Quick Start Your Case
We have comprehensive federal research and significant state research. We have well-developed and fully cited argument that will help you hit the ground running in defending your client's constitutional rights in your family law case. You know there are significant problems in family law, we expose the root cause of these problems and provide solutions you can use in court this afternoon.
If you aren't using these arguments, or at least discussing these arguments with your client, you are NOT performing your due diligence in protecting your client's rights.
Feeding People – First Amendment Right
It is our position that feeding people is a First Amendment protected right not only as a right of expression but as a right of association for the purpose of establishing and deepening intimate and expressive associations by individuals, by individuals within organizations, and by organizations.
The sharing of bread and wine is the most basic means of establishing associations that predates formal law and that even predates human speech. The behavior of sharing food to establish stronger bonds can be observed as a survival strategy in many types of animal species. The science is well documented, see the official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology, see When should animals share food? Game theory applied to kleptoparasitic populations with food sharing.
The right to life and to employ strategies intended to protect and preserve one’s life through the benefits of association and the establishment of interpersonal bonds that improve survivability of individuals and populations in difficult times. The sharing of food and drink is one of the most fundamental and primal means of expression and intimacy geared towards protecting one’s right to life, as such, it must be considered fundamental.
There are existing court cases protecting the right to feed the hungry in public places that have arisin from local government attempts to restrict this practice. More cases are being added to the list as local governments continue to attempt to outlaw basic human kindness. We will compile those cases here as we come across them. Please do not consider this an exhaustive list but more of a organized collection of those cases that have come to our attention.
This is an Eleventh Circuit, federal appellate court, opinion on appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A summary of the opinion follows:
This case presents the second appellate skirmish in Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs’s (“FLFNB”) challenge to Fort Lauderdale’s efforts to shut down the practice of sharing food with the homeless in downtown Stranahan Park. FLFNB hosts food-sharing events in order to communicate the group’s message that scarce social resources are unjustly skewed towards military projects and away from feeding the hungry. In Round One, a panel of this Court held FLFNB’s food sharing to be expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and remanded the case to the district court to address whether the City’s regulations actually violated the First Amendment. Now, in Round Two, we must decide whether Fort Lauderdale Park Rule 2.2, which requires City permission for social service foodsharing events in all Fort Lauderdale parks, can withstand First Amendment scrutiny as applied to FLFNB’s demonstrations.
It cannot. The Park Rule commits the regulation of FLFNB’s protected expression to the standardless discretion of the City’s permitting officials. The Park Rule bans social service food sharing in Stranahan Park unless authorized pursuant to a written agreement with Fort Lauderdale (the “City”). That’s all the rule says. It provides no guidance and in no way explains when, how, or why the City will agree in writing. As applied to FLFNB’s protected expression, it violates the First Amendment. It is neither narrowly drawn to further a substantial government interest that is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, nor, as applied, does it amount to a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation on expression in a public forum. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the City and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is quite clear that the Federal Courts are willing and prepared to protect our most essential humanity in the sharing of food with one another as an essential element of expression and association protected by the First Amendment. As our local governments seek to impose soul crushin order at the expense of freedom we can still trust our federal courts to defend free expression and free association.
Divorce and Child Custody
Our body of constitution work began life as a means of bringing American family law into the 21st century. Every constitutional concept we discuss that has relevance to the practice of family law will have discussion in family law terms and will be expressed relative to how it should be used as a basis for best practices in family law under the core terms of Divorce and Child Custody. The Palmer Approach to Best Practices in American Law began life as the Palmer Approach to Best Practices in Family Law.
As we enlarge our body of Best Practices in American Law, we will provide best practices on constitutional law in areas that are not directly relevant to improving family law and we will be providing best practice guidance towards achieving other important freedom enhancing purposes. As you read, it is important to separate the underlying principles of law from their best practice application towards any particular goal such as improving the practice of family law. We will be working towards clarifying these distinctions in our body of work as we expand.