|
The Enos Law Firm
17207 Feather Craft Lane, Webster, Texas 77598
(281) 333-3030 Fax: (281) 488-7775
Please forward this e-mail newsletter to everyone who cares about our family courts!
Click here for an archive of past issues of The Mongoose.
|
In this issue, I provide more tips for e-filing and a very detailed article on how personal injury settlements are treated in divorces (they are almost always community property). I write about interesting developments in a Democratic primary for a family court. I also try to clean up some of the mess created by the last issue of the Mongoose, which irritated more than my usual allotment. The Houston Chronicle is struggling to keep up with the Mongoose, since my last edition on Monday was followed by two big stories in the Chronicle on the following Tuesday (about M.L. Walker) and on the next Friday (a front page story about Denise Pratt) based on news first reported in this newsletter.
Meanwhile, there is still plenty to say about Judge Pratt, including these development as of Sunday: (1) The Harris County GOP Judicial Screening Committee evaluated the candidates for the 311th and not a single member of the committee rated Judge Pratt positively (half were Neutral and half were Negative). In contrast, 100% of the committee gave Donna Detamore a "Positive" rating. (2) 72% of Republican precinct chairs did not support Pratt in a just-completed "straw vote." Donna Detamore came in first with 42% and Anthony Magdaleno received 36%. Pratt was the choice of 28% and Alicia Franklin got 5%. Perhaps I have been too hasty in counting Donna Detamore out of this race!
- A conservative Republican appellate attorney, Leif Olson, has written a lengthy and absolutely devastating article explaining why Denise Pratt is a disaster as a judge. Pratt cannot blame this blog on liberal Democrats or even disgruntled family law attorneys, since Mr. Olson does not practice in our field. Click here to read the most complete encyclopedia of what is wrong with Denise Pratt ever written.
- The Houston Chronicle ran a front page story Friday on Judge Pratt and more details on the two new District Attorney investigations into the loco judge I described in last week's Mongoose. Click here to read the Chronicle story.
- Republican bloggers jumped all over the newest Pratt developments. Click here to read one post entitled "Enos v. Pratt, Part III." I like the part that says,"prominent Galveston county attorney Greg Enos..." The "Big Jolly" blog had fun reporting on the nauseating video advertisement for Judge Pratt featuring none other than Ronnie Harrison, who has made a lot of money off unnecessary amicus appointments from Pratt. Click here to read the blog post, which has a link to Pratt's disgustingly false advertisement.
- The "Anyone But Pratt" campaign seems to be in full gear as these signs have started appearing all over town.
 - Rob Clark and I appeared on the Matt Patrick Radio Show on 750AM last week to rebut some of the blatant falsehoods Pratt said on the show the week before. Click here to hear this new "Dynamic Duo" of Houston radio explain why Pratt is such a disaster from the points of view of a liberal Democrat (me) and a life long ardent Republican (Clark). The discussion about Pratt starts at about the 11:00 minute mark. Yes, I did call an incumbent judge a "liar" on the radio. Toward the end, you will hear me praise some of the great Republican family judges we are so lucky to have, such as Judges Farr, Moore and Dean (I must occasionally kiss a little arse in hopes I can practice in at least a few courts).
- To my great amusement, a Republican political activist discovered that the Online Slang Dictionary has a definition for "Pratt" which I swear I did not contribute to or write. The definition entry really reads: "Pratt - idiot, un-cool, not liked. 'That person is such a pratt.' A person that chatters or utters childishly or foolishly. British slang, derived from the word prattle. 'Don't be such a pratt.' The slang dictionary does not yet contain an entry for "To Be Mongoosed."
- Criminal defense attorney Terry Yates took time from defending alleged murderers, rapists and child abusers to defend his most heinous client, Denise Pratt in an exclusive interview with the editorial board of the Mongoose. Yates defended Judge Pratt from a front page Houston Chronicle story Friday by explaining that changes the judge made to typed, agreed temporary order that two parents and their attorneys had signed and submitted was a "simple mistake."
