The Gun Counter

I'll let you decide. This is the second time I've had a law classmate, both times a woman, whine and cry over my debate style being too "mean" and confrontational. If you guys think she's right, I'll tone it down. So far, none of the professors, male or female, in several classes have had a problem with me and my style. If anything, they seem bemused...

The assignment:
After reading Chapters 1 and 2 in your textbook, Written Lectures 1 and 2 and PowerPoints for Chapters 1 & 2, answer, and then discuss with your classmates, the following:

1. A newspaper article, from the Richmond Register, states as follows: "Anyone looking for a divorce in Louisville with no major settlement issues (i.e., uncontested) and $20 has an easier option to end a marriage. The Jefferson Circuit Court Clerk's office is offering a do-it-yourself divorce packet. The packets, created by the clerk, the Legal Aid Society of Louisville, Family Court, and the Louisville Bar Association, are aimed at giving people access to a divorce when they can't afford the . . . attorneys' fees. . . . The packets allow a divorcing couple. . . to divorce without attorneys or possibly even setting foot in a courtroom. The idea grew out of people seeking quicker cheaper divorces by going online and downloading self-help divorce packets off the Internet, sometimes costing hundreds of dollars, only to find out the documents weren't usable in Kentucky. . ." .
What do you think of this procedure? What are the "pros" and "cons" of such a procedure? Do you think that other circuits should adopt this procedure?

2. Next, find at least two (2) Kentucky Internet sites that contain information on Kentucky Family/Domestic Relations law (post links to your sites). Then, tell what information/material is on each site and what you like, or dislike, about each site. Find sites that your classmates have not already found. Finally, go to some of the sites that your classmates have found and tell what you think of those sites.

My post:
Fill Up And A Divorce?
Collapse

It practically seems that way, I know. Many of my classmates have addressed concerns, rightfully so, of the downside of this packet being available. I believe that many of them are mistakenly arguing from the standpoint of their own moral or religious code, rather than the Law. I do not believe it is government's place to restrain people from exercising their rights simply to keep them from making questionable decisions regarding their own lives. As with all of us, my opinion comes from the bias of my own experience.
My ex-wife and I were married when I was 23 and she was 20. 9 years later, with three kids and a reasonable amount of property, we realized we were two different people and should no longer be together. We negotiated and filled out our own divorce paperwork over our kitchen table, hired a lawyer to review it before filing, then filed. I realize that divorce is often contentious with complicated issues of custody, visitation, support, and the dividing of property to consider. When that is the case, a divorce lawyer is always available. This packet is not putting them in any danger of going out of business. As long as there are divorces, there will be plenty of work for the divorce lawyer.
However, there are also many couple such as Jessica and I. Though we might arguably be in the minority, we do exist. Obviously, there is a significant market demand or private groups such as Pre-Paid Legal and others would not exist. People have the right to a divorce, just as they have a right to get married. Given that, if these services are going to exist, far better for there to be an affordable remedy compiled by not only experts, but the same experts who will be processing this divorce.
For some of my classmates who have offered up moral or religious arguments in opposition to easy divorce, I respectfully invite you to get over it. We do not live in a Theocracy. What may not, according to some, be moral or religously correct can still be perfectly legal, such as the case of same sex marriage.
Marriage is a right. Divorce is a right. If a citizen wishes to get married to get a green card, take grandpappy's bank account, or some other nefarious reason, eliminating an easy avenue to divorce is not going to prevent them going forward with such a crime. I do say crime, as both situations I mentioned are already illegal, if caught and proven. Attempting to make it "double-plus illegal" by making divorce harder and more expensive is not only fated to fail, it simply puts an undue burden on others of limited means who want out of a toxic relationship. Furthermore, it is not the place of the judicial system to put additional hurdles in front of people in an ill-fated attempt to anticipate and correct every possible bad decision a free adult may wish to make.
At this point, many of the best websites have been taken, but I did manage to find a couple that I thought were relevant.
The Kentucky Coalition Against Domestic Violence has a page on their site with explanations of the process, plus links to other resources. I like this as a possible starting point for someone looking for the basics of how a divorce in Kentucky works.
https://kcadv.org/resources/laws/custody-divorce
In addition, this website seems to be a one-stop place for someone wishing to complete their Kentucky divorce entirely online. I like that it seems to be entirely online and convenient. I dislike it for the same reason. Caveat Emptor!
https://www.completecase.com/online-div ... ce-papers/

As for the websites offered by my classmates, I haven't found any that are completely useless. The websites sponsored by the government or advocacy groups such as the Coalition Against Domestic Violence, seem to have the most useful information.

