That’s why Freedom to Marry’s strategy – while always building toward a win in the Supreme Court, and very much embracing litigation as a key methodology – was to marshal and invest energy and resources in making as strong a case in the court of public opinion as our advocates and plaintiffs were also making in the court of law. Here’s a look at key tactics we employed to creating the climate to win and hold victories in the courts.
One of the most common things criminal attorneys deal with are clients that have accepted a plea without understanding that plea and now they have changed their minds. Once a plea is accepted, it is extremely difficult to undo. A defense lawyer will be able to thoroughly explain the components of the plea and how it will impact you so that you can make an informed decision as to whether or not you want to accept the plea.
Another key aspect was that Judge Neubauer tried to position herself as a moderate and independent judge, despite being very connected to the Democratic Party and Planned Parenthood. When voters were informed of her connections to socialist policies and infanticide-supporting groups, it helped Hagedorn. Our organization, American Majority Action, saw this as we went door to door and spoke to voters in real time. We focused on voters in seven counties across the state. Our survey results showed a 10+% shift to Hagedorn over the final two weeks as more voters were informed of Neubauer’s radical ties. In places where we knocked on doors, we saw votes shift by 15% or more from their 2018 totals. In Oostburg, where we spoke with hundreds of voters, we saw Hagedorn receive 361 more votes than Screnock in 2018. This happened in communities all across the state. Face-to-face communication is the best way to win over voters in any election, and given the unfair attacks by liberals in this case, it proved particularly effective.
It would have taken six or seven months to get exact numbers. But every expert we talked to agreed that the volume was much higher for the Trump administration. The question then became why. As I wrote in an earlier story, when the losing streak started, it’s kind of like relationships. When one or two don’t work out, you can plausibly blame the other people. When the numbers mount, you have to think, maybe the problem is me, that is, maybe I’m doing something wrong.
The court may be unwilling to enter a default judgment. But you can effectively win your case anyway. You can ask the court to prevent the other party from offering any evidence on the topic. For example, if the party’s defense is that you sent an email agreeing to a change in a contract, but that party destroyed the email, then the judge can prevent the party from arguing that you ever agreed to the change.
The Diocese of Austin was made aware this afternoon that a lawsuit was filed today in which unnamed plaintiffs make allegations against Rev. Isidore Ndagizimana, Bishop Joe S. Vásquez and the Diocese of Austin. The Diocese of Austin is currently reviewing a copy of the lawsuit. Bishop Vásquez is currently attending a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C. and has not had an opportunity to review the lawsuit. However, upon being notified of the lawsuit’s filing, Bishop Vásquez authorized the extension of an invitation to meet with the unnamed plaintiffs. He also extends his prayers for the unnamed plaintiffs.
I'd also like to mention for those of you who are looking for Child Support help, this is not a good book for that. It has a tiny section on Child Support, then leaves you hanging. This may be because laws vary so much, but I thought I'd at least point it out. The book is more for general concepts, so the info falls short once you begin specializing in certain subject matters.