How Would George Zimmerman Case Play Out in Rhode Island?

In the wake of the George Zimmerman verdict, questions have been raised as to how this case would have played out in Rhode Island. Unlike Florida, Rhode Island is not a Stand Your Ground state. In Rhode Island, the doctrine of self defense permits the use of necessary force in order to repel an unlawful attack or threatened attack that presents an imminent risk of injury.

The critical components are:

(a) the unlawfulness of the attack or threatened attack, i.e. self defense is not available to a person who is the aggressor;
(b) that the defendant was actually in fear of injury (subjectively) and that the fear was reasonable (objectively);
(c) the degree of force reasonably required to repel the attack, i.e. excessive force is not excused by the self defense doctrine; and
(d) whether the defendant is entitled to repel the threat of force against him, i.e., whether the defendant had an obligation to try to avoid using force by retreating.

In Rhode Island, Zimmerman had an obligation to attempt to retreat before utilizing deadly force against Trayvon Martin. While retreat is not required when less then deadly force is used, it is required whenever a person uses a weapon capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury. State v. Guillemet, 430 A.2d 1066 (R.I. 1981). There is no obligation to retreat from an attack in one’s home, regardless of whether the retreat is available but not if the victim also resides in the home. State v. Quarles, 504 A.2d 473 (R.I. 1986). If there is an obligation to retreat, it arises only if the defendant is consciously aware of an open, safe and available avenue of escape. State v. Rieger, 763 A.2d 997 (R.I. 2001).

So if George Zimmerman had been tried in a Rhode Island courtroom, doctrine of self defense would not have been available to him unless and until the jury considered his duty and obligation to retreat prior to the use of deadly force. If the jury believed that Zimmerman had the ability to retreat but did not do so prior to using deadly force, they may have reached a very different verdict in Rhode Island.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Missing Boston Teen Victim of Sex Trafficking

A missing Boston teenage girl was recently found employed as a dancer at a Providence, Rhode Island strip club. A second missing teen was also found when police discovered her at a man’s residence. The man was later arrested and charged with crimes related to the trafficking of both teenage girls.

An undercover operation led Providence police to arrest 51-year-old Troy Footman of Dorchester, RI and charge him with sex trafficking of a minor. Footman has been convicted of a long list of sex crimes including rape and running a prostitution ring.

To read more about this disturbing case of sex trafficking in Rhode Island, click on the following link:

http://www.turnto10.com/story/23040905/missing-teen-found-dancing-at-providence-strip-club----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Rhode Island White Collar Crime's Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald named Local Counsel in $10 Million bribery case

Rhode Island White Collar Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald named as the Local Counsel representing Rhode Island Defense Contractor and U.S. Navy personnel in a $10 Million bribery case. Details found below were reported in last weeks Providence Journal. 

R.I. Defense Firm Owner Out On Bond After Court Appearance

10:18 AM EST on Wednesday, February 16, 2011
By Katie Mulvaney, John E. Mulligan, and Tom Mooney


PROVIDENCE — Anjan Dutta-Gupta drove with his family by van from Georgia to face federal charges in Rhode Island that he doled out $10 million in bribes to secure Navy contracts for his Middletown company.

In his first appearance in U.S. District Court, in Rhode Island, Dutta-Gupta bowed his head slightly as he told U.S. Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond Tuesday he understood the charge against him.

“I do, sir,” said Dutta-Gupta as his wife, two children and other family members looked on. The 58-year-old founder of Georgia-based Advanced Solutions for Tomorrow Inc. used headphones to assist his hearing. Heavyset with salt-and-pepper hair and a pronounced accent, Dutta-Gupta leaned in to speak with his lawyers John E. MacDonald and David M. Fragale, a Washington, D.C., attorney specializing in white-collar criminal defense.
Extra

Authorities arrested Dutta-Gupta on Feb. 6 in Atlanta as he returned from Chile. He is charged with bribing Ralph M. Mariano, a civilian program manager with the Naval Sea Systems Command, in a $10-million kickback scheme that authorities allege siphoned thousands of federal dollars to Dutta-Gupta, Mariano and Mariano’s family through a series of shell companies. Mariano, of Arlington, Va., who managed Advanced Solutions’ contracts with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, in Newport, was also charged with bribery.

