What greater praise for a lawyer training program than that Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyer’s College is trying to suppress it?

It is mildly ironic that, when she was the Executive Director of the Trial Lawyers College, Joane herself was the enforcer of brand purity for Gerry Spence (himself the past president of TLC Inc.); greater ironies, however, abound. For example, TLC talks a good anti-institution (antigovernment, anticorporate) game, but it is run by a corporation. Norm again:

In spite of the college’s railing against corporate America, its behavior is typical of corporate culture. A new CEO has been appointed by a closely-held board — no elections in this populist heaven. Those perceived as unwilling to kiss the new emperor’s ring will be shown the door. Nothing suprising here. It might just as well be Chrysler as TLC.

If you ask an alumna of the Trial Lawyers College whether TLC staff should be free to associate with each other without being ostracized by organizations to which they belong, she will undoubtedly vociferously approve the proposition. Ask her if she would belong to an organization that only permitted members who associated with the “right” people, and you’ll get an indignant “no.” Treating human beings well and allowing them to associate with whom they want are core values of the TLC community. Teaching others how to be better lawyers is also a core value, as is fighting institutional power. (Before I went to TLC in ‘99 I hadn’t given much thought to how corporations are so like governments.)

Suggest, where TLC alumni gather, that this not only is true but also should be wholly unsurprising—that TLC Inc. is an institution, and institutional goals override all else—and you might as well be the insolent child suggesting that the emperor is buck naked when everybody knows he dresses splendidly.

In this instance, the F Warriors Board took the drastic step (for it) of asking TLC Inc. seven simple questions:

1. Were Mary, Fredi, or Carl Bettinger removed from staff because of their association with Joane?
2. Were any of them removed from staff because of non-TLC training programs they are organizing?
3. In October the President of TLC told the alumni in Dallas that “off the board” did not mean “out as staff.” What changed between October and January with regard to those three teachers?
4. Does the TLC Board have a policy with regard to the freedom of TLC staff to associate?
5. What is that policy?
6. Does the TLC Board have a policy with regard to TLC staff organizing and teaching other programs for trial lawyers?
7. What is that policy?

The alumni (through the F Warriors Board) got no response from TLC Inc.

The F Warriors Board rationalizes its meek acceptance of TLC Inc.’s treatment of our fellow alumni with a little bit of Brutus—”All of the people involved here are honorable”—and a whole lot of battered wife—”TLC has given us many wonderful gifts.” (Yes, and I’m sure TLC Inc. didn’t mean to mistreat Mary, Fredi, and Carl, is sorry, loves you very much, and won’t do it again.)

I would say that only 10 of the 15 “cult characteristics” here even arguably apply to TLC’s relationship with a select few TLC graduates. Maybe 10 out of 15 would be enough to make TLC a cult, with regard to those few graduates. Really, though, it doesn’t matter: an organization of trial lawyers who are afraid to speak the truth, even if it is not a cult, is too sick to survive.

I learned a great deal at TLC, and I use daily what I learned there and what I built upon what I learned there. But I have no confidence in the institution. Either TLC was always hypocritical about its  principles, or TLC has changed since I attended. Either way, what is being sold is not what was once advertised.

[Update: In Joane's open forum, more anonymous TLC dissenters are heard from. (Shhhh! Before he gets back!)

Norm Pattis publishes Fredi Sison's letter to the TLC Inc. Board after she was let go.]

Liberty and Justice for Y’all—Texas criminal law mostly-anonymous (except for front man B.W. Barnett) group blog. They are writing for a Texas-criminal-law-savvy audience so far, but they’re just getting warmed up.

Trial Theory—Trial practice group blog. TLC grads Bobby Frederick (of the South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog), Paul J. Smith (of the Life and Times of a Texas Country Trial Lawyer Blog), Karl Dickhaus (get Karl to tell you about his last two years), and apparently six or seven others.

Check them out and give them some comment love.

Jamie Spencer (of the Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog) is also starting a group blog, Affirmative Links; with posts like January’s riveting “Hello world!” and last month’s compelling “Here is a second test post,” it’s a real page-turner.

(Greenfield asks “why Texas seems to remain that place where criminal law blawgs flourish, far more so than anywhere else in the country.  More executions, more blawgs?  More craziness, more blawgs?  You would think that Maricopa County would have more blawgs per capita than anywhere else, if that was the case.”)

