think that when a thing is offered for a certain price its a promise. Contract law is all about enforcing promises. I also think that offering a thing for sale at a certain price is a contract that can be enforced. Contract enforcement remedies include money damages and specific performance. And, contract law is surprisingly not as cut and dried as I thought. Many times, contract enforcement remedies are based on the intent of the parties and reasonableness.

I have always been mystified as to exactly how bidding wars for houses can happen. In general, a listing for a house for sale is treated as a request for offers. In general, people list a price for sale above what they are willing to accept and anticipate negotiations. But, if someone accepts the offer to sell without any attempt to negotiate the price or terms -- isn't the seller bound to honor their promise? Apparently not, at least in common practice in 2015. I maintain that legally, the offer to sell at a set price is just that - an offer. And a buyer's acceptance of that price and terms is acceptance.

All real estate contracts must be in writing, as per the Statute of Frauds. And, in my scenario, this is also the case. The first writing is the offer to sell, which is the MLS listing for sale at a certain price, the property and terms described with specificity. In my theory, this itself is a unilateral contract. So, if someone comes along when there is no other offer pending, and accepts the offer to sell; and agrees to price and terms; it then becomes a bilateral contract. And is enforceable.

I have had realtors, a real estate broker, a worker at Fannie Mae, and various individuals tell me that I am wrong. That my thinking is muddled, that I don't know how things work, and more or less that I'm an idiot. I also asked a real estate attorney, who, to his credit, said "I don't know". I keep asking the same question.

If someone offers a property for sale, and I say ok, I'll buy that property for that amount with cash and no contingencies -- doesn't the seller have to sell it to me for that amount and for those terms? After all, it was the seller's idea in the first place, not mine. He was the one offering (promising) to sell.

On three different occasions, what I thought should have been a contract has suddenly turned into a bidding war. On all three occasions, we offered full price with no contingencies. And, on all three occasions, the seller did not accept our "offer", but instead let us know that we should now submit our highest and best bid. I continue to maintain that this practice is unethical and probably illegal. I further believe that if I sued the seller, the suit would be based on breach of contract, and that as a remedy I would request specific performance. So that the court might then order the seller to sell us the house.

My detractors have told me, that there is no contract in my scenario. I beg to differ. A contract is a promise, the initial promise, the contract occurred when the seller offered the property for sale and I accepted the offer for sale.

The broker, in the most patronizing manner possible, told me that the seller is doing us a favor by allowing us to submit our highest and best offer. What????

And the entire Greek chorus of my detractors has told me that no one can make someone sell their property. Again, I beg to differ. I rely on a case that I expect is taught in law school - Lucy v Zehmer.

Lucy is a 1954 Virginia Supreme Court case in which Mr. and Mrs. Zehmer and Mr. and Mrs. Lucy were at a bar. The Zehmers told the Lucys that they would sell them their 400+ acre farm for $50,000. and proceeded to write the price and terms on a cocktail napkin.

Zehmer subsequently refused to go through with the sale, alternately claiming that he was drunk and that he was joking. Following is an excerpt from that case:

"If it be assumed, contrary to what we think the evidence shows, that Zehmer was jesting about selling his farm to Lucy and that the transaction was intended by him to be a joke, nevertheless the evidence shows that Lucy did not so understand it but considered it to be a serious business transaction and the contract to be binding on the Zehmers as well as on himself. The very next day he arranged with his brother to put up half the money and take a half interest in the land. The day after that he employed an attorney to examine the title. The next night, Tuesday, he was back at Zehmer's place and there Zehmer told him for the first time, Lucy said, that he wasn't going to sell and he told Zehmer "You know you sold that place fair and square." After receiving the report from his attorney that the title was good he wrote to Zehmer that he was ready to close the deal.

Not only did Lucy actually believe, but the evidence shows he was warranted in believing, that the contract represented a serious business transaction and a good faith sale and purchase of the farm."

Like Lucy, not only do I actually believe someone will sell a house for the promised price, I believe the promise is enforceable. The holding in Lucy was that the contract was enforced, and the farm was sold as agreed.

