Category Archives: legal news

HS football players face serious trouble

football-sideline-with-ref

I marvel occasionally at the ability of football referees and umpires to stay out of the way of the action as it unfolds before them on the field.

One usually doesn’t worry, though, about players deliberately targeting officials for seriously vicious hits.

Perhaps we ought to worry now.

Two San Antonio-area high school football players have been suspended from school after they pile-drived an official during a game this past week.

See video here

John Jay High School was playing Marble Falls High School. The game was nearing the end. The ref was blindsided by the players. The video, which has gone viral, looks — to me at least — as if it was deliberate and malicious.

The John Jay head coach has apologized for his team. The Marble Falls coach said he’s never seen anything like what happened in his 14 years coaching high school sports.

The question now being floated is: Should the players be prosecuted for committing a crime?

The ref is so upset at what happened he’s considering pressing charges. If it were me and I was threatened with potential permanent injury as a result of two football players wearing body armor, well, I believe I’d file charges.

Poor sportsmanship happens. You see kids taunting other kids on occasion. They get reprimanded for losing their cool.

The video, though, suggests to me something considerably worse.

I agree with the school officials: Let’s let “due process” play out.

I believe the process is going to produce a criminal prosecution.

Take a look at the video. Your thoughts?

 

Clerk goes to jail for violating her oath

davis

The Kim Davis story is driving me batty.

She’s now in jail because she won’t perform the duties as county clerk that are required of her. She took an oath to perform them. Now she’s saying she cannot because her “conscience” won’t allow her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

A judge found her in contempt of court and threw her into the slammer.

Mike Huckabee has entered the fray by declaring that Davis’s jailing proves that the government has criminalized Christianity. The former Arkansas governor and current Republican presidential candidate says Davis is within her rights to invoke her “religious liberty” by refusing to follow the mandate set down by the United States Supreme Court.

Huck is wrong.

Davis’s religious liberty is not being challenged here. She is free to pray as she wishes. She is free to attend whatever church she wants. She is not free to flout the oath of office she took that says she shall uphold state and federal law.

The federal law now includes a decision by the Supreme Court that says gay couples are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to be married. But then Huckabee dismisses that ruling, declaring on Davis’s behalf that, by golly, that decision merely comes from “nine unelected federal judges.”

Davis, as county clerk in Rowan County, Ky., is required to follow that law.

She hasn’t done so. She’s now in jail.

She needs to quit. Or … she needs to be removed from office.

Let’s put this story to bed. It’s gone on long enough.

 

Read your oath of office, Mme. Clerk

same-sex-marriage

Kim Davis took an oath when she became a county clerk in Kentucky to uphold the constitutions of her state and her nation.

The oath, I’m quite willing to suggest, didn’t include any exemptions for her religious faith.

Thus, it becomes imperative that she fulfill all the terms of the oath she took.

But she’s refusing to do that.

Instead, she’s refusing to grant marriage certificates to gay couples. She cites her religious belief opposing gay marriage and the U.S. Constitution’s protection of religious liberty.

I get that Kim Davis’s Christian faith is important to her. Mine is important to me as well.

But she took an oath to uphold the law. What’s more, the U.S. Supreme Court this year has ruled that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. That includes Kentucky.

To their credit, Potter County Clerk Julie Smith and Randall County Clerk Renee Calhoun declared they would issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples who request them. I also would have applauded either or both of them had they resigned if their religious faith interfered with their public oath.

Davis should resign from her office, as some county clerks have done around the country. She cannot serve in an elected public office without carrying out all the duties that the office requires.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-again-denies-license?utm_content=buffercaf60&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

 

‘Loyal’ Republicans turning on Texas AG?

AG Paxton

Texas Republicans are about as loyal as any partisan group anywhere in America.

They seem to stand behind their embattled officeholders no matter what. Until now … maybe.

Texas Monthly reports that a poll taken by the Texas Bipartisan Justice Committee shows that 62 percent of state Republicans want Attorney General Ken Paxton to resign over his indictment for securities fraud. The poll also reveals that 53 percent of self-proclaimed TEA Party members want Paxton to quit.

Although I disagree that he shouldn’t have to resign because of an indictment — it’s that presumption of innocence thing, you know — I find it fascinating that a significant majority of Texas Republicans want one of their own to leave office.

He was indicted, after all, by a grand jury in Collin County, which he represented in the Texas Legislature before being elected attorney general in 2014.

