Attorneys Finally Realizing that the Constitution Applies in Family Courts

Attorneys are finally validating that Fix Family Courts has been right all along.

Attorneys have been making the wrong arguments to the family courts and the attorneys who wrote this article are finally admitting that “In the last few years, there has been growing awareness of the Constitutional issues that arise in family law case,.” and that the family courts have been violating your right to decide how to raise your child. If you have been reading our materials since 2013, and read our book “NOT in the Child’s Best Interest,” you already knew all of what these attorneys wrote and even more. You would also know how to argue them. Perhaps you also recognized that this article only touches on the surface and that there are hints in it that demonstrate that even these attorneys could use some additional training from us. You can get the book here or you can read it online right now!

Attorneys are finally starting to get it. But if you read closely you will see that they still do not understand how fundamental rights work enough to argue them properly and effectively. Your first indication is that these attorneys claim that your constitutional rights have been overlooked. Attorneys and judges are not overlooking that they have been violating yours and your child’s rights and harming your children. They have been outright denying that these legal rights exist. In fact, most attorneys and some appellate courts have called your arguments that you have these rights frivolous. They don’t want to change because they know they are making billions off of this corrupt unconstitutional system that they have created. They have had incentive to continue to steal your child and extort you for money.

Keep reading to find out the others.

If you have been a member of our membership site and have read our books, then you already knew what these attorneys wrote, that family law is subject to the constitution, that best interest of the child “standard” violates the constitution and is not a standard at all, and that the family courts were violating yours and your child’s legal rights and your fundamental parental rights, and that your rights are not only protected by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause but also strongly protected under the First Amendment. And if you have watched our videos and webinars you would already know this as well.

This article even cites a case that we specifically identified and published discussion about earlier this year, Justice Puryear in Texas dissenting opinion from In Re J.R.D. I doubt they found this Texas case all on their own. It’s possible but highly doubtful. Why would they even be looking in Texas. They agree that even though this is a concurring opinion and not the controlling one, it is the future of the law. Justice Puryear writes that the abuse of discretion standard is outdated and needs to be reviewed and that he believes that “we need to carefully re-examine the standards by which decisions that limit a parent’s access to orj possession of a child are made and reviewed.” We agree and have been helping attorneys argue this issue.

These attorneys did not figure this out on their own. They have most likely been reading our materials. We have been saying this for years. You can tell because they are not being specific enough. It is obvious they are making legal conclusions without having the robust argument to back up those conclusions. For instance not all First Amendment issues receive strict scrutiny. They did not tell you how they got to strict scrutiny. They just made a conclusion without the foundational arguments. In addition, they make arguments that certain rulings met strict scrutiny. They say the father was given final decision making authority in education, when that case clearly does not meet strict scrutiny standards.. They have probably read our public material, they have probably not read our private material. Our private material is more specific. You can gain access to that information here. They are wrong on what met strict scrutiny in some of the cases they mentioned. They are wrong on their equal protection argument, because there are at least 3 ways that we have demonstrated that equal protection is violated, none of which have anything to do with gender, which is too hard to prove most of the time in individual cases. These attorneys may not be able to tell you what these equal protection violations are, but we can.

Our class will teach you the critical details about what equal protection and substantive due process are. The class is in our membership site here.

Best Interest and Constitutional Scrutiny

Even these attorneys are missing a core point, a key element, best interest by itself by its very nature is a matter of conscience. Judges don’t get to make decisions regarding matters of conscience.

How many children have been hurt while these attorneys were trying to figure this out, and how many more will be hurt while you wait on the attorneys to figure out how to argue these in the family courts. Quoting case law and making legal conclusions as these attorneys did is not enough; and just saying you have rights isn’t enough.

Finally the attorneys are starting to get it but if you want your attorneys to be effective, you need to get with us because we are teaching these attorneys. We helped attorneys with these arguments in their appeals and raise these issues.

If you don’t want to wait on attorneys to figure out how to present these arguments to your court, contact us, and become a member here and start using your rights now. Get the motions, become a member, watch the online classes, and get in touch with us to help you understand this material in relation to your situation. We cannot prepare your case for you but we can use your facts to help you make sense of the information so that you can take it to your attorney to speed the process along. Your time with your child is too precious to waste and waiting on these attorneys to figure it out is time you don’t have.

