#texas lawyers

[hufflpuffin]

As the police escalate violence, beat and attack students and professors, and conduct mass arrests, student protesters should know their rights.

Here is the link to the National Lawyer's Guild booklet for protesters.

If you plan on going out to support the protests, please take some time to read through this and know your rights.

[worrygutz]

Your honor my client was overstimulated. He’s a found object sculpture artist who doesn’t have access to the medications he needs to function at a socially acceptable and comfortable level. His effigies of grave robbed corpses were an elaborate, symbolic art piece meant to discuss the unimportance of background, class and identity showcasing that in the end, we are all flesh clinging to bone... it was all a social experiment. He never killed nobody.

[starkholme]

"Lifestyle of superhero whose whole life is saving the world, work in a mundane job and you?"

Kacy but make it Supergirl AU

This is specially for my friend who insisted me to watch NCIS: Hawai'i because she was in love with Kacy and she's also a big Supercorp stan 🫶

[just-antithings]

elon musk got deposed by MARK BANKSTON?!?!?

[zimshan]

say it with me now

it’s not “pro-life”

it’s “forced birth”

and any government who can force someone to give birth?

can also force someone to be sterilized.

(do you hear that, “save the babies” crowd? you hear that men?)

do you want a government deciding whether you are worthy enough to procreate?

no? then you don’t want to give a government the power to force people to give birth.

it’s the same right. it’s bodily autonomy. your right to decide what happens to your body.

if you want to have a child

if you don’t want to have a child

the overturning of roe affects you

it means ob/gyn practices caring more about breaking laws than practicing medicine

it means distrust and suspicion among ob/gyn healthcare teams (at a time of already high burnout thanks to the pandemic)

that means less safe healthcare

that means higher maternal mortality rates

thats real women dying

what on earth is “pro-life” about that?

call “prolifers” what they are: pro–forced birth.

they are for governments forcing people to give birth.

government-mandated birth.

even if it kills you.

the real death panels.

[attorney-anon]

On Recalcitrant Judges and Disappointed Clients

TL;DR: An AJ decides to make the lives of my same-sex clients harder, so I spend my day telling her all the ways in which she's wrong. If you can vote in your judicial elections, do so!

Storytime under the cut for the sake of your dashboard.

I had a prove-up scheduled this morning for one of my favorite types of cases, a second-parent adoption (2PA).

In case that term is unfamiliar to you, in short, a 2PA is essentially a form of litigation-as-prophylaxis for same-sex parents to ensure that both parents have full parental rights to children born during their marriage, by having whichever parent isn't already an undisputed legal parent under Texas law adopt the child. I won't get into the reasons that it's considered necessary amongst attorneys who handle LGBTQIA+ family law cases, but suffice to say that it's the best form of protection that same-sex parents can have.

It is, absolutely, infuriating that it's a thing that we need to do 2PAs under Texas's legal scheme, but they're also a little fun to do because everyone is consistently happy about the litigation. Procedurally, they resemble step-parent adoptions, as 2PAs don't actually exist as a separate cause of action, but most judges in my usual county of practice are happy to work with us once they understand what's going on, since I live and work in a blue county. I actually file most of my 2PAs in this county by choice, because the judges are, by and large, either LGBTQIA+ themselves or allies.

Here's how my day went:

When I get up and get ready in the morning, I'm already a little nervous because I haven't done a 2PA in this particular court before, and because my usual preparation process was disrupted by me having to go depose an opposing party yesterday, so I had to condense my usual prep into less time. It's via Zoom, though, so I'm at least going to be sitting comfortably in my office about it.

When I get to my office, I sign on, and my first disappointment of the day is that, apparently, the District Judge isn't even the one handling the docket - it's her associate judge (AJ), who is well-known in this area for her irritability and temper. To explain, an associate judge is not elected - they are, essentially, assistant judges hired to help the elected judges (District Judges) manage their dockets. Associate judges don't have court reporters in their courts, so I won't have a record of anything that happens today.

So anyway, I wait, and my case gets called. I greet AJ while my clients get their Zoom camera set up and all that jazz. AJ is already upset because her prove-up docket is running later than she expected. That's great, but I'm still optimistic. She asks the procedural posture of the case; I explain we're here on a 2PA. AJ asks, "Where's your ad litem?" I am immediately flabbergasted, and concerned.

