Columns

In 1956, a book was published that contained a volume of short biographies describing various acts of bravery and integrity by eight U.S. senators. :  

By Tom Kirvan
Legal News, Editor-in-Chief

In 1956, a book was published that contained a volume of short biographies describing various acts of bravery and integrity by eight U.S. senators.

The book became a bestseller and won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography in 1957, and heralded the coming of a future U.S president in 1960.

The author, of course, was John F. Kennedy, although the book later was confirmed as a collaboration with his speechwriter, Ted Sorenson.

Regardless, the book profiles such senators as John Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster from Massachusetts and Sam Houston from Texas for defying “the opinions of their party and constituents to do what they felt was right and suffered severe criticism and losses in popularity because of their actions,” according to a promotional description of the bestseller.

If someone set out now to write a modern-day sequel, he or she would be hard-pressed to find few if any members of Congress worth profiling.

In marked contrast, earlier this year, in a special ceremony at the White House, a true American hero was saluted – albeit very belatedly – for his courage and valor during combat nearly 60 years ago in the Vietnam War.

His name is Col. Paris Davis, one of the first Black officers in the U.S. Army’s Special Forces unit, who received the Medal of Honor on March 3 for the multiple acts of courage and sacrifice he exhibited June 18, 1965 when he saved three of his fellow soldiers that had been wounded during a nighttime raid against a heavily armed Viet Cong camp.

The acts of heroism displayed by Col. Davis were recounted in vivid detail by President Biden during the White House ceremony that was attended by five other Medal of Honor recipients. Despite being wounded several times during the attack, including from a hand grenade explosion, Col. Davis refused to leave his comrades behind, sprinting back through heavy enemy fire to conduct three separate successful rescue missions. One of the soldiers had suffered a shattered kneecap from a sniper’s bullet, while another was knocked unconscious by a mortar blast. A third was shot in the head, seemingly left for dead until a miracle arrived in the form of Col. Davis.

When word was received of Col. Davis’s gallantry, he was immediately nominated for the Medal of Honor, the military’s highest award. Mysteriously, the Army somehow lost the paperwork related to his nomination – not just once, but twice – thereby delaying his national recognition for 58 years. Some suspect it was because of his race and the military’s troubled history of acknowledging the contributions made by men and women of color.

Whatever the case, the courage he displayed that fateful day was finally brought to light, earning the 83-year-old Virginia man the right to enjoy lasting praise from a grateful nation.

“Brave and big-hearted. Determined and devoted,” President Biden said of Col. Davis. “Selfless and steadfast. American.”

That final word, delivered in the context of a magnificent tribute to one of our nation’s greatest heroes, is descriptive of someone who places country above self, personifying a willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty while demonstrating an unwavering commitment to the common good.

Much like someone who is regarded by historians as perhaps our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln.

The 16th President of the United States was a wordsmith and diplomat who was credited with bringing an end to the curse of slavery and to forging a team that preserved a nation reeling from the impact of the Civil War.

Lincoln’s genius was principally his political shrewdness and devotion to duty coupled with an enormous capacity for empathy and moral courage. His place in history may have been stated best by Leo Tolstoy, one of the greatest authors of all time, when he wrote:

“His example is universal and will last thousands of years ... He was bigger than his country – bigger than all the Presidents together ... and as a great character, he will live as long as the world lives.”

Of similar fiber was another legendary political figure, Great Britain’s iconic war-time Prime Minister Winston Churchill, whose leadership took his country from the brink of defeat to eventual victory over the Nazi military machine.

Like Lincoln, Churchill set heroic standards of leadership through his mastery of the language, using words to inspire a nation to overcome the rise of totalitarianism.

“We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will,” Churchill said as the world faced a fascist menace. “You do your worst and we will do our best.”

Churchill’s message is one for the ages, and hopefully will inspire leaders from both sides of the aisle to change the current narrative, instead working collaboratively with those of all persuasions to forge a new national identity, this time by harnessing the enormous power of political unity.

