Stradley Law Firm

Roger Goodell Should Explain Reasoning for Saints 2013 Second-Round Draft Penalty

Steph Stradley — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:53:12 +0000

In his reddit AMA with Saints fans, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was asked whether there was any chance the Saints would get their second round pick back. To date, he had not answered this question publicly. His answer?

"No, the penalty will continue to include the 2nd round draft choice in 2013."

This was news to Saints fans because after the Saints and the coaches appealed the penalty, the NFL released the following statement rejecting the appeal (from April 2012) that suggested that the pick might not be forfeited if the team cooperated with the NFL:

"The club and individuals will be expected to cooperate in any further proceedings and to assist in the development and implementation of programs to instruct players and coaches at all levels on principles of player safety, fair play, and sportsmanship.

"If they embrace the opportunity and participate in a constructive way, commissioner Goodell said he would consider mitigating the financial penalties on the individuals. In the case of the team, the commissioner would consider whether there are factors that would support modifying the forfeiture of the team's 2013 second-round draft choice."

The New Orleans media at the time also emphasized this point as illustrated in a Jeff Duncan, NOLA.com article:

"If so, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has dangled a couple of carrots for them as post-suspension rewards.

First, if the Saints cooperate with the NFL and "assist in the development and implementation of programs to instruct players and coaches at all levels on principles of player safety, fair play, and sportsmanship" the league will consider "modifying" the forfeiture of their 2013 second-round draft pick.

In other words, if the Saints keep their noses clean and work with the league on some of their player-safety programs they could get their second-round pick back next season. That's big."

Psyche! Nothing like Roger Goodell starting up New Orleans Super Bowl week with that sort of news for Saints fans.

In Goodell's original findings, he noted that Saints owner Tom Benson did not endorse the bounties and has been cooperative with the investigation. Certainly, Saints fans are completely blameless. They deserve to have the following questions answered (some of this was asked about in the reddit but not answered):

1. Did Roger Goodell do a determination of whether the Saints had cooperated enough to support modifying the forfeiture of the team's 2013 second-round draft choice? If so, how did the Saints organization or individuals fail in their obligations to the league?

2. Did Goodell even remember the potential of the modification of the forfeiture of the pick?

3. Did Goodell inform the Saints already that they would not get the pick back before he made that news public in a fan reddit AMA?

Though I am going to the Super Bowl, I am not going as working media. I will not have the opportunity to ask these questions. But I hope some of the folks who do find out these answers. I'm not a Saints fan, but I know how valuable a second round pick can be to a team with a lot of needs. It seems to me that the punishment that the Saints organization and their fans have already received has been severe enough.

Deb’s Story: An American Health Insurance Tale

Steph Stradley — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:23:23 +0000

This is a picture of my sister Debby after her daughter was born. I love this picture. Full of joy.

A true story. My late sister Deb lived her life as a very responsible American. To take care of herself and her young daughter, she had a responsible job at a big company, which meant that she had about the best insurance an American can have unless you are in Congress.

One day she woke up with a terrible headache and her arm numb. She went to the ER and discovered she had a rare form of leukemia. This meant immediate treatment and vast amounts of time in the hospital.

She could no longer work, so she kept getting paid until her vacation and sick time elapsed. Then she was on her company's employee list until her American's With Disabilities time elapsed. Then she was fired.

This meant she could keep her insurance as long as she made COBRA payments, which are wildly expensive even if you have a full income. She didn't qualify for financial aid from most sources because they looked at her yearly income before she got sick. So literally she was forced to beg for money to live, pay for her insurance, pay for drugs from her family, friends, church and internet.

When I asked the financial aid people at the hospital what happens to people in this circumstance who don't have families, the lady told me that they die.

She survived chemotherapy and a stem cell transplant. But it left her with a compromised immune system, complications from the transplant, unable to work. She moved back with our parents at age 40.

And COBRA insurance only lasts for ~~36 months~~ [UPDATE: Correction 18 months. Gah, blocked bad stuff from my head, I guess] When that elapsed, she was uninsurable. Uninsurable patients only qualify for what is called "high risk pools." This is also very expensive, and has less coverage than a lot of insurance. There's a great deal of paperwork involved with joining these pools, and sadly, in the rush and messed up paperwork to get my sister signed up, she was uninsured for a period of time (not her fault). And it happened to correspond to the time her leukemia relapsed.