A federal magistrate in Georgia released Dutta-Gupta last week on a $25,000 unsecured bond. But Almond upped that sum Tuesday to a $50,000 unsecured bond, plus he must post $10,000 within a week.

Almond imposed the $10,000 bond, he said, in lieu of requiring Dutta-Gupta, of Roswell, Ga., to be monitored electronically and abide by a curfew, as Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Reich had asked. Almond restricted Dutta-Gupta’s travel to northern Georgia; Washington, D.C.; and Rhode Island. A native of Calcutta who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, Dutta-Gupta surrendered his passport.

Dutta-Gupta asked Almond if he would be violating the terms of his release by driving from Georgia to his Rhode Island court dates. Almond said he could stop briefly for food and gas but should not make long-term stops on his journeys without consulting court officials.

Dutta-Gupta founded Advanced Solutions in 1992, overseeing its growth as its Navy business increased. The firm worked on Navy research programs in Newport that included unmanned underwater vehicles and submarine command and control systems. The company is headquartered in Roswell, Ga., with offices in Middletown and Fairfax, Va.

Authorities say Dutta-Gupta and Mariano engineered a system of regular payments, largely for work never performed, to shell companies in a scheme dating to the late 1990s. A criminal complaint describes Mariano using his power as a senior Navy program official to steer contracts to Advanced Solutions.

Dutta-Gupta is accused of then channeling about $10 million, through companies he and associates controlled, to Mariano, his relatives and friends in return for his role in securing millions of dollars in Navy contracts for Dutta-Gupta’s firm.

Advanced Solutions was something of a family affair, according to the complaint, statements on the company’s website and other sources; Anjan’s wife, Indrani, was a company vice president.

The Dutta-Guptas and their children have been financial supporters of political campaigns. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based campaign finance monitor, the four family members have given an aggregate total of $48,512 to political campaigns over the years. But Anjan and Indrani Dutta-Gupta concentrated their political giving on members of the Rhode Island congressional delegation.

The younger Dutta-Guptas grew up in Georgia, where they ranked as award-winning scholars. Daughter Amrita Dutta-Gupta graduated from Vanderbilt University in 2003 and is listed as a fellow at the university’s management school.

A 2005 graduate of the University of Chicago, son Indivar Dutta-Gupta served as an $89,000-a-year staffer on the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee until last year. He joined the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank, this year. He is an expert on poverty issues.

Amrita, too, was president of Paramount Solutions, another defense contractor with offices in Middletown that did business with the Navy and Advanced Solutions. Like her father’s company, Paramount Solutions secured Navy work “earmarked” into a federal spending bill by Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island.

Reed’s office said Tuesday that the senator secured a $1.6-million project that Paramount Solutions undertook jointly with the Naval Undersea Systems Command in Newport. That earmark, for work on submarine command-and-control systems, was in the 2008 appropriations bill. Amrita Dutta-Gupta was chief financial officer of the firm at the time, according to a company statement in which she thanked the senator for his assistance.

Reed spokesman Chip Unruh said the senator does not recall having met Amrita Dutta-Gupta.

Paramount Solutions was registered in Rhode Island in 2005 as a Georgia-based company “pursuing professional development services opportunities” with the state and the Navy. Amrita Dutta-Gupta was listed as president and vice president at the time. The directors include Wayne King of Bristol, who was in the news Monday as the acting chief of Advanced Solutions who informed its nearly 100 employees in Middletown that the company was closing its doors.

Paramount is tucked into a corner of a small, one-story office plaza along Aquidneck Avenue, less than two miles from Advanced Solutions for Tomorrow.

In total, Reed and former Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy secured more than $13 million in federal earmark money for Advanced Solutions projects. But Reed’s spokesman and a former top aide to Kennedy have said emphatically there appear to be no links between the money the lawmakers earmarked for the firm and the contracts detailed in the criminal papers as corrupted by Mariano and Dutta-Gupta.

There has been no suggestion of impropriety by Amrita Dutta-Gupta’s company or by the members of the state’s political delegation. It is not clear whether Amrita Dutta-Gupta is still associated with the firm.

A few former Advanced Solutions employees turned up Tuesday to witness Dutta-Gupta’s court appearance.

One, Richard Kulesh, stood in the cold outside the federal building waiting to face his old boss and watch him walk in.

