No account yet?
Subscription Options
Subscribe via RSS, or
Free Email Alert

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail alert with links to Dallas Blog posts.

New Site Search
Bill DeOre
Click for Larger Image
Dallas Sports Blog
Local Team Sports News
The Official Site of the Dallas Mavericks
TEX Homepage News

A feed could not be found at

Stars Recent Headlines
Good News Dallas
Was That You Lord? Print E-mail
by James Reza    Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 09:29 AM

Matthew: 35-39 — For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?” And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you did it for me.”

Just recently I read one of the most asinine articles “Pope Francis can show the GOP the way” written by Marc A. Thiessen of the Washington Post. The writer in question chides the Republican Party for not being more sympathetic to the poor and the downtrodden of this country as say the Democrats I assume. In his piece, Mr. Thiessen tells the GOP that they must be more like Pope Francis in coming down to the level of the poor and be more caring for them as he was as a cardinal in Buenos Aires when he would visit the poor in the inner cities and barrios. Mr. Thiessen warns the GOP that unless they embrace the poor they have little to no chance to regain the White House or regain seats in the Congress and Senate.

My friends, I don’t know where Mr. Thiessen has been the last 5 years, but one has to wonder if he’s aware that not since the high unemployment rate of 13% (highest since the Depression) of the Democrat led Carter Administration in the 70s, the unemployment rate of 8+% (highest in over 20 years) for the last 5 years has been under the Obama Administration. And what does high unemployment mean to U.S. workers? It means meager unemployment benefits where families suffer to try to provide for their families and pay their debtors, leaving little for not enjoying the benefit of having a job! Unemployment is so prevalent today under the Obama Administration that this last year 2.5 million more people slipped into poverty making the number of Americans living below the official poverty level to 46.2 million people, the highest number in 52 years. The unemployment rate under this administration is higher, but millions are not counted because they simply have stopped looking for work because there are no jobs to be found. Those who are employed are now paying more in taxes and when the Obamacare Health Program kicks in 2014, their paychecks will shrink further. And to add injury to insult, those workers who don’t purchase the mandated government run insurance program will be fined as will be employers!

As for Pope Francis visiting the poor, he can fly to the U.S. and visit the 10 poorest cities in our country where many folks live below the poverty level: Detroit, MI-32.5%; Buffalo, NY-29.9%; Cincinnati, OH-27.8%; Miami, FL-26.9%; St. Louis, MO-26.8%; El Paso, TX-26.4%; Milwaukee, WI-26.2%; Philadelphia, PA-25.1% and Newark, NJ-24.2%. And what do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common? They all have elected Democrat mayors and most have not elected a Republican mayor in years!

Folks, I’m no saint, but I can’t remember the last time I missed mass on Sunday. And, for as many years, I give as much as I can afford to my parish church, as does my wife. Besides donating to my parish I also donate to worthy causes such as to the retired nuns who taught me in Catholic school and to Pro Life groups. Just recently I sent a hefty check to the IRS so they can give my hard earned tax dollars to help feed the poor and hungry of our country. So, I hope the Lord is pleased that I give to my church and pay taxes to help feed the poor and hungry in my country.

My friends I’ve run into a lot of street people who reek of liquor, and have asked me for a handout and truthfully, they just don’t appear to be dying of hunger. I wonder if the Lord will be disappointed that I don’t give these individuals a handout. As an example, do ya’ll think the Lord would be displeased with me when a man once told me he was hungry and wanted money and I in turn offered to buy him a meal where I played music and he told me he didn’t like that damn Mexican food, and I told him to go to hell! Do ya’ll think the Lord will be displeased with me when a young man asked me for a handout in San Antonio because he couldn’t find a job and I told him there was a kitchen job opening at a nearby pizza place and he told me they didn’t pay enough and laughed when he said he made more money panhandling? Do ya’ll think the Lord will be sadden with me when I was angered by an obese woman who bought chips, donuts, cold drinks, candies, and paid with her WIC card and then bought a 6 pack of beer and a carton of cigarettes costing $54 with her ATM card?

As for clothing the poor, my wife and I for years have taken our kids and our clothes to her poor family in Mexico so they can use them or sell them. We also donate all of our old clothes to outlets that sell used clothes to the poor and needy.