We ARE Disruptors

We are disruptors, and - yes - proud of it. I am happy that we disrupt the status quo. I am happy that we present an alternative to consumers. If the legal world had properly served consumers, we would not exist. Legal document preparers are here to stay. We have a foothold. Around 70% of family law litigants are pro se -- self represented. Many of the self-represented employ legal document preparers to prepare their paperwork. Some of them cannot possibly afford an attorney. Others have no desire to retain an attorney. And still others have no need for an attorney.

If, we legal document preparers, present a viable alternative for consumers - then why not? Consumers who cannot afford an attorney are not lost clients for attorneys - it was never possible for them to be attorneys' clients at all. Price being the governing factor. It makes no sense for Mercedes Benz to be upset with Kia for stealing their customers. Not the same customer, not the same demographic.

Some consumers can well afford an attorney but choose not to retain counsel. They either feel that they can easily handle their legal affairs themselves, or feel that an attorney will cause them to spend money needlessly.

Still other consumers do not need an attorney at all. They only need papers. They only need documents prepared; they are well aware of their rights and issues; and there is no legal dispute. Many of these consumers realize that if they retained counsel, it is quite possible that an attorney could create a dispute where none existed before. No dispute = no billable hours.

I have no goal to malign attorneys. They don't need my help in discrediting their profession. The numbers speak for themselves. Since 70% of family law litigants are attorney free - one can only surmise that a fair percentage of them could afford counsel if they chose.

I, as a legal document preparer, receive some attorney referrals. One of the attorneys who refers to me [we'll call him John] has done so for the past several years and I am rarely able to reciprocate, as he really only wants family law mediation clients. And I rarely have this type of customer to refer. I can only say Thank You. I suppose John refers to me because in his opinion the consumer is better off paying my lower fee and spending their money to take care of their children; rather than paying his fee and their having to stretch financially to pay it. In all these years, only once has there been a problem. The soon to be ex disputed jurisdiction for the divorce as the couple still had marital property in another state. I referred her back to John, then she came back and asked me to prepare a voluntary motion to dismiss. Which I did at no cost.

Even more than I appreciate the compensation John's referrals bring, I appreciate the respect he gives me by sending his clients my way.

On the other hand, I recently severed ties with an attorney, we'll call her Mary. She and I had an arrangement in which she would offer my customers a low cost consultation; and then in theory send them back to me for document preparation. No one ever came back. It was a legal Bermuda Triangle. She had presented herself to me as an advocate for pro se litigants and a friend to Florida document preparers. Although it took me a while to catch on, the truth came out. Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing. I was blind sided, and I have yet to forgive myself for that. She displays the following on her site:

" ... many people are opting to use document preparers who can complete divorce forms at low cost, affordable rates. And while this is an attractive option, most document preparers have little or no legal training or experience outside of document preparation. ..."

That statement isn't particularly true. Most document preparers have extensive experience and academic training, including B.A. degrees in Legal Studies; paralegal certificates; years of law firm experience; JD degrees; law degrees from other states or countries; and lots of hands on experience. A few document preparers are self taught - graduates of the school of hard knocks.

The first big difference between John and Scarey Mary is that John wants to serve the consumer; while Mary wants to serve herself. The second difference is that John is established in his profession; while Mary is competing with nonlawyer lay practitioners. As a consumer, that in itself would be enough to scare me away from Mary. Did she, and other attorneys of her ilk, really go to law school to learn how to fill out forms. Scarey. Mary.

Poverty and Wealth are Relative Terms

Poverty and wealth are relative terms. I am talking about material poverty and wealth. All I know is the chasm is getting wider and deeper. The haves have more than ever and are less likely than ever to reach across the great divide to build a bridge.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan’s economics program began to drastically rollback social programs established by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. In 2013, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org) reported that the average CEO made 295 times the salary of the average worker, although its unlikely that the CEOs did 295 times the work. In 1978, the average CEO made just 29.9 times the salary of the average worker.

No one chooses poverty. But, as it always has been in America, the biggest crime of all is to be poor. And we blame the poor for being poor; blithely forgetting that we don't know their story. Illness, bad luck, divorce, lack of opportunity, lack of education, and, yes, even poor choices. But, it is counter productive for all of us to continually blame the poor for being poor; and have the poor as society's collective scapegoat.

Although America may still be sometimes called the "Land of Opportunity" the harsh reality is that just 4 % of those raised on the bottom rung of the ladder ever climb to the top. New York Times.

