Federal Crimes in the Digital Age
I have recently opined on the Federal Stalking Statute that has been used by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney to prosecute John Rivello for sending a “tweet” to reporter Kurt Eichenwald. The “tweet” was a flashing strobe that caused an epileptic seizure. The Federal Government in their complaint accuses Rivello of using the “tweet” with the intent of causing serious bodily injury.
This is a seminal case for digital media. The Federal Government is essentially using a “tweet” as hard evidence to convict a man under the Federal Stalking Statute 18 U.S.C. § 2261. If the Federal Government can successfully prosecute an individual for a “tweet” that is intended to injure a third party, then it is a sign that harmful or malicious “tweets” will suffer consequences from Federal authorities. Regardless of the outcome, the Federal Government has issued a warning to all those who aggressively use social media to injure others. The Federal Government is making the point, that there is a difference between exercising your first amendment right and intentionally causing physical pain to others by “tweeting”.
Our society is changing with digital media. Constant updates, instant access, and unfettered opinions or beliefs, whether harmful or not, are a constant part of our lives. As Americans, we value our first amendment right of free speech, but the question is when does freedom of speech become a danger to others. There are multiple Supreme Court cases that attempt to answer this complex question and this Federal Stalking Charge is another attempt to clarify where this fine line exists.
As social media becomes more prevalent in our society common law will have to evolve and adapt to the difficult situations derived from this constant unadulterated stream of consciousness. Will restrictions be put in place to prohibit certain “tweets” or comments such as Rivello’s? Will there be any civil reprieve from damages sustain from an intentional “tweet” that causes harm? What if any are the criminal consequences for a “tweet” that results in serious bodily injury to a third party?
It is important to always be conscious of the representations you make on any type of social media. Any comments or threats can be used against you. This is the era of technology and little is private in our world. Anything you post or say online may be used against you. Be careful and tread lightly.
See my recent interview on Fox 4 Dallas below
Julian Nacol, Attorney
The Nacol Law Firm, P.C.
Call (972) 690-3333
Democracy Created, Supported, and Protected by the Constitution of the United States Must Be Defended
Democracy created, supported, and protected by the Constitution of the United States must be defended regardless of whether you are a Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, or whether you align yourself with any other party supporting your personal beliefs. We must all protect the core values that have flowed since America began from our freedoms protected by separation of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. Each branch protects us from the tyranny that can be imposed upon us by one, absent the beautiful balance over time by each branch of government gatekeeping for the other branches.
As an associate member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), I am deeply concerned that many expected and prominent contenders in the 2012 elections have stated that if elected they will disregard Supreme Court rulings with which they disagreed, eliminating entire courts removing judges from office if they dislike their rulings, and will direct United States Marshals to apprehend judges and compel them to submit to congressional questions about their rulings.
The TEX-ABOTA opposes all attempts to undermine the independence and integrity of the judicial and has therefore passed a resolution regarding this issue. The resolution of the Texas Chapters of American Board of Trial Advocates has resolved as follows:
The Texas Chapters of American Board of Trial Advocates is strongly opposed to any proposed governmental action or policy that would undermine the constitutional structure of three separate and independent branches of government, including any governmental action or policy that would: (1) ignore Supreme Court rulings; (2) eliminate courts or remove judges from office because of their rulings; and (3) force judges to face congressional questioning regarding their rulings.
Every extremely conservative or irrevocably committed left-winged person in this country has at one time or another, from their prospective, extremely benefited or felt personal extreme detriment from a ruling of a county, state, federal district court, federal district appellate court, or the Supreme Court of the United States.
Can you imagine how an ultraconservative person would feel if a left-wing Democratic president undermined a Supreme Court ruling that abortion is illegal?
Can you imagine how a left-wing democrat would feel if a conservative president could undermine and reverse a Supreme Court ruling that employees have no rights of recovery when terminated from employment due to racial or gender related discrimination?