“I want to see him go in … and I want the truth to come out,” said Kulesh, 37, of North Kingstown. “And if he’s done wrong, I want to see him to get his due.”

Kulesh described Dutta-Gupta as the kind of boss who made an effort to know the names of all, but “I had a lot of anger,” he said. His feelings moved to skepticism when he heard one of Dutta-Gupta’s lawyers say that the defendant, alleged to have skimmed more than $10 million from federal government contracts, had only $20,000 in cash.

“That’s really hard to believe,” he said. “I’m genuinely shocked by that. You could speculate all day about why.”

Dutta-Gupta “was a great guy if you can overlook this.”

Kulesh scoffed at his own suggestion.

He couldn’t.

KEY POINTS: Advanced Solutions for Tomorrow

STATUS: The company closed Monday; CEO Wayne M. King told employees in an e-mail that its assets had been frozen and efforts to find a buyer had failed. The closing followed the Feb. 6 arrest of company founder and owner Anjan Dutta-Gupta.

LOCATION: Had headquarters in Roswell, Ga., with offices in Washington and in Middletown, at the Aquidneck Corporate Park.

EMPLOYEES: Work force, about 160, has been laid off.

REVENUES: $30 million

BUSINESS: Provided information and technology services to government and private industry, including the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, in Newport. It had won contracts to develop submarine technology and underwater, unmanned vehicles for reconnaissance and combat missions. ASFT had 10 open contracts with the Navy, including the 3 largest, which total $128 million.

HISTORY: Founded by Anjan Dutta-Gupta in 1992 through a Department of Defense mentor program. The company expanded into Rhode Island in 1996 when it acquired Amtech, of Newport.

Sources: Affidavit of Patrick J. Hegart, special agent of U.S. Department of Defense, Criminal Investigative Service; ASFT Web pages, Zoominfo.com.

KEY PLAYER: Anjan Dutta-Gupta

AGE: 58

HOME: Roswell, Ga.

GROWING UP: Raised in Calcutta, India, son of a prominent banker from a large family.

EDUCATION: Undergraduate degree, University of Calcutta; master’s degree in business management from the Institute of Business Management, in Pakistan.

FAMILY: Married to Indrani Dutta-Gupta, former executive vice president of Advanced Solutions for Tomorrow; two children.

Sources: Affidavit of Patrick J. Hegart, special agent of U.S. Department of Defense, Criminal Investigative Service; article published by Indian-American author Kavitta Chibber

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Post-Conviction Relief Attorney MacDonald vacates a Misdemeanor conviction for Domestic Assault

Criminal Defense Attorney Results

Post-Conviction Relief Attorney John E. MacDonald announces a successful result for a client facing deportation. Attorney MacDonald achieved post-conviction relief for client and vacates a Misdemeanor conviction for Domestic Assault. 

CASE DETAILS: Client had a 2003 misdemeanor conviction for domestic assault. Client is a lawful permanent resident from Portugal who would have been subject to deportation if the conviction remained in place.

OUTCOME: The grounds of the motion was failure to receive the proper alien warnings. Upon appeal misdemeanor conviction vacated in Kent County Superior Court.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

RI First Degree Sexual Assault Case Results and Testimonial

First Degree Sexual Assault Charges Results

March, 2013.  Client was facing two counts of First Degree Sexual Assault in Providence Superior Court.  After a six-day jury trial in which the state called 9 prosecution witnesses, including a DNA expert, client was found Not Guilty on all counts.
                                                                                                                                                                                         
Testimonial by family:

"There are no words to describe the gratitude of our family. You have helped us navigate the most stressful and difficult 16 months of our lives.  Because of your representation, two beautiful children will know their father's love, will never have to endure the shame and humiliation of having an incarcerated parent, can giggle and laugh as they run through the house chasing their dad as they were doing earlier. They'll never know how close they came to a life changing experience. Thank you from the depth of my soul!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

What does it mean to be a domiciled inhabitant in a RI or MA divorce proceeding?

Rhode Island and Massachusetts handle divorce petitions very differently, but for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction (the proper court venue and the right to hear your case) both systems operate from the standpoint that at least one of the parties must be a physical resident, or a domiciled inhabitant, of the state in which you are filing.

