The Selfie Coup: How to Tell If Your Government Is Plotting to Overthrow Itself

DEAN FALVY

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, describes how to tell whether a government is plotting to overthrow itself—a phenomenon he calles a “Selfie Coup.” Falvy explains the difference between a Selfie Coup and creeping authoritarianism by providing examples of both and argues that the more aware civil society is of the possibility of a Selfie Coup, the more likely it can prepare its defenses in time to prevent it.

Read More

In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, JO 1-391 (Hall, Appellant)

Citation: 2020 VT 57

Opinion Date: July 24, 2020

Judge: Carroll

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Katherine Hall appealed an Environmental Division decision granting summary judgment to Chittenden Resorts, LLC and RMT Associates, d/b/a Mountain Top Inn & Resort (the Resort). The Environmental Division concluded the Resort did not need an amended Act 250 permit to run a rental program where, pursuant to a contractual agreement, the Resort rented out private homes near the Resort. On appeal, Hall argued that the Environmental Division erred in determining that the Resort did not need an amended Act 250 permit. Specifically, she argued the Resort needed an amended Act 250 permit because under 10 V.S.A. 6001(14)(A), the Resort and owners of the homes involved in the rental program were a collective "person." Alternatively, she argued the Resort exercised "control" over the rental homes within the meaning of section 6001(3)(A)(i). The Vermont Supreme Court disagreed with Hall's characterization of the Resort and home owners as a collective "person." Further, the Court found the Resort did not control the rented homes contemplated by section 6001(3)(i). Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Division's judgment.

Vermont v. Harwood

Citation: 2020 VT 65

Opinion Date: July 24, 2020

Judge: Carroll

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Michael Harwood appealed after a trial court concluded he violated one of the conditions of his probation. In 2017, defendant was charged by information with one count of aggravated domestic assault, and two counts of disturbing the peace by phone. He ultimately pled guilty to first-degree aggravated domestic assault with a weapon for threatening to use a deadly weapon on his ex-girlfriend. Defendant received a sentence of eighteen months to six years, all suspended except for one year to serve. As part of the plea agreement, defendant was placed on probation under standard and special conditions and the two counts of disturbing the peace by phone were dismissed. About a week later, while defendant was in his jail cell, a corrections officer and a unit supervisor saw defendant squirting water out under his cell door. The corrections officer first spoke with defendant and warned him the facility would not tolerate this behavior. Defendant then became “verbally assaultive.” The unit supervisor reminded defendant that he could violate his probation if he continued to engage in this behavior. Defendant responded flippantly and loudly yelled several expletives at the supervisor. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred because threatening behavior required some accompanying physical conduct. If verbal statements qualify as threatening behavior, defendant alternatively argued that he did not receive adequate notice that his verbal statements could result in a violation of probation. After review of the trial court record, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded defendant's verbal statements to the corrections officer qualified as threatening behavior. The Court also concluded defendant was on sufficient notice that verbal statements could have qualified as threatening behavior. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that defendant violated a condition of his probation.

Vermont v. Gauthier

Citation: 2020 VT 66

Opinion Date: July 24, 2020

Judge: Beth Robinson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant Thomas Gauthier appealed his conviction for violating the Sex Offender Registration Act after he he knowingly failed to comply with reporting requirements while released on furlough status. He argued on appeal that furlough status was a form of “incarceration,” and therefore he fell under the exception to the sex-offender reporting requirements that relieved sex offenders of the reporting requirements “during periods of incarceration.” The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that based on the plain language of the statute that the reporting requirements applied to furloughed individuals living in the community, and therefore affirmed.