Can i document type e sign child custody agreement template rhode island
Alex here with part 76 of the my docket series on child custody and visitation as with my previous videos I'd like to take this opportunity to direct my viewers to part zero if you haven't seen it yet that's the video that contains a detail disclaimers and the underlying purpose of the series two things that I will glaze over are number one I'm not in the middle of this right now my case is completely and totally over its close it cannot be reopened and that's because my excess parental rights have been terminated number two the nutshell version s the purpose of the series is to give my viewers one big example of my ear long high conflict child custody ordeal from beginning to end in chronological order so I don't have a whole lot of memory or recollection with regards to my mindset at this point in the litigation one thing that I do recall is being annoyed that the government and my ex was resisting this because in my opinion it was obviously wrong and ultimately it would be the opinion of the Supreme Court that it was wrong as well but I eventually drew on my experiences like these to create videos like they will never say good things and win at all costs and those two mentalities are ultimately what will keep somebody fighting a losing fight even if it's obviously wrong there's just other ways to win a case even if you are not on the right side of the law and part of it is psyching your opponent out and the other part is just fatiguing your opponent into just giving up so again mainly annoyed and the only reason I say that is because I also felt kind of buoyed by the Supreme Court of Nevada's response to the petition for writ of mandamus they were ordering the government to respond they were ordering that my ex to respond and so I mean I don't have as much experience I didn't have as much experience then as I have now to really know just how rare it is for a petition for writ of mandamus to be considered by the Supreme Court but I did have an inkling that my particular approach which of which was to bypass the district courts I did have an inkling that that was definitely something that was rarely considered so at this point in time Supreme Court was ordering responses despite the fact that the that I bypassed the lower court that I filed this petition for demand a Miss directly with Supreme Court and so that gave me kind of a boost as far as my mindset of time I was optimistic let's put it that way so at this point we're just gonna have to go straight into what the Secretary of State has [Music] [Music] here we have the Secretary of State's answer to my petition through demand Amos so they lead off in the first paragraph by identifying themselves and indicating that they are that the government is being represented by the Attorney General Katherine Cortez Masto and more specifically Solicitor General General Wayne Howell even though Katherine Cortez Masto is the actual Attorney General at least at the time she isn't right now it's still very very common for the Attorney General themselves to not actually appear or file anything in these cases they have one of their deputies or one of their solicitors do that for them instead just because there's way too many cases and it's just not it's just not possible for the actual Attorney General to be involved in every single case so I believe in this case we've had two people involved so far well generally with regard to this issue we've had two people involved so far and the other one his name was like Louie and something like that but this this guy Jenner's a solicitor general Wayne Tao is known to be on for the most part until the very end at which point one of their chief Deputy Attorney General's is going to be on instead anyway moving on they are indicating that they are filing this answer in response to my petition for writ of mandamus statement of the case so let's see here they are characterizing this is a quest again to learn the residential address of which my ex and son live the respondent will supply the confidential address to my ex and son in 2009 pursuant to the provisions of the law establishing Nevada's confidential access program the petitioner seeks disclosure issues first we have the sole issue which is whether his law authorizes the government to each of the teachers address to the applicant based on the mere existence of a protective order and that's pretty wordy but I think he's basically getting it right I'm arguing that the government needs to consider the substance of the protective order prior to giving a fictitious address and the petitioner may certainly present whatever issues he will but by presenting them in the form of petition for red TV issues necessarily include whether there exists a law in line mandatory duty for the Secretary of State to do club disclose the address okay so I mean he's basically saying what I'm saying which is whether or not the law requires the Secretary of State to do some investigatory were to exercise some discretion in issuing a fictitious address and the Supreme Court of Nevada is not going to go with this theory they're going to go with a constitutional theory and we'll get into that when we actually get to their order but just let it giving everybody heads up at this point in time they're going to go with the constitutional theory and they're going to create a different procedure by which to challenge the Secretary of State's issuance so in a sense they don't agree with either of us as to whether or not the Secretary of State has a burden to do this they are going to say that there is a burden but they're going to put the burden on the court instead statement of the facts so he is first asserting that we lived together in 2008 our relationship ended in 2008 police were called the residence then he states the police responded to a call the call concerned suicidal subject which is attached as Exhibit one this is probably just a police report then he asserts that the police responded to a call made by her complaining of a disturbance and that's exhibit two presumably the other