Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Utah Supreme Court: Extradite Warren Jeffs

I don't like it. Under cover of terrible weather, the Utah Supremes side with the right of the State, over the individual.

I will never buy into the notion that an individual's right to a speedy trial is trumped by extradition.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 19, 2010

"Covenanters"


This is here primarily as an exercise in remembering the history of Reformed Churches.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Life as a Wheel

Nearly two years later, and guess what? More →

Sphere: Related Content

Why you want Warren to Win his appeal, even if you want Warren in Jail forever.

It's quite simply, the sixth amendment of the US Constitution.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
During this business in Texas, I have heard, unchallenged, the assertion that the State (in this case Texas) has the "right to a fair trial." No such right exists for the State. The State is not a person, people have rights in the United States. The State? It has none.

I have also heard, as an obscene echo of the "Borking" of Clarence Thomas (and other political figures), that the "seriousness of the charges" somehow outranks the less serious charges in Utah.

In short, I hear a lot of what amounts to "horse feathers" and myth in regard to the rights of the State in the matter of "The State of Texas VS the FLDS."

I was not a big fan of Warren in the past, but even in my most loathing stage of Warren Jeffs dislike, I disliked even more the way in which Utah, the United States and various other states were trying to "get" him. I believed from the outset that Warren should not be convicted, and when he was, I saw it as a travesty of justice.

So taking a page from "the time when I thought Warren was a creep," I recommend that you too put aside personal dislike and deal with what is really at stake for you, in the way Warren is being treated.

Warren, per our US Constitution, has Sixth amendment rights. If his are not adequately defended, if the existence of Sixth amendment rights are said to be compromised by a State right to a "fair trial" or a superiority of "Serious Charges" (charges that Warren must be regarded as "not guilty" of until proven otherwise), you lose. You lose big.

Arguments that Texas must have Warren before charges in Utah are resolved (because Texas' charges are more serious) are nowhere found in the US Constitution. The argument that Texas might need him now, so as to better prosecute him and obtain a "fair trial" for Texas, this argument too is nowhere found in the US Constitution.

Warren's Sixth Amendment rights are YOUR Sixth Amendment rights. You cannot compromise them without compromising your own. You might need them. A loved one of yours might need them. Warren needs them and if you don't let him have them, you won't have them. At least, you won't have a full version of them.

The practical upshot of Warren winning his appeal is quite simple. There will be no new trial in Utah. Warren will "go free," and summarily be arrested by Texas in some way shape or form, and go to Texas. You, who hate Warren, will be deprived only of one thing. The illusion that Warren Jeffs is being sought for rape in Utah, and the illusion that Warren Jeffs was on the "FBI Ten Most Wanted" list for a crime that he was actually guilty of.

You still get Warren in Texas. He is still tried in Texas. He's just tried as Warren Jeffs, who has never done anything wrong (so far as we know) in his life. If he has done something wrong, you'll get your chance to prove it.

In the meantime, by rooting for him briefly, you'll do yourself a big favor.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Phrustrated Pharisee

I have to move that brass fitting, or I can't fix the heater.
First, some housecleaning. "Hey Greg, I'm at HOME, if you really wanted to SERVE me...." On to what really "phrustrates" me.
Living out of a suitcase has it's severe limitations. Right now the Pharisee (when he is not on the road in a small bunk area or drivers seat), is in an RV. It's cold, and water leaks and failed water heaters don't mix well with cold. They demand replacement. Not today, not this week, but RIGHT NOW.

All of this got me to thinking, because I have limited access to everything because everything doesn't fit here.

First, what got me to thinking:

Every time I make a move to fix the water heater problem, I run into designs of other people who didn't want me to fix it. They might not have a preference for sending me to the service center to replace the water heater, but there's no motivation to keep me out of one either. RV's are like submarines and helicopters. (Why didn't I mention Space Capsules you say? They don't fix at all.) One system is overlaid on top of another system, or crammed into a small space, or made of miniaturized parts or all of the above. To repair a furnace, sometimes you have to remove a water heater.

Fortunately for me, I only have to repair the water heater, but that's the extent of my good fortune. To adequately diagnose the problem I have to remove the water heater, and that's where I am stalled. I thought that my tools were in the truck, but they are in the storage unit instead. My wife isn't answering her phone. She has the keys. I can't get them. Normally I could bully a fitting with a monkey wrench and a pair of pliers, but brass tends to shred. I need something more specific to the application at hand and I can't get it.