See, in most cases involving kids in Texas, the court has the authority to, on motion of a party or sua sponte (on its own), appoint an attorney whose sole job is to argue in hearings and trials about the best interest of the child (an attorney ad litem). I have never once been asked to hire an ad litem for a 2PA.

I explain we didn't request one. AJ asks where my waiver order is. I explain that I have never been asked for a separate waiver order for an ad litem, and AJ says, "Well, I don't waive the ad litem anyway unless I can see that the parent can represent the best interest of the child, so let me assign you Jane Doe as an ad litem and I'll reset you." I am flabbergasted at this point. Not only have I never been asked for an ad litem on a 2PA, but I have absolutely never had a judge outright tell me that my clients could not act in the best interest of their child without me so much as introducing my clients to the judge.

It takes me a second to regain my composure, but I proceed to confirm just how problematic this court is going to be moving forward. "Judge, we also requested a waiver of the home study under the new statute; would the Court prefer to sign a standalone order to waive that?"

For context: In Texas, adoptions typically involve an adoption evaluation/home study conducted by a mental health professional. Due to recent legislative changes, this requirement can be waived when the parties are married, subject to the court's discretion. Since that statute passed, I've had no problems with most courts agreeing to waive the adoption evaluation for 2PAs. Waiving the adoption evaluation saves my clients about $2,000, because adoption evaluations are expensive.

The AJ shakes her head, and tells me that she's utterly shocked that I would ever ask her to waive a home study on any adoption, ever, no matter what the legislature has said, because what if this step-parent has problems with the child?

At this point, I realize, the judge may not understand what a 2PA is. It's not a formal cause of action, I recall, and she may simply not understand the lingo. She may be thinking this is just a regular step-parent adoption, and perhaps she's had problems before and is being overly cautious. I begin to explain that, actually, the adopting parent is already a presumed parent of the child under the Texas Family Code, and that this is only to formalize that relationship due to the current political climate and whatnot.

I get about a sentence in before the AJ quips that she's not sure why I'm arguing with her and then tells me to shut up. I shut up.

AJ proceeds to ignore me and continue writing. It's clear she's looking at the pleadings so she can get the parties' names right, and then she pauses and asks me: "Hold on, where's the child's father? He should be a party."

I explain that the child was conceived through an anonymous sperm donor, so there is no legal father. "Okay, well, do you have proof from the sperm bank that it's an anonymous donor?" I'm asked, in a tone that implies that AJ thinks I'm actively lying to the court. I explain that I have a letter from the sperm bank about the issue and am prepared to admit as an exhibit right now.

AJ finally relents: "Well, I guess, get that on file with the Court, then submit your waiver orders to me and I'll look at them. Don't contact Jane yet, I'm going to have to research this." She dismisses us.

When I first sign off of Zoom, I am embarrassed for getting my prove-up shot down (and for getting chastised by the judge for 'arguing,' as if arguing isn't my actual job for which I receive money) for a couple minutes, and then I am angry.

I am angry because my clients shouldn't have to do this in the first place just to get the same respect from the judicial system that opposite-sex couples get by default.

I am angry because AJ said that my clients couldn't look out for the best interest of the child they have raised since birth, together, as if she has any understanding of who my clients are or what their family is like.

I am angry because AJ cut off my attempt to tell her the information that did, in fact, change her mind once that information was explained.

I am angry because my clients will now have to spend even more money for me to protect their interests.

I am angry because the judge is letting her lack of understanding of queer families get in the way of what should be, and what typically is, a quick, easy process to provide same-sex parents with a little peace of mind while the Great State of Texas continues to assault common decency.

So, bristling with anger, I talk to the Partner to confirm that the plan that is forming in my brain will work, then I talk to the clients.

My clients express that they are are humiliated, blindsided, and convinced that AJ hates them, though they have no idea why AJ would. Once of them is initially convinced that this is somehow my fault because I must have spoken to the judge beforehand and said something amiss (I assure them that I was, similarly, gobstopped by AJ's behavior, and that I had never spoken one-on-one with this particular judge).

Once I get the clients calmed down, and explain the plan, they are on board.

Then, I draft a twenty-page bespoke motion in under 4 hours, because I am angry.

The motion cites 8 different provisions of the Texas Family Code, and contains an 11-item appendix, as well as a detailed timeline of the parties' marriage, their reproductive journey, and the procedural history of the case up to the current date, including a detailed account of the hearing. The motion also points out that, despite the judge's demand that I ask her to "waive" the ad litem attorney, no such waiver is needed for the ad litem attorney, because the Court isn't required to appoint one and no one asked the Court to do so.