The issue to consider is not what a court orders, renders, or adjudicates on a particular matter of concern to you in your life. The issue is whether we should have courts of law or a government whose arbitrary decisions controls your life depending on who happens to be in power at any particular time in the future.
For my part, I’m going to take my chances with democracy based on checks and balances as opposed to an existential political belief of any given ruler, executive, or body based on one particular moment in time.
Mark Nacol, Attorney
Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Nacol Law Firm P.C.
Social Networking and Your Lawsuit: A Risky Combustible Combination
When was the last time you checked your favorite social networking site to see if you received a new message or to catch up on a current friend’s information ten minutes ago? With 85% of all adults using the internet and 48% using social networking sites on a daily basis, you are definitely in the majority of Americans. (Pew Research Study/Aug.2012). Consider further that of the 88% of adults using cell phones daily, 55% of those adults are using their phones to go online and update social networking sites (Pew research Survey/April 2012).
People now make available for easy disclosure practically their entire life details and confessions online. Social networking technologies are forcing us to learn to navigate the murky waters between business and pleasure. This mixture creates a “Permanent Record” of each on social networking sites.
Now that you are in a legal dispute, how may this universal sharing of personal and business information affect you legally? A scary thought? YOU BET! With so much valuable and often sensitive information now available through these social sites, the discovered information could field devastating results in many court cases.
What we strongly warn our clients:
1. Almost everything you post on social networking sites can and likely will be used against you in a lawsuit.
2. Avoid making any comments concerning your lawsuit or the judicial system on any internet or social networking sites.
3. Do not make comments about your adversary. Even “positive” comments can be misconstrued or used out of context; it is a smart idea to stop all your activity on social networking sites until after your lawsuit is over or the dispute is resolved!
4. Provide your attorney a list of all social networking sites you are a member of along with their passwords.
5. Do not intentionally remove or delete any posts, photos, or videos from a social networking site that existed when your lawsuit was filed or if you are anticipating a lawsuit. Keep everything as it is! Obstruction or spoliation maybe highly damaging to your case by implication even for innocent deletions.
6. If you have communicated with your opponent or a potential witness, provide this social networking information to your attorney at once. It can be used in your lawsuit!
7. Remember pictures communicate without words. Do not share photographs that are incriminating, inappropriate, or what may be taken out of context.
In summary, evidence from all social media sites is now being used by prosecutors, defense attorneys, personal injury attorneys, civil dispute attorneys, employment attorneys and foremost by family attorneys! Be careful what you say, post or disclose whenever you are communicating on any type of social media site! What you say or show may be your civil undoing!
New Texas Family Case Laws Effective Sept. 1, 2019
Two New Family Case laws have been passed by the Texas legislature and signed by Governor Abbot, effective 9/1/2019:
HB553 Relating to notice summer weekend possession of a child under a standard possession order in a suite affecting the parent-child relationship.
SECTION 1. Section 153.312, Family Code, is amended by adding subsection (c) to read as follows:
(c) Notwithstanding Section 153.316, after receiving notice from the managing conservator under Subsection (b)(3) of this section designating the summer weekend during which the managing conservator is to have possession of the child, the possessory conservator, not later than the 15th day before Friday that begins that designated weekend, must give the managing conservator written notice of the location at which the managing conservator is to pick up and return the child.
SECTION 2. Section 153.312 (c), Family Code, as added by this Act, applies only to a court order providing for possession of or access to a child rendered on or after the effective date of this Act. A court order rendered before the effective date on this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the order was rendered, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2019
HB House Bill 558: Relating to the court ordered support for a child with disability:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 154.302, Family Code, is amended by adding Subsection (c) to read as follows:
(c) notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court that orders support under this section for an adult child with a disability may designate a special needs trust and provide that the support may be paid directly to the trust for the benefit of the adult child. The court shall order that support payable to a special needs trust under this subsection be paid directly to the trust and may not order that the support be paid to the state disbursement unit. This subsection does not apply in a Title IV-D case.