Which got me to thinking, but didn't get me all the way to the end of my thought process. The first part of my thinking is along the lines of how my wife does things. She sets up all systems in the house so that if I want to find something, I have to talk to her. Namely, there's a roadblock, you stop, she advises, you go on. Please understand that in this case I probably chose to leave the tools in the storage shed so it's not her fault, it's mine, but I first started grumbling about her not having the right tools at hand, and then started blaming myself. And the people who design propane fittings NOT to be worked on. Nevertheless, my wife took the keys with her, and I am at "all stop."

Then I moved to the next part of the equation. My partner is coming back to pick me up but I don't know when. He is at least 2 days away at the moment, but I'm not exactly sure where we are meeting, so I don't know where he is two days away from. That could mean I have a day essentially, so I tried to get a hold of him, he answered, said he'd get back to me, and then apparently went to sleep.

Why did I try to get a hold of him? Because I can't determine where he is going from the company website. Normally I can look up my duty assignment based on the truck number and know where I'm going.

So I digress again, but I'm going somewhere. Trust me.

There are two types of systems when it comes to managing people. At least in this case. There are management systems that track employee movement and activity. Essentially I don't have a problem with those since I am prepared to explain what I am doing. That's a "Tracking" or "Monitoring" system. It's based on "management by exception" and it largely trusts the employees in question, it just wants to know what's going on and occasionally someone monitoring a tracking system, asks questions.

Then there are security systems. Security systems treat virtually everyone like criminals. Your movement is monitored, or maybe not even monitored so much, but in a security system, there are roadblocks. When you encounter a roadblock, you stop and wait until the gatekeeper gets to you.

This is where I am going. I often find that my wife sets up security systems that alert her to everything going on in the house and you have to go through her to get something done in the home. Usually she is there so that's not a problem, but you find yourself explaining why you are doing something, before you can do it. This prompts discussion if she does not like what you're doing. I point to the fact that she has the keys and I don't. Instead of working on the water heater, I'm writing this.

Meanwhile the truck is barreling towards an eventual reunion with me, and I don't know where it's going. Before I cut a giant hole in the wall of my residence and compromise the propane system that operates the stove, I need to know how much time I have. I don't.

So we have the next security system.

Up until sometime Monday, I could look up the dispatches my truck was under, and know where it was going. Then someone noticed that I wasn't signing into the driving system and wordlessly I was cut off from that information. My employer uses a "Security" oriented people management system. If I want to know what's going on, I have to call a busy person, annoy them, and explain why I need to know something instead of just looking it up.

Management by exception monitoring systems trust people and use course correction and inquiry to stay on top of things.

Security management systems don't trust people and make them stop and explain themselves to security personnel before they can proceed.

My wife has a deep need to know what's going on, so she sets up security systems.

The manufacturer of my RV wants to keep me from working on it (I suspect) because they want to have one of their service centers do it for $1000.00 instead of $99.00 in parts and frustrated labor from yours truly.

My employer doesn't trust anyone and wants to know what they're doing so they can tell them not to.

Thus all employ security systems.

I tend to employ monitoring systems because I manage by knowledge, exception and course correction, not prevention and permission as security systems tend to do. I grant as much permission as I can, and advise.

So me and Security? Oil and water, and I'm Phrustrated. And my water heater isn't getting fixed. And time is running out. And I don't know how much I had, to begin with.

PS:  The RV dealership locally was very helpful.  It was suggested that a "frozen" pipe fitting might eventually be persuaded to move if "WD-40" (the second most indispensable thing compared to Duct Tape) were sprayed on the fitting.  It was said the WD-40 would "work it's way into the threads, and loosen them."  Guess what?  It did.

Problem Solved!

More →

Sphere: Related Content

It's what you do without the ball...

Coastal Carolina Alum Tyler Thigpen
We depart serious subjects YOU want to talk about, to stuff only I (and maybe a few of you) want to talk about. SPORTS! Of course, my favorite and only consistent fanatical interest in sports for the past 43 years has been the Miami Dolphins!
My team is a mediocre 5-4 this year, only winning it's first game at home on Sunday. I got to watch part of it while doing my laundry.

Chad Pennington went down. Ouch. Chad is one of my favorite people. I really think I could throw the ball as often and as far down the field as Chad Pennington does, even at 56. The man has what is known as a "noodle arm" which hadn't been helped much by the fact that had three shoulder surgeries throughout his career, on his THROWING arm. The latest came last year. Pennington is a trooper, a magician and relentlessly upbeat. He does everything without the ball that a quarterback should be expected to do.