In welcoming a stranger, do ya’ll think the Lord will be angry with me in that I don’t believe in illegal immigration? I don’t mind people from wherever coming to my country by abiding our immigration laws. Just recently they caught a man from Mexico who had raped and battered 3 women in Dallas. Last year, an illegal alien raped and killed a young girl in Denton and then set fire to her car with her inside. He then left for Mexico. I personally witnessed a drunk illegal alien at high speed plow into a car killing two occupants as they left their Sunday church services as he fled from the police. He posted his bail bond and has never paid for his crime. I ask my fellow Americans am I wrong in feeling this way about illegal immigration?

Finally, would God and Pope Francis be pleased if I joined a political party like the Democrats who supposedly(?) help the poor, the unemployed, illegal aliens, take money in the form of taxes from hard working Americans and give to those who don’t work and who support killing the unborn and are for same sex marriage? I await your answers to see if ya’ll feel I am wrong in my religious and political beliefs.


Share This Story on Facebook
Protecting the Furry Members of the Family Print E-mail
by John Browning    Tue, Apr 9, 2013, 12:35 PM

          The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that owners of companion animals cannot recover non-economic damages from those who killed their pets.  Whether it’s a motorist who hit your child’s adored puppy, a veterinarian who made a careless error, or an irresponsible neighbor whose pit bulls got loose and savaged your beloved family pet, accountability—in the eyes of the highest court in the state—is limited to whatever the “market value” of the dog or cat happened to be.  For nearly all of us, what we paid to buy or adopt a dog or cat pales by comparison to the emotional value that a companion animal holds for us.  Many of us (including myself) regard our dogs or cats as members of the family, and would like the law to reflect that intrinsic bond.


          In certain limited circumstances, some states already have recognized this bond—at least when it comes to the wrongful actions of law enforcement that result in the death of a family pet.  In Colorado, a bipartisan bill known as the “Don’t Shoot My Dog” law has been unanimously approved by the senate judiciary committee and is being considered by the full Colorado Senate.  The measure will require that sheriff’s departments and police departments develop training programs to prepare law enforcement officers for dealing with dogs.  Among other things, the training would stress recognizing dog behavior and employing non-lethal methods to control dogs, according to the bill’s co-authors, Sen. Lucia Guzman (D-Denver) and Sen. David Balmer (R-Centennial).


          The legislation was inspired by a growing number of incidents in Colorado and nationwide in which police officers have shot and killed family pets under highly questionable circumstances.  The Colorado senators heard testimony from people like Brittany Moore of Erie, Colorado, who called police on May 10, 2011 because of threatening phone calls she was receiving.  The police officer who arrived initially went to the wrong house; when he walked toward Moore’s residence, her “friendly” dogs Ava and Ivy approached the officer.  He backed up, drawing his gun.  Ms. Moore called to the dogs, causing them to stop.  As Ava turned to go back to her, a rawhide toy still clenched in her mouth, a shot rang out; the officer shot the dog in the back, severing her spinal cord.  He later reported that he “had to” shoot the dog because it was “threatening” him.  Ms. Moore vehemently contradicts the officer’s account, saying “Ava never posed a threat at any time that night.  The only threat that night was an officer discharging his weapon less than five feet away from me in a neighborhood with kids playing outside.”


          In 2011, a federal jury awarded “$333,000 to a family after Chicago police officers shot and killed their black Labrador during a February 2009 search of their home.  The police had a warrant to search two apartment units as part of a drug investigation, including the apartment where brothers Darren and Thomas Russell lived.  18 year-old Thomas raised his hands in the air as the officers entered, and asked for permission to lock up his 9 year-old black Lab, Lady.  The police refused, and when Lady came around the corner with her tail wagging, the police shot and killed her.  According to Thomas Russell, Lady was his “best friend” who never left his side, only sleeping when he slept.  No drugs were found, and the Russells brought a civil rights lawsuit alleging excessive force and infliction of emotional harm.  The damages verdict included a punitive damages award against the police officer who killed Lady.


