Will USFSPA Protests to Lawyers Bring Change?
When we found the Military on Pinterest, there was an image of USFSPA protests that took place in Las Vegas, Nevada in May 2012.
Eight combat veterans from the nonprofit Veterans advocacy group, Operation Firing For Effect, (OFFE) organized a protest outside the office of attorney Marshall Willick, of Willick Law Group to “raise awareness about former military spouses who want half of the wounded warriors’ disability compensation.”
Harassing lawyers is not the best way to bring attention to the USFSPA. Attorneys don’t make the laws. They propose arguments and uphold what has already been passed by the government. Attorneys don’t make the final decisions, judges do.
Protests don’t belong outside the judges’ offices either. I find the idea that change will come from bullying those upholding the law to be somewhat ridiculous.
Instead what results is exactly what happened:
“Alleging that he received death threats from members of the nonprofit group, Willick fired back with a defamation lawsuit that he had served on the group and its leaders at the rally.”
The event has done nothing for the USFSPA and only resulted in two parties involved in more legal issues.
What do you think? Are these types of protests a good idea? Will they be outside the former spouses’ doors next?
You may also like:
Is this blog still operational? Am I the only one with concerns about 15 May 2017 SCOTUS 15-1031 ruling?
Sorry you’ve not found what you’re looking for, but ‘yes’ the blog is operational 🙂
There’s lots to discuss on this issue, but here’s a quick summary that may help those with concerns:
“The effect on cases that have already had a final judgment of divorce may be limited because in most of those cases, the time for appeal has come and gone.
SCOTUS did not say that Howell is retroactive. Generally, unless the Court says otherwise, the new rule is to be applied prospectively only. Finally, a high percentage of cases are resolved by agreement between the parties. Howell did not involve such an agreement and it is likely that courts will continue to rightfully enforce agreements between the parties the court, without such agreement, would be unable to impose upon them. A matter of enforcing contracts. Similar to the ability of courts to enforce contractual provisions for payment of a child’s college expense even though the court could not order such expenses without an agreement.”
Source: http://www.camplejeuneglobe.com/news/supreme-court-weighs-in-on-military-divorce/article_45575260-40a0-11e7-a742-af202dda7cf4.html