She spent the last days of her life worrying about insurance. At the end of her life, when she knew she was dying and was in unspeakable pain, we tried to get her in-hospital hospice care to ease her suffering because she couldn't be transferred. I was told it was impossible, that her risk pool insurance wouldn't pay for it.

I spent years after her death sorting out five tons of her medical bills, and getting angrier and angrier.

I've posted a reprint of her last blog post before, where she is giving her final word advice to her friends, family, interweb friends, and she had this to say about insurance in 2009:

Support sensible health insurance reform. I'm not sure what that ends up looking like, but injuries and illnesses shouldn't fate people into a life of insurmountable debt and bill collectors. I spent the last “healthy” months of my pre-hospital stay, worried and scrambling to find insurance because my COBRA insurance ran out. Patients should be able to focus on getting better and not crushingly large mountains of papers telling them that their credit is forever screwed.

I'm not sure what sensible health insurance reform looks like or whether anyone is brilliant enough to sort it out such where people with catastrophic injuries or illnesses aren't "forever screwed."

I'm not a terribly political person. Because I'm a person voter and not a party voter, and the divisiveness of American politics wounds me. But my sister's experience left me scarred and frightened. I've tried to follow what the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare" says (a brief descriptive here and interesting discussion), and what alternatives are to it, and it isn't terribly comforting.

I'm guessing my sister would not be very happy with these Romney quotes as excerpted that seem to minimize the concern folks have in being uninsured or underinsured. Deb postponed doctor's visits as long as she was able because she had no insurance despite being wildly desperate to have it. (She joked about marrying people for their health insurance).

I sometimes wonder if her insurance situation was better, she would have received an earlier diagnosis of her relapse in time to treat it better. She was one of the rare people who had a stem cell match. Often, the earlier the diagnosis of leukemia, the higher chances there are for survival.

Every once in a while, I re-read my sister's Twitter stream and inspirational blog (only part of it still exists due to hackers–the pictures and comments are gone). I can *hear* her talking. I looked at Deb's Twitter again after reading this interesting blog post by Amanda Palmer (@AmandaPalmer) and her idea for the #InsurancePoll hashtag. Went through her Twitter feed and pulled out some tweets that allows Deb to tell her #InsurancePoll story after her death because I know she'd participate if she were still alive. She wanted to help people. She wanted to make a difference.

Her Twitter stream starts after he leukemia diagnosis and stem cell transplant, and her panic when she knows she needs to see doctors but doesn't have insurance.

Though you get a sense of Deb's anger and sadness, I'm not a good enough writer to convey her abject horror and fear at realizing that she might be relapsing without insurance.

Gregg Williams “Bountygate” Declaration Raises More Questions Than It Answers

Steph Stradley — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:16:34 +0000

Received a number of questions about the former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams' declaration about so-called "Bountygate." (A "declaration" is similar to an affidavit as it is legally binding but not notarized). This blog post hopes to answer these questions.

What is The Content of The Gregg Williams Statement?

Here's a copy of the Gregg Williams' declaration that you can read for yourself. Declarations and affidavits are typically written by lawyers to reduce a person's recollection/views to written form. They are often written in a self-serving way, to avoid saying things that look bad for a person, and the Gregg Williams' statement is no different.

Most of the declaration states that the Saints did NOT have an institutionalized bounty program or pay to injure program but rather a pay for performance program. This is an important point because the Bountygate appeals panel summary decision [copy of decision here] said that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell did not have jurisdictional authority to discipline players on pay for performance pools.

Interestingly, there's almost an add-on concession near the end of the Williams declaration that notes that even though there was no intent to injure as a part of his system, he acknowledges that having such a program could actually result in hurting people. This is NFL commisioner Roger Goodell's position. He believes that the player's and coach's intent behind the program doesn't matter. That rewarding clean hard hits results in injury so therefore it is a bounty.

Gee, NFL football can injure people. Alert the media.

The appeals panel summary decision is sort of loopy in that it suggests that punishment for bounties/intent to injure goes to a different decision maker than pay for performance pools. They also acknowledge that this is an issue of first impression so they recognize that everyone may be confused as to the right procedure/jurisdiction. (Notably, some have suggested that the punishment was harder on the players than it should have been because the players followed the advice of the union and their attorneys on such a novel situation).

Even so, does Roger Goodell get to decide that something constitutes a bounty because he says so, thus giving jurisdiction to this matter to himself?

What is Odd About the Jonathan Vilma Part of the Declaration?