Is most of my day now gone? Yes. Did I have other things to do today? Yes. Am I still pissed off at AJ? Absolutely I am, and I'm considering no-billing everything from this point forward just so my clients can afford for me to go to court and teach AJ how to read the laws she's supposed to be applying.

Happy Pride, y'all.

If you're a registered voter in a state with elected judges, remember to vote in judicial elections!

A steady push for statutory change in the legislative branch, or a steady push for policy changes in the executive branch are both good, but the only way to fix the judiciary branch is to vote out biased judges and vote in fair ones.

Fixing the judiciary can get queer families in red states the relief they need from oppression and discrimination now. Same-sex couples get divorced, just the same as opposite-sex couples. They have kids and argue over custody, just the same as opposite-sex couples. And they should be able to do that without facing a judge who assumes that two women or two men can't both be parents.

[thebirdpro]

This idea popped into my head and I had to doodle it. Johnny Lawyer, Johnny Sawyer but he’s a lawyer

[miawashere]

texas & the new laws

on september 1st of this year, 774 laws have gone into effect in the state of texas. one of the most important ones is house bill number 3, which requires an armed police officer at every single school in the state. with the rise of school shootings across america and the devastating Uvalde elementary last year, i’m glad the state of texas is starting to protect students and not have to make parents worry about their children’s safety at a place of learning. i hope with this law, school shooting numbers will drastically decrease and more steps will be taken in the future to protect those trying to better themselves by gaining an education.

[federer7]

H.A.C. Brummett Lawyer, Dickens, Texas. 1986. From "On The Plains"

Photo: Peter Brown

[coochiequeens]

No one in the article is saying it but he sounds pissed that his plan to baby trap her failed so he's using legal means to keep a connection with her.

A Texas man is seeking a court order so he can depose a woman he was dating who traveled to Colorado to get an abortion, in a case that may have ramifications in the ongoing legal battles over abortion rights.

Collin Davis, a resident of Brazos County, filed a legal petition in March stating that on February 20 — the day after he learned the woman intended to obtain the abortion — he retained an attorney, who sent the woman a letter requesting that she preserve all records related to her plans to terminate the pregnancy.

According to the petition, the letter warned that he “would pursue wrongful-death claims against anyone involved in the killing of his unborn child.”

Davis argues that the deposition is necessary to determine whether there was a violation of the Texas wrongful-death statute, which the petition references alongside a Texas civil code that includes among those defined as individuals “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.” His petition additionally points to Texas’ civil enforcement six-week abortion ban, known as SB 8.

The woman filed a petition for court records to be sealed so her identity would remain anonymous, her attorney told CNN. She began dating Davis in November 2023 and found out that she was pregnant in January, according to the petition.

The case, which was reported on by The Washington Post on Friday, is being cited by abortion rights supporters who fear that anti-abortion advocates will use — or at least threaten to use — strict abortion laws to target abortions obtained even in states where the procedure is legal. Texas’ law, passed in 2021, targets doctors and those involved in facilitating abortions, not the women who undergo the procedure themselves, but opponents say that legal uncertainty about restrictions in a post-Roe America has the intended consequence of intimidating women.

Davis is seeking the deposition to obtain information about those involved in the abortion, including the identity of the doctor who performed the procedure in Colorado, and he considers filing a lawsuit against all of them, according to the court filings.

Davis is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a well-known lawyer and abortion rights opponent who also represented former President Donald Trump in his Colorado ballot case.

Mitchell helped craft SB 8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, which uses a novel civil enforcement mechanism to prohibit abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected, a point usually around six weeks into a pregnancy. Davis cited the law in his petition for the deposition.

CNN has reached out to Davis for comment.

Mitchell said in a statement, “Fathers of aborted fetuses can sue for wrongful death in states with abortion bans, even if the abortion occurs out-of-state. They can sue anyone who paid for the abortion, anyone who aided or abetted the travel, and anyone involved in the manufacture or distribution of abortion drugs.”

Critics decry legal maneuvers

The case is seen by some abortion rights advocates as an example of the new legal landscape facing women who wish to obtain an abortion, even by legal means.

“We don’t think there is a basis (for a lawsuit),” Marc Hearron, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing the woman, told CNN. “It is perfectly legal to leave Texas or any state and go get an abortion in a state where it is legal. And it is perfectly legal to help someone or be involved in someone going out of state and obtaining an abortion where it is allowed by law.”