"The judge had started work on paperwork in her in-box labeled "Orders Waiting For Judge's Signature for Over 3 Months - May Need Backdating" when she suddenly and unexpectedly had a sneezing fit caused by a severe allergic condition," Yates explained. Yates stated,"It seems that a new clerk had accidentally placed a law book too close to the judge's desk and Pratt is severely allergic to anything that contains laws or rules she is expected to know and follow, so, as she sneezed uncontrollably, she mistakenly scratched out the word "temporary" and wrote "final."  When asked why Judge Pratt would then scratch out all of the mother's agreed periods of visitation in that order on two different pages of the order, Yates had an easy answer. "George Clevenger and Ronnie Harrison were in the judge's chambers as they often are," said Yates. "Those hard working, dedicated attorneys were counting and rubber banding stacks of cash and got a little silly and started singing the 'Oompa Loompa' song from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and that distracted the judge, who then accidentally scratched out several pages of visitation rights for this mother. Judge Pratt went ahead and initialed those accidental changes because she assumed the mother probably did not deserve to see her child any way - she is an unmarried woman working outside the home after all." Yates explained that the wording of the body of the order, which took away the mother's visitation without hearing or evidence or even a request from the father, would control over the inadverdant change of "temporary" to "final" in the title of the order.  Yates even was able to blame Pratt's clerks for this snafu: "We do not know why 25 clerks have come and gone through the 311th in just three years - it certainly has nothing to do with the way this good, hard working Christian conservative treats people - but this clearly was a clerk's error for not realizing that when the judge hand wrote "final" she really meant "temporary."As to whether a judge changing an agreed order signed by the parties and filed with the clerk could constitute the crime of tampering with a government record, Yates realized he had to run to court to represent an (alleged) bigamous child molester (who was not a judge) and was unable to complete the interview. Note for the Dim Witted: Just in case any reader is stupid enough not to know, the above tale is a fictional parody intended to make a point with humor. In a case involving a parody of pastor Jerry Falwell, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 475 U.S. 767 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court extended First Amendment protection to speech that "could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved," even if that speech were "patently offensive and . . . intended to inflict emotional injury." The Texas Supreme Court in another case involving parody, New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks, 146 S.W.3d 144, 156-7 (Tex. 2004), held that,"the test is not whether the story is or is not characterized as "fiction," "humor," or anything else in the publication, but whether the charged portions in context could be reasonably understood [by a reasonable reader] as describing actual facts about the plaintiff or actual events in which she participated. If it could not be so understood, the charged portions could not be taken literally [and the author cannot be sued for defamation]."
 Click here to view this nauseating false video praising Judge Pratt. I promise a parody video is in the works.
I do not expect to win every case. I just want an efficient system in which my client gets a fair hearing before a judge who works hard, knows the law, and does not play favorites. I also expect judges to appoint qualified amicus attorneys who zealously look after children (and actually visit the kids in their homes). Is that asking too much? Stay tuned.
Greg Enos
|
E-Filing Tips - Part 2
E-fling continues to aggravate and confuse attorneys and legal assistants. Here is an important tip I am getting from the clerks in all surrounding counties (they just will not say it on the record): DO NOT USE PRO DOC AS YOUR E-FILING SERVICE PROVIDER. The clerks confirm that the majority of their e-filing problems involve ProDoc. My office has switched to efile.txcourts.gov, which is free and seems to create far fewer errors. Click here for the comparison chart of e-filing service providers. I arranged a meeting for legal assistants from several different law firms to meet with Galveston County District Clerk John Kinard and his staff to discuss e-filing. I give Kinard and his people credit - they are trying everything they can to make this transition to e-filing work. Communication is a big issue and is being worked on. For example, Galveston County a few weeks ago stopped accepting American Express to pay e-filing fees but did not tell anyone. My office went crazy for a few days trying to figure out why our e-filings were being rejected before technical support for our e-filing service provider figured it out. Thanks to my complaints, Galveston County now again accepts American Express. In Galveston County, returns of service can be e-filed. The District Clerk prefers that exhibits be filed with motions as one document. If the motion and exhibits exceeds the size limit, the exhibits should be filed as a separate document and clearly titled,"Exhibits to Petitioner's Motion to...." The District Clerk is charging 25 cents per page for service copies. Click here to see tips from the Galveston County District Clerk's office on e-filing, some of which was news to me. Click here for a PDF of the same information sheet, which most attorneys I checked with did not even know existed. Here are some e-filing requirements I did not know about for Galveston County that go beyond what the Supreme Court rules require. These are requirements are not in our local rules yet and it is a mystery why these guidelines have not been shared with attorneys. 1. Paper must be white with a page size of 8.5 x 11; font must be black with a size no smaller than
14 point.