Her Response:
I have to admit, and I think that I can speak for many others in the class, that your whole perception on this argument has me perplexed. Yes, I agree that what happens behind two consenting adults’ closed door is 100% their business. That was proven in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). However, what I think many will agree is off with your argument is the concept that the government nor the court system have any “business” poking their noses into the marriages and divorces of individuals. Heterosexual or same-sex couples alike. You talk endlessly about the right that we should have to do the paperwork and file it ourselves to save expense, but you seem to be neglecting to look at the fact that to have that right, and the right as it stands now, the government and the little people that make it up had to compose, edit, vote, and then ultimately enact that right. Therefore, the government has played the main and most crucial role in the formation of marriage and divorce since its beginning.
Secondly, to exercise this right (you know, the one the government gave us), the courts, through the judicial system must be a part of the process to . . . yep, you guessed it . . . process the request. In this respect, I also found it odd that you spoke about all of these “experts” that will help process the divorce. The whole point of the do-it-yourself packet is that there are no experts in the process. Those are the people that are being eliminated by “doing it yourself.” The packet will be processed by somebody at . . . yep, you guessed it again . . . the courthouse by the people who work for the courts. They will be nobody any different than the one who takes your picture for your driver’s license, payment for your car registration, so on and so forth.
Likewise, I have to admit that I even further don’t understand how you can call having people take the long way for a divorce is a “double-plus illegal” concept. That is the current standard and it is in no way illegal. So, how would it turn?
I think that it is wonderful that you and your ex-wife were able to sit down, over the kitchen table, and work out what you needed to do. Not many are that lucky. As you said yourself, and you should keep in mind when arguing your point, you and Jessica are in the minority of people going through a divorce, especially with kids, which can do that.
From most of the posts that I have read so far, the main argument has nothing to do with morals or religious views, but more so over ensuring things such as accuracy, safety, the ability to fully comprehend the process, eliminating fraudulent or forced filings, etc. I know that Jim and I discussed the old fashioned values that we hold when it comes to people just randomly divorcing at the drop of a hat, but even at that if somebody does want to go every week for a new divorce to somebody they obviously just married within that week’s timeframe, then you are imposing and asking the courts to step into your business twice a week. Once to get the marriage, and a second time to get the divorce. So, honestly, I’m really not sure how you can think that the government or the judicial system cannot play a role in what they are doing.
As for your websites.
I agree that the Kentucky Coalition for Domestic Violence website is an excellent resource, but I firmly disagree that for a simple divorce it should be the place to look for advice unless you are the victim of domestic violence. It's purpose is to help victims of domestic violence get free from the dangerous situation, and should only be used for that purpose.
As for completcases.com, yes, it does look like a good, basic site that can give information needed. However, if you look further into it, it is actually a for-profit site that seeks to get you to do the online divorce that the article in this prompt warned us about not actually being legal.