That brings us to Chad Henne. Henne seems reticent, not quite as bright (for all I know he has twice the IQ Pennington does) and more a company man waiting "his turn." He seems to want to learn "on the job" as opposed to "off the field." Henne was replaced by Pennington after eight games because the team needed to know that change was necessary to have a championship season. That's how it goes if you're a quarterback. It may not be Henne's fault that the team didn't have a winning record before Sunday's game, but it wasn't his fault that they had one either as evidenced by the fact that, well, they didn't have a winning record. Thus we went back to ole spark plug Pennington who can work his way down the field with virtually no arm at all.

Only on Sunday Chad P went out after two passes, for the season, again (fourth throwing shoulder injury).

Then Chad H put in a good performance, and went down for a while (who knows how long?) with a knee injury, and in walks Tyler Thigpen, picked up as insurance last year for a low round draft choice from Kansas City. I LIKE Tyler Thigpen. I liked him when he was with KC.

Tyler only put icing on the cake and did what he needed to do when the game was on the line to win the game. He was third string. That means NO practice with the first team. But Tyler said he took "100 mental reps" before he went into the game.

That, and the picture above makes me think the Coastal Carolina product (not known for producing NFL players) may kick everyone out of the driver seat and take over. Tyler has the attitude of a quarterback, much like Dan Marino's successor (Jay Fiedler) did. In the above picture, Tyler does not have the ball, he's not "under center" or throwing or dropping back in some classic pose, he's completely out of the play, probably between plays, and look at him.

He think he's in charge. Comments from the locker room make me think the team sees him that way too. Good luck to you Mr. Thigpen. May you stop my team from wasting endless 2nd round draft picks (A J Feeley, Daunte Culpepper, John Beck, Pat White and perhaps now even Chad Henne) on QUARTERBACKS. A lot of people think it's bad coaching but I think it's the ghost of (I didn't win any superbowls) Dan Marino, that has hobbled my team for the last 11 years. Look at what we've spent to replace him. In the end it may be that the two most durable starters will turn out to be bargain bin acquisitions. The aforementioned Mr. Fiedler and Mr. Thigpen.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 15, 2010

Warren ain't goin' NOWHERE...

At least for the next two days:
The Salt Lake Tribune - "(Warren) Jeffs will remain in Utah at least until Nov. 17, when the state’s response to Jeffs appeal is due. The court will likely take a day or two to make a decision on the case, said Utah State Courts spokeswoman Nancy Volmer."
That answers THAT question.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Is Warren off to Texas now?

Honestly, I don't know, but it looks like it:
The Salt Lake Tribune - "3rd District Judge Terry Christiansen sided with prosecutors who argued once a governor signs an extradition orders, courts can only decide whether the papers are in order.

'I don’t believe it’s proper for this court to substitute its judgment for that of the governor,' said Christiansen in making his ruling Monday.

Defense attorneys are appealing the decision. Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys immediately knew when Jeffs might be moved to Texas.

The 54-year-old Jeffs appeared in court wearing a dark suit, smiling at times and acknowledging some people in the courtroom gallery.

Jeffs was convicted in Utah of forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry her 19-year-old cousin in 2007, but that conviction was overturned by the Utah Supreme Court earlier this year. The justices cited faulty juror instructions.

Washington County prosecutors have not yet decided whether they will re-try Jeffs."
What I don't know is; do defense attorneys appeal this decision while Warren is still in Utah, or can they react speedily enough to do so, or does he simply go to Texas? If the decision is appealed and if Warren's attorney's prevail and he is in Texas, what happens then?

As far as I know he's on an executive jet flying over Texas right now in the custody of Texas Rangers. If there is time granted for the filing of an appeal and Warren can't leave until that window expires, that's a different story. Again this is where my limited expertise (extremely limited) falls short.

I know that constitutionally it doesn't sit well with me. Warren has a right to a speedy trial. The Governor of Utah, and in fact no Governor in any state has the right to abbreviate that right or eliminate it, or modify it to suit themselves. Then however, we get into the realm of judicial mechanisms and they may in fact be designed in such a way as to not provide for the protection of Warren's rights under the Constitution.

If you ask me what happens if Warren is successful, my answer is quite simply that he still goes to Texas, but the circumstance changes. If Warren wins, without going to Texas (something that may be too late to do anything about), Washington county DROPS the charges, and quickly. Texas still gets him.

