Ed. Note: Greg Prickett is former police officer and supervisor who went to law school, hung out a shingle, and now practices criminal defense and family law in Fort Worth, Texas. While he was a police officer, he was a police firearms instructor, and routinely taught armed tactics to other officers. He is a member of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer’s Association (TCDLA).

Dear Mr. Scheiner:

On July 27, 2020, you forwarded to all members of the TCDLA that the Executive Committee had decided to participate in the public lynching of the State Bar of Texas President, Larry McDougal.

First, I’m going to point out some things that should have been considered before you took action on behalf of the entire TCDLA, especially without consulting the membership. Continue reading →

College students drink alcohol, sometimes to excess. Who knew? Well, everybody, including the nice folks who run Northeastern University, which is why the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that colleges have a responsibility to protect their students from the consequences of their actions.

Dangerous drinking-related activities are a foreseeable hazard on college and university campuses.

Well, that clears things up, right? Except the scenario presented in the case is replete with the interconnecting tropes and craziness that is similarly a foreseeable hazard on college campuses. Continue reading →

The phenomenon is not new. Back in the ’60s, when feminists were fighting for women to be accepted in education and the workplace, the argument was that women deserved the choice to be a doctor, lawyer or president if their interest, talent and good fortune would take them there. Or as a t-shirt later explained, “A woman’s place is in the house. And the Senate.”

But over time, the momentum shifted so that a woman who chose not to get her Ph.D., to stay home and raise the children, cook the meals, care for the house, was no longer considered the norm. Then it became a badge of dishonor, a traitor to women and, well, a failure. To be a “homemaker,” as they were called, was no longer an acceptable choice, but a capitulation to the patriarchy, a sycophant of the Orange Juice Queen, Anita Bryant, and surely a Nixon voter. After all, who else wouldn’t get a degree, a career, a future? Continue reading →

The repeal of New York’s dreaded Executive Law § 50-a, which protected cops, among others, from disclosure of their personnel records, was an emblematic reaction in these curious times. The law was bad, awful even, in that dirty and violent cops were able to conceal their conduct from the public and criminal defense lawyers who got to cross them about their actions.

Yet, the repeal was simplistic, a bludgeon rather than a scalpel, The NYCLU sought information from the Civilian Complaint Review Board about all police officers who were the subject of complaints, with the intention of making it publicly available. The police union took issue with this and sought a temporary restraining order. Continue reading →

There was an op-ed by a Legal Aid Society lawyer, a public defender, in the New York Post. These are words I never expected to write, but there you are. Strange days, indeed. The public defender, Maud Maron, is a mother, president of Community Education Council District 2 and a candidate for the City Council. And she has no intention of sacrificing her child or yours to the new fad, white self-loathing and flagellation for failure to be a good enough anti-racist.

No one is ever a good enough anti-racist.

I am a mom, a public defender, an elected public-school council member and a City Council candidate. But at a city Department of Education anti-bias training, I was instructed to refer to myself as a “white woman” — as if my whole life reduces to my race. Continue reading →

At Vox, Zack Beauchamp offered the woke rebuttal to the Harper’s Letter, or as Cathy Young delightfully called it, he “voxsplained” why the voices for free speech and open debate should “shut up.”

The latest rebuke to critics of progressive illiberalism comes from Vox’s Zack Beauchamp. While he ostensibly examines the arguments on both sides and grants some valid concerns to “free speech” defenders, Beauchamp concludes that there is no assault on free expression. Rather, he asserts, we’re having “the kinds of difficult conversations that every liberal society (maybe even every society) grapples with all the time” — about the boundaries of socially acceptable speech amidst changing cultural norms.

It is not, as noted conservatives like Noam Chomsky allege, a matter of silencing speech that fails to comport with the latest permissions from the Secretary of Social Justice, but merely a trifling matter over where the lines of socially acceptable speech should be drawn. Folks like Zack are trying to “change cultural norms” to suit their tastes, and anyone not adhering to those norms is wrong and deserves whatever they get. Continue reading →

It’s not unusual for multiple bad things to occur at the same time and to be done by both sides, or all sides assuming there are either more than two or the sides are indeterminable, but in the midst of physical and intellectual confusion, the narcissistic sense of entitlement becomes a significant burden. The problem is that the people doing the harm are incapable of realizing they’re in the wrong, because they are of the belief that they are a law unto themselves. If they do it, and they’re good people, then what they do is good and they’re in the right.

While Portland continues as a litmus test between the the right, cheering on the feds exceeding their jurisdiction and using force indiscriminately, the left, apologizing for those trying to burn down a federal courthouse for no cognizable reason, and those unaligned who say a pox on both their houses, protests and riots are blooming elsewhere,* whether in sympathy or because people need something to do with their time. These pop-up protesters have decided that they are the good guys so they are entitled not just to shut down city roads, but to command other city residents to turn away and, well, just get lost while they seize the city. Continue reading →

Ed. Note: This is a guest post by Lee Keller King, a civil litigation attorney in a two-person shop in the Houston, Texas area, who practices in business litigation and family law.

Although nothing new to readers of our esteemed host’s blog, Cancel Culture has, until recently, been relatively unknown in Texas. That has changed and in a big way. Cancel Culture has now afflicted the Texas State Bar Association, including an effort to depose our current Bar president, Larry McDougal. The controversy has now reached national note. Can a sitting Bar president be cancelled because of a few comments on social media? This Monday, July 27, we hope to learn the verdict.

Larry is a former police officer, prosecutor and municipal judge who has been ably representing criminal defendants in Fort Bend* and surrounding counties since 1994.  However, despite his yeoman service representing people of all colors, nationalities, genders and sexual orientations, the Mob is coming after him with tar and feathers. Larry’s crime? He deviated from the Narrative and had the temerity of questioning the virtue of Black Lives Matter. He has therefore been labelled a racist and thought criminal (as have any who dare defend him on social media). Continue reading →

It was unexpected, and definitely a break from the banal images of nightly fence fires, but what was it?

PUSSY POWER pic.twitter.com/qMlmWxrX2Z

— Donovan “It was the blurst of times” Farley ?? (@DonovanFarley) July 18, 2020

She was dubbed “Naked Athena,” her identity unknown, but her image was striking. It naturally went viral and then came the confusion, the doubts, the internal failing of an ideology due to one derriere. Is she a heroine or not? Should we adore her or hate her. Continue reading →

Like many people of a certain age, when someone says “bully,” I picture the old Charles Atlas ad in the back of comic books, where the muscular clod kicks sand in the face of the 98 pound weakling. What made him a bully was that he behaved that way and there was nothing the 98 pound weakling could do about it.

Today’s bully is the 98 pound weakling with a twitter account.

A critic – even a forceful one – does business in the proper currency of intellectual discourse: presenting evidence, providing reasons, making arguments; a bully questions people’s motives and calls them names.

A critic wants to discuss an issue—to try to persuade you to change your mind or see things in a different light; a bully wants to shut down discussion.

A critic appeals to reason—your mind and conscience; a bully tries to induce fear–resorting to threats and shaming to frighten you into submission. Continue reading →