Missouri is currently trying to pass a bill that if passed would prohibit food stamp recipients from being able to use those funds to buy “cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood, or steak". The proposed ban of seafood is inexplicable from a nutrition standpoint, so it can only mean that the haves don't want to let the poor eat fish - or shrimp - or crab - or apparently even canned tuna. Also the prohibition of steak is nonsensical both from a nutrition and practical standpoint. Someone could buy ground sirloin, but not a steak? Could they ask the butcher to cut a steak up into stew meat and thereby make it acceptable for purchase?

Missouri's bill is unlikely to pass; or if passed to remain in place very long. The food stamp program, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - SNAP for short - is federal. Individual states are allowed to implement pilot programs, but they are not allowed to change the rules. And according to the federal government:

• Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items; and
• Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items

Florida Governor Rick Scott took a similar battle to the federal appellate court when Scott was called out and sued by the ACLU for passing a law requiring recipients of Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) to be drug tested when they applied for services. In his detailed ruling, denying Scott's appeal, Judge Stanley Marcus of the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that “citizens do not abandon all hope of privacy by applying for government assistance.” He said that “the collection and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable” and that “by virtue of poverty, TANF applicants are not stripped of their legitimate expectations of privacy.”

Low income citizens face daily challenges in addition to such primary needs as food and shelter. The word "indigent" appears in some form in the top twenty search strings used to arrive at www.faldp.org - the site for theFlorida Association of Legal Document Preparers. Many low income Floridians are turned away from their local Legal Aid Society even though they are income qualified. Reasons to be turned away include: their local legal aid lacks the resources to assist them; and that the specific legal problem is not the type of issue that legal aid is equipped to deal with. Many other citizens do not income qualify for any legal aid, but they also cannot afford a private attorney.

In the immortal words of Janis Joplin

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?

My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.

Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,

So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV?

Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.

I wait for delivery each day until three,

So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town?

I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down.

Prove that you love me and buy the next round,

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town?

Everybody!

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?

My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends,

Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,

So oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?  

Stop Florida's Unconstitutional Plan to Outlaw Anonymous Speech

A dangerously misguided Florida bill would forbid websites from operating anonymously just because they meet a vague definition of disseminating “commercial recordings”—and it's headed for a vote this week.

Supporters of the “True Origin of Digital Goods Act” say it's about “piracy,” but it would actually have disastrous consequences for anonymous online speech both inside and outside the state. Anybody operating a website that is even “likely to” host music or videos “directly or indirectly,”—even their own music or videos—could be ordered to reveal their name and address.

This new law isn't just unnecessary to enforce federal copyright or trademark laws—it also creates a new avenue for legal abuse. Anyone “aggrieved” by an anonymous website owner could take that owner to court, without having to show legal harm.

Anonymous speech is a vital part of the American free speech tradition, and of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Artists, writers, and citizens rely on the freedom to speak anonymously through blogs, independent news sites, amateur video and music, and other websites and services. They rely on anonymity to voice unpopular opinions and speak truth to power without fear of harassment or reprisals at work or at home.

If you're in Florida, act now to tell your lawmakers: don't sacrifice anonymous speech at the altar of vague anti-piracy policy. Vote no on “True Origins of Digital Goods Act,” HB271 in the House and SB604 in the Senate.

From the Electronic Frontier Foundation's site - www.eff.org

And, an email from Fight for the Future states:

The news coming out of Florida is not good. Florida is poised to pass a dangerously misguided SOPA-like bill this week. This is bad for the Internet, both inside and outside the state.

Florida state legislature has introduced two related bills - HB 271 and SB 604 - otherwise known as the “True Origin of Digital Goods Act” (TODGA).[1]  

Supporters say the bills will curb online piracy. But really this is about online censorship. Just imagine having to put your home address on all of your websites that contain streaming content? Are you kidding??

Click here to sign the petition to stop the passage of the True Origin of Digital Goods Act”.

Unfortunately TODGA is no joke. If the act become law, any website that has commercial streaming content will be legally required to post their owner’s true name and contact information on the site or risk being taken down.[2]

What else is bad about the “True Origins of Digital Goods Act”?