In our book, “NOT in the Child’s Best Interest,” published in 2013, we wrote what these attorneys are just now starting to understand. We wrote about the best interest of the child being unconstitutional, vague and over broad and that attorneys must argue this to the trial court, not wait for appeal, and so much more.

Substantive Due Process and Procedural Due Process

Funny how these attorneys seem to say that they agree that best interest has been vague and over broad and violates the Vagueness Doctrine, and not sufficient to regulate the conduct of the parents when they have been for the last 50 years arguing exactly the opposite. For 50 years they have been doing this wrong and they have known it all of this time, and they didn’t even say that it needed to be fixed or try to fix it until they were busted and publicly humiliated. They didn’t even suggest a fix until we published and have taught thousands of parents and their attorneys nationwide, all throughout the United States of America how the family courts have been using best interest of the child to violate constitutional rights. In fact, attorneys and judges were saying that the doctrines did not apply in family courts either. Parents suffering false allegations or being alienated with parental alienation tactics and their parenting time restricted by interference of child custody and violation of court orders have been told that Clean Hands Doctrine and custodial parent interference did not constitute a change in circumstance and were denied any modification of their child custody order and child support.

The attorneys who wrote this article, quote a brief from Troxel that they have ignored for 18 years, and claim that this has been “in step with prevailing jurisprudence and academic thought.” Interesting, since many parents have contacted us and told us that judges have laughed at them for trying to argue that they have rights, have denied their motions to argue their rights and request for declaratory judgement, and some have had their attorneys threaten to quit and some have quit because they insisted that they wanted their attorney to argue their civil rights.

We did expect that once the trend started to shift that attorneys would start to change their tune. We expected that attorneys who wanted to get on the right side of history would start trying to erase 50 years of tyranny that they are responsible for that they imposed on families. 50 years of hurting children that they are directly responsible for.

But the evidence is out that there parents and children have suffered these constitutional violations for decades. State appellate case after state appellate case these attorneys and state judges continue to say that best interest is not over-broad or vague. BIC hasn’t changed, the idiot attorneys who keep insisting that you have no rights have been called out and busted and now they have to accept reality. Parents are getting smarter sooner, that’s all that has changed.

The attorneys who wrote the article in Nebraska go on to say that the “broad range of outcomes it produces” is evidence that the best interest of the child statute is unconstitutionally vague. Ron Palmer and I have been saying this for years, since the publication of our book in 2013. Clearly, these attorneys have been reading our materials and it is finally sinking in. They are finally starting to get it but they are only scratching the surface of how bad this is constitutionally.

This article however does not go into enough detail about substantive and procedural protections, what they are and how they should work for the constitutional rights at issue.

These attorneys have come a long way, and we invite them into our membership site so that they can fill in the gaps that we still see in their article. It’s super important that any attorney that you hire to make these arguments for you are at the top of their game. Making argument about these concepts without a full understanding will lead to the wrong solutions. These attorneys refer to Dr. Warshak, Linda Nielsen, and Amy Baker. All PhDs and the writers of their article are J.D.s It is no surprise that because we do not hold a J.D. or a Ph.D. that we have not been cited.

Attorneys put blinders on to those without J.D.s or PHDs. Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs did not have any of these but they changed the world. Our arguments are having effect and obviously changing how attorneys see your rights in family courts. This is a huge step where attorneys are finally admitting that you have these rights.

Identifying an Attorney Who Provides Real Rights Protections

It’s refreshing that these attorneys are finally also admitting that other attorneys need to “be prepared to identify and argue them.” Meaning your constitutional rights arguments in the trial courts. These attorneys would not be writing this if we hadn’t already identified and published these issues and if you weren’t using our materials to make these arguments. Attorneys want to keep making money and they know when they have to start providing you with the right argument or lose out on getting any of your money. More and more parents are representing themselves as pro se. When we first published and raised these issues parents were complaining that they couldn’t find an attorney to make the arguments for them. Over 50% of parents end up pro se in these cases and have been making these arguments themselves. If not for these parents, these attorneys would not be changing their tune.*

Parents still need to beware however. Attorneys are quick to pick up phrases and slogans to suck you into their office, but not really be providing rights protections. For instance, can your attorney tell you why child support fails equal protection because of the way it treats children differently. Do you realize that child support can be invalidated easily with a proper equal protection argument and if your appellate courts are honest, which many of them have not been to date.