police report it's interesting that they actually bring these police reports up because as far as I know my text didn't give them copies of these police reports at all so what he's doing is he's probably relying on the evidence that I submitted to him the report indicates our allegations of pushing etcetera etc on August 25th I instituted custody proceedings in the district courts on September 8th a tiara was issued against me in a separate case this is already covered into my docket series on May 26 child custody order was entered we share joint legal and joint physical custody on September 10th I applied the Secretary of State for a confidential oh no my ex applied to the the Secretary of State for confidential address the obligation was granted on October 13th I filed a petition for judicial review which the court denied on June 3rd I filed a notice of appeal which the Supreme Court affirmed and then October 12 the Supreme Court in the Supreme Court case what I appealed a district court okay so I don't know why he's bringing this this isn't relevant irrelevant to this at all sometimes I think that attorneys think that they can win a case by showing how many times you've lost in the past a judge needs to decide a case on the merits of the case they don't get to go oh well since you lost the last six cases I'm gonna make sure you lose this one too they actually have to look at the issues in the case before them but a lot of attorneys do this and I also have mentioned before to my viewers that this often can backfire on them because a judge will see that an issue keeps coming up and sometimes rather than saying okay this guy's getting denied all the time so I'm gonna deny his motion sometimes they'll say okay well whatever I've been doing in the past isn't working so I need to take a closer look at this so this isn't necessarily going to cause somebody to lose their case but he's this is a common tactic used by attorneys and then we have the petition for writ in this docket so okay so he's just basically telling them that I file this repetition summary of the argument you're going into the writ of mandamus and how it can be used in one of those ways is to compel the performance of an act which the law requires or prohibits I guess you could say it that way too here there is no right for me to have the residential address of my ex what okay so this is patently wrong so under the Fourteenth Amendment there is a right and the Supreme Court of Nevada will recognize that in their opinion but this is a rate that's been recognized long before this petition was entered so it's disturbing that this attorney is trying to say that a parent doesn't have the right to know where their child resides but that's the argument that he's gonna make a guess next we have I guess a more detailed argument so much of the following argument comes from the state's response in 5 6 1 6 9 which is true he is for the most part regurgitating the arguments that he put forth in the other case and most of those arguments aren't relevant to this case not all of them but most of them Oh upon research little more has been written or decided on the subject legislative history of the law has not is not particularly Tory it's not particularly relevant or revelatory so what he's saying is that the legislative history on the law doesn't really help explain what we should do in this case which I guess is true they didn't really debate it much they just kind of created a confidential address program without thinking it through I think somebody from the legislature should have said hold on a second guys this all makes well this is this makes sense when you're dealing with two people who broke up that don't have kids but what are we gonna do when they broke up and they do have kids nobody thought of something so obvious as that they just passed a law without without considering that and they should have really thought about that because that happens more often than not it's not just that that people break up a lot of times they had kids and they break up it's not that rare for that to occur but they didn't think of that for whatever reason um the exhibits attached to this brief contain the temporary restraining order that served as the basis for the confidential address Tara was all that was legally required under the law and this is the argument that I figured they would make an applicant for an address is only required to provide specific evidence showing and then there's that law subsection 4 right here of NRS 2:7 1.46 2 that lists a protective order specifically in that area of what they want to just you know let what do you want to count as evidence in this particular context and I'm I've said this report of my viewers over and over again context matters and in the context of the confidential address program this order of protection is evidenced because Allah says so it's not evidence because our own mind as an individual says so it's evidence because the law declared it as such the legislature establishes Nevada's confidential artists program in 1997 as an important tool to fight against DB the court term of evidence necessary to justify it is a legislators choice so he's basically saying that even though I'm saying this really isn't evidence at all the legislature said so so therefore it is which is true most of the time but here we have a conflict with the Constitution of the United States of the United States which is where I'm able to sort of wedge in the case that I'm bringing to the Supreme Court now I didn't think that that was going to be my primary argument but that's the one that this mcwhirter Nevada went with later on just as the Nevada Washington's program so he's comparing it to Washington he's basically saying since our program isn't that different than another states this isn't really any big deal so in Washington we have a similar program he's mentioning the different states and different requirements moving on at the other end of the spectrum requiring a high show up high showing our indiana rhode island so indiana and rhode island apparently have more stringent requirements for