Maybe that ought to tell the attorney general something about his standing among all Texans — and that includes Democrats, too. He is after all, attorney general for the entire state and for all Texans, not just those who voted for him.

But as Erica Greider asks in her Texas Monthly blog, “What are the other 38 percent of Texas Republicans thinking?”

 

 

‘Subway Guy’ falls hard

jared-fogle-a-1024

One of the many aspects of today’s popular culture is the astonishing celebrity status that falls on individuals for reasons that have nothing to do with talent, brains or tangible accomplishment.

Social media make celebrities out of people often without them ever being aware of it until it’s too late. Take a picture with your smart phone of someone doing something weird, or just plain interesting, post it on social media outlets and — boom! — you’ve made a celebrity out of someone.

Jared “Subway Guy” Fogle is the latest popular culture celebrity to fall hard on his own failings.

He’s pleaded guilty to child porn charges. Now we hear that he solicited sex with children.

Fogle made millions by becoming a pitchman for the sandwich chain after losing a couple hundred pounds by scarfing down Subway sandwiches. He has a wife and small children. He also pledged to spend money to help poor children, but lo and behold, it’s been revealed he never distributed a dime through the foundation he created.

He did, though, allegedly spend money on seeking sex.

Just as so many others who portray themselves in one way publicly, only to behave quite differently when they think no one is looking, Fogle is about to fall hard.

His wife has filed divorce proceedings. Fogle is confined to his fancy house while he awaits sentencing.

My hope for this clown is that he gets the maximum of whatever Indiana law allows. He’s got to be put away for as long as possible.

He has duped the public for too long to get a mere rap on the knuckles.

Oh, the consequences of the celebrity status that falls on those who don’t deserve it.

 

Woodward knows a ‘scandal’ when he sees one

Bob Woodward knows his way around a political scandal.

He once was a young police reporter working for the Metro desk at the Washington Post. Then some goofballs broke into the Democratic Party National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex. Woodward and Carl Bernstein, another young reporter, began smelling a scandal in the works.

It turned out to be a big one. President Richard Nixon ended up resigning when it was learned he ordered the cover-up of the burglary.

Woodward sees a similarity between then and what’s happening now with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy. The e-mail matter deals with messages Clinton sent on her personal server that might have contained highly classified information while she was serving as secretary of state.

According to The Hill: “’Follow the trail here,’ Woodward said on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe,’ noting that emails erased from Clinton’s private server when she led the State Department were either sent or received by someone else, too.”

Clinton erased the e-mails, just like those audiotapes were erased back in the 1970s as the Watergate scandal began to creep up on President Nixon. That’s according to Woodward.

The man knows what a scandal looks like. The Clinton e-mail controversy isn’t a scandal. At least not yet.

AG may keep job, even if he’s convicted? Wow!

The Texas Tribune has published an interesting primer on the complexities of Texas law, its constitution and whether the state’s attorney general can keep his job even if he’s convicted of a felony.

Here’s the link. I encourage you to take a look at it and then try to decide what you think about it.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/04/texplainer-if-convicted-will-paxton-have-leave-off/

Ken Paxton, a Republican, has been indicted in Collin County on three felony counts alleging securities fraud. He just took office as Texas attorney general in January. He vows to plead not guilty. He won’t quit.

I don’t think he needs to resign as AG while the case is being adjudicated. But if he’s convicted? To me, it’s a no-brainer. Hit the road, Ken.

The Tribune reminds us of a curious quirk in the Texas Constitution, which is that judges and other judicial officials do not have to be practicing lawyers when they take office, although they do need good standing as members of the State Bar of Texas.

Some years ago, Potter and Randall County voters elected the late Hal Miner to preside as judge in the 47th District Court. Miner hadn’t practiced law, as such, for more than two decades. He ran a family business, but stayed active in the state bar.

The question that Paxton could face involves whether he’d lose his license to practice law if he’s convicted of a felony. If he does, then he cannot serve as the state’s top legal counselor. But as the Tribune reports, the law license and a possible felony conviction are separate issues.

Bizarre, eh?

I believe a conviction should compel Paxton to quit — if for no other reason than his credibility as the state’s top law enforcer would be blown apart if a jury finds him guilty of, um, breaking the law.

Texas garners another dubious ‘honor’

First, it was a sitting Texas governor who got indicted by a grand jury.

The governor, Rick Perry, has since left office and is now pursuing the Republican presidential nomination.