Though most of the declaration supports what Sean Payton and on down have been saying, that there was no bounty program/pay-to-injure, the part about Jonathan Vilma does suggest pay to injure. In relevant part:

"The Saints reached the playoffs during the 2009 season and ultimately won the Super Bowl in February 2010. The pay-for-performance pool continued to operate during the 2009 NFL season playoffs. During a team meeting the night before the 2009 NFC Championship Game against the Minnesota Vikings that was played in January 2010, Mr. Vilma addressed the defensive players and coaches (including me) who were present and pledged $10,000 to any player who knocked Brett Favre out of the game. I was never given any money because of a pledge related to the injury of a particular player, because I only administered funds related to the pay for performance pool. Brett Favre was not knocked out of our game against the Vikings, so I assume the money was not paid to anyone."

A couple of things are peculiar to me about this statement:

1. One of the things that the NFL has emphasized about the alleged $10,000 pledge by Vilma is that he "waved stacks of bills" around. If I'm putting together a statement like this together for Gregg Williams, that is a detail that if remembered should be a part of the statement because it is obviously a big deal. It makes the "pledge" less abstract and more real.

2. Some media reports said that the $10,000 pledge was for a hit on Kurt Warner. Here's an excerpt from a New York Times report from June 2012 entitled "Ex-Prosecutor Presents N.F.L.’s Findings in Bounty Case:"

"Mary Jo White, a former federal prosecutor brought in by Goodell to review the evidence as a third party, presented the N.F.L.’s case. In one instance, she read a text from a person who provided league investigators with an account of linebacker Jonathan Vilma raising his hands, with stacks of bills in each, offering “two five stacks” — believed to be $10,000, according to the person — for anyone who knocked Kurt Warner out of the Saints’ January 2010 playoff game against the Arizona Cardinals."

Read that article from June, and note how many different things in it turned out not to be true. Like the Anthony Hargrove lips moving thing, for example.

Perhaps the New York Times was wrong in its reporting then about Warner versus Favre? Maybe people are remembering events differently, making mistakes? Maybe it didn't happen, and people are making stuff up to save themselves or because they harbor a grudge. For example, former Saints assistant coach Mike Cerullo also submitted a declaration that some reports, including from Vilma, say contradicts Williams. ~~Will update this blog post with a copy when I see it~~ UPDATE 9/18 3:30 pm: Here's the Mike Cerullo Declaration. Allegations are that this whistleblower isn't really a whistleblower but rather holds a grudge against the Saints organization.

With dueling declarations and affidavits, there's no real way to see what is accurate because there's no cross-examination procedure in the NFL's process. There is however in the Federal Court Vilma defamation case, where both Cerullo and Williams have been subpoenaed.

UPDATE 9/18 3:30 pm: Comparing and contrasting the Cerullo and Williams' statements. The Cerullo document provides a much different account on key points than Williams'. Timing wise, it is signed after the coaches were disciplined, so it is likely that the coaches did not see the declaration nor could defend against what it said. It was also signed right after the Jonathan Vilma defamation suit. Hmm.

The Williams statement, done after the Cerullo statement, does NOT mention allegations mentioned by Cerullo: 1. The "two five stacks." (Would that commonly be thought of as $10,000? No idea); 2. That the money was collected by Cerullo and kept by Williams; 3. That the offer with stacks of money was made before the Cardinals game for Warner; 4. The origins of the pay for performance pool and who was involved with it; 5.The timing for payments into the program.

As I noted before I read the declaration is that the problem with statements is that you can't cross-examine them. To discuss obvious bias or indiscrepancies. Or just how solid the memory of the person is on a subject. You know, the "Are you sure about that" question. You can see parts of the declaratiion where Cerullo isn't exactly sure of his memory, such as "to the best of my recollection and in substance" as it related to Anthony Hargroves' alleged statements.

Seems to me that you would need to be very cautious making public, reputation statements and significant punishments based on inconsistent information from sources who have their own reputational issues.

Which leads to the next point….

The NFL Needs To Get Out of the Law Business and Back Into the Football Business.

As I mentioned even before the player punishments, conducting accurate investigations is hard. Even for people who do that as an essential and everyday part of their job. It is particularly difficult in an atmosphere of lack of trust and with PR, labor, and legal implications. I predicted problems with the process, and problems occurred.

This bounty investigation is particularly bad because unlike other personal conduct situations, there is no police investigation that the NFL could rely upon. They are making up their procedures as they go along, such as hiring a former federal prosecutor as cover.

Roger Goodell is not a lawyer. Yet he's taken an increased role in discipline given his changes in the personal conduct policy, and his increased appetite to discipline players. It becomes a mess the more he has to rely on his own investigations and less on just judicial actions with more due process protections.