The nice thing that this article will do is it will force the courts to be more honest. Which means the arguments that we give you are more likely to be successful at trial. So if an attorney says they are a parental rights attorney, make sure they know the arguments that we make thoroughly. You have one shot at this, children grow up quickly, and you don’t want to miss out on more of your child’s milestones because an attorney didn’t know how to protect your rights.

If you do not argue your rights at trial, we can guarantee that the other side is going to complain in their appeal brief that you did not make these arguments at trial, and therefore you did not preserve error. Appellate courts are only for correcting error. If you want to argue that the court made error in their judgment or ruling, you need to make these arguments. And believe me, they will pick on every part of your argument that they can. Also if you do not use the argument until appeal they will see this as you are a sore loser, and call you the loser parent trying to re-litigate in the appellate courts. They do this even to parents who aren’t doing this, so don’t make it easy on them to prevent you from getting justice and a fair ruling. Don’t believe their lies that you shouldn’t present your arguments to the trial court judge. Don’t believe their intimidation and scare tactics that you shouldn’t make the arguments because it will upset the judge. These are all ways to get you to give in and let them violate your rights.

You don’t have to search far to find parents who have been lied to, who have not received the full protection of their parental rights who now face jail or have been put in jail. The family courts make the public believe that if a father or mother has a child support order that they are behind in that they are a deadbeat and that the order was created properly. Parents like Kash Jackson, running for Illinois Governor is facing this very issue even though his check is being garnished to the maximum amount. So whether you are a known name or an unknown name, whether you are the Governor with billions of dollars like Governor Rauner or the democratic candidate running for Governor like J.B. Pritzker, doesn’t make any difference to the family courts. If the family court wants to charge you more than you make for child support and you cannot pay it, they will make the public think that you are irresponsible and not worthy. Fathers and mothers and children all over this country are being hurt and powerful and wealthy politicians have not fixed the problem despite that attorneys have known this problem has existed for decades. So do not depend on someone else fixing this for you. Do not think that anyone is going to come to your rescue. You have to take charge of your case, if you want anything to change. You want to remain in control of your life then you better start caring about your rights!

Equal Protection

The attorneys in this article even admit that equal protection applies to family court. They even admit that “Equal Protections Clause” as applied to gender discrimination is “subject to intermediate scrutiny, which means they must serve important governmental objectives and use means that are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives” as we have also been saying for years in our books and course that has been available on our website online for many years and that you can access through our membership area.

What the attorneys fail to add is that because the discrimination is used to deprive a parent of fundamental rights strict scrutiny, a standard stronger than intermediate scrutiny must be applied. These attorneys still aren’t getting it completely. They are just scratching the surface. This proves our point that just reading case law and getting the phrases from case law is not enough, you need an expert like us to help you understand and articulate the nuances that are not obvious in that cursory reading.

What these attorneys are not telling you about the equal protection case they quote, is that they have not argued it further, is that alimony violates substantive First Amendment rights of these individuals. Attorneys should have known this since 1974 but they failed to argue it because alimony gets them money. It is a moneymaker for the attorneys. Alimony violates your First Amendment rights, learn how at Fix Family Courts. Tired of paying alimony, we can help you learn the arguments that we would use to try to stop it if you are willing to fight.** Attorneys know that parents are willing to spend all of their money and assets to win an alimony paycheck through a court order. In some states alimony can be awarded for a lifetime and may not even go down with retirement.

Just within the last year, the Texas Attorney General has argued in federal court that it is frivolous to believe that there are any equal protection arguments in family law. This shows you how hard the other side is fighting against this. The attorneys who wrote this article however are telling you that we, Fix Family Courts, have been right all along. Don’t let them lie to you because they are defending their personal interests, not your rights. They are protecting their money, not you and not your child.

