Legal Reboot 4: Arizona

Non-Monogamy and the Law

Review of Arizona

Simple Bigamy	No Adultery	No Fornication
State Category: Friendly

Bigamy:

Issue and Rule:

            This is an assessment of the legal liability that non-monogamous families encounter through Arizona’s bigamy law. The primary rule governing bigamy in Arizona is statute 13-3606 ³ governing the individual with multiple marriages, and 13-3607⁸ governing the individual whom marries someone who’s already married. Punishments are governed by rules 13-702⁶ (imprisonment) and 13-801⁴ (fines).

            Analysis:

            Arizona’s bigamy law is very explicit about only impacting those who have an actual marriage, there is no purportation or cohabitation clause in Arizona’s bigamy law^{3, 8}. Arizona case law also provides some clarity to what they define as a marriage, indicating that a signed document is required for a marriage to be official, though submitting that document to the state isn’t a requirement¹⁰.

            Though the state cannot act directly on non-monogamous families, due to these provisions, if the individual has a state position with authority regarding the law that agency can dismiss said individual for non-monogamous behavior².

            In the event that a bigamous marriage actually exists and is prosecuted on, punishment can range from ½ a year to a year and a half of imprisonment⁶, as well as a fine of up to $150,000⁴.

            Assessment:

            Because of the strict interpretation of a marriage, liability for non-monogamous families under bigamy is minimal, with only an actual second marriage creating liability. Provided that a second actual marriage can be avoided, direct impact is nonexistent. Unfortunately this doesn’t extend to jobs which require a non-monogamist to uphold the law, as the appearance of non-monogamy can endanger one’s job.

Adultery:

Issue and Rule:

            This is an assessment of the legal liability that non-monogamous families encounter through Arizona’s adultery law. The primary rule governing adultery in Arizona is statute 13-1408¹, with 13-707⁹ (imprisonment) and 13-802⁵ (fines) governing punishment.

            Analysis:

            Adultery in Arizona is hampered by the state being unable to directly prosecute; an adultery case can only be brought at the behest of the offended spouse¹. Beyond this, only the act of having sex with someone who’s not one’s spouse is required to meet liability under adultery¹, it is not required to have a regular recurring sexual relationship.

            Despite the social stigma around adultery, it cannot, in its own right, be used as evidence of unfit parenthood in child custody cases. It must be demonstrated that the adultery actually had a harmful impact on the children⁷.

            Punishment for adultery allows for up to thirty days of imprisonment⁹ and a fine of up to $500⁵.

            Assessment:

            Though adultery could impact all non-monogamous families, because the state can’t directly prosecute severely limits the potential impact of Arizona’s adultery law. This is especially true given how adultery in itself isn’t sufficient evidence of misconduct. Unfortunately the presence of the law in this format shifts the focus away from the state and on to the members of the non-monogamous family by giving a spouse authority to initiate a prosecution through the state. This can strain these families, even without the direct threat from the state as an outside entity.

Arizona Summary:

            The specificity of Arizona’s bigamy law, and offended spouse requirement of its adultery law create a fairly low direct liability environment for non-monogamists of all varieties. Unfortunately, because of how these laws feed into other situations, such as some state jobs and the pressures that the spouse requirement create, there are strong secondary impacts from Arizona’s laws that can create undue stressors on a non-monogamous family.

            There also does seem to be an inherent conflict between Arizona case law on bigamy, allowing for a state agency to dismiss certain employees based not on them actually violating their bigamy law, but the appearance of such, and Arizona’s adultery law which dismisses adultery as harmful without having evidence as such. The core question at stake here is can these behaviors be used to qualify other, potentially discriminatory, actions? Arizona seems to say that in the case of long-standing non-monogamous sexual relationships as a lifestyle, yes, and in the case of more casual sexual relationships, no. This is an exaggeration, but is also a logical extension of potential arguments based on what law does exist in Arizona on these issues.

Ranking Rationale:

            Arizona’s bigamy law is very straightforward. In only being applicable to certified marriages that have been signed to places it comfortably within the simple category. Adultery is more nuanced however, since the law does exist, but is hampered by the offending spouse requirement. Because Arizona’s adultery law impacts the internal relationship dynamic more than the state’s ability to externally implement it, Arizona is considered to have no adultery law.

1              'Adultery; Classification; Punishment; Limitation on Prosecution', in 13-1408 (USA - Arizona: 2012).