What's With the Timing of the Gregg Williams' Declaration?

A number of people have raised questions about the Gregg Williams' declaration being signed September 14th, just a few days before the hearing. Jonathan Vilma on Twitter noted:

"You obviously want me to be guilty if you cant see that gregg was bullied to sign the affidavit. He signed 3days ago! #weakattempt"

To me it isn't that unusual for a declaration to be signed right before you need it. Gregg Williams already gave his statement to the league a while back. It is unclear what form it is in: A recording, just written notes from investigators, etc. Often when you don't want to provide your source material, or if it is in a form that makes it difficult to give to someone, the earlier information is reduced to a declaration or affidavit with the key points relevant to what you need the affidavit for. It sometimes takes time to put that together so that it satisfies both the person making the statement, that person's lawyer, and often the folks who benefit from the statement, (in this case, the NFL).

Gregg Williams certainly has pressure on him by the NFL to make a statement that the NFL likes. To have even a chance to coach again in the NFL is completely dependent on the NFL granting him that permission. His declaration dumps Vilma in the grease, but self-servingly explains how his form of money pool was solely a player performance pool and not a bounty pool, but Vilma did a bounty that he had nothing to do with but didn't stop even though he allegedly saw the bounty offer happen.

What's The Best Result….Using Reason Over Ego and Power.

Nobody is defending bounties. No one. Not the NFL, coaches or players. The players and coaches deny a bounty happened and repudiate them. Bounties and pay to injure is dead dead dead in the NFL except for old NFL Films that glorified such things with a wink and a nudge. So-called "Bountygate" may be a result of just different recollections of different events, and nothing I have seen or heard would be provable to any standard that would ever hold up in court.

Of course, Roger Goodell thinks he doesn't have to abide by standards of the rule of law, but it sure doesn't look good for the integrity of the NFL to make decisions based on conflicting, questionable evidence.

The best result would be to walk back all punishment of players, and craft a joint statement that says that both the NFL and the players are committed to player safety and no performance pools of any nature. That would be the reasoned, sensible thing to do for an organization that is supposed to be focused on football and not on legal whatnot. Which means it won't happen.

Problem with that is the Saints are 0-2, and their Head Coach Sean Payton, Assistant Coach Joe Vitt and GM Mickey Loomis have suspensions of varying lengths and no practical legal protections against Goodell's actions. Goodell believes Payton lied, and Payton said he honestly believes he didn't.

Their only hope is of benevolence. Of Goodell rolling back his actions. And every public statement he has made to date makes it pretty clear he has no interest in doing anything like that.

Saints Bountygate Litigation and The Death of Reason

Steph Stradley — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:13:18 +0000

Sadly, sensible legal maneuvers are often incompatible with common sense. That is likely reason 2,366,254,863 people don't like lawyers.

The posturing involving Saints "Bountygate" makes little real sense, but settlement of the lawsuit is very difficult due to issues of ego, power, opposite viewpoints, and lawyering. I have a hard time figuring out what the NFL's goals are other than a demonstration of power over the NFL Player's Association. For example….

Increasing Punishment Based on Retaliation?

This weekend Jason Cole wrote on Twitter that NFL sources suggested Jonathan Vilma's suspension would have been reduced to maybe 4 games instead of the entire season had the NFLPA cooperated with the NFL. Really? How is that a reasoned, non-arbitrary system to retaliate against players due the advice of their union and lawyers?

The idea is that had Vilma and other players cooperated with the NFL, they would have got a reduced punishment. Don't think there is any evidence of that.

The Saints coaches participated in the flawed, secret evidence, bizarre due process appeal to the Comissioner, and got zero reduction of their suspension. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell believed that the coaches lied. Both Saints head coach Sean Payton in his sole public statement, and interim head coach Joe Vitt in sworn court testimony suggested that they didn't lie. If Goodell doesn't believe Payton after speaking to him in person, and Vitt after he has testified under threat of prosecution of perjury, I'm not sure what evidence is sufficient for Goodell.

Goodell Could Get Closure Right Now.

Goodell in his appeals decision noted: "While this decision constitutes my final and binding determination under the CBA, I of course retain the inherent authority to reduce a suspension should facts be brought to my attention warranting the exercise of that decretion."

Well, what is stopping him now? That the players didn't go to NFL Headquarters in New York to kiss his ring?