The assembled persecutors of Warren Jeffs are so petty and prone to prejudicial tactics though, that they want him going to Texas not as a free man arrested in Utah, but as a man under the charge of rape in Utah, even though it is known by all involved that the charges will never see the light of day in another Utah court.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Where in the world am I? Monday November 8th, 2010 (UPDATED)



UPDATE- Legal Genius Renaldo Stowers found this photograph THREATENING to Sgt. Prickett.  NO LIE!  (How does a picture of Eldorado's Main Drag threaten Sgt. Prickett?)   If no one gets it (Toes, you know so you don't count), I'll post another more obvious hint tomorrow, God willing.
Of course, the story is now out, and this is Eldorado Texas.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

That's less than Michael Emack Bargained For!

A big expensive trial, and one of the longer ones if I recall correctly, from gavel to verdict. What does the state of Texas get for it's trouble? Less time for Keith Dutson Jr. than Michael Emack plea bargained to get and not even a decent "perp walk," that's what:
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Keith Dutson Jr. was escorted out of the Tom Green County Courthouse, his hands uncuffed, showing a pleasant demeanor despite having just been sentenced to six years in prison and fined $10,000 on a conviction for sexual assault of a child."
Of course real victory would have been an acquittal or "jury nullification," but you take what you can get. As I observed above, this is better than Michael Emack "bargained for."
" 'None of us can presume to know the mind of the jury,' Eric Nichols, the lead prosecutor, said outside the courthouse after the sentence."
Read that as: "I would have plea bargained this earlier this year, had I known."
"Dutson, 25, is the youngest member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be sentenced out of the seven who have undergone prosecution on evidence seized in the raid on the FLDS-owned Yearning for Zion Ranch in Schleicher County."
Face it, he's younger and the "ick" factor is lower. Our society has taught us to believe in "dirty old men" which is a form of age discrimination, but no one wishes to see it that way.

I'm going to make a graphic comment that I have made before.

So don't read anymore if you don't want to read graphic sexual detail.

To be truthful, I have NO idea what sort of damage a 50 year old penis does that a 16 year old penis wouldn't do as well. In fact, I'd hazard a guess to say the 50 year old "tool" so to speak, does less damage on average, at least in these cases.

My reasoning is as follows. 16 on 16 sex is rarely "committed." What I mean is it's more illicit and along the lines of fornication than permanent. Without going into great detail I know of two people in a church I once went to who had illicit relations who later got married. He was older, though not as much as Keith was, and she was the same age as Keith's bride. They were stupid. They tried to conceal the "deed" and for some reason, because she says she did not "clean up" afterward and tried to conceal the act from her parents, she contracted a vaginal/uterine infection. Not an STD mind you, an infection relating to inexperience, concealment and then continued concealment of the illness she had contracted.

They are married now, and that is good, but she is damaged.

Keith and his wife were not "concealing" their relationship from their community. Sexual relations were expected. There were plenty of other women available to advise his bride. The same goes for any bride of any man regardless of age in the FLDS community.

An older man doesn't want sex as often, particularly if the older man has other wives. I know I'm going to be called sexist but I frankly hear of more younger men complaining that their wives won't "put out" than I hear of younger women complaining of the same. There are recent studies that say that many women simply don't prioritize sex as much as men. They are comforted by it, they find it to be "expected," and they like the closeness, but on average, research and anecdote tell us that women just aren't as hot to trot as guys.

If we're looking for physical hardship coming from sexual activity, I'm afraid the older man is probably kinder to the younger woman than someone her own age. He's less experienced, he's more "physical" in his "love making" and he wants it more. To be blunt, if we're concerned with the younger woman's health, then give her an older more experienced man. On average, it's a better deal.

Nevertheless, it is the impression of society that sexual exploration among the young who are going to "do it anyway" is better than sexual commitment by a younger girl to an older man. I say horse feathers. As stated before, a vagina doesn't know how old a phallus is, and if anything, the tool itself is less damaging and used less often with more skill. By less damaging I'm trying to be as delicate as I can in a very blunt discussion.

Really what it's all about, as said before, is the "ick" factor. We don't want, collectively, as a society, to see a wrinkly old man mounting a 14 year old girl. We'll go to the movies and revel in tales of lost virginity that are rated "R" and pitched to those same 14 and 15 year olds as we say are harmed by older men, and we seem to like seeing Joe Sixteen mount Jill Fourteen. We pay to see younger looking 21 year old actors and actresses hump like bunnies and get vicarious thrills out of it, but if Joe Sixteen is Sixty instead, it's a horror movie.