2              'Barlow V. Blackburn Et At.',  (Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department C, 1990), p. 351.

3              'Bigamy; Classification; Exception', in 13-3606 (USA - Arizona: 2012).

4              'Fines for Felonies', in 13-801 (USA - Arizona: 2012).

5              'Fines for Misdemeanors', in 13-802 (USA - Arizona: 2012).

6              'First Time Felony Offenders; Sentencing; Definition', in 13-702 (USA - Arizona: 2012).

7              'Higgins V. Higgins',  (Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department E, 1999), p. 266.

8              'Marrying Spouse of Another; Classification', in 13-3607 (USA - Arizona: 2012).

9              'Misdemeanors; Sentencing', in 13-707 (USA - Arizona: 2012).

10           'State V. Guadagni',  (Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, Department B, 2008), p. 1.

Delay

Hey everyone, got caught up in Hurricane Sandy, long story. Will delay things a bit.

- Jason

Legal Reboot 3: District of Columbia

Author's Note:

Yes, this was a short one, yes I should have done it last week. Life, as they say...

Regardless, it was really nice to read through DC's laws on this. Refreshing change from Alabama and Colorado!

- Jason

------------------

Non-Monogamy and the Law

Review of District of Columbia

Simple Bigamy	No Adultery	No Fornication
State Category: Friendly

Bigamy:
Issue and Rule:
This is an assessment of the legal liability that non-monogamous families encounter through District of Columbia’s (DC) bigamy law. The primary rule governing bigamy in DC is statute 22-501[1], which also covers punishment.

Analysis:
Bigamy is rather narrowly defined in DC, with only marriage, or domestic partnership (an interesting inclusion), applying to the bigamy law, without any explicit cohabitation clause[1]. Based on both case law around the definition of a marriage[3] and statute on the definition of a domestic partnership[2], the question around the validity of these is judged more on their officiality, and not on the individuals acting in a marriage-like way.
Additionally, in bigamy cases, fifth amendment protections apply, and cannot be used as evidence of guilt[3].
The punishment for bigamy is imprisonment for 2 to 7 years[1].

Assessment:
As DC’s bigamy law is very specific that only an officially certified marriage can apply, this leaves room for much more flexibility in how a non-monogamous family structures and interacts. Liability is exceptionally limited, and only applicable in the existence of more than one state-certified marriage.

District of Columbia Summary:
Thanks to DC’s specificity on what defines a marriage, and it being quite narrow, and with the absence of adultery or fornication laws, DC presents almost no liability for non-monogamous families of any configuration. The only concern is in not having two state-certified marriages, which can carry a very hefty penalty. This also applies to domestic partnerships, which is an unusually modern inclusion into the law, but is narrowly defined enough that the law applies in the same way as it would to marriage.

Ranking Rationale:
The simple absence of adultery and fornication laws make ranking in those regards very simple. For bigamy, due to the narrow and specific nature of how marriage and domestic partnerships are looked at, and the lack of a purportation/cohabitation clause, DC fits into the simple bigamy category.


1 'Bigamy', in 22-501 (USA - District of Columbia: 2012).
2 'Definitions', in 32-701 (USA - District of Columbia: 2012).
3 'Mayo V. Ford',  (Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1962), p. 38.

Legal Reboot 2: Colorado

Author's Note:

Yes, out of alphabetical sequence, doing them as I get them (-:

Getting more familiar with EndNote, I like this citation format a lot better! (MHRA)

Colorado's case law on adultery and bigamy is scary short, especially considering the lack of actually listing a punishment for it's adultery law!

Regardless, here it is!

- Jason

-----------------

Non-Monogamy and the Law

Review of Colorado

Aggressive Bigamy	Adultery Present	No Fornication
State Category: Resistant

Bigamy:
Issue and Rule:
This is an assessment of the legal liability that non-monogamous families encounter through Colorado’s bigamy law. The primary rules governing bigamy in Colorado are statutes 18-6-201[2], 18-6-202[6] and 18-6-203[4]. Punishment is governed by statute 18-1.3-401[5].

