Texas Lawyer Helping Texas Residents
Licensed for over a decade Texas Lawyer Alex Hernandez Jr. is concerned with his clients constitutional and legal rights. This blog is general information about current legal issues and issues that clients bring up.
Error: Invalid or expired token
“White Collar” crimes are a distinct area of law that even has a show named after it on the USA network. It’s a show depicting a “White Collar” criminal who is helping the FBI. But does white collar mean a handsome man in a white suit? not necessarily….
White Collar depicts the areas of crime that are financially motivated, nonviolent types of criminal activity. These criminals are in it for the money. The most famous white collar criminals? Martha Stewart and her insider trading crime; and Bernie Madoff, Allen Stanford, and any group of Ponzi schemers. The bigger criminal culprits? Enron and WorldCom. Other types of white collar crimes include insider trading, embezzlement, cybercrime, copyright infringement, money laundering, identity theft, and forgery. How did I get into representing this specific group of criminal activity? My start was in Federal court appointed by Federal judges, it seems my background in investment management and economics before law school helped my understand the money issues of some white collar crimes.
This are the links to my websites
Every once in a while I accept a case where I think the legislation made a mistake in passing the law or didn’t give enough time for the public to react to the change and couldn’t possibly be obligated to follow it. Such laws that make immediate impact and yet hold businesses or individuals accountable right away such as tax law changes make things complicated for businesses, or other laws that an individual can’t possibly have time to react to. A lot of jurisdictions don’t handle these cases properly in giving businesses or individuals notice. Some juries agree with me, and hence the term “jury nullification” comes into play. Jury nullification is where a defendant is technically guilty but the jury just can’t come to terms with punishing the defendant, maybe because of due process issues or what I was speaking about before, where the law passed just doesn’t make sense at the time. Juries can’t come to terms to punish the defendant for a dumb law or violation of due process. Our jury system is one of the best systems in the world and jury nullification is a process that proves that point.
What does it mean when you hear “No Fault”? Texas is a “No Fault” state meaning that neither spouse is blamed for the breakup of the marriage, or no one is at fault. No proof of wrong is needed to get the divorce and most of the time “irreconcilable differences” or just not getting along anymore is the reason used to file for divorce. Is that fair? Maybe not, I don’t know the answer but it seems like it’s just too easy to get a divorce and thus 50% of marriages end in divorce and 60 to 80% of remarriages end in divorce. No Fault can sometimes just mean “I give up. ” Alex Hernandez Jr. Attorney at Law Corpus Christi * Victoria Texas
If you’re a man in an abusive relationship, it’s important to know that you’re not alone. It happens to men from all cultures and all walks of life. Figures suggest that as many as one in three victims of domestic violence are male. However, men are often reluctant to report abuse by women because they feel embarrassed, or they fear they won’t be believed, or worse, that police will assume that since they’re male they are the perpetrator of the violence and not the victim.
An abusive wife or partner may hit, kick, bite, punch, spit, throw things, or destroy your possessions. To make up for any difference in strength, she may attack you while you’re asleep or otherwise catch you by surprise. She may also use a weapon, such as a gun or knife, or strike you with an object, abuse or threaten your children, or harm your pets. Of course, domestic abuse is not limited to violence.
Your spouse or partner may also:
* Verbally abuse you, belittle you, or humiliate you in front of friends, colleagues, or family, or on social media sites.
* Be possessive, act jealous, or harass you with accusations of being unfaithful.
* Take away your car keys or medications, try to control where you go and who you see.
* Try to control how you spend money or deliberately default on joint financial obligations.
* Make false allegations about you to your friends, employer, or the police, or find other ways to manipulate and isolate you.
* Threaten to leave you and prevent you from seeing your kids if you report the abuse.
If your in a abusive relationship the first thing to do is ask for help, then look into a possible divorce.
The case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, and a challenge to the Top Ten Percent Admissions Rule
The case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 631 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2011) [2011 BL 26613
In 2008, Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz, both Texas residents, were denied undergraduate admission to the University of Texas at Austin for the class entering in Fall 2008. They filed this suit alleging that UT's admissions policies discriminated against them on the basis of race in violation of their right to equal protection under theFourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights statutes. They lost at summary judgment hearing with the court deciding there was no evidence of any discrimination. They have appealed.
The court's concurring opinion had the following opinion;
"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV. One of [*248]the Amendment’s “core principles” is to “do away with all governmentally imposed discriminations based on race,”Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432 (1984), and to create “a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement.” Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 505-06(1988). This is why “[r]acial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and . . . call for the most exacting judicial examination.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 904 (1995) (quoting Regents of the Univ. ofCal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 291 (1978) (opinion of Powell, J.)). It matters not whether the racial preference is characterized as invidious or benign: strict scrutiny applies regardless of “the race of those burdened or benefitted by a particular classification.” Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 650-51 (1993) (quoting Croson, 488 U.S. at 494). To survive such exacting scrutiny, laws classifying citizens on the basis of race must be “narrowly tailored to achieving a compelling state interest.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 904.
In Grutter, the majority acknowledged these fundamental principles, see Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306,326-27 (2003), but then departed and held, for the first time, that racial preferences in university admissions could be used to serve a compelling state interest. Id. at 328. Though the Court recognized that strict scrutiny should govern the inquiry into the use of race in university admissions, id. at 326, what the Court applied in practice was something else entirely.”
The University of Texas uses many factors including Top Ten Percent Admission to admissions in their practice. The plaintiffs have challenged that Top Ten percent practice.
The practice of the University of Texas at Austin will be scrutinized again in October when the Texas Supreme Court hears the arguments of the plaintiffs. The fate of affirmative action could rest upon the ruling.