Category Archives: legal news

Another head rolls at Baylor

May 31, 2016 kanelis2012

Another head has been lopped off — proverbially, of course — at Baylor University.

This time it belongs to the athletic director, Ian McCaw, who quit in the wake of the sex scandal that already has cost the school its president and its head football coach.

McCaw clearly had to go. He had been put on probation just as Baylor president Ken Starr was getting demoted and head coach Art Briles was put on “suspension” prior to being fired.

Why the shakeup? Oh, just that scandal involving Baylor’s mishandling of the sexual assault charges — and conviction — of football stars. The scandal has roiled the Waco campus and has caused — one should hope — a tremendous re-examination of the way the school handles such cases. In the cases involved in this scandal, the school seemingly sought to sweep them away, hoping no one would notice.

Baylor’s regents issued the usual statement of regret in announcing McCaw’s resignation: “We understand and accept this difficult decision by Ian McCaw to resign as Athletic Director and are grateful for his service to Baylor University. We also appreciate Ian’s commitment and involvement in bringing a person of integrity such as Jim Grobe to the University before making this decision.” Grobe has been named interim head football coach.

Whatever, the regents are seeking to cushion McCaw’s fall.

I don’t wish ill on the former AD, but this fellow ran an athletic department that includes the conduct of its premier revenue-producing sports activity.

As the saying goes, “The fish rots from the head down.”

Baylor University needs to take care of its business.

legal news, national news

‘Militia’ goons complain about … what? … no Internet

May 31, 2016 kanelis2012

Ammon and Ryan Bundy are unhappy with their living conditions in jail.

You might remember these guys. They took over a national wildlife refuge headquarters for several weeks as part of an ongoing dispute with the federal government over some property issues.

They surrendered after a siege in Burns, Ore. They’re now awaiting trial. They want to prepare for their date in federal court and say they need Internet access in their jail cell. They don’t have it.

Cry … me … a … river — fellas.

They’re being held in Multnomah County, where Portland is located.

Jail officials say they can have IPads, but only if their lawyers preload information they can use.

There’s something strangely weird about these two clowns griping about lack of Internet access.

I surely don’t know this as fact, but something tells me that the Bundys — part of an extreme right-wing political movement — quite likely over the years have complained about prison becoming too much of a “country club” for bad guys. Don’t you think that sometime in their lives they griped about how “good” the criminals have it behind bars?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-militia-leader-complains-about-no-internet-in-jail-cell/ar-BBtF1ne?li=BBnbcA1

To hear these guys gripe about lack of Internet access in their jail cell just rings more than a tad bit hollow in my ears.

A lot of lockups these days have extensive libraries — with books in them — for inmates to use. My strong preference would be for these two clowns to quit griping about Internet access and start cracking open some law texts.

legal news, political news, State news

Irony in all these lawsuits

May 29, 2016 kanelis2012

There’s a certain sort of irony one can find in this story from the Texas Tribune.

Texas’s Republican political leaders have made it a point of pride that they have sued the federal government 40 times since 2009, the year President Barack Obama took office.

The state’s two most recent attorneys general — Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton — have had mixed results from all those suits.

Hey, man, they’re still glad to sue the daylights out of the president and the government over which he presides.

Their cause? The government is overreaching, seeking to usurp authority set aside for the states — allegedly.

The irony? Well, I recall many Republican candidates for public office contending that they wanted to stem the flood of lawsuits. They would argue that many of them are frivolous and that the courts couldn’t afford the escalating costs of litigation. I won’t argue that the suits are “frivolous,” as I am not a legal scholar.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/26/texas-vs-federal-government/

The link attached to this post itemizes the costs of the suits. Add them up. They have cost the state — that’s you and me, folks — a good chunk of money over the past eight years.

This is a point of pride with these fellows?

legal news, Sports news, State news

‘Fired’ or ‘suspended’ at Baylor?

May 27, 2016 kanelis2012 1 Comment

I’m still scratching my noggin over this one.

Baylor University head football coach Art Briles has been “suspended” by the university’s board of regents, which eventually will get around to firing him.

Why wait? What’s the holdup?

Briles allegedly looked the other way while players on his team were sexually assaulting women. He did far too little to stop what was happening on the campus.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15765205/ousted-baylor-bears-coach-art-briles-quotes-foreshadowed-demise

He’s going to be a “former coach” in due course, I reckon.

I always considered a firing for cause to have an immediate impact. If an employee does something wrong — or fails to do something right — then the employer has the right, if not an obligation, to get rid of the offending employee post haste.

What am I missing here?

legal news, national news, political news, Sports news, State news

Is karma about to bite Kenneth Starr?

May 25, 2016 kanelis2012

Does anyone out there see the irony in reports that Kenneth Starr has been fired as president of Baylor University?

Baylor’s board of regents will announce soon whether reports of Starr’s dismissal are true.

Why all the fuss over Starr? Baylor University has been struggling with a sex scandal on campus and reports that school officials failed to take action when one of the school’s football players was accused of raping a female student. The athlete was convicted and other cases emerged in which Baylor officials allegedly failed to take proper action.

The incident and the ensuing scandal has swallowed up the school.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/24/amid-reports-starrs-firing-baylor-says-expect-anno/

The irony is this …

Kenneth Starr is the very same fellow who more than 20 years ago launched an investigation into President Bill Clinton’s real estate dealings. Congress appointed him as a special prosecutor to probe the Whitewater investment matter.

Then something happened. Starr got wind of an inappropriate relationship that the president was having with a young female White House intern. That scandal grew as well. The investigation into a real estate matter morphed into something quite different, more salacious.

The president was summoned before a federal grand jury, which asked him about the relationship. The president, who swore to tell the truth, didn’t tell the truth and he was impeached for lying under oath.

Sex has this way of engulfing things, if you know what I mean.

I get that the cases are far from similar. Starr hasn’t been accused of doing anything improper here. He might take the fall, though, for others’ actions or inaction. He does run the university and as President Truman’s famous White House desk sign pointed out: The Buck Stops Here.

Still, as the saying goes: Karma can be a real drag, man.

legal news, national news, political news

GOP lawmaker: Wrong to block Garland

May 24, 2016 kanelis2012

Dan Donovan’s opinion on a critical judicial appointment might matter if he actually were to play a tangible role in determining its outcome.

It’s too bad the thoughts of a back-bench Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives will be relegated to the back of the closet.

Donovan is a New York member of Congress who said it is wrong for the Republican Senate leadership to block the appointment of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. If Donovan were king of Capitol Hill, he’d let Garland have a hearing and a vote.

He’s right, of course. President Obama appointed Garland to the high court after the shocking death of conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year.

Within hours of Scalia’s death, though, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that the president’s nominee wouldn’t get a hearing. The president’s pick would be tossed aside. Why? Barack Obama is a lame duck, said McConnell, and the appointment should come from the next president of the United States.

It’s an absolute crock of crap.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/281000-gop-lawmaker-republicans-were-wrong-to-block-garland

“I’ve never thought that was a good idea,” Donovan told reporters in Staten Island. “I’ve always thought that the Republicans were wrong, that they should see who the nominee was — actually, the president nominated Judge Garland — and judge him on his abilities, his jurisprudence.”

Gosh. Do you think?

The irony of McConnell’s refusal is too rich to dismiss. He accuses the president of playing politics by seeking to force the Senate to hold hearings and then a vote. The ironic part is that McConnell’s obstruction of this appointment is the classic example of “playing politics” with a key provision in the constitutional authority of the legislative and executive branches of government.

The only reason McConnell is blocking this appointment process from going ahead is because the appointment might change the balance of power on the court, which was a narrowly conservative panel with Scalia. Garland is more of a mainstream moderate judge who, I should note, won overwhelming Senate approval to the D.C. Circuit Court.

Who’s playing politics, Mr. Majority Leader?

One of McConnell’s fellow GOP lawmakers is making some sense. It’s a shame his voice won’t be heard at the other end of the Capitol Building.

legal news, national news, political news, State news

Ex-felons have rights, too

May 22, 2016 kanelis2012

Some of the talk along the presidential campaign trail has turned to felons.

Do those who have been convicted of felonies deserve the right to vote? Sure they do … under certain conditions.

It’s becoming a bit of a sore point among many who think that felons must not have their rights of citizenship restored. If they’ve done something egregiously wrong, why, let them pay for the rest of their lives. That’s the mantra.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe recently granted ex-felons the right to vote in that state, much to the consternation of conservatives who argue that, by golly, McAuliffe is a friend and political ally of Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton. So, naturally he’d want to grant ex-felons the right to vote.

Former GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz of Texas actually said that those who commit crimes are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Let’s not paint with too broad a brush, Sen. Cruz.

Texas — of all places! — allows former felons to vote.

Check this out from the Texas Secretary of State’s Office:

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/effects.shtml

If a felon completes all the terms of his or her release from prison — and that includes fulfilling all the parole requirements — then he or she is eligible to register to vote. The restoration of these rights do not extend to those wanting to run for political office.

Honestly, I fail to see why this is a big deal.

A left-leaning website chides the National Rifle Association for opposing the rights of ex-felons to vote while at the same time pushing for the rights of ex-felons to own firearms.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/22/3780685/nra-wants-ex-felons-guns-not-voting-rights/

I won’t wade into that snake pit here. Maybe later.

However, the idea behind incarcerating people convicted of committing serious crimes is to force them to “repay their debt to society.” Once they complete a prison sentence and once they complete the terms of their parole — if they’re let out of The Joint early — then they have paid their debt in full. That’s how the judicial system sees it.

This clearly is a state-by-state issue. It need not enter the federal realm.