Mickey Carr
These are some of my friend’s replies (from clear springs students) when I asked what had happened and from other friend’s status updates as well, I didn’t put their name up here, but once again I hope these  offer a little comfort.

“This whole thing is RIDICULOUS. he didn’t say it was “ok to do drugs as long as we didn’t get caught.” what he was really saying was he knows that he can’t stop us no matter what adults tell us not to do because we are bound to experiment because we are teenagers, but we must know the consequences and the severity of the damage we could cause.

i think a lot of people are just being immature about this whole thing. it just takes one person to blow shit out of proportion. you really think a JUDGE would say it’s “ok” to do drugs at an assembly for MADD?

come on now. jeez.”

“i think this whole thing is a misinterpretation. he wasn’t asking our favorite drugs or cigar flavors. a lot of his questions were rhetorical. its sad that not everyone understood that. and the drug screening was just a joke. if anything it couldn’t be mandatory because a parent’s consent would be needed, or it would be mandatory if that person was suspected of being on drugs. a lot of what was said has been twisted, no, mangled into something else.”

“Yeah, this whole thing is bs:
everyone needs to grow some balls b/c we hear worse things from people at school everyday. If you couldn’t handle that, then you can’t handle hs and college. Darn a judge for speaking the truth.”

” I knw right, they r makin a big deal bout nuthin. n all dat bull bout him offendin ppl is stupid cause they hear da same crap @ skool!”

“I thought the whole thing is ridiculous myself: if he wasn’t a judge, but a
former druggie or somehing, all this shit wouldn’t have happened”

“I think the judge thing is being blown out of porportion and ppl need to lay off im pretty sure he is suffering enough thanks to being put on t.v. After hearing both sides of the story i feel so bad for him he was only trying help us understand”

Damn straight.

Channel 13 relates, however, that “what was said” by Judge Larry Standley (one of my favorite judges) in his talk to Clear Springs High School juniors “has students and Mothers Against Drunk Driving angry.” I guess we’ll have to take Channel 13’s word for MADD’s reaction since Anderson’s words don’t match Channel 13’s characterization.

What were the words that allegedly made MADD mad? According to one anonymous student:

He started going on about how he’s done plenty of things before, weed and what not . . . . How he’s drove drunk and never got caught. He then started asking us to raise our hands if we’ve ever smoked week or done bars. First of all, our student body finds it offensive that he stereotypes us as drunks when we’re only 16 or 17. I find it quite offensive.

That’s the best you can do, Channel 2? At least Channel 13 was able to find a student offended enough to go on camera and ascribe her indignation to the rest of her class:

All I knew was someone was going to be talking to us about drunk driving . . . . I think his first question was, “Who in here smokes marijuana?” . . . . He said that drunk driving was bad and that he’s done it once before, but didn’t get caught . . . . . It offended me when he stated the fact that most of us kids were going to go out and get drunk during spring break, to just not do it while we were driving.

Let me dispense first with the self-righteous teenagers (is that redundant?): if the shoe fits, wear it. You might not smoke weed. You might not drink. (You might, on the other hand, be putting on a big show for your parents, but I hope for your sake that you aren’t—drugs, including alcohol, are really bad for a developing brain.)

But Judge Standley wasn’t directing his comments only at you. Not all of your classmates are pristine. Some people in your class smoke marijuana, do bars (xanax) and drink alcohol. It’s safe to say that in the last year more than 20% of your classmates have smoked marijuana and more than half of them have drunk alcohol.

“Most” might be a little hyperbolic, but get off your high horse: if they drank alcohol in the last year, it’s not a huge stretch to think they will drink alcohol next week. And if Judge Standley’s straight talk makes an impression on even one of your 500+ classmates and keeps him from getting behind the steering wheel after drinking, it’ll have been worthwhile. Your so readily taking offense reflects poorly on your sense of your own importance.

Which brings us to the grownups. According to Channel 2:

Clear Creek Independent School District officials said the talk was too much.

“Judge Standley’s comments and remarks were not in line with the district’s policy on drug and alcohol abuse … and it certainly doesn’t reflect the opinions of the students,” the district said in a statement.

Here’s a news flash from a lawyer who has represented lots of kids in alcohol- and drug-related cases: your policy on drug and alcohol will not stop kids from drinking. The NIDA statistics I linked to above are a better gauge of student opinion than whatever they’re telling the school district. 30% of your juniors and 43% of your seniors have used alcohol in the last month.