Now we have a sitting attorney general who’s been indicted by another grand jury.

Welcome to The Club, Ken Paxton.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/03/paxton-set-surrender-securities-fraud-indictment/

Are they similar? Not by a long shot.

Perry’s indictment occurred in Travis County, where a grand jury has accused him of abuse of power and coercion of a public servant in connection with his veto of funds for the Public Integrity Unit. Perry and his allies have argued that the Travis County indictment was politically motivated; Travis County remains a Democratic bastion, while Perry is a Republican. Get it? Pure politics.

Not so with Paxton. He was indicted by a grand jury in his home county, which is Collin County. Paxton is a Republican attorney general; prior to that he represented Collin County in the Texas House of Representatives. I’m thinking it’s a real good bet that some — perhaps most — of the grand jurors voted for him when he ran for AG in 2014.

Paxton is indicted on two felony counts of securities fraud and another count of failing to register as an investment counselor.

This is serious stuff. Paxton is the state’s top law enforcer. He’s supposed to be clear of this kind of thing. He’s actually admitted to the investment advice matter.

Good grief! Can’t we do better than this in Texas?

OK, should he quit? No. He is still innocent until — or if — a court proves his guilt. Paxton plans to plead not guilty and will seek a trial by jury. Fine. That’s his right.

These indictments, though, of leading Texas politicians is getting worrisome.

We should expect more from our attorney general

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is going to have a big start to his work week.

A grand jury in McKinney, about noon Monday, is reportedly going to indict him on at least two felony counts of securities fraud. One of the counts is a first-degree felony, the other is a third-degree felony.

Paxton has essentially admitted to committing the lesser offense. He did so while campaigning for the office to which voters elected him in 2014.

This all brings to mind an essential question about the wisdom of Texas voters: Shouldn’t we demand the very best from our elected officials?

Paxton was elected in a breeze this past November. That, by itself, really isn’t surprising, as Paxton is a Republican running in a heavily Republican state.

However, the guy took office in January as the state’s top legal eagle. Some AGs have cast themselves as major crime fighters; I keep thinking of the late Democrat Jim Mattox, who used to imply wrongly that he’d bring bad guys to justice, even though the office basically deals with civil matters.

Paxton’s indictments don’t suggest the man is morally unfit to hold the office he occupies. However, it galls me greatly that he could get elected for no other reason than he happened to be a member of the political party that calls all — and I mean all — the shots in Texas.

I don’t think Paxton needs to step down while he defends himself against the criminal complaints brought against him. I believe in the presumption of innocence. Thus, there’s no legal obligation for Paxton to recuse himself from his duties.

Yet it becomes difficult for the attorney general — and the office this one leads — to proceed with any matter relating to the very type of infractions that have produced these indictments.

Some of Paxton’s critics have noted that his record in the Legislature wasn’t all that stellar. He was under-qualified politically to ascend to an important statewide office, they said. I didn’t follow his legislative career all that closely, but this upcoming indictment involving securities fraud is a serious matter that needs to be resolved as quickly as possible.

The attorney general of Texas needs — and deserves — to have this matter adjudicated in short order.

For that matter, rank-and-file Texans need this case settled soon as well. Our state’s attorney general must not operate under this cloud. After all, this man works for us.

Should an indicted state AG still serve?

Regarding the upcoming indictment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, reportedly on at least two felony counts of securities fraud, some critics are going to question whether he should continue serving in the office he occupies.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-attorney-general-indicted-on-felony-charges-sources-say/ar-BBljQAB

At first blush, my reaction might be for him to step aside.

Then again, I want to be fair. Paxton, a Republican, is entitled to a presumption of innocence. He’s going to be accused formally, it appears, of  third- and first-degree felony counts. He’s admitted to the third-degree accusation that he steered investment clients to a friend of his without notifying the state. The other charge involves an investment company with which he was involved.

A grand jury in Collin County, north of Dallas — which Paxton represented while he served in the Texas Legislature — is set to unseal its indictment Monday in McKinney, according to sources in the know.

It’s all pretty serious stuff, given that Paxton is the state’s leading lawyer and its chief law enforcer.

You just don’t expect the attorney general of your state to be so tainted.

That doesn’t mean he cannot do his job.

The burden of proving his guilt will rest with the state. Until that guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the man who’s accused of the crime is presumed innocent.

Let the man serve if he’s able, even though he’ll likely have his hands full trying to defend himself.