SECTION 2. The change in law made by this Act constitutes a material and substantial change of circumstance under Section 156.401, Family Code, sufficient to warrant modification of a court order or a portion of a decree that provides support for a child rendered before the effective date of this Act.
Section 3. This Act takes effect on September 1, 2019
More new Texas Legislature Family Laws to come!
Cohabitation and Domestic Partnership Agreements in Texas
Premarital and post-marital agreements in Texas have a complex history immersed in the community property presumption, the state constitution, statutes and case law. Originally, such agreements were found to be unenforceable. But with amendments to the Texas Constitution, evolving statutes, recent case law, and improved draftsmanship, such agreements are now enforceable under contract law.
For some couples living together is a precursor to marriage; for others, there is no intent to ever marry, or the law prohibits the marriage, as in Texas with same sex marriages. The simple fact is, domestic partnership agreements involve a wide variety of circumstances, which may or may not involve the gay or lesbian couple.
Many couples choose to live together so they do not lose certain benefits under current rules of social security, military and insurance disability programs, or to stop those benefits from being taken away from their children. In other cases, couples who are divorced, and who may have children, may want to protect certain assets. In situations such as trust funds or inherited funds, beneficiaries simply do not want to place family money at risk. Other couples choose to shelter their own resources from the real or perceived obligations of their partner.
The marital agreement is considered to be a contract under Texas law. The premarital agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties. No actual consideration is required; however, to conform with contractual law, it may be wise to provide benefits for the non-monied party to avoid a later finding of unconscionability, particularly if the financial condition of the non-monied party under the agreement will be poor.
Matters that may be dealt with in a premarital agreement include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. the right to buy, sell, use, transfer, exchange, abandon, lease, consume, expend, assign, create a security interest in, mortgage, encumber, dispose of, or otherwise manage and control property;
2. the rights and obligations of each of the parties in any of the property of either or both of them whenever or wherever acquired or located;
3. the disposition of property on separation, marital dissolution, death, or the occurrence or nonoccurrence of any other event;
4. the modification or elimination of spousal support;
5. the making of a will, trust, or other arrangement to carry out the provisions of the agreement;
6. the ownership rights in and disposition of the death benefit from a life insurance policy;
7. the choice of law governing the construction of the agreement; and
8. any other matter, including their personal rights and obligations, not in violation of public policy or a statute imposing a criminal penalty.
Child support may not be adversely affected by a premarital agreement. Therefore, provisions providing for the elimination of child support upon separation or divorce are unenforceable. However, provisions for private education, college expenses, and choice of residence may be included, but may still be reviewed by a court to determine if they are in keeping with public policy.
In post-marital agreements, it has been noted that a fiduciary duty exists that is not present in pre-marital agreements between spouses or prospective spouses. Case law states that a confidential relationship between husband and wife imposes the same duties of good faith and fair dealing on spouses as required of partners and other fiduciaries. However, adverse parties who have retained independent counsel may not owe fiduciary duties to one another. Texas Legislature enacted Section 4.105 with the understanding that married spouses owing fiduciary duties to one another would negotiate and execute post-marital agreements. Not withstanding these duties, the legislature manifested the strong policy preference that voluntarily made post-marital agreements are enforceable.
Cohabitation, domestic partnership, premarital and post-marital agreements may be as creative as a party determines necessary. However, care must be given to see that such agreements protect the party, keep with public policy, and adhere to current Texas family law and applicable contractual law.
NACOL LAW FIRM P.C.
8144 Walnut Hill Lane
Suite 1190
Dallas, Texas 75231
972-690-3333
Office Hours
Monday – Thursday, 8am – 5pm
Friday, 8:30am – 5pm
OUR BLOGS
SEARCH
JOIN OUR NETWORK

Attorney Mark A. Nacol is board certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization








