30.06 Ruling Letters

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


montgomery
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 8:13 am
Location: Montgomery, Texas

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#196

Post by montgomery » Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:49 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:27 am
ScottDLS wrote:Quick we need to get rid of this guy. :mad5 5 months is too long and he let the Dallas Zoo be a an amusement park. And the Democrats say he is the latest Bernie Madoff hence his indictment in Collin County. We need to elect a non-lawyer as AG.
I share your frustration with the 5 month delay. But my bigger frustration is with the limitations of the law itself. I think the real fix needs to be done in the legislature. And should focus on some of the following modifications:

1. Fines should be payable directly to the individual(s) filing the complaint.

2. Fines should be applied retroactively starting from the first day the illegal sign was put up. If it takes the AG 5 months to decide the case and the city immediately pulls the sign down after that, they are on the hook for 5 months of fines. This is similar to a lot of other laws where the penalty starts with the first day of infringement, not much later after an official ruling has been made.

3. Some incompetent and/or dishonest judges have shown that they are incapable of applying the definition of "court premises" in a fair and unbiased manner. Thus, we unfortunately need to take that discretion away from judges. Establish clear, minimum requirements that must be met to qualify as a court premises, and establish a punishment mechanism for judges that choose to violate the law. Censure, fines, or maybe even a short, mandatory jail stint.

4. Eliminate the amusement park and educational institution loopholes that are now being abused.

We need to punish the parties responsible for this illegal behavior. Right now, they have no fear of any consequences for violations and they are acting accordingly.
... they are being punished by paying fines funded from tax payers. Consideration should be given to find a way to punish them that does not cost us money. Defense to prosecution is LTC like the wrongful exclusion law for tenants and owners, for example.


treadlightly
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#197

Post by treadlightly » Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:50 pm

montgomery wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:49 pm
... they are being punished by paying fines funded from tax payers. Consideration should be given to find a way to punish them that does not cost us money. Defense to prosecution is LTC like the wrongful exclusion law for tenants and owners, for example.
I like the Texas Public Information Act, which says if you ask a question of a state employee that's not protected information (police case information, certain real estate dealings, etc.), they have to answer in ten days.

The law actually applies to all queries, not just questions that explicitly cite the act.

Failure to respond comes with a maximum of $1000 fine and six months in county jail for the individual. No protection of office. I like it. Too bad more laws aren't written that way.


Ike Aramba
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 10:06 am
Location: Missouri City Texas

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#198

Post by Ike Aramba » Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:18 pm

treadlightly wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:50 pm
Failure to respond comes with a maximum of $1000 fine and six months in county jail for the individual. No protection of office. I like it. Too bad more laws aren't written that way.
Does that include legislators? :evil2:
"Eastern European intellectuals, reading 1984 in clandestine editions, were amazed to find that its author had never visited the Soviet Union. How, then, had he captured its mental and moral atmosphere? By reading its propaganda, and by paying attention..."


treadlightly
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#199

Post by treadlightly » Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:27 pm

Ike Aramba wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:18 pm
treadlightly wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:50 pm
Failure to respond comes with a maximum of $1000 fine and six months in county jail for the individual. No protection of office. I like it. Too bad more laws aren't written that way.
Does that include legislators? :evil2:
Yep. Penalties are predictably rare.

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 69
Posts: 7412
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#200

Post by ELB » Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:52 pm

Yesterday the appellees (City of Austin) filed a motion for another extension (of 8 days) to the deadline for filing their brief, because they have a lot of other litigation going on.

The court granted it and the new filing deadline is 21 Feb 20.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
“The only thing more enjoyable than seeing your opponent lose an election they rigged is seeing them lose an investigation they rigged.” Author unknown but dead on the mark.


LDP
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:15 pm

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#201

Post by LDP » Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:13 pm

Great.
Is there any limit on how long they can drag this nonsense out? "Mom, we don't wanna go to court" excuse does not fly. I am surprised the AG stands for this horse-dung.
"Because they have a lot of other litigation going on". Well, maybe they should stop KNOWINGLY breaking the law which might free up their time. But when government officials do whatever they dang well please and can get away with it, this will never be a fair world.
Remember, laws are only for us mortals, not for important people.

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 69
Posts: 7412
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#202

Post by ELB » Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:33 am

Recall that the Texas Attorney General appealed the trial court's rulings, particularly as to what constitutes a sign for the purpose of the "fines for signs" law and even more importantly as to how to calculate the fines themselves. The trial court assessed approximately $9,000 in fines; the AG says the correct calculation should result in approximately $6,000,000. He further argues that the trial court's method of calculating violations that result in fines would gut established cases and law in calculating fines, thus the problem is bigger than just a single case.

The Attorney General filed his appeal brief on 09 Dec 19, and requested oral argument.
This brief can be found here: http://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia. ... 8e1ee2e1df

The Defendant City of Austin, after requesting and receiving a couple extensions of deadline, filed its brief on the latest deadline of 21 Feb 2020, and specifically did not request oral argument.
The brief can be found here: http://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia. ... 4cfaf2f53a

The Appellant Attorney General filed his reply brief on 03 Mar 20.
The brief can be found here: http://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia. ... 6c67099d3b

The apparent lead lawyer for the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General Trevor W. Ezell, filed a letter on 04 Mar 20 requesting that the court set a hearing for oral argument to occur prior to 01 July 20 because after that Mr. Ezell will cease employment with the Office of the Attorney General to begin work as a Law Clerk for US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
His letter is here: http://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia. ... 75c3ee91dd
USAF 1982-2005
____________
“The only thing more enjoyable than seeing your opponent lose an election they rigged is seeing them lose an investigation they rigged.” Author unknown but dead on the mark.

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 69
Posts: 7412
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: 30.06 Ruling Letters

#203

Post by ELB » Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:37 pm

Ah, here we go:

Whelp, this COVID 19 business is not going to make Paxton v. City of Austin courthouse sign litigation get resolved any faster... :banghead:
USAF 1982-2005
____________
“The only thing more enjoyable than seeing your opponent lose an election they rigged is seeing them lose an investigation they rigged.” Author unknown but dead on the mark.

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”