––––––––––––––––––––

Subscribe to the Legal News!

http://legalnews.com/subscriptions

Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more

Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year

Three-County & Full Pass also available

If you thought things couldn’t get crazier in Florida, think again. Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book has sponsored a bill that forbids dogs from doing the most dog thing ever – sticking their heads out of car windows. :  

By Marie E. Matyjaszek

If you thought things couldn’t get crazier in Florida, think again.

Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book has sponsored a bill that forbids dogs from doing the most dog thing ever – sticking their heads out of car windows. It includes other provisions relative to animal welfare, like declawing, cosmetic animal testing, and animal abuser registration, but the doggy joy ride provision appears to have taken the cake (off the counter when your back was turned).

Senate Bill 932 provides for a variety of canine transportation “do’s and don’ts,” like not holding your dog on your lap or in “such a position as to interfere with the person’s control over the driving mechanism ... while the person is operating the motor vehicle on a public roadway.” That one makes sense, especially given the increase in distracted driver laws. The common sense continues with not allowing a dog to ride in front of you on your motorcycle, or transport a pup on your roof, hood, fender, running board, trunk or cargo space. After that, it gets a little hairy.

The proposed bill states that a person may not “[a]llow a dog to extend its head or any other body part outside a motor vehicle window while the person is operating the motor vehicle on a public roadway.” I think everyone agrees that a dog (or anything else) should not be dangling out of a window, but taking away Fido’s ability to live his best dog life, his ears flapping in the wind, smelling all the smells, seems pawsitively crazy.

Yes, there are risks to Fido sticking his head out of a window, like accidentally stepping on the automatic window button, but the window locks can be engaged. Things may fly in his face and eyes, which can cause harm, but there are doggy goggles he could wear. If there is an accident, the dog may be launched from the vehicle, but most people do not secure their dog inside of their car, so this can happen anyway. A person who is found to have violated that portion of the proposed law would be issued a non-criminal traffic infraction.

Not surprisingly, people have a bone to pick with Senator Book for supporting the bill. Riding in a car with their head out of the window is something that is intrinsically linked to being a dog, their mouths gaping wide with excitement and thrill. Their lives are so much shorter than ours, and because of that, we want to give them the freedom to experience things before they cross rainbow bridge. Forbidding this pleasure would be too ruff to handle.
—————
The author is an Attorney Referee at the Washtenaw County Friend of the Court, the views expressed in this column are her own. Email her at matyjasz@hotmail.com.

––––––––––––––––––––

Subscribe to the Legal News!

http://legalnews.com/subscriptions

Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more

Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year

Three-County & Full Pass also available

Suspending a parent’s right to parenting time is one of the most difficult events that can happen to a family. :  

By Marie E. Matyjaszek

Suspending a parent’s right to parenting time is one of the most difficult events that can happen to a family.

The children and parent are no longer allowed contact until the court orders that it is in the child’s best interest to reestablish parenting time, and this can dramatically change the relationship between the child and estranged parent. Generally, this places the entire responsibility of caring for the kids on the parent who did not have his or her parenting time suspended, which causes extra strain financially, physically, and emotionally.

In 2018, the Michigan Court of Appeals released a published decision, Luna v Regnier, 326 Mich App 173, which addressed suspension of parenting time and what legal follow-up needed to happen. In this case, mom and dad had three children, two of whom were still minors when the appellate court was involved. Allegations of neglect necessitated Child Protective Services (CPS) involvement and the children were placed in foster care for a time.

Eventually, dad was awarded sole legal and physical custody with mom receiving supervised parenting time; however, as time went on, the trial court ruled that mom’s parenting time was suspended “until the minor children requested contact with [mom].” Mom appealed the ruling, arguing that there was not enough evidence for the court to determine she was a danger to the kids, but the Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the lower court’s decision to suspend her parenting time.

However, the appellate court remanded the case so that the trial court could conduct periodic hearings to determine if mom should have parenting time in the future. The court summarized its reasoning very clearly: “Without a mechanism for further review, [mom’s] parental rights are effectively nonexistent.”

Maybe things won’t change, and the reviews will result in more of the same. But if the court gives up on a parent, they have very little incentive to do better for themselves or their children.
—————
The author is an Attorney Referee at the Washtenaw County Friend of the Court; however, the views expressed here are her own. Email her at matyjasz@hotmail.com.