2. Documents must be in a text-searchable PDF format using 300 DPI resolution and fonts specified in the Adobe PDF reference version 1.5 and should be generated directly from the originating software using a PDF distiller whenever possible. 3. Documents must not be locked (i.e. password protected) 4. Documents must be in black and white; color or grayscale images will be rejected 5. Documents must not contain any malware or viruses. The electronic filing of a document constitutes certification by the filer that the document has been checked and is clear of any malware or viruses 6. Documents must contain filer's complete contact information in the signature block including name, address, phone number and e-mail address. 7. PDF portfolios will not be accepted. Multiple documents which pertain to a single filing must be combined into a PDF. For example, Exhibits to pleadings are to be included in a single PDF or can be filed separately as a new filing using the Exhibit filing code; 8. Documents that can be filed in a traditional manner with the County and District Clerk may be electronically filed with the exception of the following documents: A. Bonds; B. Will and Codicils thereto; C. Documents to be presented to a court in camera, solely for the purpose of obtaining a ruling on the discoverability of such documents; D. Documents on cases sealed pursuant to Tex. R. CV. P. 76a; and E. Documents to which access is otherwise restricted by law or court order, including a document filed in a proceeding under Chapter 33, Family Code.
Dirty Business In a Democratic Judicial Primary
Sandra Peake and Julia Maldonado are running against each other for the Democratic nomination for the 246th District Court. Judge Jim York is retiring and Charley Prine and Angelina Gooden are competing for the Republican nomination. Maldonado filed a lawsuit to have Peake removed from the ballot. In cause no. 2014-02303, Maldonado alleges that Peake did not properly collect the number of signatures needed on her petition to get on the ballot. A visiting judge has conducted one hearing and Maldonado is asking for a injunction to prevent the Democratic Party from canvassing or counting any votes for Peake.
At the February 3, 2014 hearing, the notary who notarized the petition signatures for Peake, testified that she did not actually witness most of the signatures of the petition circulators she notarized. That testimony could in theory invalidate the petitions and could get the notary in trouble. The notary testified as follows:
Q. Did someone hand you the petitions and ask you to notarize them without the person being the circulator actually appearing before you?
A. No. I mean, I notarized them, yes.
Q. Well, did someone ask you to do that?
A. Yes.
Q. Who? Who asked you to do that?
A. I notarized them for Ms. Peake.
Q. Ms. Peake asked you to do that?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Who was it? I'm sorry. I couldn't hear. MR. WILKINS: Ms. Peake. Q. (By Mr. Wilkins) Sandra Peake asked you to do that? A. Yes. Q. Did you realize at the time that you were signing as the notary, notarizing the signatures for people who were not before you, that those documents would be submitted to government authorities? A. Yes. Sandra Peake says that this election should be decided by the voters and not in a courtroom. The Democratic Party examined Peake's petitions and determined they were sufficient. Peake says there was no evil intent with the notarization of her petitions by a woman who works for Peake's husband. Peake says the case is over because the judge denied Maldonado's request for injunctive relief. Maldonado seems to think she can still keep Peake from being the Democratic nominee even if Peake wins the most primary votes. We shall see how this plays out.
Injury Settlements Are Usually
Community Property in Texas Divorces
Click here to read a very detailed article on how personal injury settlements and recoveries are treated in divorce. I have presented this article before but I have expanded and updated the paper, which can be summarized as follows:
A spouse's recovery for an injury claim is usually community property because most settlements mix all of the damage elements together in a single payment. Recoveries in injury claims are treated like other property in a divorce and the usual presumptions and burdens of proof apply. When a spouse receives a settlement from a lawsuit during the marriage, some of which could be separate property and some of which could be community property the burden of proof is on the spouse claiming the funds as separate property. Kyles v. Kyles, 832 S.W.2d 194,198 (Tex. App. - Beaumont 1992, no pet). All property is presumed to be community property and "clear and convincing evidence" must be presented to establish that property is separate property. Tex Fam. Code �3.003.
The basic rule in Texas is that a lump sum injury recovery is all community property if a party cannot prove what part of the lump sum settlement is separate property. See, e.g.Kyles v. Kyles, 832 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. App. - Beaumont 1992, no pet).
As one court has said,"Without clear and convincing evidence showing the recovery is solely for the personal injury of a particular spouse, the spouse does not overcome the presumption that all recovery received during marriage is community property." Licata v. Licata, 11 S.W.3d 269, 273 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet).