My Rebuttal:
I imagine you might speak for many others if they also read my post and failed to comprehend the actual points I made. In fact, it seems as if you rushed through it, because your conclusions bear very little relation to what I actually wrote.
First, I would suggest a refresher of American History and basic Civics. Our rights, according to the founders, are not "given" to us by government. They are natural rights given by God. The Bill of Rights, for instance, grants nothing. It simply spells out what, again according to the founders, is pre-existing. It was assumed that later, more totalitarian versions of our government might try and corrupt this. That is why Jefferson explicitly stated that each generation would have to rewin its liberties and that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of tyrants and patriots." In other words, when people have a "mother may I" approach to government having to approve everything they do, it's time for another revolution. Some would argue we are close to that point.
Secondly, government being involved in marriage is a fairly recent phenomenon. HIstorically, it was a matter of the Church (at that time, the Catholic church). Why is the government now involved in marriage contracts? Expansion of power, which is government's natural tendency, plus additional sources of revenue (license fees, divorce filing fees, an entire industry of mediators, divorce lawyers, additional government clerks, judges, etc.).
Your additional point about wondering why "experts" would need to be involved. Because not needing an attorney with you every step of the way is not the same as having a little helpful, inexpensive guidance by the very same people who will actually be making your divorce happen. I find it far preferable to using one of the for-profit services that issue you forms that may not even be legal for use in Kentucky. And yes, of course there will be experts involved in the process. The same professionals who file and process this paperwork every day. The same judges that must sign off on the divorce, assuming everything is filled out correctly. Those experts. Frankly, your assertion that there are no experts in the field involved in processing even a do it yourself divorce is so confounding, I was momentarily at a loss of how to even respond.
I never wrote that taking the long way to divorce was making anything "double-plus illegal." I wrote that making people take the long way in order to prevent a crime which is already illegal and already has criminal penalties, is essentially burdening those who want the fast route and that crime isn't detered by making something illegal, "double-plus illegal" by attaching additional barriers. Crooks will always find a way.
As for thinking the goverment and judicial system cannot play a role, I never said they couldn't. They obviously already do. My point was that I don't believe they should and most definitely not to the level you proposed.
I realize we are all really busy and I love your spirit of debate. I'm really not trying to come across as a jerk, but I urge you to take the time to thoroughly read my post again. You seem to have missed every major point I made entirely. After review, please post again. I'll be glad to debate any challenge to any points I have actually made.
Now, as to the websites. I'm not thrilled with them, either. By the time I posted, many of the best ones I found were already cited by others. The early worm and all that.

Her Butthurt:
My jaw is just on the floor right now. You said in the introductions that you liked to get people fired up and have debates, and I think that is great, but from what I have seen so far it appears that you do it only for the purpose to attack individuals, and demean their understanding or knowledge. Especially those with a different opinion than you hold. You have differing opinions than others, I get that, but you are all over the place with your comments. Sometimes even altering your point of view, or so it seems, in what comes across as an effort to provoke a response. Or better yet, it feels like you want to just simply fight. I personally will not interact with that, but will do what is required to benefit the “client” in this type of setting. The “client” being the class.
As for my response, first, I read your post several times. In fact you can basically follow my flow along with the flow of yours so that I hit the main points of what YOU came across with. My knowledge, experience, and ability is vast, and I do not appreciate it being attacked in the negative ways that you have. It was a personal attack, and there was no reason for that. It’s an opinion, not a debate of who is smarter. Just because I question your opinion in a way that hopes to elicit a further understanding of an opinion I may not share, or that is presented in a way that on the face of it was confusing TO ME, then it only means the presentation was not what you apparently wanted it to be. It wasn’t an open opportunity to essentially call me stupid. Which is how your response reads.
Now, second, I say “came across” simply because I feel that you need to step back and take into consideration how what you are saying appears from the outside looking in. The written word is often hard to convey our true intent from the simplest of meanings to the most complex of thoughts. Might I recommend the approach of outside-looking-in when re-reading your responses before submitting them? How would you feel being talked to like that? Ask, “Will this propel the cause (case) or hinder an ability to find a common ground or understanding?” Maybe we want to simply understand your point of view, not that it will change our minds, and this is your chance to better address it. Who knows you could win somebody over to your “way of thinking.”
Third, and finally, (and in following one of the main concepts of TQM, I come to you directly first) please refrain from making attacks about a person’s character, ability, knowledge, belief, etc. This particular post is an opinion-based response, and even though you appear to ride a fence only to fall to whichever side causes the most controversy, even if it contradicts a statement you have made elsewhere, it is counterproductive to the group’s effort of working and learning together. And most of all, just a lack of respect for your teammates (another key ingredient of TQM).
We will clash at times, but at no time (especially based on TQM) does the team have good quality management if the team’s quality consists of any form of degradation.
In conclusion, I apologize in advance for whipping out the mother attitude with you, but felt that (again, following TQM) we needed to nip this right away to avoid complications in the future for working toward what is best for each of us in the “client’s case.” We have to work together in this class, Ms. Murphy has made that abundantly clear, or each of us will suffer, and approaching others with a condescending and superior appearance will only hurt our team. Hopefully we can work together from this point on to ensure a productive and mutually respectful atmosphere conducive to learning and benefiting each other.
With the utmost respect,
Liz

