Sanford judge rules in favor of motorist who flashed his headlights

By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel


6:33 p.m. EST, May 22, 2012

A judge in Sanford ruled Tuesday that a Lake Mary man was lawfully
exercising his First Amendment rights when he flashed his headlights
to warn neighbors that a deputy had set up a speed trap nearby.

That decision is another victory for Ryan Kintner, 25, who sued
theSeminole County Sheriff's Officelast year, accusing it of
misconstruing a state law and violating his civil rights, principally
his right to free speech.

He was ticketed Aug. 10 by a Seminole County deputy, but Kintner
alleges the officer misapplied a state law designed to ban motorists
from flashing after-market emergency lights.

Circuit Judge Alan Dickey earlier ruled that that state law does not
apply to people who did what Kintner did, use his headlights to
communicate.

On Tuesday the judge went a step further, saying people who flash
their headlights to communicate are engaging in behavior protected by
the U.S. Constitution.

"He felt the police specificially went out of their way to silence Mr.
Kintner and that it was clearly a violation of his First Amendment
free speech rights," said his attorney, J. Marcus Jones of Oviedo.

Jones has filed a similar but much broader suit in Tallahassee against
the Florida Highway Patrol.

A hearing in that case is scheduled next month.

"This stuff is fun," Jones said after Tuesday's hearing.

Each suit asked that police agencies be ordered to halt writing those
tickets. The highway patrol stopped voluntarily, awaiting the outcome
of the suit. So have theSeminole County Sheriff's Officeand other
agencies.

In addition to Kintner's civil suit against the sheriff's office, he
also is fighting the ticket. It is still pending in county court in
Sanford.

The officer also ticketed him for running a stop sign, saying Kintner
had pulled beyond a stop bar before coming to a complete halt.

In an interview in August, shortly after filing suit, Kintner said, "I
felt an injustice was being done. … I have nothing against officers …
keeping speeding down, but when you cross a line and get into free
speech, I feel it's gone too far."

According to his suit, Kintner was home Aug. 10 when he saw a deputy
park along a street and pull out his radar gun. Kintner then got in
his car, drove a couple of blocks away, parked and pointed his vehicle
at oncoming traffic and began flashing his lights.

He was ticketed a short time later.


--
Jon D. McLaughlin
(309) 319-6206


THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. ANY
RECIPIENT OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS ADVISED THAT ANY
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, COPYING, OR OTHER USE OF THIS MESSAGE IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER
IMMEDIATELY.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To the extent that this message or any
attachment concerns tax matters, it is not intended to be used and
cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties
that may be imposed by law.

Man who had 30 kids with 11 women wants child-support break -- LA TIMES

By Rene Lynch

1:30 PM PDT, May 18, 2012

 

You have to say this much for Desmond Hatchett: He has a way with the ladies.

The 33-year-old Knoxville, Tenn., resident has reportedly set a Knox County record for his ability to reproduce. He has 30 children with 11 women. And nine of those children were born in the last three years, after Hatchett -- who is something of a local celebrity -- vowed "I'm done!" in a 2009 TV interview, saying he wouldn't father more children.

But Hatchett is back in the news this week because he's struggling to make ends meet on his minimum-wage job. His inability to make child-support payments on such a meager salary also means he's back in court again and again, most recently to ask for a break on those payments.

"Yes, we've got several cases with Mr. Hatchett," Melissa Gibson, an assistant supervisor with the Knox County child support clerk's office, said with a sigh.

Hatchett's attorney, Keith Pope, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Under the law, there's nothing officials can do to force Hatchett to keep his pants on.

"If there's something out there like that, I'm unaware of it," Gibson told The Times, before adding, "It definitely needs to be."

Gibson said Hatchett is believed to hold the Knox County record for most children. (He'd hold a similar record in most counties in the U.S., which might explain why news of his predicament was pinging around the Internet on Friday.)

