No class today. I didn’t have enough time to finish the lesson. I’ve been busy with my IFP for federal appeals that actually got accepted. And a brief for custody appeals, which I have to mail in 7 binded brief and 2 reproduce records. And a recent petition for contempt from the opposing party which is moot because the appellate court currently has jurisdiction pursuant to that subject matter. So I’m just grinding away and going thru the motions but keep your notifications on becuase I might have a pop up class on Wednesday or some other day. But I’ll still continue building material for the Skool so keep asking question.

Greetings, has anyone else in here lost their passport and gotten an update with more stars? Also has anyone else had trouble getting their passports or will I get pushback from DoS now with this current administration? Any answers will be helpful and greatly appreciated thank you very much for your time and help.

False Dilemma in Police Encounters: “Show Me ID or Get Arrested” Lesson Objective This lesson teaches students how to recognize a false dilemma during a police encounter and, more importantly, how that language may reveal that a consensual encounter has turned into a **Fourth Amendment seizure**. The central question is not merely: “Did the officer ask for identification?” The better questions are: Was compliance voluntary? If not, when did the encounter become a detention, and what legal justification existed for that detention? --- # I. What Is a False Dilemma? A false dilemma, sometimes called a false dichotomy, occurs when someone presents only two alternatives even though additional alternatives actually exist. The structure looks like this: > You must choose A or B. When the actual possibilities may be: > A, B, C, D, or no action at all. In a police encounter, the problem becomes particularly important when an officer presents a **voluntary request as though compliance is legally mandatory**. --- # II. The Scenario A man leaves a bar and stands outside waiting for his Uber. He is not driving. He is not fighting. He is not bothering anyone. He tells the officer: > “I’m just waiting for my Uber.” The officer asks: > “Let me see your ID.” The man responds: > “I don't want to provide my ID. I'm just waiting for my Uber.” The officer then says: > “We can do this one of two ways. You show me your ID, or you get arrested.” The man again refuses. The officer detains him and ultimately arrests him. --- # III. Identify the False Dilemma The officer has presented two purported choices: ### Option A Provide identification. ### Option B Be arrested. But those may not be the only lawful possibilities. Depending on the circumstances and applicable state law, another possibility may be: ### Option C Decline the officer's request and continue waiting for the Uber. Another may be: ### Option D Ask whether the encounter is voluntary:

Some good post and materials to look at

So I think next class I’m going to be over the process of filing for appellate review for children’s fast track process. We will go over What all it Intel's, time lines, requirements. that way you’re properly prepared and not blind sided and waiving rights. From notice of appeals, docketing statement to drafting a brief. A lot of the process could be universally used for other appellate cases/subject matter but the rules can be slightly different pursuant to your local and state rules of procedures. Don’t forget to ask questions. Your questions may help you and others and it is good for conversation and for whatever process you are going thru.