There's been court testimony in support of the players' position. There's plenty of information shared about the facts in the litigation documents the NFL's attorneys have and are available publicly from many sources, including one of my previous blog posts.

The Federal Court, like in most cases, is requiring the parties to engage in confidential settlement talks. For an appropriate magistrate-mediated settlement, you have to have parties with authority to settle. If Goodell wants his face-to-face meeting to look into the players' souls, heart, spleen or whatnot , that is more than an appropriate setting.

And now Jonathan Vilma's lawyer has filed documents with the Court complaining that the NFL is violating the confidentiality of settlement talks.

Misunderstandings Happen. Why Common Sense Dictates A Shared Resolution.

I've made the point before that Goodell keeps moving the goal line of what the Saints are being punished for as clearer evidence comes out. Goodell claimed this weekend that pay to injure is not a semantic issue, but the Saints players and coaches have a vehement, reasoned disagreement with him. Is there evidence of bounties, pay-to-injure, pay-for-performance? There's solid evidence on pay-for-performance, but the players and coaches are being punished for intent to injure and lying.

I think Saints QB Drew Brees has the most sensible point of view on this. From his interview with NFL Network as reported by ProFootballTalk:

“Do I trust the Commissioner? I think that Commissioner Goodell has done a lot of great things for this league. It just happens to be that, in this instance, with the bounty, I think that the league and he have gotten this one wrong. And we all have the opportunity to re-evaluate this and make it right, come to a positive resolution and do it together. And be very open and transparent about it.”

“The most disturbing thing is the process, the process by which this whole thing was unveiled. The intentions were never made clear from the very beginning. I think coaches and players alike were kind of brought in to talk to the Commissioner and the league under false pretenses, and all of a sudden it’s just like a media firestorm and evidence and things are getting leaked to the media, things are being reported that are proven to be untrue in a lot of cases. And yet it’s out there. The perception has been created nationally for fans and all those that love our game that there was something illegal going on here. And that’s everything against what we stand for. And that’s why we fought so vehemently to prove that’s not the case.”

Instead of using the punishment model for this matter, the NFL instead should have used the prevention model.

In Vitt's testimony in court, he noted that he didn't know that payments for performance were against league rules though he also noted that he should have known. The NFL has said that in 2009, the Saints were warned against this behavior. Were the players warned? Certainly, it wasn't made a league wide point of emphasis like illegal hits have been in recent years. If the NFL was intent in getting rid of the "culture of bounties," perhaps they should have done more to make that happen back when they had suspicions in 2009.

When punishment and grandstanding seem to be the NFL's intent by their actions and public statements, it doesn't create an atmosphere of trust with players and coaches to try to have reasoned discussions with the Commissioner.

The NFL suggests there is evidence that hasn't been revealed which demonstrates this goes beyond a misunderstanding. Perhaps this is the case, but when players' reputations, careers and money are at stake, they are not likely going to want a resolution without putting that evidence to the test.

Goodell as "Judge, Jury and Executioner" Under the CBA: This View Misses the Point.

Even those who believe that Commissioner Goodell's decision was wildly excessive, point to the view that the players shouldn't have agreed to the system in the CBA that gives Goodell the power to make unfair decisions based on secret evidence with no neutral appeals body.

This view misses the players' viewpoint that they believe the CBA does have protections built in it both explicitly and implied through just the general protections workers receive in collectively bargained rights in discipline matters.

Goodell has already noted that these are unprecidented sanctions. And I believe, there was substantial uncertainty on what the appropriate CBA procedures were to handle suspensions like this, after an arbitration appeal was pending.

To give harsher punishments to players due to uncertainties in the CBA discipline procedures seems unfair on its face. I think the NFL and the NFLPA have a reasoned disagreement on how the CBA is interpreted. Why should players with finite careers receive harsher punishment because of that?

Giving the Parties a Do-Over.

The handling of this situation has been a blackeye to both the NFL and the Saints. It has destroyed reputations. If the goal of the NFL is to defend its integrity, it's bizarre to do it in a way where the NFL says they are being fair, but they reserve the right to be unfair and to do things whatever way they want.

The reasoned, sensible thing to do would be to make all the suspensions go away. The Saints draft punishment and fines are significant enough, and the public attention to this situation clearly would deter further similar conduct.

It would be reasonable to agree that the Saints and the NFL have a different point of view of what transpired. That often people can honestly have two different points of view of the same events. And have all the parties work together to make sure that no pay for performance system of any sort ever happened in the NFL again. And everybody lives happily ever after.