My response:
I'm sincerely sorry if you were offended, but your response made it clear you misunderstood my post. I clearly documented that, point by point, in my response. In fact, if that isn't apparent upon reading it, I'm at a loss. I simply can't break it down any easier.
I'm a little taken aback by what you perceive as a personal attack. The fact that your opinion flies in the face of basic Civics or the documented thoughts and intent of the founding fathers? Well, it does. If pointing that out embarrasses you or seems "mean," that is beyond my control. I also can't help how you are reading between the lines of my posts. That is a personal issue. Frankly, it is also beyond my control. Directly calling you a name is a personal attack. Rebutting your argument by pointing out an apparent deficit in your background knowledge or education is an observation.
I'll be blunt, I hold you no ill will, but your form of debate seems to be emotion first, facts second. You also seem to be, my opinion here, very sensitive. I'm not going to ignore what I see to be weak or feelings-based arguments for the sake of sparing feelings.
I invite you to give me an example of how any of my rebuttal was a personal attack. If your sensitivity is such that you take it that way, let me point out that law is an adversarial discipline. If you do go on to law school, I would imagine that a judge would be hesitant to grant an objection based upon "opposing counsel is being a big meanie" or over hurt feelings in general. It's worth considering.
As for TQM, I am very familiar with it, both in education and in business. It hit its hayday in the 90s, but there is now considerable data questioning its actual effectiveness and many organizations are moving away from it.
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/managem ... -essay.php
also
http://www.academia.edu/8581485/Why_Tot ... ment_Fails.
However, it is still in use, is preferred by our professor, and this course was apparently designed around it, at least in part, so it is the system we will use. However, especially given strong, educated opinions to the contrary regarding its usefullness, I'm not simply going to put my intellect on hold for the sake of TQM, as if it were some religion and we were it's adherents.
If Dr. Murphy has a problem with my methods, I'm sure she will address them with me in due course. As for working together, I'll point out that I've had several classes now with many of the people in this class. None of them has had a problem with my style of debate. Rather, they come back and give as good as they get. Some of them I generally agree with. Others generally hold a different opinion and are not shy about saying so. Have we had some epic clashes? You bet! Have I ever heard complaints about lack of respect from any of them? Not even once.
In closing, I want to state again that I am sincerely sorry if your feelings are hurt. I do apologize for that. I do not apologize for poking holes in a poorly constructed response based on misreading and misunderstanding my original points. That is not lack of respect. A lack of respect would be ignoring it because I believed you couldn't take the rebuttal or criticism.

Let's have it...

No.

I didn't think so, but I can be as deluded as the next person. Thanks for the reality check.

She has to make it personal to win because she isn’t going to beat you on points. It’s a tactic, and one she has probably used successfully in the past.

Is that what passes for educated debate these days? You're not an asshole, she's a mouth-breathing oxygen thief. Opinion-based? No, it's an opinion, based on FACTS.

Why the hell is that a debate in a law school? That makes no damn sense. Family law is involved, and complicated enough, if you just stick to being lawyers.

You're completely wrong about the State's involvement in marriage being recent, by the way.

Rule 1 in law, all of the most useless things ever said in a legal setting, begin, "In my opinion"

Out of a class of 27, we have three snowflakes. One is a failed nurse, one is a failed elementary teacher, one is a mangina who is trying to get in the pants of the failed nurse, though he does have ten years experience as a private investigator. The drama continues...