          In Maryland in 2012, a jury awarded Roger and Sandi Jenkins $620,000 in damages after sherifff’s deputies shot and killed their chocolate Labrador Brandi.  On January 9, 2010, deputies Timothy Brooks and Nathan Rector arrived at the Jenkins’ home in Taneytown, looking for their son Jerrett, who was wanted on a civil warrant.  Roger Jenkins told deputies they could come in and look for his son after he put his dogs away.  The deputies allegedly ignored this (their defense attorney would later claim that Mr. Jenkins could have done more to secure the dogs), and Deputy Brooks claimed that he made a “split-second decision” to shoot Brandi when she loped toward him.  Dashcam video showed the friendly dog coming out to greet the officers.  The jury found the officers’ actions to be grossly negligent and a violation of Mr. & Mrs. Jenkins’ civil rights.


          The October 2011 shooting of a dog by St. Petersburg, Florida police led to a civil lawsuit as well, but more importantly, has already spurred a change in police policy on dealing with loose dogs.  After police killed his 12 year-old, arthritic golden retriever Boomer after the dog escaped his yard, Florida attorney Roy Glass didn’t want money (the lawsuit proceeds, if any, will go to charity), he wanted to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.  Now, St. Petersburg police are to use non-lethal force, such as the catchpoles used by animal control officers.


          Earlier this year, Des Moines, Washington police paid a $51,000 settlement stemming from the killing of a dog in November 2010.  Rosie, a Newfoundland belonging to Charles and Deirdre Wright, got out of her yard while the Wrights were not home.  A neighbor reported the barking dog to police, who chased Rosie for blocks and even attempted to Taser the dog before shooting her 4 times with a high-powered rifle.  Even more egregious were the officers’ comments about shooting the dog (the microphone recordings were obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request), and the fact that local police initially denied knowing what happened to Rosie—until Mr. Wright confronted them with a Taser dart he found on his front lawn.  According to Adam Karp, the Wrights’ attorney, the settlement is believed to be the largest of its kind in Washington state history.


          I’m not saying that law enforcement officers don’t have the right to protect themselves when a dog constitutes a valid threat—like, for example, a drug dealer or gang member’s trained pit bull.  But I consider my dogs members of my family, and if an officer like Timothy Brooks shot at a four-legged member of my family, the two-legged ones are going to shoot back.

Share This Story on Facebook
The Lighter Side of the Law Print E-mail
by John Browning    Wed, Mar 13, 2013, 10:28 AM

Sometimes, it seems as though the cases that move through the criminal and the civil sides of the legal system run from the sublime to the ridiculous.  As strange as a lawsuit or a criminal charge may sound, I can practically guarantee that there’s an even more bizarre one right around the corner.  Here are some of the more recent examples of the oddest moments recently in the justice system:


An Eyepopping Day of Trial


I’ve seen a lot of verdicts described as “eyepopping.”  But that description became a literal one for the jurors in an assault trial going on in a Philadelphia-area Court of Common Pleas in early February.  The defendant, Matthew Brunelli, was on trial for his role in an August 2011 fight outside of the New Princeton Tavern; during the fight, Brunelli allegedly struck John Huttick, causing the loss of Huttick’s eye.  While Huttick was testifying on the witness stand, his $3,000 prosthetic left eye popped out.  He caught it, crying out as he did so, and as several jurors gasped and started to rise.  Judge Robert Coleman, who called the moment an “unfortunate, unfortunate incident” declared a mistrial and dismissed the shaken jurors.


Shouldn’t She Just Wait for the Lindsay Lohan Designer Ankle Monitor?


22 year-old Rebecca Gallanagh of Staffordshire, England may have gotten in trouble with the law, but that wasn’t going to keep her from getting her bling on.  The young woman was convicted of being disorderly in public for her role in a fight outside a nightclub last November, and as part of her punishment, the court ordered her to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet and observe a strict curfew.  But, Gallanagh thought, the court never suspended her fashion sense, so she “bedazzled” the ankle monitor by decorating it with fake diamonds.  She says she got the idea from a reality show, “Big Fat Gypsy Weddings,” and that she did it “to make me feel better about wearing it. . . . It just matched my style.”  But Gallanagh’s act of decorating defiance didn’t sit well with either the monitor’s manufacturer or the presiding judge, who slapped her with a $220 fine for her action (which the manufacturer said could hamper the electronic ankle bracelet’s effectiveness).