In the typical situation, when a plaintiff settles his or her case for a lump sum and the release says it is for any and all damages the plaintiff suffered, the total recovery will be almost always have to be considered community property. Here are the only situations where I can imagine that a spouse in a divorce would be able to prove with clear and convincing evidence how much precisely from the lump sum settlement was his or her separate property:
- There is a stipulation as to how much was paid for each element of damages, either in the divorce case or as part of the injury settlement. see e.g. Slaton v. Slaton, 987 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
- The spouse proves that there were no damages suffered that would be community damages. For example, the spouse who sues for intentional infliction of mental distress could show that he did not seek nor did he suffer any damages for lost wages or medical expenses.
- Recovery is made after a jury trial if the defendant pays what the jury awarded. If a case went to trial and a jury awarded specific amounts for each element of damages and if the defendant does not appeal (or loses on appeal) and pays according to the jury verdict, there would be specific proof of each element of damages. Presumably, the pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest would be calculated on each element of damages and so apportioned between the spouses. However, if there is a jury verdict and then the parties settle for an amount less than what the jury awarded, the parties are back in the situation described above, where it is a lump sum settlement and no specific amounts are assigned to each element of damage and it would be considered all community property.
Senator Ted Cruz Agrees With Me!
To my surprise, I actually have something in common with Senator Ted Cruz, the Republican Huey Long of our generation whom I predict will lose in an electoral college landslide to Hillary Clinton in 2016. Senator Cruz and I both really like the 2006 British movie Amazing Grace and admire a 19th Century British Parliamentarian, William Wilberforce.
A story on Politico.com last week said the following ( click here to read the entire story):
During one of our conversations last year, I asked Cruz about his favorite movies, and in addition to a couple of classics - The Godfather, The Princess Bride - he mentioned Amazing Grace, a 2010 [actually 2006] drama about the effort to end the British slave trade that's become popular in Tea Party circles. "The abolition movie?" I asked.
"Yes, about William Wilberforce," Cruz said. "It's an incredible story about a member of Parliament who fought for his principles, and when he began, he was almost entirely alone. And conventional wisdom in the British Parliament was there was no way to stop the British slave trade. And Wilberforce endured enormous criticism and animosity and yet, over the decades, stood resolutely for principle and transformed not only Britain but the world, by succeeding at long last in abolishing the unspeakable evil that was the British slave trade."
Click here if you are interested and want to learn a little more about this stubborn reformer who worked tirelessly for 26 years to get Parliament to abolish slavery in the British Empire. Wilberforce stood up for what was right when no one else would. He fought for reform when no one thought for a second he could possibly succeed in changing a bad system everyone just took for granted as being "the way it was."
|
|
|
|
"Together, attorneys can improve our family courts!"News Flash: Katrina Griffith will be sworn in as the CPS associate judge of the Child Protective Services Impact Court at 2:00 p.m. on February 28, 2014 in the main courtroom of the 312th Judicial District Court. Everyone is invited!
In this issue...
M.L. Walker Returns Illegal Contributions But Keeps The Shady Cash
M.L. (AKA "Meca") Walker's campaign says it has returned $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions but has kept $25,000 given under very suspicious circumstances. Click here to read last week's story about how Walker accepted $45,000 in contributions on one day from nine people associated with a rich car dealer with a divorce in Walker's court. Once I pointed out to Walker that some of those contributions exceeded the $5,000 per person (or married couple) contribution limit, Walker checked with the Texas Ethics Commission. Once the Commission confirmed that the law actually says what it says, Walker claims she returned $20,000 of the contributions.
Click here to read the Houston Chronicle story that went way too easy on Walker, who should have never accepted any of those contributions in the first place.
If my teenager comes home from school with an expensive gold Rolex watch, I am going to ask where he got it from. If the kid tells me some dude he doesn't know sold it to him for $10 and no questions were asked, I am going to sit the boy down and have a talk about ethics and making moral decisions. I would probably tell the boy something like this:
You are smart enough to know when something just does not seem right and you can't escape doing the right thing by not asking questions. In fact, I really do not believe you did not ask where the watch came from or why it was for sale for just $10. A stolen watch is still stolen even if you pretend you were not suspicious and did not ask the right questions. If something does not seem right, I expect you to walk away and make the moral choice and not play dumb.