For instance, if you live in Rhode Island with your spouse, and at least one of you has done so for at least 1 year, then you are eligible to file your divorce petition in the RI Family Court. If you or your spouse has just moved to RI however, and the time that either of you has lived here is less than a year, you will need to either live in RI for a complete year and then file your petition, or file for your divorce in the state where you resided at the time that you were married.

The same rules of residency apply for Massachusetts divorce proceedings, although the structure is a bit different. In order to file a MA divorce petition, you must have been living within the State when the grounds for divorce occured. If you were not living in the state at that time, then either you or your spouse will need to maintain a permanent, physical residence in Massachusetts for one year prior to filing for your divorce.

In both states, there is no requirement that you remain in the state after the filing of your divorce petition; merely that you have lived there for one year beforehand, and live there on the date that you file the petition.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

3 Things You Need to Know About a Rhode Island Divorce

Divorce is divorce, right? 

Not exactly. Although there are basic similarities from state to state, each state still has its own process. In Rhode Island for instance, you typically go to court first and then work out an agreement, whereas in Massachusetts, you are required to work out your agreement, then you will be given a court date.

So what are a few things particular to your RI divorce?

Equitable Distribution

This is a nice way of saying that if you and your spouse cannot reach an agreement regarding the division of your marital property, the court can and may decide for you. In reaching their decision, they will consider the length of your marriage, the income levels of you and your spouse, the contributions that you have each made to your marital assets, education and job skills, whether either of you took time off from a career to care for children at home, and many other factors. If you are having trouble deciding how to divide your marital property, you should seek the advice of a qualified family court attorney.

Custody, Visitation, and Placement of Minor Children

Again, in a situation where neither you or your spouse can reach an agreement concerning the physical placement of your children, the court will decide based upon what will be in the best interest of the child. Custody (sole or joint) will typically determine the placement of the child. The parent with custody will have physical placement, and the other parent, the non-custodial parent, will be given reasonable rights of visitation. In every instance, the well-being of the child should be the main focus of negotiating parties. If you need help determining what would be in the best interest of your child, you should ask your divorce attorney for their advice.

Health Insurance Coverage Continuation

This is a very complicated area of not only divorce law, but also the RI General Laws and the Federal Regulations known as the COBRA laws. There is no simple answer as to whether or not your former spouse is required to continue to provide health coverage for you. Researching your current employer's health plan, as well as your spouse's health coverage, is a good starting point. Because these discussions tend to involve an additional financial burden for one party or the other, discussions should be at least supervised by a Divorce Mediator, if not a RI Family Court Lawyer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Social Media Technology Called Into Play in Family Court Cases

Bedridden Man Uses Skype to Testify Against Wife

By Jacob Gershman

Seeking an extension of a protection order against his estranged wife, an elderly Illinois man needed to show up to court and testify. The problem was that he had suffered a stroke and felt too weak to get out of bed. But he was able to testify anyway — thanks to Skype and an iPad.

Emil Kogan, according to his attorney, answered questions from his bedroom by talking into his laptop. On the other end of the video call was his attorney, who brought her iPad into the courtroom so the judge and the other lawyer could see him.

There were some technical glitches. It took a while for Mr. Kogan, who was assisted by another former wife, to lower the lid of his laptop and get the camera to focus on his face — not the wall above his head. “They didn’t quite know how the camera worked,” his attorney, Marie Fahnert, told Law Blog.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

MA Sex Crime and Child Pornography Involves Overseas Victims

Federal Authorities Prosecute Sex Crimes Involving Children Overseas

by Samuel Goldberg

Yesterday, Attorney Sam's Take began discussing the plight of a certain Mr. Galant (hereinafter the "Defendant") in connection with certain federal criminal allegations which allegedly took place in the Dominican republic. They involved various sex crimes involving children.

Over the last years, we have discussed many federal cases and how they usually built. If you take the international aspect of this matter out of it, this case seems to be a typical federal prosecution. Not that the Commonwealth never uses such tactics, but the federal prosecutors have built it to an art form.

Just tell me you haven't heard this one before...

Suspect A comes into contact with law-enforcement. Suspect A is in possession of stolen materials. Suspect A is in trouble. However, suspect A says that she knows about suspect D, and suspect D has committed even greater crimes. And, by the way, suspect A is a critical witness against suspect D.

