Welcome to the ShTexaslawyer.com Blog

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..

If you have gotten an email that says something like:

Subject: Texas HOME OWNER FRIENDS .......vote NO
On November 3rd, there will be Propositions 1, 2,  and
3 allowing the State
of Texas to start taxing Residential Homeowners.

DO NOT BELIEVE IT!

I don't know if the misinformation was done on purpose, or if it was just a misinformed person that started the email, but the information in the email is incorrect.

I hope you will take the time to learn what is actually at stake, and not fall into the TLDR crowd (To Long, Didn't Read).

It is actually Propositions 2, 3, 5 and 11 at issue.

You can read the actual propositions here. http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2009novballotlang.shtml

Prop 2 would force counties to tax based on actual value, not "best and highest use". Currently counties can tax based on what the highest use the land could be used for (IE, commercial if there was no zoning in that county). Voting "Yes" means that the county can only tax you on the use the land was actually put to, at the current market rate. This issue is very important in Places like Houston, that has no zoning. There a home could be only worth say, $75,000, but could be taxed as if it was being used for a profitable industrial site.

Prop 3 would make all counties use the same taxation rules throughout the state, currently they all have different rules. A vote "yes" here only standardizes the methods by which each county appraises and taxes.

Prop 5 would let poorer rural counties to share an appraisal board, rather than each have an independent tax appraisal board. This is a cost saving measure for these counties that adjoin each other.

Prop 11 would put some limits on eminent domain laws to prevent the mall taking that Hurst did. The current rule basically says a municipality, county, or the state can claim eminent domain and take land for "the greater good", not just public works. North East Mall in Hurst, Texas is a prime example of eminent domain gone wrong. There, homes were taken to help build a private commercial mall for profit, not a road, school, park, or other public works.

Prop 1 is nothing to do with any of this. Prop 1 allows municipalities to finance the creation of buffer zones around military bases. This is good for both the military and the citizens. This allows the municipality to tax or seek bonds to finance buying land around military bases to create a buffer zone. The buffer zone reduces noise issues from the base, and allows the base to operate without having neighborhoods spring up around it. And, it lets Texas have at least SOME empty spaces where trees and grass can grow.

If you don't believe me, check out this guys site, he's a realtor and says pretty much the same thing. http://www.texasrealestate.com/web/3/34/index.cfm

It seems either I reached enough traffic to be noticed, or the newest craze in Internet marketing is blog spam. I'm getting multiple posts per day of either quotes from books, generic comments, or just links from everything from acne and hemorrhoid creams to chat smilies and electric toothbrushes. It is irritating to have the activity. It messes with the stats of traffic to the site, it takes time to delete them or report them, and... well, it just sucks. A blogger wants to inform people and have relevant conversations. When you start out, you anxiously wait to see if anyone is reading or will comment. When you get a comment, it is very exciting. Then, then along comes the spam.

Not much to be done about it. It's as bad as telemarketers, junk mail, spam email, and fliers left on your car or your front door. I sometimes think America has become the economy based on advertising. Our news, magazines, radio, television and even the Internet are essentially supported by advertising revenue. Without ad revenue, most of these products wouldn't exist, or they'd be really expensive. But, how much money is actually wasted on advertising?

To give you a guess at what is spent, trying to get your attention, take a look at this site.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/05/u-s-internet-ad-revenues-decline-5-3-in-first-half-2009/

$10,900,000,000 spent (that's 10.9 BILLION, if you didn't want to count the zero's). And that number is down 5.3% from previous numbers! And, that number is only for 1/2 of a year. So, basically, just Internet advertising is over a $20 Billion industry.

That's a lot of money spent on spam and banner ads that I ignore and automatically delete.

The link to the story is here. http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2009/10/state-district-judge-finds-texas-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional.html

This story begins with two men who married in Massachusetts in 2006. One moved to Texas, and after meeting residency requirements in Texas, filed for divorce. All the procedural requirements for a divorce were therefore met. There was a marriage, recognized by another state, there was the required six months in the State of Texas, and the required ninety days residency in the county of the divorce. What was at issue was if Texas would grant the Divorce.

Texas has passed a law that states marriage is between one man and one woman. Therefore, many believed Texas could not grant a divorce the state would not otherwise recognize as valid. Many believed this case would turn on an interpretation of the Federal Full Faith and Credit rules, which hold that each state of the Union must give full faith and credit to the laws of the other states. In a major decision, Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan has gone beyond just a full faith and credit argument, to the heart of the issue at hand. Judge Callahan has held that the amendment to the Texas Constitution defining marriage is in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Despite all the rhetoric regarding the morality of gay marriage, whether or not God hates homosexuality, and whether or not gay marriage will pave the way to marriage with box turtles (see http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/18/gay-marriage-compare.html), the Judge’s decision is 100% accurate, logical, and valid legal argument.

The 14th Amendment states “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Equal Protection clause has been the foundation for such issues as overturned laws barring blacks from juries. The clause was also the basis for the disturbing result of Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy v. Ferguson was the decision which created the “separate but equal” concept in school segregation. The thought was, that you could create schools that were separate, and somehow still treat everyone equally. This notion was destroyed in the later case of Brown v. Board of Education. The Brown v Board of Education decision held that separate schools were inherently (by their own nature and definition) unequal.

What Judge Callahan is stating is that treating gay marriage any different than a “traditional marriage” is inherently unequal. The logic would be as follows: Every United States Citizen is equal, and deserves equal protection. Americans who are homosexuals are, nonetheless, citizens. Denying homosexuals the right to marry as their non-homosexual fellow citizens can, is inequality. Therefore, Texas is discriminating against American citizens.

I agree with Judge Callahan that specifically prohibiting homosexual marriage denies the same rights to a group of people based upon sexual orientation. I also believe that “civil-unions” are per se a separate but equal argument that also fails Constitutional scrutiny. If two people wish to marry, the right to marry should not be taken away from them based on their religious, political, racial or gender status.

It will be quite interesting to see what the appeals court does with this decision. The Attorney General has promised to appeal the decision. The appellate court will be hard pressed to find a legal footing to hold that an obvious prejudicial discrimination based on sexual orientation can stand in the face of the United States Constitution. There will be those who try. Some will argue that gender is a protected class of people, while sexual orientation is not. Such logic begs the question though, at what point is it NOT discrimination to hold that a group of people, who are citizens, do not deserve equal protection?