Analysis:
Colorado bigamy contains a cohabitation clause[2], creating liability if a married individual is cohabiting with another. Because of this, bigamy can bypass common law marriage’s requirement that the couple actually put themselves out as married[3] and can charge on cohabitation directly. There are limits on such a charge, as the couple must act as if they were married[4, 7], but this is vague and undefined within the law, though regular visitations to one’s partner can qualify, but the exact threshold is undefined[7]. This is also applicable regardless of how long the individuals have been cohabiting together[7].
Despite the traditional restriction on one’s spouse testifying against their partner without consent, in Colorado, bigamy is considered an exception to this rule[8], and a married partner may testify against their spouse in such cases.
Punishment for bigamy is as a class 6 felony[2] and is punishable by a fine from $1,000 to $100,000[5].

Assessment:
Colorado’s bigamy law is unusually broad in its application of cohabitation, including marriage-like cohabiting that can occur outside of one’s residence. Because of this, bigamy in Colorado can apply to swingers and open relationships, and will be assessed as such. The cohabitation clause makes things very tricky for non-dyadic families as well (polyamorous and polyfidelitous), as even having separate residences wouldn't be enough to protect against the cohabitation clause.

Adultery:
Issue and Rule:
This is an assessment of the legal liability that non-monogamous families encounter through Colorado’s adultery law. The primary rule governing adultery in Colorado is statute 18-6-501[1].

Analysis:
It should be first noted that adultery has no listed punishment for it in Colorado law, despite existing under the criminal code[1]. It is uncertain what exact liabilities are encountered by non-monogamists from this law. It is clear that adultery is broader than the cohabitation clause for bigamy, requiring only that the couple have any sexual intercourse contact[1] compared to acting as if they were married[7].

Assessment:
Because of the lack of punishment listed for adultery, this makes it challenging to determine liability. Is punishment determined by the jury, the judge? Is there no punishment? Because of how broad adultery is defined, all non-monogamists would be liable under this law, however it is unclear what the exact nature of that liability is.

 Colorado Summary:
Prior to starting the summary, it should be noted that there is a large deficiency of case law supporting Colorado’s adultery and bigamy laws. In reading what case law there is, much opinion was drawn, persuasively, from courts outside of Colorado, and from cases which aren't directly applicable (though still closely related) to their respective laws. This, combined with the lack of punishment information for adultery, makes a complete assessment effectively impossible.
Despite this, some things can be said concretely: Because of the broad definition of cohabitation, most non-monogamous families will be impacted by Colorado’s bigamy law. This may affect swingers to a lesser degree, as the lack of emotional non-monogamy would likely mean that swingers wouldn't be engaging in ‘marriage-like’ activities with their external partners. If the swinger couple regularly sees the same people, however, this may put them at risk for liability under bigamy.
For non-swinger families, the liability is particularly strong, especially in the case of polyamorous and polyfidelitous families as the multi-partner cohabiting will almost certainly qualify as marriage-like behavior.
Non-married families have an easier time, however caution must be used as common law marriage is applicable if the family is putting themselves out in any way as being married. If an unmarried family is recognized to have a common law marriage, all of the above liabilities apply to them.

Ranking Rationale:
Despite Colorado’s adultery law having no indicated punishment, it is listed as being fully present due to the broad definition of cohabitation for bigamy. Because of this expanded definition, bigamy is listed as being aggressive.
As there is no fornication law, and unmarried families would need to actually put themselves out as married, fornication is not considered to be present.


1 'Adultery', in 18-6-501 (USA - Colorado: 2012).
2 'Bigamy', in 18-6-201 (USA - Colorado: 2012).
3 'Davis V. The People',  (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1928), p. 295.
4 'Definitions', in 18-6-203 (USA - Colorado: 2012).
5 'Felonies Classified - Presumptive Penalties', in 18-1.3-401 (USA - Colodaro: 2012).
6 'Marrying a Bigamist', in 18-6-202 (USA - Colorado: 2012).
7 'The People V. Bright',  (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1925), p. 563.
8 'Schell V. The People',  (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1918), p. 116.

Legal Reboot 1: Alabama

Author's Note:

Welcome to the first proper reboot of Non-Monogamy and the Law! This is due thanks to the big help of the Modern Poly folks (http://modernpoly.com/) for pouring through case law and helping me find the relevant stuff! Thanks to them I feel a lot more comfortable with what I'm writing than I did with what I had before. There's still grey areas, but a lot less of them (-:

So, before I get into the actual review, a few clarifying points:

I'm still using the same definitions for Swingers, Open Relationships, Polyamory and Polyfidelity as I've been using. No changes there. If you're not familiar with them, I recommend reviewing my post on my assessment models, found here, with the details behind the family structures written about here.