There are two approaches to kids and temptations. MADD, Clear Creek Independent School District, and most of society take the abstinence approach: tell teenagers not to drink / smoke weed / whatever, and pretend that they are going to comply.

Judge Standley takes the realistic approach: encourage teenagers not to drink / smoke weed / whatever, assume that they are probably going to do it anyway, and try to mitigate the damage.

The comments on the Channel 13 news story are telling. For example:

I am also a student at Clear Springs High School. I belive that this judge was unlike the MADD association in that he was not completely nieve, he knows as well as we do that most of the poeple in our grade level WILL smoke weed and WILL get drink alcohol. He gave us enough respect to be honest with how he felt on the situation and made it very clear to NOT find ourselves behind the wheel while intoxicated. Parents, get over it . . . .

and

I am a student at Katy High School and i can tell you that if the judge talked to the students in the manner that parents and MADD expected, students wouldnt pay attention and just talk. I would do it. If a government official would talk to us and be honest i would listen. Because he DID KNOW that majority of kids DO SMOKE WEED AND DO DRINK. if anything parents should thank him because apparently people listened to him.

The abstinence approach is naive, and does not work. Judge Standley’s realistic approach may not work either, but it isn’t naive, and at least the kids will listen.

Um . . . okay. Who is this?

“Jeff Deutsch. “

I know who Jeff Deutsch is. Jeff writes the excellent but sporadic Building Common Ground blog, dedicated to “building common ground between people on the autism spectrum and those who love, work with and play with them.” I read Jeff’s blog, but we’ve never talked on the phone, and I have to admit that for a moment I wondered whether this was some sort of online Asperger’s episode.

I did a quick search on Defending People for Jeff’s name, and found that the only reference was an innocuous hat tip here. A small light dawned. “Are you the Jeff Deutsch that writes the Building Common Ground blog.”

“No.”

Did you click on the link to see how your name was mentioned?

“No, I didn’t know what it was, so I didn’t click on it.”

You do know that you’re not the only Jeff Deutsch in the world, right?

The thought had never even occurred to him.

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on Texas Lawyer’s blog. To publish it, I need your written permission, full name and city, all of which will be published with the comment.

Four days later, I got the same message from the Law Editor of Texas Lawyer. I forwarded my mocking response to the first email to her.

Doesn’t leaving a comment on a blog imply permission to publish? If Texas Lawyer doesn’t think so (seriously?), wouldn’t a checkbox on the comment form make more sense?

In the same vein, if you want a commenter’s city, how hard is it to add a line to the comment form asking for it?

I thought I was doing a lot to discourage comments by requiring people to use their actual names, but Tex Parte’s bizarre policy has me beaten by a country mile.

A Houston judge who ruled last week that the proceedings surrounding the Texas death penalty are unconstitutional rescinded his ruling this morning to schedule a hearing for lawyers on both sides to submit arguments on the issue.

(Houston Chronicle, from which the Keirnan and Allen quotes below also come)

While I wasn’t able to attend this morning, I have it on good authority that the Houston Chronicle’s description of the proceedings is accurate. I commend the Chronicle for this, and for bucking the AP in favor of Messrs. Strunk and White’s preferred punctuation of the possessive of Texas.

I appreciate people who are able to admit their mistakes and correct them. It shows strength of character, whether the people are reporters or judges. Judge Fine jumped the gun when he held Article 37.071 unconstitutional. There was no evidence presented in support of the motion, and some of the facts Judge Fine took judicial notice of were not in fact facts. He violated the first rule that judges learn at baby judge school, which is that the best way to avoid reversal is not to rule. Then he violated the second rule that judges learn at baby judge school, which is to not change your ruling once you’ve ruled.

Now the parties have until April 12th to submit briefs; a hearing is scheduled for April 27th. (Which is odd—usually the briefs come after the evidence.) It’s not entirely clear what will happen at the hearing. Maybe Judge Fine (who doesn’t read my blog) intends to do what I proposed last Friday: test in a full-blown adversary proceeding the assertions of those on both sides of the death penalty debate. Defense lawyer Casey Keirnan seems to think that’s what is going to happen: “For the first time . . . we’re going to have a hearing about whether innocent people get executed.”

Strategically, it might have been better for the State had the order stood as originally signed. But both sides should welcome this chance, and they do. Prosecutor Kari Allen says she is “grateful that we have a chance to more fully litigate it.”