Anthony Magdaleno is Happy (Not Sad) and Coming On Strong!
Anthony Magdaleno, a candidate for the 311th District Court against Denise Pratt, took exception to the last issue of the Mongoose, which said:
Anthony Magdaleno is a sad example of what is wrong with the current GOP primary system. Anthony is a fine, ethical lawyer and I am sure he would be a really good judge. Anthony is being endorsed by a lot of bloggers, Republican precinct chairs and smaller Republican groups. However, Anthony lacks the connections and is too much of an outsider to get endorsed by Polland, Lowry or Hotze.
Anthony took this to say he is a sad person, so perhaps I should have written, "The way the campaign of Anthony Magdaleno is being received by the "big shots" in the Republican "pay to play" primary is a sad example of what is wrong with the current GOP primary system."
 Magdaleno is by nature a happy guy. He is really happy these days because he has been endorsed by, among others: -
The Houston Chronicle
- Several Republican precinct chairs
- Houston Republican Liberty Caucus
- The Kingwood Tea Party
- Spring Branch Republicans
- Republican Women's Texas
- Conservative View PAC
- Conservative blogger David Jennings of Big Jolly Politics
- Republican blogger Ed Hubbard
- Gwen Emmett (Judge Ed's wife)
- The C Club of Houston
- United Republicans of Harris County
- Katy Christian Magazines
Magdaleno was not endorsed by any of the big, high dollar slate endorsers who usually determine down ballot judicial races in Harris County. It will be interesting to see if all of the negative publicity about Judge Pratt is enough to make GOP voters actually think about the race for the 311th. If one assumes that informed, thinking voters can play a role in a local Republican primary, Anthony might just buck the system and end up in the run off with Alicia Franklin. The Other Side of the Story
Last week's Mongoose told the story of Karen Hyde who got such a raw deal in Judge Pratt's court. The story also explained how Ms. Hyde and her husband were eye witnesses to Pratt backdating a capias order, which resulted in the arrest of Ms. Hyde's ex-husband. The ex-husband's attorney, Ruby Bolton, was very upset with me for repeating Ms. Hyde's assertion that Ms. Bolton's office on December 18 mailed notice of a trial set for December 16 and did not send notice of a new trial date in February. Just to be very clear, Ms. Bolton strongly asserts that she did send notice of the February trial to Ms. Hyde in December. The case was dismissed by Pratt at the end of December as part of her insane and illegal attempt to make her dismal court statistics look a little better. Ms. Bolton does concede that she filed a motion to reinstate the custody case in January but did not send Ms. Hyde a copy of the motion as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and as she represented to the court she had done in her certificate of service. Ms. Bolton very firmly feels that I was wrong to call her motion to reinstate a "secret motion." Bolton says that Pratt's coordinator told Bolton's legal assistant to just file the motion to reinstate and it would not be necessary to give the other side notice. The clerks in Pratt's court did not image the motion to reinstate that Bolton filed until weeks later and did change the system to say that the case was again active until after the trial. Ms. Hyde called the 311th several times and was told her case was still dismissed. I even checked on the day after her trial and the District Clerk web site still said the case was dismissed. Small wonder this poor woman did not show up for a trial that resulted in a default against her. Ms. Bolton does agree with me that Judge Pratt should not have issued a capias order against her client on April 25, 2013 because there was no proof of service in the file. This is the order that Pratt backdated to March 5, 2013 and is the subject of a new District Attorney investigation. Bolton spent hours on the day her client was arrested getting Pratt (without motion or hearing or notice to the pro se mother) to sign an order withdrawing the capias. Bolton then was at the Montgomery County jail until 2:00 a.m. getting her client released. That is the kind of dedication all clients deserve from their attorneys! I do my best to report accurately and I always feel bad when my stories upset people, especially good attorneys like Ms. Bolton, who are just trying to represent their clients, make a living and stay out of controversy. However, this fine attorney is part of the tragic and scary story involving Judge Pratt and what Pratt is doing to families every day in her court. Bolton is just one of many witnesses to the train wreck that is the 311th. She certainly does deserve to be treated fairly and accurately by pseudo-journalists like me and I apologize if my earlier story was incomplete and did not provide her side of the story.
