Welcome to the ShTexaslawyer.com Blog

We have a Facebook fan page at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hurst-TX/Stephen-Howard-Attorney-at-Law-PC/192282399742?ref=nf

I encourage you to check out the writings of a good friend who is a talented writer as well.
His FB fan page is at http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Juggling-Writer/268576838364
His blog is at http://www.christophergronlund.com/blog/tjw/

This article at CNN frustrates me (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/17/law.technology/index.html). There is a repeating theme among some lawyers and the general public that somehow we do not have laws to deal with emerging technological issues. I would argue we in fact do have such laws.

The article begins with a discussion about defamatory statements made on Twitter or other social networks. The article implies that the laws of defamation are somehow no current with the times. How could they not be? Defamation is defined as, "... the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation).

A statement on Twitter, MySpace?, Facebook, e-mail, is the same as a statement made in person, in print, or televised. A statement is merely a communication of ideas. The media is irrelevant. So the laws of defamation would apply to a Tweet, as they would any other statement. The defenses to the statement would be the same as well. The person making the statement might not be thinking it was the same, but it is.

The article goes on to imply that the law is missing in areas of intellectual property rights. Yet, it is well settled in American Jurisprudence that the person who creates a writing or thing has the automatic copyright to that creation, unless otherwise modified by contract. Where the conflict arises is that unwitting creators are posting their ideas in electronic media where a EULA or contract has granted rights to the website's owner. That, or the creator is unwittingly placing the creation in the public domain.

The issue is less a failing in the law, than it is an issue with those who do not understand the law. Even some lawyers will fall into this trap. The think that because the media in which the thought or communication is different that past forms, that the old laws do not apply. Non-lawyers unfamiliar with the laws, do not know how to extend how a law created for a different time or media would apply to the current situation.

The reality is that all of our new-fangled, high-tech, means of communication and information sharing are not all that different than before, despite the need of electricity, computers and networks. There is no difference between me telling people a unsubstantiated, careless lie in the grocery store line, than there is posting the same statement to all my friends online. I still made the statement, and if the careless, wrongful statement caused harm, I am responsible for the statement.

Ten-year-old Will Phillips of Arkansas inspires me. Master Phillips has undertaken a course of civil disobedience. He decided to not recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school until ALL Americans had "..liberty and justice for all." The video from CNN is here (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/11/16/am.boy.no.pledge.cnn), and much of the transcript is here (http://rawstory.com/2009/11/10-year-old-wont-say-pledge/). The essence of his protest is that he listened to the words of the pledge, and he thought that it was wrong to say the final words, when there ar Americans that do not have liberty and justice for all.

Although many may find him rebellious, or think he is being mislead by a parental figure, I find his position pure. From a purely Constitutional analysis, he is right. Gays, lesbians and other minorities may be Americans, but they do not enjoy the same liberties or justice that other Americans enjoy. In particular, he points out that homosexuals are not allowed to marry.

The young man aspires to be a lawyer as well.

I wish him good fortune.

Have you ever stopped to look at the qualifications of the most popular self help "guru's"? Granted, what school teaches a course in self help? What qualifications does one need to be a "self help guru?" My biggest issue with most of these self appointed guru's is that their background most often seems to be in sales or failed work life experiences.

Lets take a look at some of the most popular "guru's".

James Arthur Ray: He's first because he has been in the news for the "Sweat Lodge Deaths". His background and qualifications are, per his website; President and CEO of his own multi-million dollar corporation, studies in "...a wide diversity of teachings and teachers – from his collegiate learning and the schools of the corporate world, to the ancient cultures of Peru, Egypt and the Amazon." However, if you search, you won't find a listing of any degrees, licenses or anything else about this man's background. There is an interview with him (http://www.awarenessmag.com/sepoct07/so07_james_arthur_ray.htm ) that quotes,

"Well I was really having some very difficult times financially, and I was going to leave San Diego and go someplace less expensive to live. So at the lowest of lows, I received a really big envelope in the mail from a dear friend of mine in St. Louis. He had heard through the grapevine of the challenges I was going through. All kinds of things were in the envelope, his daughter drew me a picture and colored it, and he wrote me a long letter. At the end of the letter he said, “Just remember that you’re blessed and God’s delays are not God’s denials.” When I read that, it just hit home and I knew he was right. I had really allowed myself to get sucked into self-pity, limiting beliefs and self-doubt — all those things that just perpetuate themselves. That’s when I started turning things around."

Rhonda Byrne- The focal point of "The Secret". Her website states her background includes having been a "... radio producer. Her creative leadership led to a series of number-one rated programs. Rhonda moved into television production, joining Australia’s Nine Network, where she worked with one of the country’s most highly respected directors, Peter Faiman.
In 1994, Rhonda formed her own production company, Prime Time Productions. Her company produced top-rated shows such as The World’s Greatest Commercials, Great Escapes, OZ Encounters, and Learners." Wikipedia doesn't have much to add to this background.

Tony Robbins- This gentleman's website says, "For the past three decades, Anthony Robbins has served as an advisor to leaders around the world. A recognized authority on the psychology of leadership, negotiations, organizational turnaround, and peak performance, he has been honored consistently for his strategic intellect and humanitarian endeavors." Wikipedia doesn't have any listing for an educational background for Mr. Robbins, but does state he learned from Jim Rohn.

Jim Rohn- Per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rohn) Mr. Rohn, "Rohn began his early adulthood without acclaim, leaving college after his first year, starting a family, and trying to get by as best he could as a salaried worker." Uh, that's all the qualifications Mr. Rohn has. Yet, he was a teacher to other self help wizards, such as Anthony Robbins, Mark Victor Hansen, Brian Tracy and Jack Canfield.

Basically, it is my opinion that all of these "self-made" success stories of motivational speakers and self help guru's are stories of highly successful snake oil salesman. The proof that these "motivational speakers" know what they are talking about is that they made a ton of money selling their stuff. What they sold were unfounded belief systems in one's self or some outside force, that would bring wealth and happiness to anyone willing to pay to hear the secret of success.

If these folks are successful, it is because they are successful sales people. They found a chump in the masses of unhappy people looking for a way to improve them lives. These guru's weave an extravaganza of ideas, promises, and promotion with no foundation or backing. Their audience is filled with lost, disappointed souls, who pay to peek into the ideals, hoping for salvation from their lot in life.

If anyone actually learned something from these charlatans, it should be that you can get rich quick by producing nothing, while just talking people up. Anyone who idealizes these quacks should go into sales of their own "self help" drivel, and become like the speaker they idealized. Instead, the "followers" try to apply the empty promises to their own lives and real jobs.

The reality is these speakers's success is based on hard work selling cults of personality and empty promises. And there is the best lesson one can learn from these "guru's". Hard work, not wishing, dreaming, pepping yourself up, or positive energy is what brings success. But, telling people to work hard doesn't sell books, dvd's or speaking engagements. So instead, these guru's have to sell something that sounds better. What sounds better than an easy path to success through positive thinking and wishing?

Feh..