Best Interest of the Child Standard Fails Constitutional Scrutiny

These attorneys agree that the best interests standard “does not provide any meaningful guidance and that best interest should not be called a standard at all. That best interest of the child has only caused the attorneys to devolve into a system that “incentivizes attorneys to engage in conduct that is detrimental to the relationship of the child’s parents and harmful to the child.” And not just harmful to the child but also discourages the parents from getting along, from making agreements, and even from doing what is in the best interest of the child. When you implement proper constitutional protections however, this not only protects the child’s corollary right to each of their biological, fit parents, but also encourages cooperation and agreement between the parents as well. By removing the unconstitutional best interest of the child practice the outcomes of final orders and final divorce decrees that involve a parent-child relationship suit will become more predictable. Right now you could have the same set of facts but get two totally different results from two different judges. “Facts that might result in joint legal custody and 50-50 parenting time in Omaha will likely result in sole legal custody and 80-20 parenting time in North Platte,” according to the studies done in Nebraska on the family court system and articles written by Amy J. Baker and Linda Nielsen. These errors made regarding fundamental rights can and often do lead to parental alienation as well.

These attorneys are admitting that BICS is producing “perverse results” and they that “The “best interests” standard gives credence to a warning the U.S. Supreme Court issued long ago. “Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing . . . by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”

Anyone with more than a one-time experience in family law knows that judges are very often malicious and intentionally harmful. Judges are not above human nature. Judges are just as capable as evil as everyone else and when they were given unlimited power under best interest that power corrupted them.

And these attorneys go on to say that “The unconstitutional acts produced by the vague but perhaps not
surprising. As Justice Brandeis observed 90 years ago, “[e]xperience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.””

They then go on to say exactly what we said five years ago in 2013, my how slow these attorneys are to smell the coffee. “Judicial decisions that affect these fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny and must use the least restrictive means available. This means judicial decisions involving two fit parents that award sole legal custody and primary physical custody to one parent over the objections of the other parent should rarely pass Constitutional scrutiny.”

Then at the end of their Implications section, they go right back to their old patterns of defending best interest by saying that it is possible for best interest to be constitutional. There is no conceivable way that a judicial opinion regarding matters of conscience in child rearing can ever be constitutional.

Proposed Framework in Family Law for Constitutional Compliance

Now you have attorneys admitting that “Judicial decisions regarding legal custody and parenting time implicate fundamental Constitutional rights.” This entire paragraph sounds like it comes right from our book and classes:

Judicial decisions regarding legal custody and parenting
time implicate fundamental Constitutional rights. As a result,
these decisions must be narrowly tailored and must use the least
restrictive means available. This means the judge must protect
each parent’s Constitutional rights to the greatest extent
possible, as well as the child’s corollary right to a meaningful
relationship with each parent.

It’s nice that some attorneys are finally starting to catch up. Their next paragraph could have easily been taken right from our materials as well:

Constitutional compliance requires trial courts to start
every case from a position of joint legal custody and equal
parenting time. Clear and convincing evidence must justify
a departure from this equality. Decisions cannot rest on
personal preferences of the judge or on gender stereotypes.
Any deviations from joint legal custody and equal parenting
time must be achieved by the least restrictive means available.

Mimicking your rights does not make for an effective argument that would hold up in the courts. Even these attorneys still don’t have the in-depth understanding necessary to produce a constitutionally compliant result. They are still of the mindset that judges grant your rights and even though they mention that parenting plans violate First Amendment and religious rights as we teach, they don’t quite get there. What they propose as the solution still violates the constitution.

Tie-Breakers are Not a Constitutional Solution

The attorneys in this article propose a tie-breaker solution for when parents disagree in their parenting plan. A tie-breaker we will show you is not a constitutionally compliant solution.

Even the parenting plan agreement between parents regarding matters of child rearing, are fundamental disagreements on matters of conscience, the government does not get to tie break on matters of conscience. The government does not get to tell us which of our beliefs is better. The attorneys writing the article suggesting that there be tie-breakers between the parents, don’t quite get it. Tie-breakers on matters of best interest are the government dictating matters of conscience, they cannot do that under any context under any circumstances.

The way you would resolve a disagreement between parents regarding a child rearing decision is the parent who has the right to possession at that time is the decider, period, the end. Unless someone can prove that a child is being harmed to a definitive standard of harm, the state has zero justification for intervening in these matters of conscience. The state must prove an important and legitimate governmental objective and use means that are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. They stated that part but then applied the wrong solution.

