recent/hot-posts

"You are recorded," the prosecutor corrects. "There is a difference."

This decision was pivotal for three reasons:

The prosecution opens with the quiet violence of bureaucracy. The charge is "Aggravated Non-Compliance with Abstract Mandates." It sounds sterile, but it reeks of sulfur. The prosecutor, a man whose face looks like it was ironed into a permanent expression of bureaucratic disdain, does not accuse Lomps of doing wrong. He accuses him of being wrong.

Outside the courthouse, a young journalist asked Lomps, “What’s next? Case No. 4?”

The respondent (the other parent) countered that the initial decision was fair and based on substantial evidence. The respondent argued that any changes to the custody and support orders would negatively impact the children's well-being and stability.