Gibson said she couldn't say whether any of his children receive public assistance. The youngest is a toddler; the oldest is 14. Asked in a TV interview whether he can "keep up with it all," Hatchett said he knows all their names, ages and birthdates.

Also in a TV interview, Hatchett tried to explain -- in a PG-rated way -- how he managed to end up with so many kids: "I had four kids in the same year. Twice."

When Hatchett is working, he is required to turn over 50% of his wages for child support -- the maximum allowed under law. Child support payments are based in part on the ages and needs of the children.

Some of the mothers of Hatchett's children get only $1.49 a month, reportedWREG in Memphis.

 

--
Jon D. McLaughlin
 

(309) 319-6206 


THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. ANY RECIPIENT OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, COPYING, OR OTHER USE OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To the extent that this message or any attachment concerns tax matters, it is not intended to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by law.

Violence ages children's DNA, shortens their chromosomes

By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY

Conventional wisdom says that hardship can make us old before our time. In fact, a new study suggests that violence leaves longterm scars on children's bodies — not just in bruises on the skin, but also altering their DNA, causing changes that are equivalent to seven to 10 years of premature aging.

Scientists measured this cellular aging by studying the ends of children's chromosomes, called telomeres, according to Idan Shalev, lead author of a study in today's Molecular Psychiatry. Telomeres are special DNA sequences that act like the plastic tips on shoelaces, which prevent the DNA in chromosomes from unraveling. They get shorter each time a cell divides, until a cell can't divide anymore and it dies.

Several factors have been found to shorten telomeres, including smoking, radiation and psychological stresses such as early life maltreatment and taking care of a chronically ill person. In this study, researchers examined whether exposure to violence could make children's telomeres shorten faster than normal. They interviewed the mothers of 236 children at ages 5, 7 and 10, asking whether the youngsters had been exposed to domestic violence between the mother and her partner; physical maltreatment by an adult; or  bullying. Researchers measured the children's telomeres — in cells obtained by swabbing the insides of their cheeks — at ages 5 and 10.

Telomeres shortened faster in kids exposed to two or more types of violence, says Shalev, a post-doctoral researcher at the Duke Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy in Durham, N.C. Unless that pattern changes, the study suggests, these kids could be expected to develop diseases of aging, such as heart attacks or memory loss, seven to 10 years earlier than their peers. Shalev says there is hope for these kids. His study found that, in rare cases, telomeres can lengthen. Better nutrition, exercise and stress reduction are three things that may be able to lengthen telomeres, he says.

The study confirms a small-but-growing number of studies suggesting that early childhood adversity imprints itself in our chromosomes, says Charles Nelson, a professor of pediatrics and neuroscience at Harvard Medical School. In a 2011 study, Nelson and colleagues found shorter telomeres in Romanian children who had spent more time in institutions, compared with children sent to foster care.

"We know that toxic stress is bad for you," says Nathan Fox, a professor of human development at the University of Maryland and co-author of the 2011 paper. "This paper provides a mechanism by which this type of stress gets 'under the skin' and into the genes."

--
Jon D. McLaughlin

(309) 319-6206 

Mother faces contempt, jail for baptizing children

Mother faces contempt, jail for baptizing children

Published March 30, 2012 | Associated Press


A Shelby County mother faces contempt-of-court charges and possible jail time for baptizing her two children without the knowledge or consent of her ex-husband.

This week the Tennessee Court of Appeals said Lauren Jarrell must face a criminal contempt hearing for violating a court order that said major decisions regarding the religious upbringing of her two children should be made jointly with the children's father.

Both parents are Christian. Emmett Blake Jarrell, the father, is a member of the United Methodist Church, and she's a Presbyterian.

The father, according to court records, thought the children should be baptized when they are older and better able to understand the significance of the baptismal ceremony. The couple, according to court records, had even consulted a minister when they were married because they couldn't agree what age was best for the kids to be baptized. Records show the children will be 5 and 7 next month.

"Obviously she knew that the father did not want the children baptized at that age and she did that without telling him," Memphis attorney Any Amundsen, who is not involved in the case, said of the mother. "She violated the court order."