––––––––––––––––––––

Subscribe to the Legal News!

http://legalnews.com/subscriptions

Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more

Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year

Three-County & Full Pass also available

Navigating family law through the courts has a reputation for being slow, complicated, and gender favorable. Part of this is because family law is, by its nature, messy. :  

By Marie E. Matyjaszek

Navigating family law through the courts has a reputation for being slow, complicated, and gender favorable. Part of this is because family law is, by its nature, messy. It is made up of litigants who are good people going through the worst time of their lives, which heightens emotions and with it the likelihood of bad behavior. The high stress environment can increase errors by all involved.

Much like Smokey Bear’s advice that we too can prevent forest fires, litigants can help prevent errors in their case. The first and best way to do this is to show up.  Show up to every court date, every Friend of the Court (FOC) meeting, every mediation, every everything. When you fail to appear, your side of the story will not be told or heard. Don’t count on getting a mulligan because you forgot, or the time was incon-venient. The likelihood of accuracy greatly increases when all the information is known.

Keep your address and contact information current with the court and FOC at all times. If you represent yourself and the other party has an attorney, let the attorney know of changes as well.  Without current contact information, you will miss out on receiving notice of court dates, orders and other important documents. When you don’t receive notice, you can’t participate, and as we know, showing up is the No. 1 rule.

Read the fine print. If you don’t understand something, ask. By signing an order, you are representing to the court that you read it, understand it and intend to abide by it. Trust me, you won’t be the first person to be confused by legalese, nor will you be the last.

If there is a time limit for you to object to a recommendation, reply to a pleading, or anything else, follow it. Complaining about a mistake after this period has expired is likely to get you nowhere. Objecting to recommendations by the FOC, turning in questionnaires and supporting documents, filing briefs and exhibits and submitting parenting time denials are just a few of the things that are limited by periods of time. This can result in orders being entered that in your opinion, may not be accurate, because your information was not provided and not considered.

Finally, follow court orders. Not doing so is an error on your part. You don’t have to love the court order, or even like it, but it is an order that needs to be followed until and if it is changed by a subsequent order. Either party can file a motion to change an existing order and let the court know why it needs to be modified. While this may not result in the moving party receiving the result he or she wants, proper procedure has been followed and an attempt to correct the perceived error has been made. Blatantly refusing to follow a court’s order doesn’t help your position when and if you try to change it.

These tips are not foolproof ways to ensure bliss when dealing with family court, but they certainly will improve your chances.
—————
The author is an Attorney Referee at the Washtenaw County Friend of the Court; however, the views expressed here are her own. Email her at:
matyjasz@hotmail.com.

––––––––––––––––––––

Subscribe to the Legal News!

http://legalnews.com/subscriptions

Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more

Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year

Three-County & Full Pass also available

Before the word “twitter” needed to be capitalized, it was a seldom-used expression that meant chirping, chattering, or quivering, depending on whether it was in the form of a noun or a verb. :  

By Tom Kirvan
Legal News, Editor-in-Chief

Before the word “twitter” needed to be capitalized, it was a seldom-used expression that meant chirping, chattering, or quivering, depending on whether it was in the form of a noun or a verb.

Now, Twitter (note the capital “T”) is as much a part of the modern-day tech lexicon as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, and the like. These so-called “social media” sites have collectively transformed the way people communicate, serving as vehicles for instantly sharing information via photos, videos, and general musings. In many cases, for all the world to see.

It didn’t seem all that long ago that people tended to protect their privacy, tightly guarding their innermost thoughts and family secrets. Now such cloak-and-dagger stuff has gone the way of your father’s prized Oldsmobile. The techno-age has indeed arrived when grizzled old politicians are tweeting more than they are glad-handing potential voters on the rubber chicken circuit. It’s all about forging a digital identity.

Newspapers and magazines across the land have embraced the trend, creating their own Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in hopes of luring readers that habitually, periodically, or only occasionally surf the web. They, in totality, are a prized catch.

