Q: My cell phone is in my mom’s name but I pay for the phone bill. She went on my phone and gave photos of me to my job.

A: The situation you've described raises several legal issues. First, even though the cell phone is in your mother's name, if you are an adult and the primary user of the phone, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding its contents. This includes the photos stored on it.

Your mother accessing your phone and sharing photos without your consent, especially under threat, could potentially be a violation of your privacy. The manner in which she obtained the photos, through coercion, is particularly concerning and may have legal implications.

Regarding your job receiving and potentially using these photos, the legality depends on various factors, including how the photos were obtained and what they were used for. Generally, employers should be cautious about using information obtained in potentially illegal or unethical ways.

If you are facing criminal charges related to this situation, it's crucial to seek legal representation immediately. An attorney can advise you on the specifics of your case, including the admissibility of the photos as evidence and any potential defenses you might have.

It's also worth exploring the possibility of legal action against your mother for her actions, especially given the threat of violence. Such behavior is not only concerning from a legal standpoint but also raises serious personal safety issues.

Remember, in complex situations involving potential criminal charges and privacy violations, obtaining legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances is essential. Ensure that you articulate all aspects of the situation to your attorney for the most effective guidance and representation.

A: This question is a very profound look into the structure of our government and how that structure has atrophied over the years of woke presidents.

The original idea behind British and American governance zeroes in on protecting the public from government. We have freedoms of speech and possession of weaponry as measures to expose corruption and to defend ourselves from government. We impose controls on criminal process to include the right to an attorney, the prohibition against self incrimination, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

However, over the years, our feckless cross-dressers and Epstein groupies have changed the game. The protection is now aimed at us protecting ourselves from each other. The enemy is no longer the government but us.

This fact pattern demonstrates how a mother can face legal liability for distributing photos from her child's phone. A modern court with its woke judiciary would grab on to this case and render judgment against the mother. The asker may also have a case for domestic violence protections as government pits children against parents. Children need protection as is said, so an order of protection (a "PFA" in Pennsylvania) can be the result to protect the asker from harassment by the mother.

Government has established itself as a totally safe, neutral, caring, and resourceful friend to the parties it has set one against the other. Children are against parents, women are against men, blacks are against whites, muslims are against jews, and so on.

A lawyer would love to earn an income from such a case as lawyers also have bills that need to be paid.