The Court of Appeals decision sides with the father, who had asked that his ex-wife be convicted of criminal contempt after discovering that she baptized the kids against his wishes.

A lower court has already found the mother in contempt of court. The appellate court decision overturned that decision and said criminal contempt proceedings are more appropriate because the mother can't undo the baptisms.

Legal experts disagree on whether the appellate court decision is treading into the forbidden territory of deciding spiritual doctrine or is just upholding the law when a parent is accused of flagrantly violating a court order.

The parents could not be reached for comment. Their attorneys did not return calls to The Associated Press.

Court records show that the mother argued that it was wrong for the lower court to find her in contempt it was tantamount to preferring the father's religious views on baptism over hers.

But the Court of Appeals disagreed.

"Mother is correct that courts `must maintain strict neutrality in cases involving religious disputes between divorced parents' and they may not `prefer the religious views of one parent over another unless one parent's religious beliefs and practices threaten the health and well-being of the child," Judge Alan E. Highers wrote. "However, simply put, this is not a religious dispute." Highers said the court is only being asked to determine whether the mother can be found in contempt for failing to follow the court order.

Nashville attorney Helen Rogers says the courts ought to stay away from these kinds of decisions.

"How would a court decide between baptizing a Presbyterian and a Methodist or a Catholic," Rogers asked. She wondered whether a court could step in and order the child of a Muslim and a Jew to attend a synagogue or a mosque. The problem, she said, is that the standard parenting plan in Tennessee orders many parents to mediation if they can't jointly decide on major decisions involving religious upbringing. If they can't agree even after mediation, she said, it ultimately means that a court has to decide.

"The bigger kind of global look at this is should religious decision-making be a private matter or should it be something that a court orders to begin with," Rogers asked.

However, Amundsen said the courts are only following state law, which says the courts have to consider religious upbringing when it comes to parental decision making.

Both attorneys said it's not unusual for parents to disagree on religious upbringing.

If the mother is convicted, she could face up to 20 days in jail and a $100 fine.

--
Jon D. McLaughlin -- Bloomington Illinois Divorce Attorney

Allison & Mosby-Scott
(309) 319-6206

New Seat Belt Law

Whether you are driving in Bloomington, or anywhere else in Illinois, you should be aware of this new law: 

December 28, 2011 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- There are several new laws going into effect with the new year. One of them will require backseat passengers to wear a seat belt.

This law is not only meant to protect them, but people riding in the front seat.

Illinois State Police say backseat passengers can be projectiles. Fatalities have been caused to front seat passengers who were hit by rear passengers not wearing seat belts.

While the law is viewed as a safety measure by some, others say it is another unnecessary government mandate.

Comprehensive list to learn what other laws may affect your day-to-day life.

Beginning January 1, passengers sitting the back seat of vehicle will face a $25 fine if caught without wearing a seatbelt.

Safety is the motivation behind the law. State police say, not only are backseat passengers at risk of being ejected from the car in an accident, but rear passengers without seat belts can be a danger to those in the front seat.

"Backseat passengers can be projectiles. They can be thrown around, and unfortunately if they hit a front passenger, they can kill them," said Illinois State Police Trooper Lorraine Ishida.

That is exactly what happened to Paula Doren's husband. Six years ago, Larry Doren was killed in an accident when he was struck by the passenger in the backseat.

"The passenger in the backseat was thrown forward into the backs of the front seats of the car, pushing the driver and the front seat passenger forward," said Doren.

Doren was instrumental in getting the new law passed. It wasn't easy. There were dozens of lawmakers who voted against it. State Representative Monique D. Davis was one of them.

"Twenty-five bucks if they catch you. I'd rather for the police to catch criminals, catch those who are shooting our babies, catch people who are shooting these guns. Don't catch people in the backseat of a car without a seatbelt on," said Davis.

The new law specifically reads that all rear seat passengers 16 and older be buckled up or risk a ticket. Current law calls for kids ages 8-15 to wear seatbelts, and children under the age of 7 must be in a car or booster seat.