Me:
If we want to play the "what if" game, what if a flaming meterorite came crashing down on top of the courthouse just as you were picking up the packet? This is a guideline and a tool, nothing more. It isn't intended to cover every eventuality anymore than having an attorney ensures that you have chosen someone competent. Shawna's ex-husband's attorney ended up being disbarred over her mishandling of their divorce, so in that case, he would have been better served by using the packet instead of a lawyer.
Like other documents provided by the government, should there be significant changes to the law, I'm sure they would stop issuing the packets until they were updated. That is no reason to deny people a useful avenue. If nothing else, I can see the packets being a useful starting point for the couple to educate themselves on the particulars of what is required. Even if they do end up seeking counsel, they will be better able to make sure the lawyer is promoting their best interests from having had the benefit of the information in the packet.
I know clerks aren't supposed to offer legal advice, but my experience in dealing with the clerks in Fayette County is that they all too often do. There is at least one who freely gives advice, to the point of refusing to accept some documents because she doesn't think they will be approved and she doesn't want to waste the judge's time. That lady is a nightmare waiting to happen for that court.
As for patience being a virtue, I would argue that sometimes haste is called for. If you are having signs of a heart attack, not wanting to clog up the ER and waiting until your doctor's office opened the next morning would be the opposite of a virtue. Furthermore, it is presumptuous to assume everyone has time and money to drag out a divorce. I trust adults to know their situation better than a random government functionary. I believe in free will. Given that, there is no compelling reason to deny this service and information to those who want it.

Butthurt #2
I never said to deny the packets or to completely stop their use. I just merely stated my reservations regarding them. Obviously, the packet will not include everything but people will have questions that cannot be answered without conducting research, which some may not have the time to to do (remember it’s presumptuous to assume everyone has the time). The packets are a great tool and have proven to successful, i.e Shawna. In regards to legal clerks, it is one thing for them to state that a petition or form is in the wrong format and needs to be fixed before it’s submitted to the court, however it is completely different for them to give someone advice on what to do. You should know that they may believe they know the law but they have not studied it or are legally qualified to practice law. It is completely unethical for a clerk to tell someone what to do for their situation. It’s great to know that you know what a medical emergency is and that it’s better to be seen by a doctor immediately than to wait to make an appointment. People who are seeking a divorce know their own situation and how much time they want to spend on a divorce. If they want a speedy divorce that is fine, but if one wants it to be extremely thorough it might be better to take some time with it.

Just to reiterate, I never said to deny people the packets. People can choose whichever avenue they want to use to get a divorce. My reservations have no affect on them.

Lastly, the condescending approach used to disagree with me is completely unnecessary. Disagree with me all you want but this is proper discussion.


Me:
I notice that your first field was elementary education. I have K-12 certification and my first job was teaching Kindergarten. Might I "gently" suggest, without being condescending, that you are liable to encounter more conflict in the field of law than you did in elementary education and everyone isn't necessarily going to be "nice," when things are contentious, deadlines are looming, and lots of money may be at stake. Perhaps a thickening of the skin might be something you want to consider.

In other words, the first time you are late with a motion for an attorney's review, with high stakes at risk in the case, you may find my reactions to be "mild."

Of the couple of you who have had a problem with my confrontational style, a first I've encountered in this program by the way, few of you have what I would call real-life experience in fields which are high stress or involve conflict. Since we are now discussing the personal, by your choice, if you can't handle a strong challenge to your worldview, maybe another discipline might be better suited for you. Just my observation, take it or leave it. As always, the real world will be the ultimate judge.

The peacemaker:
I think what Elizabeth is trying to say is that the way you answer some of the other classmates posts comes across very condescending and obnoxious.
I do not want to accuse you of meaning it that way at all!! Sometimes we write something in the heat of a discussion not realizing how it can come across. Especially, when it is over the internet.

Also, many classmates rather decide to ignore it, when they feel insulted. It’s an online class and we all just want to finish our assignments and get good grades.

Again, you might mean absolutely no harm in any way, but some of your replies may come across a little more argumentative and wanting to be right, instead of having a discussion.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion! Let’s just consider other people’s feelings, even if we don’t agree with them or believe someone is too sensitive.

I wish you all the best for this class and I mean absolutely no disrespect.