306th Family District Court Race Gets Nasty
The race to pick a Republican to replace the excellent Judge Jan Yarbrough in the 306th Family District Court in Galveston County has taken a nasty and scary turn. It is now a nasty race because the two leading candidates are busy calling each other "liars" (only one is correct). The race is scary because most attorneys cannot imagine how it would be if one of those candidates were to get elected.
Anne Darring, Wilfried Schmitz and Jennifer Burnett are seeking the Republican nomination and there is no Democrat even running. Darring has the support of virtually all of the attorneys who have taken a public position in the race (over 70) and Schmitz has not surprisingly become the darling of the Tea Party extremists. Ms. Burnett is a nice young attorney working in the District Attorney's office with no real experience handling divorces or custody cases in the private world and she lacks the resources to compete with Schmitz and Darring. Darring has been involved in Republican activities but clearly was once a Democrat (like Ronald Reagan and Rick Perry once were) and has a big base of volunteers and supporters. Schmitz has apparently never voted in a primary before but has contributed to a lot of Democrats (oh, the horror!). This race is likely to be headed toward a runoff and that should be great fun to watch.
Anne Darring says her opponent's pants are on fire (and she has the proof).
Schmitz brags that he is the only attorney in the race who is board certified in Family Law, but he does not mention how many times he failed the board certification test before finally passing it. He also does not acknowledge why almost no family law attorneys in the local area are supporting him (answer: we know him). Schmitz in many ways is very smart and for all I know, he might turn out to be a good judge, like those attorneys who are total pains in the ass to litigate against but surprisingly are really good mediators.
Wilfried Schmitz says he should be judge because his opponent long ago posted one comment saying we should consider an alternative to "Obamacare."
Attorneys know Anne Darring has the broad experience and even temperament (and lack of oversize ego) to be a good judge. Darring is also a parent who has actually raised children, which is perhaps a good quality to have in a family court judge.
Schmitz has recently accused Darring of supporting Obamacare and lying about it (which is the equivalent of calling your opponent a child molester in a Democratic primary race). Schmitz claims he called Darring about this dastardly dirt from her past and Darring immediately deleted an old Facebook post that said she supported what thinking people call "The Affordable Care Act." The problem is that Schmitz has simply got it all factually wrong. Schmitz called Darring to get a mutual promose that they would "keep the campaign clean" and "not get dirty." Darring never deleted the Facebook post in question and it did not say she supported Obamacare.
1. Two weeks ago, I personally called Ms. Darring and asked her specifically about her support of Obamacare. She denied it.
2. I pointed out to Ms. Darring her posting on Facebook of her support of Obamacare.
3. Ms. Darring subsequently removed the posting from her Facebook profile.
4. Ms. Darring, upon removing the post, accused me publicly of lying about her support of Obamacare.
5. Fortunately, I had saved a screenshot of her posting.
This is the Facebook post from 2009 by Ms. Darring that is still easy to find on her Facebook timeline:
Way back in 2009, Darring had apparently simply reposted an on-line petition, which called on President Obama to include an expansion of Medicare or Medicaid as one of the insurance options if he was going to push through his health care reforms. At the time, the organization circulating the petition was critical of the direction Obama's health care reform was taking and it is absolutely not accurate to say that anyone reposting this on-line petition was saying they supported what is now called, "Obamacare."
So, Mr. Schmitz:
1. Was not truthful about Darring trying to hide her "support of Obamacare" by deleting her Facebook post because she did not delete it. Darring's 2009 post is still there! Ironically, Schmitz has now deleted his own Facebook post falsely accusing Darring of lying.
2. Was at best extremely misleading when he twisted this 2009 post to mean Darring supported the dreaded Obamacare. Literally, she was urging the President to consider expanding Medicare as an alternative to a system run by insurance companies with penalties for not buying insurance.
This kind of desperate, last-minute attack on Darring is exactly what the lawyers who have practiced against Schmitz would have expected, even after he called his opponent and promised "not to fight dirty."
I am starting to miss Judge Yarbrough already.
|
|
Attorney Greg Enos has been through his own divorce and child custody battle (he won) and understands what his clients are going through. Enos graduated from the University of Texas Law School and was a very successful personal injury attorney in Texas City before he decided his true calling was to help families in divorce and child custody cases. Greg Enos is active in politics and in Clear Lake area charities. He has served as President of the Bay Area Bar Association and President of the Board of Interfaith Caring Ministries.
 | |
Attorney Greg Enos
|
|
|
|