The new law does exempt buses, emergency vehicles and taxicabs.

--
Jon D. McLaughlin
(309) 319-6206

Post Divorce in Bloomington Illinois: Some Financial Mistakes to Avoid

Going through a divorce in Illinois is hard enough, but picking up the pieces and getting on with your life afterward can be a major challenge as well. One thing that can't be ignored are your finances. This can be a big hurdle, because usually one or the other spouse was the "accountant" in the relationship. Still, even savvy domestic money manages can use some advice.

Working here in Bloomington as a family law and divorce attorney, I am frequently asked by clients what their strategy should be regarding the financial side of a divorce settlement. Knowing your money situation and other household finances is a big part of this. Also, understanding the tax implications of certain payments will make your life that much easier in the long run. Below are some typical mistakes that people going through divorce tend to make.

Number One: Hanging on to the house at all costs

This is not necessarily the best option. According to financial experts, more attention should be given to which person can afford to maintain the property -- including paying the mortgage and managing the taxes. However, don't think that getting spousal support to help with the mortgage payments will keep you on easy street. Large unexpected costs, such as a new furnace or other large-scale maintenance usually happen sometime or another, which can make home ownership more of a burden and less of a luxury.

Number Two: Failing to make a clean financial break with your ex-spouse

Cleanly separating each of your debts and assets, especially if you have been married for a long time, can be a difficult task, but a very necessary one. Most any financial counselor will tell you this is absolutely necessary, and the consequences of not doing so can be devastating. It may seem overwhelming, but the alternative is many times worse. You don't want to have your ex racking up debt and ruining your personal credit score.

Number Three: Counting on your ex to comply with his financial obligations

While both parties in a divorce are beholden to the court-ordered divorce agreement, creditors do not fall under that arrangement. If your ex is supposed to pay the mortgage but fails to do so, the lender is apt to sue you both. And any missed payments or a default on a mortgage will hurt you next time you apply for a loan.

Number Four: Not reviewing your estate plan following your divorce

Wills and trusts can both be seriously impacted by divorce proceedings. If a divorced spouse waits too long to change the beneficiary on a will or life insurance policy, the money could end up going to the wrong person, and your new spouse may get nothing. It seems incredible, but there have been instances where an ex-spouse inherits money from a former wife or husband.

Number Five: Not understanding the different tax treatments for alimony and child support

As a last note, you should always be aware of which amount of money in your divorce settlement goes for alimony, and which goes for child support. Whereas child support payments are exempt from tax by the recipient, alimony payments are usually taxable. Also, remember that there are limits to how long a person can receive these payments. For instance, child support payments typically end when the child is emancipated, and spousal support typically ceases once that person gets remarried.

--
Jon D. McLaughlin
(309) 319-6206

THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. ANY RECIPIENT OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, COPYING, OR OTHER USE OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To the extent that this message or any attachment concerns tax matters, it is not intended to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by law.

Will a bankruptcy stop a garnishment that is already being deducted from my paycheck?

YES.  I have been getting a lot of questions about garnishments lately.  Both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings will stop garnishments.  This is accomplished in a two step process.  First, we must file your bankruptcy with the bankruptcy court and thereby obtain a case number for your bankruptcy.

Second, in the Court which issued the garnishment (normally your county’s Small Claims Court, District Court, or Circuit Court) we file a Motion to Quash Writ of Garnishment.  In this motion we ask the Court that issued the garnishment to enter an order stopping the garnishment and to return to you any money the Court is holding or receives in the future from the garnishment.  This means that if we can catch it in time, we may be able to get some of your money back.

Having said this, I would strongly recommend filing a bankruptcy prior to a garnishment going into effect.  I say this only because I know a garnishment taking 25% of your wages is not going to leave much to live on, much less enough to save to pay for a bankruptcy.

Please note that a bankruptcy will not stop a garnishment or income withholding order related to child support.