To those of you reveling in the long sentences of FLDS men, stop being such hypocrites.
"The raid was provoked by a call claiming abuse at the ranch, a call later determined to be a hoax."
Yes Rozita, you were never there, and the call was a hoax, and you were the hoaxer.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 08, 2010

Prickett's (TxBluesMan) Court Date with the Pharisee?

How UNT Sgt. Greg Prickett gets his way.
Like it will ever happen. The Yellow Mall Cop of Texas doesn't dare face me.
I still haven't been served and no self respecting Judge keeps a December 20th court date. I hear the "hearing" has been rescheduled from today, until December 20th. That means next year, or never.

TxBluesMan. Prickett. You are NOT a man. You hide behind threats to my daughter. You are yellow scum. A coward. Slime.

His accomplices?  Renaldo Stowers, Richard Deter, West Gilbreath, Nancy Footer and John Ellis Price.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 05, 2010

My Métier? Getting Banned. This time? All UNT Property

Updated Photo of Greg Prickett?
The University of North Texas has set aside (for this brief moment) their intensive 6 week investigation of Sgt. Gregory J. Prickett, to issue a verbal warning to me, not to set food on UNT property, anywhere, anytime. If I do, I'll be arrested. Can they do that?
The following is an open letter to all the media:
Lt. West Gilbreath, so impotent that after over a month of investigating an internal matter that he can come to no conclusion, was able to act decisively today. I would assume he had the assistance of the office of General Counsel of UNT.

The solution? An entire police force and the legal experts of UNT that are in the death grip of fear when it comes to talking to me, has decided to move decisively after 6 weeks of investigation (still ongoing I might add). They will solve the problem of Sgt. Prickett vaguely implying something unfortunate will happen to my daughter if I do not behave the way Sgt. Prickett wants me to by banning me from all UNT property. I was "verbally warned" by Lt. West Gilbreath not to set foot on UNT property today. Any of it. Anywhere. No time limit.

Lt. West Gilbreath
This presents the amusing picture of an over the road truck driver scaring an entire administration, it's legal counsel and police force so badly that they have put aside their hurried (6 week) internal investigation of Sgt. Prickett, while Sgt. Prickett enjoys paid administrative leave, and they have brought all their skill together, to threaten one of the victims, with arrest.

The University does not say "We've investigated this matter and you're full of beans Mr. McBryde," they simply plead "ongoing investigation," which is looking more and more like a tactic to sequester evidence and prevent University personnel from talking about the matter. Quite frankly, after this length of time, if the University is still investigating the matter, it's because it has merit.

I would emphasize the following things. I am 56 years old and have no criminal record. I have not been arrested. I am not a suspect nor have I been the suspect in any investigation. In short, I am simply not some tightly wound ticking time bomb waiting to "go off." I'm just inclined to be verbal and up front about any differences I might have with others. I am law abiding and do so because I believe it is my duty before God to be law abiding. I don't do so because I think I might get caught. I am no danger to anyone unless they are trying to hide the truth.

The University in banning me is bringing the full force of it's own law enforcement agency and it's legal counsel to prevent a victim from obtaining relief. I inveigh on behalf of my own offended status, and that of my daughter, whom Sgt. Prickett threatens as a means of modifying my behavior with respect to him. Behavior, I might add, that is entirely legal.

Hugh McBryde
Pimpin' Stowers
I have yet to see a "Temporary Restraining Order" from Sgt. Prickett and his bosom buddy, "The Hot Check." Nevertheless, about a month ago the massively self important Senior Assistant General Counsel ("Don't call me Renaldo") Stowers declared that the University couldn't talk to me, because the of this alleged restraining order. This was nothing more than a big fat lie.

Combine that with today's news from Lt. Gilbreath that the investigation of Sgt. Prickett is still "ongoing," and we have a situation where SAGC Renaldo, is essentially pimping for Sgt. Prickett and The Hot Check. It is now all but conclusively proved that Stowers is covering for Prickett and Gilbreath is too.

This is an expensive investigation folks, what with the Big Prick on extended paid vacation and all. They have to pay him and they have to pay his replacement(s) though I don't really know that they have to since all the Big Prick did was sit around and chase enemies from his office computer and use University resources with which to dig up dirt on them.

Trust me, this is not tough stuff. All Prickett (rhymes with briquette) has to do is DENY it and stand aside to let all of his PDA's and computers at work be looked at for such use. The fact that 6 weeks later the University of North Texas is still investigating the matter, is proof that the University of North Texas already KNOWS it's true.