Me:
I understand completely where you are coming from. However...
If just moving on and getting your grade is your prime motivation, I feel sorry for your future clients. I'm here to get an in depth understanding and master this material. With a 4.0 in this program, clearly my strategy hasn't led me astray so far. Ignore me if you want. It matters not to me. You won't have the same option when you run into someone like me as opposing counsel. If you aren't prepared for confrontation, good luck to you. The field of Law may prove very stressful and difficult.
Lest you think me closeminded, I'm not so set in my thinking that I don't realize I can have blind spots like anyone else. Since I'm acquainted with several well-known local attorneys, names you would probably recognize, some of whom I've known since high school, I've already asked for a few to give me their take. The unanimous opinion has been that the active practice of law is not for the hypersensitive.
This last is just my opinion, but like I have observed with former students of mine over the years, real life is going to hit some of you very hard.

The Mangina. In his reponse, he apparently thinks, despite having been an investigator for ten years, that we can completely eliminate domestic violence and that it is "sad" if you think that is not possible.

Mangina:
My Spidey Senses are tingling with this approach to the “quickie divorce”. Perhaps, I am letting my age interfere with the wheels of Justice, but when we cut corners to the point where we can erase a marriage with a quick trip to the clerk’s office, are we sending the right message? Please don’t think I am being insensitive. I completely understand some of the pros mentioned and believe that the burden of court dockets and the time and resources saved to all involved would be a benefit. However, is it always about the money or the time involved?
Perhaps some of my cons will shed light on my old school opinions. I worry the vetting process for couples wanting a fast dissolution may lack the appropriate levels of review. For instance, who will authorize or verify the willingness of both parties, if one party is threatening another into the quick divorce, is a clerk standing on the other side of the counter going to be able to pick up on the signs? Perhaps if both parties have fair and reasonable representation they can avoid further victimization.
I realize we need to remove our personal convictions but I am also concerned that this quick fix may allow for other abuses. Would this option allow less then honorable people to take advantage of those already suffering. It may be a stretch of my imagination but what would prevent people from getting married and then promptly divorced to allow a friend to share their heath care coverage for an upcoming procedure. Or even worse, the criminal who advertises they will wed for a fee to assist with immigration or other legal issues. The lawyers and all of the other resources in the legal field exist for a reason, to protect us.
Anyway, thanks for reading this far and I apologize if I came across as insensitive, but I am always concerned when we cut corners that the end product (in this case people) are the ones that suffer.

Me:
I understand your concerns regarding domestic violence and intimidation. Every clerk is different. I know that in Fayette County, the authorities there were very diligent in making sure that I wasn't abusing Jessica or coercing her into anything. In fact, they were so assumptive and militant about it that they seemed disappointed that I wasn't. I realize that other clerks may not be as perceptive. Coercion and other forms of domestic violence do happen, but they are already illegal. There are countless resources available for someone in that situation.
In short, it's an imperfect world. Domestic violence still occurs and always will. I don't really see this as being a factor in a majority of these cases or see it as such a compelling concern that it justifies denying others this remedy when they desire it.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, much of your argument seems to be towards protecting people from their naivety or plain old bad decisions. That really isn't the purpose of the law or government. For instance, a contract lacking the necessary elements can be voided in court. It can't be voided simply because someone is a sucker and agreed to a bad deal. I'm firmly in favor of government being used to keep the wheels of society greased and not as a nanny to save people from their bad decisions. Let adults be adults and decide for themselves if this is for them.
Regarding your concerns over this being used to facilitate criminal behavior, such as health insurance fraud or immigration fraud, those are already illegal. When caught, they are punished accordingly. That happens with or without a DIY divorce packet. Your logic that this may lead to these crimes being more easily committed doesn't quite make sense. A divorce lawyer serves one purpose. Faciitating the divorce of his/her client. I've never heard of a divorce lawyer vetting their clients to insure they are not dissolving the marriage for purposes of committing a crime.
In other words, a divorce lawyer is not an investigator. It is also questionable that someone willing to go to the trouble of marriage and divorce for such purposes is going to be dissuaded by not being able to fill out their own divorce paperwork. This is not a compelling argument for burdening those who desire access to this information and possible path to divorce.
Your view seems to be in favor of denying this service in order to prevent crimes which are already illegal, at the expense of inconveniencing the public at large. By the same logic, we should require breathalyzers on all vehicles in the US because, despite severe criminal penalty, some still choose to drive drunk. To put it politely, we have a different view of how proactive government should be in this arena.
In closing, it wouldn't surprise me if this packet was actually a good advertisement for obtaining legal counsel. I'm sure many laymen and laywomen leaf through it, realize they are in over their head, and seek out the nearest divorce lawyer.