you to get the fictitious address so i think he's trying to show which is this this is a smart argument the problem is the constitution is going to crash right into it but if you take the constitution out under the standard just without people's fundamental rights being implicated the government will probably get away with it and you have to think about it this way if we didn't have a kid would this really be a big deal do i really need to know where my ex resides if we don't have a kid together the answer is no I don't and should she really have to show a tremendous amount of evidence to be allowed to hide from somebody she purports to be a DB abuser no not really because if you guys are broken up and you don't really have any any constitutional right as to why I need to know where they live then they really shouldn't need to show a whole lot in the first place but here we go dealing with a specific case involving a child and of course the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution so moving on additional safeguards for the veracity of an applicant's information including in addition to relying on restraining orders as prima facie evidence and he goes into again other states so here he's going into California the reason I'm kind of glazing over these arguments is because the Supreme Court doesn't really go with any of this in the end anyway the Supreme Court takes the constitutional route for the most part to deal with this problem otherwise I would spend a lot more time on these arguments but what he is doing is comparing Nevada statute to all these other states and he's trying to bring up to the Supreme Court the fact that there is a sort of wide variation as to how the states deal with confidential address programs and you have one scale where very little needs to be shown and you have one scale with a whole lot that needs to be shown to get a confidential address program and he's trying to show them sort of where Nevada fits in on that scale and again all of that is actually a very sound way to argue a case like this with the Constitution aside here we have another assertion that the secretary should not rely on temporary restraining order he's saying it's mayor lives because the legislature expressly identified a restraining order as one of the forms of satisfactory evidence and he's saying that that's the law and that's true the Supreme Court of Nevada does agree with this position the Supreme Court of Nevada says this is the law therefore the secretary of state cannot do anything more then issue an address when provided with this evidence but what I don't think he anticipated was where the Constitution would come into play so the sec report Nevada is gonna stay you're right this is the law the law says that this is how it works however the law valid as it may be conflicts with the 14th amendment of the Constitution therefore and then they basically just blow a hole through the law moving on the next is here the assertion that my real my only real argument is as a father of a child that I have the right to know where my child resides so this is my real argument though his next sentence here he says I do not and then this is where he gets a flat wrong I can't believe that he would be so bold as to say that a parent does not have a right to know where their child resides to me that's really going too far and I think if more people knew that that could be politically damaging for this person if he decides to run for an election or something but to take the position that a parent of a child doesn't have a right to know where their child resides he's beyond disturbing I don't think anyone in this country would agree with that most people think I want to know where my kid is most people don't think I don't have a right to know where my kid is so he probably could have said this better what he probably should have said is you don't have a right to know where your child resides if you are a DV abuser you should just say that no parent anywhere in the state no matter how good they are has no right to know where their child
esides that is a scary position to take for an attorney hopefully it doesn't run for anything in the future I'm going on it says authorities he offers for this position do not in fact stand for no such authority exist champagne bee welfare and santosky B Kramer as cited by me generally addresses the right to make decisions concerning the care custody and control of one's children but do not specify anything resembling the right to know where child resides so he might be right about this these cases might specifically on their faces not mention anything about having the right to know where your child resides but the Supreme Court of Nevada traces these cases deeper down to a foundation where they hold that we actually do have a right to know where our child resides and again this isn't new this is something that the Supreme Court has held for a long long long time so it's not like I'm suddenly creating this right to know where your choppers ides that's always been there moving on Falcone does not complain that he could not see his child or that he is deprived of a relationship with the child it's only complaint is the bear inability to know where his child resides again disturbing position to take this is not a legally recognized interest for which I rid of any kind of issue to enforce again a disturbing statement that a parent doesn't have a legally recognized interest in knowing where their child resides finally a fictitious address by law may only be effective for four years and will be canceled thereafter absent proof of an imminent danger no way with my excellent let this be canceled this this law here allows you to apply for an extension and there's nothing in it that says you have to show anything new has occurred you can just apply for an extension and get one so if the circuit if the government didn't or sorry if the Supreme Court of Nevada did not intervene and get involved in this specific case my ex would have extended this over and over again until her son was 18 this is not a 99% chance probability this is 100 