I have made a few tweaks to the state categories, they are now as follows:

Category	Fornication	Adultery	Bigamy
Friendly	None	None	Simple
Closed	None	Present	Simple
Unfriendly	Present	Present	Simple
Aggressive	None	None	Aggressive
Resistant	None	Present	Aggressive
Hostile	Present	Present	Aggressive

This is a labeling change so it makes a tad more sense to what I'm trying to point to with these categories. I may re-do them again in the future, but the basic idea is the same. Details about the old system are here, with the following changes:

(Category) Unfriendly is now Closed, Aggressive is now Unfriendly, Dyadic is now Aggressive

(Bigamy) Dyadic is now Aggressive.

Regarding inchoate offences. The laws on the various states are all over the place on this one, however the aggregate impact in almost all states is basically the same: the whole family shares (to at least some degree) the liability of the person being charged. I may write on these issues specifically at some point, but that's a project for another day. For the purpose of these reviews assume that the family shares liability.

In talking about liability, also find that I'm writing a lot less about punishment here. I'll list the basics, but if there's aggregating conditions I won't really go into those. Most of them are special condition so I won't go into them.

On updates: Yes I said I'd have something for you last weekend. I got the bigamy review done last weekend but didn't have time for the adultery and summary review. It looks like that'll have to be the rhythm I do this in, 1-3 weeks to complete a review (depending on the complexity of the case law).

Lastly, I'm using EndNote for citation now, expect it to be a bit sloppier, but it makes tracking this stuff and writing a lot easier. I'll work with the program to see if I can get it a bit clearer, but for the time being you'll see issues with statutes that have the same year.

Without further adieu, I present:

Non-Monogamy and the Law

Review of Alabama

Aggressive Bigamy	Adultery Present	No Fornication
State Category: Resistant

Bigamy:

Issue and Rule:
This is an assessment of the legal liability that non-monogamous families encounter through Alabama’s bigamy law. The primary rule governing bigamy in Alabama is code 13A-13-1 (1977), with codes 13A-5-6 (1977) and 13A-5-11 (1977) governing punishment.

Analysis:

            Alabama’s bigamy does contain a purportation clause, though there are criteria for purportation to be applicable. This is done through Alabama recognizing marriage through common law under the following criteria: 1) both parties to the marriage identify each other as married, 2) both parties of the marriage intend for their marriage to be long-lasting, and 3) there is an indeterminate amount of cohabitation between both parties (1875). As long as these conditions are met, no official records are required to show a marriage exists (1857).

Additionally, it is allowable to infer from facts that there was a ceremonial marriage if there was otherwise no direct evidence as such (1927). This can also work the other way, allowing for divorce to be inferred from facts, however this is strongly discouraged (1927). Normally the burden of proof for divorce falls upon the defendant(s), and the state is not required to submit proof that there was no divorce (1927).

As is standard-fare of bigamy laws, marriages made out-of-state are treated with equal caliber as those from in-state, though for out-of-state marriages the rules in the certifying jurisdiction are used to establish marriage legitimacy (1941). Additionally, if a marriage is invalid at the time it is initially entered into, it becomes valid if the conditions prohibiting it are removed and the parties are still cohabiting and purporting marriage (1953).

Alabama does have an out-of-state statute of limitation on prosecuting Bigamy of three years from the time the relationship began. The family does need to be residing out of state for this to be applicable (1997).

Punishment for bigamy is as a class C felony (1977) and is liable for between 1 and 10 years of imprisonment (1977) and a fine up to $15,000 (1977).

Assessment:
As Alabama’s bigamy law effects only the actuality or appearance of marriage, liability is generally not extended to swingers and open relationships. Potential liability can exist for polyamorous and polyfidelitous families regardless of possessing a legal marriage, depending on how the family members refer to each other. Neutral terms such as ‘partner’ are unlikely to provoke liability, whereas ‘spouse’ and ‘husband & wife’ are much more likely to provoke liability. Additionally, because cohabitation is a condition for purportation, non-cohabiting may diminish or eliminate liability.

Adultery:

Issue and Rule:
This is an assessment of the legal liability that non-monogamous families encounter through Alabama’s adultery law. The primary rule governing adultery is Alabama code 13A-13-2 (1977), with codes 13A-5-7 (1977) and 13A-5-12 (1977) governing punishment.