For that reason I'm going to stick my neck out a bit since I know Sgt. Prickett already knows this anyway. Hey, BUB. MY LEGAL MAILING ADDRESS IS: PO Box 18336, Missoula MT, 59808 and it has been for the last FIVE YEARS. While it's true that I have had other addresses, I have always maintained that one. Always.

The "Hot Check."
I have always received mail there since it was opened. The one YOU used, Prickett, was almost completely unknown and had not been used for MORE than five years, that being PO Box 10485 in Bozeman MT.

The Big Prickett has always had access to PO Box 433 in Montpelier VT and knew it was good as it was published as my address of record with the State of Vermont. Guess what Prick? There's a FORWARDING ORDER on that address. The Big Prickett has along with his buddies made constant fun of my polygyny legalization effort, and were thoroughly aware of that address.

Instead I have been told, he used one in Bozeman that was only part of my drivers license record, before August of this year.

He's apparently been able to serve NOBODY on his list, all of whose names he knows.

He didn't want to.

Sgt. Prickett is engaged in Barratry, in the only state in the Union where that crime is a felony.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Barratry

Bringing a frivolous lawsuit with the intent to harass? It's a Felony, in Texas
§ 38.12. BARRATRY AND SOLICITATION OF PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to
obtain an economic benefit the person:
(1) knowingly institutes a suit or claim that the
person has not been authorized to pursue;
(2) solicits employment, either in person or by
telephone, for himself or for another;
(3) pays, gives, or advances or offers to pay, give, or
advance to a prospective client money or anything of value to obtain
employment as a professional from the prospective client;
(4) pays or gives or offers to pay or give a person
money or anything of value to solicit employment;
(5) pays or gives or offers to pay or give a family
member of a prospective client money or anything of value to solicit
employment; or
(6) accepts or agrees to accept money or anything of
value to solicit employment.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) knowingly finances the commission of an offense
under Subsection (a);
(2) invests funds the person knows or believes are
intended to further the commission of an offense under Subsection
(a); or
(3) is a professional who knowingly accepts employment
within the scope of the person's license, registration, or
certification that results from the solicitation of employment in
violation of Subsection (a).
(c) It is an exception to prosecution under Subsection (a)
or (b) that the person's conduct is authorized by the Texas
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct or any rule of court.
(d) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) is an attorney, chiropractor, physician, surgeon,
or private investigator licensed to practice in this state or any
person licensed, certified, or registered by a health care
regulatory agency of this state;
(2) with the intent to obtain professional employment
for himself or for another, sends or knowingly permits to be sent to
an individual who has not sought the person's employment, legal
representation, advice, or care a written communication that:
(A) concerns an action for personal injury or
wrongful death or otherwise relates to an accident or disaster
involving the person to whom the communication is addressed or a
relative of that person and that was mailed before the 31st day
after the date on which the accident or disaster occurred;
(B) concerns a specific matter and relates to
legal representation and the person knows or reasonably should know
that the person to whom the communication is directed is
represented by a lawyer in the matter;
(C) concerns an arrest of or issuance of a
summons to the person to whom the communication is addressed or a
relative of that person and that was mailed before the 31st day
after the date on which the arrest or issuance of the summons
occurred;
(D) concerns a lawsuit of any kind, including an
action for divorce, in which the person to whom the communication is
addressed is a defendant or a relative of that person, unless the
lawsuit in which the person is named as a defendant has been on file
for more than 31 days before the date on which the communication was
mailed;
(E) is sent or permitted to be sent by a person
who knows or reasonably should know that the injured person or
relative of the injured person has indicated a desire not to be
contacted by or receive communications concerning employment;
(F) involves coercion, duress, fraud,
overreaching, harassment, intimidation, or undue influence; or
(G) contains a false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, or unfair statement or claim.
(e) For purposes of Subsection (d)(2)(E), a desire not to be
contacted is presumed if an accident report reflects that such an
indication has been made by an injured person or that person's
relative.
(f) An offense under Subsection (a) or (b) is a felony of the
third degree.
(g) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under
Subsection (d) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(h) An offense under Subsection (d) is a felony of the third
degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant
has previously been convicted under Subsection (d).
(i) Final conviction of felony barratry is a serious crime
for all purposes and acts, specifically including the State Bar
Rules and the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 866, § 2, eff. Sept. 1,
1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 723, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1993;
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts
1997, 75th Leg., ch. 750, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
More →

Sphere: Related Content