We hope that this article will help serve as a wake-up call to all attorneys whether they are litigation attorneys in complex trial problems, constitutional and civil rights, public integrity cases, bankruptcy, personal injury, or family law litigation, and family law cases.

Parents Living Far Apart Does Not Terminate Your Parental Rights to Equal Parenting Time

The statement about parents living far apart that a judge can “grant” any of these rights, where they say that “the trial court could grant eh parent with whom the children do not live during the school year a disproportionate number of school holidays and summer parenting days to compensate for the unequal division of time during the school-year” shows that they still don’t get it. Judges cannot grant fundamental rights. Every parenting plan, even where the parents live more than 100 miles apart is a violation of the fundamental rights of the parents and the child that must survive strict scrutiny. The judge grants nothing. The judge violates only after meeting strict scrutiny standards.

Funny how even these attorneys who are writing this article and who you might consider the authority, and who write like they understand fundamental rights, and who choose not to quote our material, still fail to recognize that they are still maintaining the statists approach that fundamental rights are granted by judges. They are not. Your right to possession is a fundamental right, it is inalienable, no judge can grant you that right. All they can do is limit it but only when they meet constitutional standards of strict scrutiny.  That would be only with clear and convincing evidence, meet a compelling state interest, that is least restrictive.

These attorneys demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how strict scrutiny works as we cited in our book, it is not the degree of the deviation that matters, it is the fact that you deviated. If you need us to work with your attorney and want to end the delays, contact us here.

“As Thomas Paine observed, “a long habit of not thinking a
thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right.”33
Time has given the “best interests” standard the “superficial
appearance of being right,” but the standard’s disregard for
the Constitution and history of enabling harmful outcomes for
children proves otherwise.”

Parents in Disagreement do Not Justify Violating Your Parental Rights

Disagreeing with the other parent has been used for decades to justify the court interfering with your authority, your possession time with your child, and in how you exercise your rights. The court routinely issue orders that restrict a parent as to how they talk about the other parent and what they say and teach their child. These are prior restraints. In many states prior restraints are even prohibited in your state constitution. You can learn more about these from our book and in our membership site as well. If you would like us to write argument for your attorney to argue during your hearing or trial you can contact us here. Having a lot of money to hire the most expensive and seasoned attorney doesn’t mean you will get the right arguments that will protect you and your child. Not even the richest celebrities have received proper legal protections. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, John Schneider, and many of the others don’t even have a clue that they are not getting rights protections and that these protections could have saved them years of heartbreak, harassment, freedom from narcissistic exes, and could have ended the hostility, and even discouraged making hateful and destructive allegations of abuse.

What these attorneys have brought to your awareness is to put the scrutiny on your attorney, question the representation that you will get, do not trust that they will be protecting you. Choose experts to work on your legal team from Fix Family Courts and you will have someone looking out for your interests and not their own or the state’s. Contact us here.

We hope that Hollywood celebrities will read this and also see that there is more to hiring an attorney and just throwing money at an attorney. They need to manage their case by managing their attorney. They need to make sure that their attorney gets the best constitutional arguments available today. The only place to find those is right here with Fix Family Courts.

Information You Need to Prevent a Court Limiting Your Parental Access or Possession of Your Child.

Our most recent motion samples have been helping parents and their attorneys present these arguments and explain the unconstitutional practices to their judges so that they can increase their chances of winning child custody and argue them on appeal. You can get those here.

Once you realize what your court is doing is unconstitutional, you have to know how to argue this to your trial court. If you do not argue the infractions to your trial judge, you will not be able to argue them on appeal. This is called preserving error and protecting the record. These attorneys agree that every parenting plan must start “from joint legal custody and equal parenting time . . .” Any deviation from this requires clear and convincing evidence and strict scrutiny, least restrictive means, fundamental Constitutional rights, legal rights, “the child’s corollary rights to a meaningful relationship with each parent, protection of family integrity, procedural due process, substantive due process, and so much more. These are all explained in our book, “NOT in the Child’s Best Interest.” But how do you get there? How do you argue this to your Court?

For years, parents have been facing attorneys telling them that NO this is not how family courts do it. We continued to argue that YES it is, and we are winning!