The Force is Strong With This One


Better cast David Canterbury in the next “Star Wars” film.  The 33 year-old Oregon man was arrested in 2011 after an incident in a Portland Toys R Us store, in which he allegedly assaulted 3 customers with toy “Star Wars” lightsabers.  When police arrived, they saw Canterbury swinging two of the lightsabers.  First, one officer tried to subdue the man with a Taser, but Canterbury must have learned from a Jedi master, because he used the lightsabers to sweep aside the device’s wires.  Another officer similarly tried to use his Taser, only to face the same result.  Finally, officers rushed Canterbury and wrestled him to the ground.  Evidently, the Jedi mind trick didn’t work either: Canterbury was taken into custody on charges of assault and resisting arrest.


The Problem With Disability Pensions


The New Jersey Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS) paid out $175 million to 5,067 disabled retirees in 2011, much of which undoubtedly went to deserving former police officers and firefighters injured in the line of duty.  But some of it went to Timothy Carroll, who retired at age 33 from his job as a sheriff’s officer in Morris County, New Jersey.  Carroll claimed to suffer from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, emotionally crippled by flashbacks of responding to crime scenes, suicides, and car accidents.  On his disability application, Carroll described the “crime scene flashbacks and hallucinations” that haunted him.  It was successful—he began receiving disability checks after his retirement was approved, effective May 1999.  He currently gets $23,284 annually plus health coverage and his disability payouts could exceed $1 million.  But, just a few years after the checks started rolling in, Carroll started a business, Tragic Solutions, LLC of Linden, New Jersey.  What does this business do?  Why, it cleans up gory crime scenes, specializing (according to its website) in taking care of “bloody and/or messy” scenes, including “murder, suicide, accidental, natural and decomposing deaths.”  Yes, this is the same environment that so traumatized Carroll, and yes, there is something very wrong with New Jersey’s pension system.


Lawyers Behaving Badly, Part One


Most attorneys take cash, check, or credit card payments for their legal fees.  33 year-old Wynnewood, Oklahoma attorney Jeremy Oliver allegedly had a different payment plan in mind for one client.  In February, he was arrested after allegedly offering to reduce a client’s legal fees in exchange for sexual favors from, and/or nude photos of, that client’s two teenage daughters (ages 13 and 18).


Lawyers Behaving Badly, Part Two


Manhattan lawyer Ted McCullough had an unusual reaction to assault allegations against him by his wife’s sister, Adrienne Mesko.  Mesko claimed in family court that McCullough sexually assaulted her (according to police, there is still an active police investigation although no arrests have been made).  McCullough’s response was to file a $7 million defamation suit against his sister-in-law, maintaining that she wanted to get pregnant and that he was simply doing her and her husband a favor by having sex with her.


“Zero Tolerance” Goes Too Far


School shootings are a serious subject, but zero tolerance policies have been taken to a ridiculous extreme.  Case in point: 7 year-old Colorado second-grader Alex Evans, who was recently suspended for throwing an imaginary hand grenade on the playground during recess.  School policies at Mary Blair Elementary School in Loveland, Colorado prohibit “play weapons,” but don’t say anything about imaginary ones in the mind of a little boy who was “pretending to be a hero saving the world.”  If only the world could be saved from idiotic bureaucrats and school administrators who are so busy playing “thought police” that they can’t distinguish real threats from nonexistent ones.

Share This Story on Facebook
The School of Hard Knocks Print E-mail
by James Reza    Thu, Mar 7, 2013, 10:02 AM

My dear friends, though I’ve had some college courses and credit hours in the area of computer software, I never have received a diploma from an accredited college.  But, as the heading of my piece states I’ve learned a lot in the School of Hard Knocks.  I wrote this piece some 12 years ago but I honestly feel that in this downward economy for the last 5 years I’m compelled to re-release it. Particularly for those who are out of a job or will soon be graduating and be seeking employment in a harsh economic situation our country is facing with this anti business, anti oil drilling in our country and over taxing socialist group that is putting a burden on all hard American workers and business owners.  Hopefully, my work and financial experience in my life can help some of you.