• The bill is useless. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act already covers what Florida says it needs to fix; TODGA just creates a new avenue for legal abuse. Anyone “aggrieved” by an anonymous website owner could take that owner to court, without having to show legal harm. [3]

• TODGA will allow officials to take down alleged violators without any due process. This sets a dangerous precedence that will curb free speech on the Internet and circumvent normal channels.

We can’t let this happen.

When Congress tries to pass SOPA/PIPA and CISPA, we stop them every time. Now they’re trying to sneak similar bills under the radar at the state level. We are smarter than that.

Please sign the petition to stop Florida’s“True Origins of Digital Goods Act”, and share this petition with your friends.

-Susan, Evan, Holmes, Tiffiniy, Jessica, Vasjen, Charlie and Jeff
Fight for the Future

Sincerely,

----

Sources:

[1] http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=53294&

[2] Electronic Future Foundation. Stop Florida’s Unconstitutional Plan to Outlaw Anonymous Speech. EFF website. https://act.eff.org/action/stop-florida-s-unconstitutional-plan-to-outlaw-anonymous-speech (Note: EFF’s article was written when Florida tried to pass the same bills last year. Thankfully the 2014 bills failed. Let’s make sure the same thing happens in 2015.)

[3] Florida Legislature Considering SOPA/PIPA-like bills. The Internet Association http://internetassociation.tumblr.com/post/115035123138/florida-legislature-considering-sopa-pipa-like

Come on Florida - We don't want to be Flori-DUH - sign the petition and donate. This is important.

A Day in the Life of a Miami Pro Se Litigant ...

Dealing with Miami-Dade County Family Court — 
It just got harder for the Pro Se

Guest Post by Elisa Epstein

Pro Se litigant’s dealings with the Miami Dade County Family Court system has never been more difficult with the recent hiring of court’s supervisors who make every effort to push Pro Se litigants through the “self-help” desk located on the 24^th floor. Try to “bypass “the “self-help desk” and simply file your documents directly with the clerk and you will be met with the recently hired filing’s “police”. This new crop of supervisors stand, both literally and figuratively, between you and the filing clerks.

These supervisors will insist you disclose your matter on command in front of whatever audience happens to be waiting in line, and, tell you that as a Pro Se you must first go to the “self-help” desk. If you tell them you don’t want to use “self-help”, they will then try to intimidate you by telling you that the filing clerks are trained now to reject and red-stamp a Pro Se filings no matter how correctly the forms are filled out.

The unwitting and unfortunate Pro Se who bends to this tyrannical attitude and retreats to the” self-help” program will be given a new set of burdens and hardships-- there is the long line in the dingy, crowded, windowless room, fees for form “packets” (forms which are easy accessible and FREE from the Supreme Court website), and, additional filing fees for modifications to prior judgments. But worst of all, for the anxious litigant wanting to quickly resolve their matter, the several week or more delay to have your case heard while the “self-help” division processes your forms.

So why is Dade now insisting on “self-help” for Pro Se Litigants? The city will insist it’s helping the public by making the court more efficient and accessible for the public. But when you look at the revenue stream the city generates from the “self-help” desk from form packet , extra filing fees, use of their own notaries etc., one easily wonders if the “self-help” desk is really there to serve the public, or whether it is just another revenue stream for the city.

So what’s a Pro Se to do with all this “self-help”?

There are two possible ways to go about it-- use the e-filing system (which the clerks will swear only exists for attorneys or, stand your ground and file your documents directly. When you actually make it to the clerk, usually they will be helpful and answer some questions you might have if they happen to know what they are doing. I’d highly suggest passing any important questions through more than one clerk.

The advantage of e-filing is fairly obvious—no potential harassment, no travel, no parking fees. But filing in-person has its own distinct advantages. When you file in-person, you can get certified copies of your documents that lists the date of filing (for a few bucks). Having certified copies puts a little additional pressure on the clerks to actually file your documents, file them in a timely fashion and gives you an established, undisputable record with the court.

If the supervisor tells you your docs will be rejected because you are pro se, smile, accept their frown, and politely tell them that you will keep coming back until the documents are correct. This is basically the last thing they want to hear.

Whether you chose to E-File or file in-person, your case should pop up for hearing in a few weeks

Dade… thanks for the “self-help”, but no thanks.