Mangina:
I have an issue with your comment, " it's an imperfect world. Domestic violence still occurs and always will." That is a sad position to have. I agree that domestic violence occurs and it occurs to often, but it is a form of violence that can be eradicated. It is not a disease or a plague, it is an act of violence and can be eliminated with education and enforcement. Just because it took place in the past doesn't mean we should accept it today.
You are also, wrong, on my stance, "correct me if I'm wrong, much of your argument seems to be towards protecting people from their naivety or plain old bad decisions. " First off, I do not argue, I discuss. Secondly, I never called anyone naive or accused them of making, "plain old bad decisions". In my posting. I explained my positions as being concerned that the process offered is flawed and not to my liking. Big difference.
I also noticed in your response to my posting you mentioned that, health insurance fraud and immigration fraud are already illegal and that those offenses will happen whether this process is enacted or not. That of course is a completely obvious statement, much like if I were to inform you the sun will rise tomorrow. I suspect you may have again misunderstood my stance. Of course those offenses are illegal, but that doesn't mean we should create avenues for others to abuse the system or victimize others. In my original post, I simply voiced that I was concerned the process created and described has vetting issues that should be secured.
You have another poor choice of words in your comment, " A divorce lawyer serves one purpose." I hope you do not really feel that way. You also have misunderstood my stance that if a party has a lawyer to assist in their divorce, that they are, "vetting their clients to insure they are not dissolving the marriage for purposes of committing a crime." My point is, people would be better getting an attorney to help and protect them. Pure and simple. An attorney has more then one purpose, just as a Doctor, Judge, police officer or parent has more than one purpose.
And finally, you suggest I am denying service to "the public at large" and that my suggestion of a vetting process to minimize abuses is the equivalent of installing breathalysers in automobiles. I would never compare the emotional pain of a divorce with getting behind the wheel of an automobile after having a few to many. Please.

Me:
All it takes for domestic violence to continue is for one person to decide to commit it. When you come up with a method of controlling everyone's behavior, all the time, I'll concede your point. Until then, my bet is for the docket of domestic violence cases to continue. I must admit I'm impressed by your idealism, but a bit surprised. I spent a relatively short time in law enforcement and saw enough for a lifetime. With over a decade of investigative experience, I guess I expected a more realistic view of human behavior, sad or not. If you do figure out such a method, please apply it to murder and rape, both of which have documented existence since biblical times.
Thank you for clarifying your positions in your response. The first was vaguely written and easy to misunderstand. I'm glad some of my assumptions were wrong.

The "What if the law changes?" argument is completely specious to anyone with experience with large bureaucracies. I spent 20 years as an Army officer (and the Army and DoD are the biggest bureaucracies around). Every form I can remember always had a note, usually somewhere in the footer, that read "Edition of mm/dd/yyyy; all previous editions obsolete." It does require a small amount of competence by the courthouse to know what the current edition is, but that's their job.

As a cop, I know that the law changes, and it's part of my job to know what the changes are and when they take effect. Every two years (the Texas legislature only meets in regular session every odd year), every cop in my department gets a new copy of the big law book. The part relevant to us are the Code of Criminal Procedure, Penal Code, Transportation Code, and Health and Safety Code (where you find the drug laws in Texas). And pretty much all of the laws, when the Legislature changes them, will have an entry that reads something like "[Until Sept 1, 2018]: the law is this. [From 1 Sept 2018]: The law is that." It's a reasonable assumption that any changes to whatever section of the law governs marriage and divorce looks similar. And it would be part of the job description of the county clerks, and whatever group/agency publishes to packets to know what the changes were, update the packets accordingly, and ensure that the changes were published to the relevant people.