I’ve been critical in the past of many Texas laws and those who make them here. On this one, though, the Lone Star State got it right.

legal news, political news, State news

Pay attention, Gov. Abbott

May 21, 2016 kanelis2012

There’s little I can add to this blog post by Brian Sweany of Texas Monthly.

Except, perhaps, this: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has a sharp legal mind and he ought to know more than he’s acknowledging regarding the conduct of the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton.

Here’s Sweany’s blog post:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/abbotts-feigned-ignorance/

Sweany asks a pertinent question: Why doesn’t the governor know more than he knew more than a year ago about Paxton’s conduct?

The AG has been indicted by a Collin County grand jury on felony accusations of securities fraud. The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a complaint as well. Paxton is accused of failure to disclose properly income he earned while giving investment advice.

As for Abbott’s “feigned ignorance,” as Sweany calls it, I’ll just add this.

Abbott was a trial judge in Houston before being elected to the Texas Supreme Court. He then was elected as the state’s attorney general, a post he held until January 2015 when he became the state’s governor.

Paxton succeeded Abbott at the AG’s office.

It would seem implausible that the governor knows nothing more now than he did a year ago. I don’t want Abbott to convict his Republican colleague, either, through statements to the media.

Still, to borrow a phrase: Gov. Abbott, what did you know and when did you know it?

legal news, medical news, national news, political news

Get ready for big abortion fight

May 20, 2016 kanelis2012

In 1907, Oklahoma became the 46th of 50 states to join the United States of America, an event that subjected the residents of that state to all the “laws of the land.”

That means Oklahomans are bound to adhere to mandates handed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which interprets the constitutionality of the law.

Get set, then, for a big fight as Oklahoma tries to defend itself against challenges to a bill that makes abortion illegal in the state.

Why the fight? Because the Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that the practice of terminating a pregnancy is legal in all 50 states and that women could make that decision until the time that the unborn child is determined to be “viable.”

The Oklahoma Legislature has sent a bill to Gov. Mary Fallin’s desk that makes performing an abortion a felony, except in the case of rape or incest or if carrying the pregnancy to full term endangers the mother’s life.

The landmark Roe v. Wade decision in January 1973 didn’t spell out any exceptions. It said that women who choose to end a pregnancy have that right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the practice was declared legal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oklahoma-abortion_us_573df1b9e4b0aee7b8e94b41

The Oklahoma law is seen as being a mostly symbolic gesture, even if Fallin signs it. She has until Wednesday. Gov. Fallin, a pro-life politician, hasn’t yet said whether she’ll sign it.

The cost to state taxpayers, though, could be substantial if abortion-rights groups challenge the law and subject the state to expensive legal proceedings.

Oklahoma lawmakers have made a profound political statement. They have thumbed their noses at the highest court in America and have determined independently that they are able to flout federal law that the judicial system has reaffirmed.

Gov. Fallin should veto the bill. If she wants to make abortion illegal, she should have to wait — and hope — for the chance to change the philosophical composition of the U.S. Supreme Court.

legal news, State news

No real surprise; Texas high court endorses do-nothing school policy

May 14, 2016 kanelis2012

At one level — had I been following this case more closely — I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the Texas Supreme Court had ruled the state’s public school funding system to be “constitutional.”

I’ll admit that I haven’t been as avid a follower of this issue as I should have been.

The court ruled this week that the state is doing all it should be doing to finance public education. Never mind that previous courts, previous judges and educators across the state have said the state does far too little to support public education.

Not so, said the state’s highest civil appellate court.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160513-editorial-school-finance-decision-could-spell-disaster-for-texas-education.ece

The Dallas Morning News editorial I’ve attached to this blog post lays it out pretty well. The Texas Supremes have set an amazingly low bar for state public education.

The court has declared in its unanimous ruling that taking care of public schools rests exclusively with the Texas Legislature.

Here is what I do know about the state of public school financing in Texas.

The Legislature has dramatically cut state spending on public schools over the past several sessions. Do the Supreme Court justices now believe the Legislature is going to reverse itself, that it’s going to find more money to distribute equitably among the more than 1,000 independent school districts around the state?

Of course, the political ramifications must be factored in.

Republicans control — by wide margins — both legislative chambers. They also occupy every statewide office in Texas. That includes the nine individuals who comprise the Texas Supreme Court.

Who out there really thinks the justices ever were going to buck the policies set by their GOP brethren in the other two branches of state government?

Here’s part of what the Morning News said: “In refusing to intervene, they’ve placed an enormous responsibility to fix our system of school finance on the shoulders of state lawmakers, the same lawmakers who have refused for decades to do what is needed. As a result, Texas’ 5 million public school children will be the ones who most directly bear the costs of the high court’s refusal to fix a system that it concedes requires ‘transformational, top-to-bottom reforms.'”

The justices have recognized the state’s public education system is broken but they won’t do anything to fix it.

The ball’s back in the Legislature’s court. Again.

Do something, lawmakers, to repair the system you’ve broken.

High Plains Blogger