Analysis:

            Prior to embarking on this analysis, it should be noted that case law regarding adultery is almost exclusively limited to civil issues around divorce, and as such the court is not jurisdictionally bound to the decisions of these cases in the event of a criminal proceeding. Because of the deficiency of criminal case law around adultery, however, it is likely that the civil case law would prove extremely persuasive should a criminal issue arise. As such, unless otherwise noted, civil adultery case law will be treated as if it had criminal jurisdictional applicability.

Despite that Alabama’s adultery statute includes a cohabitation clause, this is not interpreted as actual cohabitation with one’s paramour, but instead as having regular encounters with one’s paramour (1991).

Adultery may also be proven under circumstantial evidence, though this must go beyond just suspicion (1991) and/or testimony of the offended party (2006). Though this is perhaps the weakest point of case law, as this civil law criteria may not translate to criminal law, which requires evidence to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ instead of being the most likely possibility.

In non-adultery cases, however, Fifth Amendment protection can be legitimately used by both the person accused and their paramours (1982) to not testify on the relationship. Also, using Fifth Amendment protection in this fashion cannot be seen as evidence supporting or rejecting adultery (1992). Again, this is only applicable in cases where adultery is not the matter being tried on, such as a divorce case.

Additionally, Alabama statute 30-2-3 (1852) provides conditions where divorce is applicable to adultery, albeit this only removes adultery as a reason for divorce if there is a successful reconciliation between the adulterer and the offended spouse (1989). It is additionally unclear how applicable this would be for criminal cases (compared to civil case law), as this is a civil statute, unlike adultery which is a criminal statute.

Punishment for adultery is as a class B misdemeanor (1977) and is liable for up to 6 months imprisonment (1977) and a fine up to $3,000 (1977).

Assessment:

            Because Alabama’s adultery cohabitation goes beyond just cohabitation, it is effectively like other adultery laws, and as such all forms of non-monogamy that contain a marriage in them are covered by this law. As evidence for adultery can be circumstantial, liability decreases as exposure decreases.

Due to the allowance of circumstantial evidence, liability may be higher for swingers than for other family forms. Due to the stronger emotional connection with paramours in non-swinger families there is more likely a stronger understanding and mutual co-dependence of liability amongst partners, which decreases the likelihood of a paramour being used as a witness to adultery.

Alabama Summary:

            Due to the co-relational impacts that bigamy and adultery laws create, non-dyadic families suffer under both laws, as bigamy invalidates multi-partner marriage, and adultery makes one liable for partners beyond the state-legitimized marriage. Because of the additional scope of purportation in defining marriage for bigamy, this requires that non-dyadic families show caution around public exposure, as activities like ceremonies and referring to partners if they were married may legitimize a common law marriage. Due to the lack of fornication laws, if a non-dyadic family is careful about presentation & cohabitation, and does not contain a legal marriage, it is possible to have no liability in Alabama while still maintaining the family structure.

Unfortunately the expanded definition of marriage from bigamy may apply to dyadic families as well. If a couple is not legally married (to avoid liability), but cohabits and refers to each other as married, then they would likely be liable under adultery laws. Like with non-dyadic families, careful discretion on outward presentation can minimize liability. This interpretation is contingent on case law from bigamy cases being effectively used persuasively on adultery cases, which, considering the lack of cases applicable to non-monogamous families, is likely to apply.

Ranking Rationale:

            Though Alabama’s bigamy law doesn’t have a proper purportation clause, it is de facto considered to have one because of the expanded definition of marriage. As such Alabama is considered to have an aggressive bigamy law.

Despite the expanded definition of marriage, dyadic families are better able to dodge being identified as married than non-dyadic, so the impact of adultery does not mimic that of a proper fornication law, hence adultery is listed as present, and fornication as not present.

References

(1852). Divorce to be refused where collusion between parties, condonation, etc. 30-2-3. U.S.A.

(1857). Langtry v. State, Supreme Court of Alabama. 30: 536.

(1875). Williams v. State, Supreme Court of Alabama. 54: 131.

(1927). Fuquay v. State, Supreme Court of Alabama. 217: 4.

(1941). Brand et al. v. State, Court of Appeals of Alabama. 30: 322.

(1953). Hampton v. State, Court of Appeals of Alabama. 37: 427.