It is so refreshing to read attorneys finally writing about the same things we have been saying. This is all packaged in one place and now you can get it all online in our membership site. You can search our book for equal protection arguments, strict scrutiny,  applies and to understand it better. Watch our class videos on these topics so you can explain it to your attorney better.

And remember, attorneys have been trying to say that your constitutional rights don’t apply in family court, Now, if you get an attorney like that, you can let them know they are on the backside of history, and that these unconstitutional practices are exposed and you aren’t going to tolerate that old barbaric and archaic practice of winner-take-all, and that you will not fall for their gamesmanship tactics.

If you don’t want to wait on attorneys to figure out how to present these arguments to your court, or fall victim to their gamesmanship tactics and don’t want to be bankrupt emotionally, and you want to protect your rights and protect your assets,, contact us, and become a member here and start using your rights now. Get the motions, become a member, watch the online classes, and get in touch with us to help you understand this material in relation to your situation. We cannot prepare your case for you but we can use your facts to help you make sense of the information so that you can take it to your attorney to speed the process along. Your time with your child is too precious to waste and waiting on these attorneys to figure it out is time you don’t have.

Don’t let your case become one of the ones that fall into the “constitutional “twilight zones” in which judges adjudicating the responsibilities and obligations of the most basic unit of American society illegitimately violate parents’ constitutional rights in the name of children’s best interests.” Join today and contact us today and learn how to protect you and your child from the corrupt practices!

Understanding Doctrines and Concepts as Applied to the Family Courts

This article mentions several doctrines and concepts that you can ask us about in our membership site: (Get a membership here and save money.)

The vagueness Doctrine

The Best Interest of the Child Standard

The Troxel Doctrine

Constitutional Compliance

Constitutional scrutiny

Unconstitutional infringement

First Amendment and its application to family law

Matters of Conscience

Parenting Plans that are Constitutionally Compliant


Suit Against Parent-Child Relationship

Declaratory Judgment

Compelling state interest

Least Restrictive

Strict Scrutiny

Intermediate Scrutiny

Clear and Convincing

Joint Custody

Sole Custody

Serve Important Governmental Objectives

Federal funding

Title IV-D

These attorneys are just some of the most recent attorneys to repeat what Ron Palmer and Sherry Palmer wrote and published in May of 2013 are these attorneys, David Domina and James Bocott, of Nebraska, and one in North Carolina, Jeremy Hopkins from North Carolina published in the article,”Yes, Virginia, the Constitution Applies in Family Court, Too: Common Constitutional Issues in Family Law,” in the Nebraska State Bar, Nebraska Lawyer publication. Read through our blog for more evidence that our arguments are the winning child custody arguments. We continue to develop groundbreaking child custody arguments to help you win child custody, protect your assets, and keep you in control of your own life, so that you can thrive, dream, and drive your life to greatness after separation or divorce from the other parent. Living the life of a single parent and living your dream of raising your child how you planned parenthood should be protected regardless of whether you are a famous celebrity like Brad Pitt, Gwen Stefani, Khloe Kardashian, Shannon Beador, David Beador, Ewan McGregor, Eve Mavrakis, Chris Brown, Ludacris, Usher, Deion Sanders, Britney Spears, Alec Baldwin, Johnny Depp, John Schneider, and the list goes on.

You can read the full article the attorneys in Nebraska wrote here: Yes, Virginia, the Constitution Applies in Family Court 

And keep in mind that because they are attorneys doesn’t mean that they cannot trump up claims and arguments that trick you out of your rights in family court.



This post was written jointly with Ron B Palmer.

*We are not claiming that the attorneys who wrote the article in The Nebraska Lawyer July/August 2018 edition are attorneys who discounted that parents had constitutional rights. There are those few who agreed with us from the beginning that parents and children have these rights. We began writing and teaching however, because we did not find the rights articulated properly anywhere in writing for parents and attorneys to use easily.

DISCLAIMER: We are not attorneys, we are not a substitute for an attorney, and we do not practice law. Anything you get from us we recommend you take to your attorney to make sure that you have the legal technical requirements satisfied. We are not providing this information for the purpose of preparing your case. This is information that has great public importance and is protected by the First Amendment.