Nancy Northup, president & CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn Roe v. Wade “opened the door to this kind of frightening and unacceptable fearmongering and harassment by one citizen against another.”

Mitchell has spearheaded other legal efforts in the wake of Texas’ abortion law. Last June, he represented a man who filed a wrongful death lawsuit against three friends of his ex-wife who allegedly assisted her in terminating her pregnancy with abortion medication, in an early legal test of the reach of wrongful death statutes in the wake of Roe’s reversal. That case has not yet been resolved.

It’s unclear whether Davis’ petition could lead to a lawsuit against the woman, said Drexel University Law Professor David Cohen.

“I definitely don’t think there is a basis for this,” he said. “But we have no confidence to know exactly what the Texas courts will say anymore, at any level.”

Other Republican-led states have sought to pressure women against seeking abortions in other states, particularly minors. Idaho’s legislature last year passed a bill — later blocked by a judge over constitutionality concerns — that would prohibit adults from helping minors cross state lines to get an abortion without parental permission. Meanwhile, Tennessee’s legislature is advancing a law that would similarly criminalize so-called “abortion trafficking” for minors in the state.

“This is all part of a scare campaign to make people afraid that if they go out of state and get an abortion, that they or their loved ones might be sued,” Hearron said. “We really want to emphasize that people should not be intimidated.”

Temple University Beasley School of Law Dean Rachel Rebouché called Davis’ legal maneuver “bizarre and concerning” but said it was not “surprising.”

“I think that we’ll see much more of this in the years to come, so long as Dobbs is in the books. And, frankly, this is exactly the type of example we should point to when we talk about when the Supreme Court should overturn Dobbs,” Rebouché told CNN.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

[shareyourideas]

Understanding When You Need a Wrongful Death Lawyer in Texas

[injurylawfirmhouston]

Car Accident Lawyer in Houston, Texas | Injured? Get Paid, Not Played!

Don't let a severe car accident burden you with injuries and financial strain. Reach out to Roxell Richards Injury Law Firm, home to skilled Houston Car Accident Lawyers. We're committed to securing the maximum compensation you deserve while advocating fiercely for your recovery. You may contact us 24/7 at (713) 974-0388.

[smithpatrick]

How to get back my suspended license

Driving on a suspended license, you could face jail time, a fine, or both jail and a fine. Check if your license has been suspended under these circumstances and how can you get back your suspended license?

https://www.thetexasattorney.com/2018/01/26/reinstating-suspended-drivers-license-filing-bankruptcy/

[leaflyweedsdispensary]

We give you the best quality at affordable prices

If interested order here +1(760) 565-5088

[dwi-lawyer-houston]

The Basic details of DWI in Houston

Driving while intoxicated (DWI) is a serious offense that can lead to severe legal consequences in Texas. The state has strict laws and penalties in place to deter people from drinking and driving. If you have been charged with DWI in Houston, it is important to seek the services of an experienced DWI attorney Houston or Houston DUI attorney who can help you navigate the legal system and protect your rights.

In Texas, the legal limit for blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is 0.08%. If you are pulled over and your BAC is found to be over the legal limit, you can be charged with DWI. However, even if your BAC is lower than 0.08%, you can still be charged with DWI if the officer believes that you are too impaired to drive.

The penalties for a first-time DWI conviction in Texas can be severe. You could face a fine of up to $2,000, up to six months in jail, and a license suspension of up to one year. You may also be required to install an ignition interlock device in your car, which requires you to blow into a breathalyzer before starting the car. Subsequent DWI convictions carry even harsher penalties.

If you have been charged with DWI in Houston, it is important to hire a DWI attorney Houston or Houston DUI attorney as soon as possible. These attorneys specialize in defending people charged with DWI and have the knowledge and experience necessary to build a strong defense for you. They can challenge the validity of the traffic stop, the accuracy of the breathalyzer test, and any other evidence against you.

One common defense strategy used by DWI attorneys in Houston is to challenge the results of the breathalyzer test. Breathalyzer tests are not always accurate and can be affected by a variety of factors, such as the type of alcohol you consumed, your body weight, and even the temperature of the breathalyzer machine. If your attorney can show that the breathalyzer test results are unreliable, it could help your case.

[todaywecelebrate]

Happy Zoom Cat Lawyer Day!

source

I AM BEGGING YOU TO WATCH THIS WITH SOUND 😂😂😂