“James, I am sorry, but I am going to have to lay you off.”  That was the bad news my supervisor had for me early one morning in January 1991. Though shocked by the news, my supervisor’s explanation as to why he was laying me off was more jolting.  “James, you are a better word processor than the others in my department and you’ll probably fare better in obtaining a job. Besides, I have been told you have rental property and make extra money playing music.”

Lesson No. 1:  Never reveal any outside business ventures you may have.  Some bosses who are downsizing their workforces will try to be compassionate and keep employees who barely are making it, regardless of how good a worker you may be.

As other workers were given our separation papers from the aircraft company, several cried and lamented the loss of their well paying jobs we all enjoyed.  “How will I pay for the new house I just bought?’ one asked.  “How will I pay for my kids’ college tuition?” another sobbed.  “My wife is pregnant! How will I adequately take care of my new born baby!” yet another wondered.

Lesson No. 2:  Never spend more than you make.  Tear up your credit cards, especially if you tend to overuse them.  And more important, save enough money to cover your house, grocery and utility bills for at least three months or longer.

In all fairness, my soon to be former employer was extremely good to his soon-to-be ex-workers.  We were given a two-year training certificate to any accredited college, and I eventually enrolled at a community college and took every available new software courses in word processing, my work trade.  I was able to attend college because my wife was still employed and the TEC would pay me unemployment benefits as long as I attended school to improve my job skills.  But, the ace up my sleeve was the three pieces of property that I owned, which help me pay for my house mortgage.

Lesson No. 3:  Don’t assume that because you have a degree or a skillful trade you will easily find employment in your given profession or trade with the same pay.  Many of my fellow workers took advantage of the two-year free school program and actually changed careers.  Many did just as well or better than before.

After I finished my schooling, I took my time in looking for a new job.  I searched for one that offered security, good benefits, decent pay, and hopefully a retirement investment program.  After searching the job market, I targeted government-related jobs (city, county, state, and federal) and school districts.  I also kept in touch with fellow co-workers for job leads and unashamedly told friends and fellow parishioners at my church that I was looking for work.

By sheer coincidence, I ran into a good friend who happened to be a Tarrant County commissioner who used to hire me to entertain with my music group at his political gatherings. He invited me to his office to chat, and during our visit I told him I was searching for a job.  Unaware that I was unemployed, Commissioner Johnson asked me if I had taken the county’s civil service test.  I told him that I had and passed it with flying colors.  “How fast can you type?”  “Seventy words per minute,” I said,  “Are you familiar with Word Perfect?” he continued.  “I just finished a course in it at a local college,” I answered.  “Good, you are just the type of office worker I am looking for.”  I shook his hand and thanked him.  At the age of 55, I embarked on a new career as a Bookkeeper II for Commissioner J. D Johnson’s Precinct 4.

Lesson No. 4:  Though difficult to do at times, due to unforeseen circumstances take time in looking for a new job.  Sometimes in haste, once can get into a dreadful job situation that you regret getting in to.  Never be ashamed of letting others know you are out of work.  Remember, even chief executives get the ax. No one is immune particularly in this dire economy our country is in today.

At the age of 61, I was asked by my county supervisor if I would like to learn to be a heavy equipment operator due that I never miss work, was always on time and never turned down working overtime.  My supervisor told me, “James, I like your work ethics and you will definitely earn a better salary than working in the office.”  I told him that I never drove anything bigger than my pickup.  He responded, “James, I will send you to a heavy equipment operator school run by Texas A&M and I’m almost sure that in several months you should be able to operate heavy equipment.”  After attending the heavy equipment operation school for 5 months I was awarded a Heavy Equipment Operator Certificate.  Later, I passed my test for a commercial driver’s license that I still have.

Lesson No. 5:  You are never too old to learn!


Share This Story on Facebook
Jury Service—Doing Justice for Texas Print E-mail
by John Browning    Tue, Feb 26, 2013, 01:21 PM

As a trial lawyer who makes his living in the courtroom, I know and appreciate the sacrifice made by the people in the jury box.  For a pittance (jury compensation in Texas was raised a few years ago from $6 to $50 per day, with the higher figure kicking in on the second day of service), every week, people answer the summons and show up at their local courthouse ready to do their civic duty.  Once there, they patiently put up with civil or criminal lawyers asking them questions during jury selection and, if chosen, they can count on stints ranging from one day to months on end away from their jobs, their friends, and their families—all in the name of doing justice.