Isn't that what happened in this case? The 14-year-old young lady (Hereinafter the "Girl") Was found in possession of the Defendant's credit card and withdrawing money from his account. She then explained how he had apparently broken their agreements and had illicit sexual relations with her and a couple of friends.

    "But Sam, are you saying that the only evidence against the defendant is what the complainant said happened?"

No. Apparently, photographs were seized which reflected the Girll in positions which made the photographs child pornography. Further, I would imagine that federal investigators were able to find other evidence which supported the Girl's claims. An example of this would be airline tickets that the Defendant used on his trips to the Dominican Republic. .

However, the start of this information leads back to the Girl. Further, without her testimony, these prosecutions cannot be made successfully.

"I was under the impression that the case is only prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which it happens. In other words, Massachusetts would not prosecute a case where the fax took place in California. Here, it seems like the United States is prosecuting a case where the facts occurred, or allegedly occurred, in the Dominican Republic. What gives?"

You are correct, generally. As with most things, there is no "always" or "never" in the criminal justice system. There are exceptions. There are certain areas in which the United States will prosecute someone for actions they allegedly took in another country. Many of these types of cases also are subject to treaties between countries. The sex trade, when it involves children, is one such area. Further, some of the allegations I said to have taken place in the United States.

I should point out however, this would not be the first time that a United States citizen was prosecuted for apps he allegedly did overseas. In fact, it was not so long ago, where someone was tried and convicted of very similar crimes, only, in that case, involving little boys.

I have often told you that, because of computers and the Internet, the United States has become smaller in terms of the sharing of information. One state can easily share information with another state these days. Law enforcement is generally on top of those developments. As time goes by, particularly when it comes to crimes which are getting a lot of attention, I believe you will see that the world becomes a smaller place for the same reason.

Of course, all criminal prosecutions have their issues and weaknesses. In cases like this, there are even more such issues. There are issues of reality, such as getting the Girl, and perhaps her friends, to come to the United States to testify. The more complicated the case, the more there I'll likely to be issues which should be examined by defense counsel.

And they will be. Assuming that defense counsel is aware to look for them.

That's where your choice of an experienced criminal defense attorney comes into play.

But then, I am now being repetitive. And if you don't know my message on that subject by now, you're just not reading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

RI Support for Undocumented Immigrants Shared by North Carolina

North Carolina joins Rhode Island in supporting young undocumented immigrants

According to Governing magazine, North Carolina is the latest state to offer drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants.

Thousands of young illegal immigrants in North Carolina may obtain government-issued photo IDs and driver licenses because of a change in policy Feb. 14 by the state transportation secretary.  North Carolina is the newest state to grant driver’s licenses to young immigrants who meet certain qualifications related to age, education, non-criminal status and military service under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The state Department of Motor Vehicles will issue licenses starting on March 25, officials said.

The state of Rhode Island has already granted in-state tuition for young undocumented immigrants through action by the Board of Governors for Higher Education.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Family Court Restraining Order and Child Visitation Case Result

September, 2012:  

This firm represented father in defending against a family court restraining order as well as a motion to suspend his visitation with the minor child.  

Result: 
Family court restraining order: dismissed
Motion to suspend visitation: denied
All visits with child (unsupervised) to resume immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

RI Family Court Child Custody Case Result

August, 2012:

Attorney Morris filed a motion for sole legal custody. 

Pursuant to divorce decree, parties had been awarded joint legal custody.  Mother granted physical placement of the minor child.  We represented mother, who, after several contempt hearings and post-final motions, was awarded sole legal custody with visits at her discretion and pursuant to the recommendations of the child’s counselor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Child Custody Case Result

August, 2012: 

This firm filed an emergency motion to change placement, for permission to relocate, and for sole legal custody for the father.  

Previously, the mother was granted joint legal custody and physical placement of two minor children per the parties’ divorce decree.  This firm represented the father, who through the filing of an emergency motion, was able to obtain sole legal custody and physical placement of two minor children and who was permitted to relocate out of state in a post-final decision.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Divorce Case Result

July, 2012:

Attorney Morris represented the husband/father in divorce.  

His wife was seeking placement of the children and alimony.  Thanks to the efforts of the Law Office of John E. MacDonald, the husband is granted placement of children and is not obligated to pay wife alimony.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.