percent this is absolutely what she would have done without question no doubt whatsoever she would have continued to extend a fictitious mattress so this is a pointless argument um conclusion the petition asks the court to compel the Secretary to release the residential address of persons who were properly given a fictitious address however I have not identified any mandatory Duty for the Secretary to surrender the information so I have identified a mandatory duty but it's not the statutes that I brought to the Supreme Court's of attempt the supreme court's attention it's the constitutional principles those constitutional principles are what create the mandatory Duty for the Secretary to surrender the information but it has to be done through a court action and we're going to get into that again when we actually see the opinion of the Supreme Court they're going to explain why I'm right moving on to the index of exhibits and this is let's see here referencing exhibits that were provided oh so they're option they're actually all included here so I don't know what he's calling this an index of exhibits you know what I think he did I think he used my index well I didn't even call it that I just call it a list of exhibits and I didn't do this correctly and so it seems like he sort of copied me but by copying me he ended up doing incorrectly as well this should be an appendix it should be called an appendix and inside of the appendix is an index of exhibits and did say I don't even know if they call it the index of exhibits I think they just call it the index and then inside of the index you'll have sort of a table of contents with page numbers as to where you can find each specific item and what it is is it's the record it's the record that the Supreme Court uses to make their decision so it seems to me like he kind of copied my approach which was wrong in the first place and he basically he did it wrong by copying the person who did it wrong again we're gonna talk about this more when I get into actual one of my actual proper appendices later on in this my docket series you're gonna see me file an appendix the correct way and when we get to that appendix we're gonna go over it more in detail but there's no point in talking about all the things that are wrong with this because later on into my docket series you're gonna get to one of my filings it's correctly done I might not even need to look at any of these because I think I went over all of these already in the my racket series so these to police reports have already gone over within the first probably five or six videos of the my darkest series I'm going to skip over them temporary order of protection again already went over this into my docket series order after hearing already went over this confidential address program application I don't think I've gone over this and then we've got the ordered the nine judicial review filed 518 actually I did go over this application because it came up in the other appeal so I've actually gone over all six of these exhibits already in the my docket series so I'm not going to go over them again this is what I typically do in the series when I come across documents and I've already gone over if you would like to you can always go down into the description below click on the link download this document and review it for yourself and if you have any questions you can go ahead and put them down in the comments below and it will address your question at that point in time but I won't go over documents that I've already gone over in the series if you've been watching an order you would have already seen my analysis on all of these filings so let's continue on to the affidavit of service this is indicating that it looks like an employee of the attorney general's office correct he or she is a certain that she's an employee and it's indicating that she in response to the Supreme Court's order served a copy the documents listed in Exhibit A on my ex so the Supreme Court Nevada ordered the Attorney General to serve these documents upon my ex and this is an affidavit from somebody who works with the Attorney General indicating that she has indeed certain these documents upon my ex as to you know that's how they were ordered to by the Supreme Court about it and apparently they were mailed here we go yes they were mailed on both myself and my ex or at least this specific affidavit was a copy of the affidavit service was served oh so she's indicating that this affidavit of service was served upon us and she's also indicating earlier on in this document that the remainder of those documents were served specifically on my ex and here we have an index of this is the exhibit she was referring to I don't know why I was put in as a separate filing but for whatever reason it was and she's indicating that these are the documents that she served upon my ex which are basically the filings in this in the Supreme Court case everything that was filed in this case has been served upon my ex we've already gone over all of these filings so I'm not gonna go over them again next we have the affidavit of service and this is what is this here it looks like it's the same Oh different address okay so this is the same exact thing that we already went over only they served it on my exes fictitious address this 303 route street address is a fake address same thing so it's the exact same thing only it's being served on my oh wait oh this is so confusing they probably just messed something up and sent it to the wrong address I'm not going to pull it apart or nitpick through it because all we know is my ex was eventually served whether it was the pedo box here the fake address in Carson City or some other address they filed it the exact same affidavit of service trying to indicate that they serve the papers on another address as well here we have the same exact index as before this is just referring to the documents that were served at the different address proof of service of documents to my ex per court order I don't know why they didn't they just indicate this all oh so these are the actual I guess the proof