(1977). Adultery. 13A-13-2. U.S.A., Alabama Legislative Information System Online (ALISON).

(1977). Bigamy. 13A-13-1. U.S.A., Alabama Legislative Information System Online (ALISON).

(1977). Fines for felonies. 13A-5-11. U.S.A. - Alabama.

(1977). Fines for misdemeanors and violations. 13A-5-12. U.S.A.

(1977). Sentences of imprisonment for felonies. 12A-5-6. U.S.A. - Alabama.

(1977). Sentences of imprisonment for misdemeanors and violations. 13-A-5-7. U.S.A.

(1982). Elizabeth O'Neil Hinds v. Joseph Miller Hinds, Jr., Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. 415: 1122.

(1989). Joseph Burfoot Rush v. Barbara Kent Rush, Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. 551: 1075.

(1991). Charles Corley Rowe v. Betty H. Rowe, Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. 575: 584.

(1992). Donald Glenn Langley v. Mitzi G. Langley, Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. 617: 678.

(1997). State v. Thomas Glenn Fulghum, Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. 699: 980.

(2006). Thomas E. Webb v. Carolyn P. Webb, Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. 950: 322.

SB 1476

Hi everyone, no I haven't dissapeared into a black hole, though grad school may be the next closest thing (-: I'm starting to get the rhythm of my schedule figured out, and after reading on all the California excitement on SB 1476, I decided to bring forth my return with an assessment of the bill. It's interesting stuff really.

For those who are curious, I'm going to be getting back into a weekend updating plan, so we'll see how that goes. I've been getting some help from the folks at Modern Poly (http://modernpoly.com/) with the case law review, which so dramatically eases the burden! This may actually be doable!

Anyway, more on that later, for now, I present...

Assessment of California SB 1476:

I'm still not sure I can properly digest the text of SB 1476... And the politics behind it are confusing me even more. After reviewing the CA Senate Rules Committee bill analysis of SB 1476 [1], I'm shocked there's only three organizations listed in opposition, and over a dozen listed in support... This legislation is as politically progressive as I've ever seen before, and far more so than I would ever expect to see, even for California.

I'd like to draw attention to a particular amendment that the bill proposes:

7162.b: “...a court may find that a child has more than two natural or adoptive parents...” [2]

This bit, even more than anything else, is completely shocking to me... The idea that California may recognize more than two 'natural' parents? Wow... I don't know what to make of that.

It is interesting that the opposition arguments focus on implementation issues and not moral issues, which goes in stark contrast to CA's 2008 ballot proposition 8, effectively banning homosexual marriage. It's an interesting look at the political dynamic between the citizenry and the electorate in California, as there seems to be quite a mismatch.

What does this mean to poly people though? Well, it's hard to see this as anything but a step forward, however it's important to remember that all SB 1476 is saying is that the judiciary is allowed to recognize more than two parents. There's no mandate for judges to do this, and no application process to allow for people to petition for this, it's a baby step.

Still though, it's a step.

- Jason

[1] - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1451-1500/sb_1476_cfa_20120828_161909_sen_floor.html

[2] - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1451-1500/sb_1476_bill_20120224_introduced.html

Brief Update

Hi Folks,

Just as a brief update, I *just* got to the Boston area this evening, gimmie a week or two to get settled in properly and I'll be able to start doing proper updates here!

Woot! (-:

- Jason Cherry

Change of Plan

So after doing some serious consideration on how to proceed in writing the paper, I decided to forstall it, as there's a few big holes in the research, which really looked me in the eye while I was writing. Namely there's the case law issue, which is going to take a LOT of additional research work, but will make for an exceptional project over the next few years. As such I'm going to be revisiting the state-by-state reviews, and re-doing them into proper legal research documents, now that I have some sense of what proper legal research is.

In the mean time, I'm going to post what I've already written (which is rather significant) for everyone to take a look at. It's a more detailed version of what I've been blabbing on about this past year, so enjoy!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nmeG7y0hbrcDTloWAPfT4YFXeWbG0dGos02_wRIysI0/edit

This is complete first-draft material, so there's going to be errors, problems and such. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to work on this, but with how grad school is looking, not much. This may have to be a shelved project until I finish my Master's degree, but we'll see. For the time being I'm putting things on hiatus until I'm actually in grad school and better able to asses my schedule.

Cheers,

- Jason