Which is why the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, wants to buy Twitter, reportedly offering $44 billion in a takeover bid for the company.

Twitter, which became a publicly traded company in the fall of 2013 when it launched an IPO (Initial Public Offering), served in recent years as an over-sized megaphone for a certain president, who used it freely to bash critics, announce hirings and firings, reveal major policy changes, and to egg-on his political base until the social media giant said “enough is enough” after he helped incite a riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Shortly thereafter, a disgraced ex-president without Twitter became the proverbial emperor without clothes, leaving him breathless as he attempted to promote baseless claims about a “stolen election” and corresponding “witch hunts” over a series of investigations into his crumbling financial empire.

Now, if the Musk takeover plan is successful, the top dog at the electric car company Tesla reportedly has said that Twitter will allow those who play free and loose with the truth to begin tweeting again – all in the name of unfettered free speech.

Musk, who in recent years has been one of Twitter’s most brazen users, wants his new toy to be “an inclusive arena for free speech,” which is code for “anything goes” and the “truth be damned,” especially if it has the potential to line his pockets even more.

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it has begun an investigation in Musk’s purchases of Twitter stock, questioning whether he properly disclosed his intentions to pursue control of the company.  Initially, he said that he was merely a “passive investor,” but less than two weeks later he offered to buy Twitter outright, a turnabout that is further indication of his disdain for the truth.

Despite all this, critics of Musk offer a slight glimmer of hope that his plans will be derailed, not necessarily by some federal regulatory agency. Instead, they look to the vast frontiers of outer space, a place that Musk has had his eyes on since founding SpaceX two decades ago.

That California-based company is in the space transportation business, reportedly employing more than 12,000 workers in efforts to design, manufacture, and launch the best rockets and spacecraft known to man. Perhaps one of those space modules will contain Musk, speeding to a faraway destination where his desire to explore the limitless bounds of free speech would be far better served.

––––––––––––––––––––

Subscribe to the Legal News!

http://legalnews.com/subscriptions

Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more

Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year

Three-County & Full Pass also available

With the unprecedented leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s draft opinion that would overturn Roe v Wade, states are scrambling to address the legality of abortion, both for and against. :  

By Marie Matyjaszek

With the unprecedented leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s draft opinion that would overturn Roe v Wade, states are scrambling to address the legality of abortion, both for and against.

Michigan is no exception, and has its own law from 1931, which criminalizes abortion, regardless of whether the pregnancy stemmed from rape or incest. Abortions were banned unless they were necessary to save the mother’s life, as was advertising or selling abortion medications (MCL 750.14 & 750.15). When Roe went into effect in 1973, Michigan’s law became unconstitutional and largely forgotten.

If Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturns Roe, Michigan’s almost 100-year-old law could be given new life. The national protection and right to an abortion would vanish, and each state would be able to make its own decision. Planned Parenthood has sued Michigan’s attorney general, arguing that the 1931 law is in violation of Michigan’s constitution.  This week Judge Gleicher, Michigan Court of Claims judge, issued a
preliminary injunction against the 1931 law, as she believes that the Planned Parenthood lawsuit will be successful.

Had the injunction not gone into effect and if Roe was overturned, Michigan’s law would eliminate the right to an abortion unless the mother’s life was in jeopardy. Governor Gretchen Whitmer has filed a lawsuit claiming that the due process clause of the Michigan Constitution protects the right to an abortion. As the law is regulating a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, and not a man’s, it is also argued to be in violation of the equal protection clause. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel already has stated that she would not enforce the 1931 law; however, prosecutors in various counties
have indicated their intent to uphold the law should it no longer be void.

Many view the injunction as a temporary victory and call for the Michigan Constitution to be amended to specifically include the right to an abortion, leaving no doubt about the legality of the medical procedure. With the potential for Roe to be overturned, states would be wise to continue their efforts to update their laws.
—————
The author is an Attorney Referee at the Washtenaw County Friend of the Court; however, the views expressed here are her own. Email her at matyjasz@hotmail.com.

––––––––––––––––––––

Subscribe to the Legal News!

http://legalnews.com/subscriptions

Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more

Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year

Three-County & Full Pass also available