Jury duty is a sacrifice, one which some hesitate to make.  The problem of “no shows” for jury duty has plagued many courts in Texas, to the point where a number of judges have had to resort to direct and sometimes drastic measures in order to combat the issue.  In April 2010, 19 year-old Houston college freshman Kelsey Gloston not only failed to show up for jury duty in federal court; she actually was rude and hung up on the court clerk who called and offered to pick her up.  That didn’t sit well with U.S. District Court Judge David Hittner.  He ordered federal marshals to pick up Gloston and bring her to the courthouse in chains, so she could explain why he shouldn’t hold the pre-nursing student in contempt (ultimately, Gloston returned to be part of a 60-member panel of potential jurors in a health care fraud case).


Several Texas counties have begun adopting measures to address the problem of “no show” jurors.  In 2005, El Paso County started a pilot project of summoning “scofflaw” jurors to court and imposing fines.  In one year alone, the program netted the county $300,000 in revenue from fines.  In 2012, frustrated by the fact that only one out of every five Dallas County residents who were summoned to jury duty actually showed up, Dallas adopted a similar pilot program at the urging of Dallas Civil District Court Judge Martin Lowy.  Dallas takes a somewhat kinder, more gentle approach: jury duty no-shows are summoned to appear two afternoons a week before an associate judge, where they are chided for their prior failure to appear and given a chance to reschedule their jury service.  Anywhere from 60 to 80 such wayward souls are given a chance to redeem themselves in Dallas County each week.  Those summoned for a second chance like this but who again fail to appear can be fined $1,000 or even arrested.


For many people working lower-paying jobs, jury duty represents a financial sacrifice.  Although employers are barred under Texas law from firing an employee for serving on a jury, the prospect of time away from work and the wages lost as a result is daunting enough, especially in a still-fragile economy.  But Texas lawmakers may soon pass legislation addressing these concerns.  House Bill 433, authored by Republican State Representative Debbie Riddle of the Spring/Tomball area, would provide an incentive for businesses to pay their employees for jury service.  The bill allows businesses to be compensated through a reduction in the state margins franchise tax.  According to the proposed measure, an employer (or “taxable entity” in the legislation’s terms) would be entitled to a credit equal to 15 percent of the franchise tax due, so long as it pays at least one employee that worker’s regular salary or daily wage for each day or fraction of a day that the employee is absent from work “to attend jury selection or jury service.”  The bill, if passed and signed into law, would take effect January 1, 2014.


The proposed law could make a big difference, both in terms of encouraging jury service and in the trickle-down economic effect on counties struggling to meet the demand for jurors.  Look at Harris County, for example.  Last year, the county mailed out over 400,000 notifications for jury service in an effort to fill the needs of 82 courts for jurors.  Harris County District Clerk Chris Daniel estimates that his office would save about $100,000 in taxes for every 5 percent increase in the jury pool.  Fewer jury notices would need to be mailed, he says, and with more people appearing for jury service, residents would be called to service less often.  In addition, without a disproportionate share of those least impacted by time away (such as retirees or the unemployed), jury service would feature a more representative cross-section of society.


Yes, jury service is the cornerstone of our system of justice, and measures like House Bill 433 represent a long-overdue recognition of that importance.  The State Bar of Texas’s Jury Service Committee (on which I’m proud to serve) is also doing its part to remind Texans of their civic duty.  The committee recently spearheaded the filming of a public service announcement featuring justices of the Supreme Court of Texas (Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson stars in the English language version, while the Spanish language version features Justice Eva Guzman).  The PSAs, which spotlight how jury duty is vital to the administration of justice and integral to safeguarding constitutional rights, end with the tagline “Let’s do justice—for Texas.”  They will air later this year on television and radio stations throughout the state.


Sure, jury duty is a responsibility, and some people try to either avoid it or rationalize that their other obligations somehow take precedence.  But how much confidence can you have in a system of justice when you fail to take accountability for it?  How much faith would you place in the protection of your rights when you abdicate any role in safeguarding everyone else’s rights?  The next time that jury summons appears in your mailbox, answer the call of duty, and be a part of doing justice—for Texas.

Share This Story on Facebook
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 31 - 45 of 2654