Danielle and I went up to Maine for a few days to visit her parents. I always find it so relaxing up there. We headed out to Wolf’s Neck State Park- I suggest it to anyone who enjoys light trail walking and a great view of the ocean via rocky beaches. There were snails crawling around in the tide pools. It looked almost unnatural, seeing their stone-like shells twitching and moving about. 
 

We then picked up Whoopie Pies from a place called “Wicked Whoopies.” I guess it was featured on Phantom Gourmet several times. The pies were really good- I especially enjoyed their chocolate chip whoopie pie.
 

We finished up by boating on the ocean in her parents’ vessel. That was relaxing. I almost fell asleep! We saw some huge houses on the coast. My favorite one had a castle-like tower on the side. 



 
Well, I plan to return to my dorky style of blogging now that vacation is over. Stay tuned!

            Here is an interesting situation in Massachusetts law, ever since May 10, 2010. The Massachusetts legislature enacted M.G.L. c 258E, and it is a provision to help prevent harassment. This provision is open to far more complainants than the previously popular M.G.L. c 209A.

 

            Under the old 209A, a complainant could seek a protection order from the perpetrator… so long as that perpetrator was a member of the complainant’s family, as defined under § 1 of 209A. Under 258E, no familial relationship is required. This opens the door to some serious protection order flooding in the courts. Anyone who is “harassed” within the meaning of § 3 of 258E can apply for relief. What is harassment? “[Harassment is:] (i) 3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property; or (ii) an act that: (A) by force, threat or duress causes another to involuntarily engage in sexual relations; or (B) constitutes a violation of section 13B, 13F, 13H, 22, 22A, 23, 24, 24B, 26C, 43 or 43A of chapter 265 or section 3 of chapter 272.”

 

            Suppose we are in the realm of “three or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person.” A judge brought to my attention today that these acts must have occurred AFTER the enactment of the statute. Thus, your three acts alleged better all be after May 10, 2010. This brings up some interesting arguing points, the first of which being, is this a criminal statute? If so, the court must construe it narrowly. Therefore, the strict application of time is important. Additionally, if the statute is criminal and the court applied it retroactively, it would raise a huge ex post facto issue. How can you criminalize a harassment behavior with a particular punishment after the elements of the criminal behavior have occurred? This action would be unconstitutional, for all you newbies.  Thus, it appears that in order to get a client relief who may have been harassed multiple times, but only one or two happening after the enactment of the statute, you may have to argue that this statute is not criminal in nature. Reading many provisions of M.G.L. c 258E suggest the legislature wants to protect harassment victims zealously. One such provision of the law (§ 3(f)) states: “The court shall not deny any complaint filed under this chapter solely because it was not filed within a particular time period after the last alleged incident of harassment.” This language indicates that a victim could come forward YEARS later and seek relief. So why can’t a series of harassment events straddling the May 10 enactment date give a victim some redress? I guess we will see as claimants bring out more 258E protection order requests.

 

Legal Blog Disclaimer:

 

The thoughts and musings posted in this blog are Nathan Frommer’s, and Nathan Frommer’s alone. They reflect no one else’s opinion, unless they are responses to Nathan Frommer’s posts. Nothing in this blog creates an attorney-client relationship. If it did, your information would be public and ruin any confidentiality you would be entitled to anyways! This blog does not convey free legal advice, so don’t rely on it. Please do not post any information in response on here that you would not want others to read. If you are seeking legal advice, feel free to contact an attorney, and be prepared to pay a fee.

 

            Well, it’s been about two and one-half months since I moved my practice out to Hampden County. Danielle and I are finished adjusting to the move. It’s a longer commute (traveling time increased by 45 minutes) but given that it’s all highway driving, I can’t say that it’s a bad commute at all. In my only 2.5 months (compared to 10 months in Fitchburg) I have already been in court and handled more direct client matters than I did in my old office! The experience is racking up, and I can tell you now that I am glad I decided to become a lawyer. Although I had friendly professional contacts in the Fitchburg area, I have even more in Springfield. The court personnel are nice and always respond in a productive, non-demeaning manner when I say “sorry, I don’t know what paperwork I need- I am a new attorney!”

 

            I also like the western part of the state. I would like to relocate to “No-Ho” (Northampton, for you Western MA newbies) but at this point, Danielle and I need to stay put. Northampton is a very clean, modern, somewhat-urban community. The restaurant scene is fantastic, and if you are into underground music, you can check out some of the coolest bands around. One of my favorites is Fiesta Brava. You can check them out here: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Fiesta-Brava/36091358000?v=info&ref=ts. A move to Northampton would also reduce my commute time…

 Fiesta Brava at The Elevens