you could say it's the proof this is one of the little cards indicating that it was served on my ex I guess - certified mail yep certified mail and this is apparently some kind of proof of receipt so they must have gotten their certified receipt whatever the thing that indicates that the person certifies having received the documents and it looks like another one with certificate of service so this is just the government indicating that this specific proof was sent to me at my address at the time this is an ancient history address here we have the notice of intent to participate provided by my ex's attorney and my ex's attorney has basically reviewed all of the documents provided to them by the government they have reviewed the supreme court's order offering them an opportunity to participate in the case that they would like to and my ex's attorney has stated in this notice that she does intend to participate in this Supreme Court case and here is a certificate of service by mail indicating that this notice was provided to both the government and myself and then we have a Supreme Court order in response and this is a Supreme Court responding to my exes notice of our intent to participate so let's see what they're saying here it's a petition for writ of mandamus that's the type of case that were in right now against the secretary of state of Nevada and in accordance with the supreme court's order regarding my ex as a third party recipient of the fictitious address here she has their recognizing that she's filed a notice of her intent to participate in this case therefore she shall be added as a real party in interest to this original writ proceeding and the clerk of this Court is directed to modify the caption of this matter to conform with the caption in this order now my ex has an opportunity within 30 days to file an answer to my petition and I also will have the right - if I choose file a reply to her answer and this is the way the caption should have appeared in the first place this is how I should it I should have just done this straight from the get-go I caused an unnecessary delay in my case by not doing it this way but here's what I was talking about right from the beginning of this video I am the petitioner the government is the respondent in my ex listed clearly as a real party in interest going into the aftermath I didn't file any of these documents so I incur deserve dollars and costs the government filed one two three four five six seven of these documents and all of them were three filings so the government incurred zero dollars and costs the I didn't have an attorney assigned Kurt zero dollars an attorney fees the government would have incurred some substantial attorney fees at this point the Secretary of State's answer to the petition you know it would probably have taken several hours maybe three or four but because most of the arguments were recycled based on what they filed in the previous appeal and the previous District Court case I think it would be safe to say one hour it still feels a little low but mmm yeah you know most of the time probably went into the appendix or what they call the index of exhibits so I guess we can err on the side of one hour at this point there would have been some research but all that would have been done in the previous cases anyway so one hours fine for that petition the index of exhibits is at least another hour I have worked on appendices before they take forever they are so it's easy to underestimate how long it'll take to put together in appendix so an hour I think it's fair even though it wasn't that large it could have been much larger so at this point we're at two hours then we have the two affidavits of service that they put together we'll put each of those at five minutes so we're at two hours and ten minutes so far we have both of those indices which were probably 20 minutes each which is gonna take us up to another hour so we're up to a total of three hours so far for both of those affidavits and the indices then we have the proof of service that was file that's negligible not even a count any time for that or I guess you could lump that in with the notice of intent to participate that they would have to review and the order regarding participation if you take all those those last three documents you could probably roll them together into an additional half hour at most only because they're gonna have to change their system to include my ex's information now that she's gonna become a party to the case and all of that so we have three hours and thirty minutes which at the rate of two hundred and fifty dollars an hour is going to come to seven hundred and fifty dollars plus hundred twenty-five dollars which would be eight hundred and seventy-five dollars in attorney fees for the government then we have my ex who is just now making an appearance in the case she didn't file she did filed a notice of intent to participate to that say free filing so she incurred zero dollars and costs her attorney would have prepared that notice for her and I think at this point in time preparation of the notice would have maybe been five minutes but she would have had to at least consult with my ex over it maybe an email or two maybe a phone call so I think 15 minutes for the notice of intent to participate sounds good then she would have had to review all of those filings there's a lot of review for my ex's attorney to have to do but I suspect that she would have promptly glazed over most of it I think most of her preparation is going to gain go into the filing of her answer to my petition so I think a sort of cursory review of all of the documents that have been filed as far in this case of which there are many let's just lump all of that in to 45 minutes combined with the 15 minutes that it took her to put together the notice of intent to participate that should come to at the rate of two hundred fifty dollars an hour two hundred and fifty dollars in attorney fees for my ex as with my previous videos if you have any questions feel free to post it down in the comments below and I will see you guys next time you