There is nobody better (more competent or more appropriate) to develop the case in favor of the death penalty than the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. Let the defense have subpoena power and the resources for an investigation, and see what the evidence shows.

However it shakes out, society wins.

This is, I’m afraid, the spirit of these American times: if victimhood isn’t acknowledged, the victim is offended. There is value in being a victim. It’s a point of pride.

Intertwined with this victims’ pride, there is a movement of victimocracy afoot in America. To the victimocrats, not handling victims with kid gloves is an impeachable offense. To the victimocrats, it is appropriate to to honor the dead with destruction or by naming laws that will put people in prison after them.

Houston has a victimocrat-in-chief, Andy Kahan (who has found a way to make victimocracy pay) thinks victims’ rights should be constitutionally enshrined, and that victims should be treated with respect and dignity . . . unless they are the victims of false allegations. The victimocrats even have their own week at which they celebrate fictional inflated numbers of crimes.

The victimocrats’ only tool is fear. “I am a victim,” they say, “and if you don’t pass this legislation you will be one too.”

How are the victimocrats doing? Consider President Obama’s appearance on the 1000th edition of America’s Most Wanted, about which Norm Pattis writes:

The president sat for an interview with one of the angriest and most self-righteous men in the United States, John Walsh. He’s the father of Adam Walsh, a little boy abducted and murdered several decades ago. Since then, we’ve all felt the pain of the Walsh family.
. . . .
President Obama’s decision to appear on America’s Most Wanted was not the reasoned and measured response of a commander in chief committed to rule of reason. Obama sat with Walsh and was lectured by the talk-show host about the need to take DNA samples of every person accused of a felony. The president listened to a man who has lent his son’s name to controversial federal legislation that has been declared unconstitutional in some federal courts and is destined for a Supreme Court challenge. What was Obama trying to accomplish with this appearance?

We had eight years of fearmongering in D.C.; as Norm says, “It’s looking more and more like the same old stuff. Yet another American president cosseting the fearmongers? Ho hum.

This is the American victimocracy, flexing its political muscle. It’s reptile writ large.

Are those of us who believe that love will triumph over fear deluding ourselves?

Friday, Fine clarified that he declared the procedures Texas has in place to carry out the death penalty unconstitutional, a legal parsing even to the prosecutors trying the case.

The Houston Chronicle clings doggedly to the false proposition that Kevin Fine “declared the death penalty unconstitutional Thursday.” On Friday Judge Fine clarified why he was declaring the procedures unconstitutional, not that he was declaring the procedures unconstitutional:

I do, however, want to clarify because this was a multi-point motion, I want to clarify my ruling on the motion and I want to also have — give the State and the Defense an opportunity to present any authority that they may have come up with since my ruling yesterday afternoon until today or this morning.
. . . .
My holding with regard to the Defense motion is limited only to the due process claim that 37.071 has resulted in the execution of innocent people and/or has the potential to result in the execution of innocent persons.

The Chronicle may think it has some inside information suggesting that what the judge meant to do was to declare the death penalty unconstitutional, but court orders are word magic, and a judge doesn’t do any more or less than his orders say. It was clear from Thursday’s transcript and order (once you figured out that “37.01″ meant “37.071″) that the procedures, and not the penalty, were unconstitutional in the judge’s view.

The difference may not be apparent to the Chronicle’s lay readers, but it ought to be clear to a reporter with a law degree, and it’s a newspaper’s responsibility, abdicated in this case, to try to educate its readers rather than make up sensational news.

Which brings us to “parsing.” At some point in the last nine years to parse became a pejorative (along with nuance and empathy). But parsing—examining the text minutely, word-by-word and comma-by-comma—is how we understand, apply, and counter word magic. Lawyers parse. Statutes, opinions, and orders are written to be parsed. We don’t just look for the gist of the matter and act on that; it’s a poor lawyer that does. Judges and appellate courts know this. The prosecutor knows it too; I will bet lunch that “legal parsing” was a phrase suggested by the Chronicle and not rejected by Bill: “Would you call this legal parsing?” “Yeah, sure, whatever. As a practical matter . . .”

In the course of my career so far I’ve seen the quality of legal reporting in the Houston Chronicle improve. The problems with Texas’s death penalty procedures are real, and are worthy of discussion even to people who in principle favor the death penalty.

The Chronicle’s coverage of Judge Fine’s ruling disserves and disappoints.