That makes too much sense so it won't happen. And reason dies like it has since the beginning of time.

Celebrating Vinyl Records With Houston’s Cactus Music

Steph Stradley — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:14:14 +0000

From the Library of Congress: "Point Pleasant, WV. Nancy Fergusen playing a record player attached to the radio."

The husband Bill has recently got enthusiastic about playing albums through an old school turntable into old school speakers. I must confess initial feelings of skepticism that any of that would sound any better than iPod stuff.

Mark it on your calendars…Bill was right, I was wrong.

Thought I wouldn't be able to tell a difference, but with some of the stuff in particular, it sounded gorgeous and warm. You feel the music like a good hug. (We still do need to hide the speaker wire better though, which is such a wife thing to say).

As I wanted to get more ideas of great albums to listen to on turntables and just a discussion of vinyl, I decided to turn to the folks at Houston's Cactus Music (@cactus_music) to share some of their suggestions. It's easy to get into music ruts, and I figured this would be a great opportunity to get some inspiration for us all:

Cactus Music Employees Talk Vinyl Records.

Quinn, Store Owner: Music can change your life. More specifically, records can change change your life. At record shops across the universe, the most recurring question posed by patrons has been "What are you listening to?" Stay tuned to this blog to read enthusiastic testimonials from the esteemed staff of Cactus Music about their favorite albums and singles. Musical efforts that have whacked them upside the head or crept up on them like a train in the distance to become their most beloved recordings. This is what we are listening to. Enjoy. -Quinn

Chris @Topherwise At the risk of being overly sentimental in a time where "vinyls" are very kitschy and dollar records are sought after, I'm somewhat hesitant in playing along with the overall romanticizing a rather impractical form of technology.

However, there's a reason it's still around. And it's a fact not lost on people who have managed to nurture a level of patience that is quickly drifting. I find that patience in Will Oldham's music and all of it's forms (IE. Bonnie Prince Billy, Palace Music/Brothers etc). Some of my favorite musical moments come from listening to his music, as they're extremely dense, layered reflections. I specifically remember listening to 'No Bad News' in my room and the end kind of stopped me cold in my tracks. The line 'hey little bird, thank you for not letting go of me as I let go of you' is a little simple and overly relatable but at that specific time it hit me really hard, and it hit me in a way that I know would not be possible in my car. It wouldn't be possible while it plays over the speakers at work, or any other way outside of me sitting down and consuming a record with my undivided attention. That's what at risk of being lost and hopefully a reason vinyl is coming back.

Listen to Bonnie "Prince" Billy's album 'The Letting Go' in a setting that lends it's self to the way the format is intended and hopefully you'll find something there. That's just me though, so whatever.

Shawna @Shawzilla Let me see that Jelly Roll…

What can I say, I really just started buying records. I don’t have a real collection, it’s kind of odds and ends that my husband has picked up for me over the years. However, since I have begun to work at Cactus Music, it’s on. I have fallen in love with records.

My first record that I picked up a month ago is a double LP by Jelly Roll Morton. I believe that everyone should have a Jelly Roll Morton record in their collection. I mean he is the inventor of jazz and all. Originally from New Orleans and lived in Houston at one time, Jelly Roll Morton is a brilliant pianist and composer. he hollow sound, the subtle scratch and the nice melodies of this old-timey music are oh so charming and truly enhanced on the richness of a vinyl record. Not only have I grown to appreciate Morton, but it has taught me to respect the music of this time period and how music was recorded and released back in the day.

From the Library of Congress: "Magnamusic Inc, 152 W. 57th St NYC. Record shop, detail of record player listening booth."

Adriana @lahondaj For me, it's the debut album from The Velvet Underground, The Velvet Underground & Nico. Although my copy is a bit old & worn it still sounds more vibrant than if I were to listen to it digitally. Besides this brilliant album, the experience is enhanced because listening to vinyl is an "event." You don't skip over songs, you play the entire record and you REALLY listen to it. In a world of instant gratification and convenience, vinyl is the antithesis. Sunday mornings with this record and a pot of coffee is the perfect way for me to start a day. The crackle of the record on my turntable, Nico's haunting voice & John Cale's amazing viola, what could be better than that?

Deanna @Deanofbigrips There has been much discussion and debate recently as to why a person should buy vinyl or enjoy the convenience of a digital download. As a pure lover of music not just for the obvious reasons of why anyone enjoys a good tune but for the fulfillment it brings to me sonically and mentally. Because of this, i much prefer using vinyl as my choice of medium for various reasons. One cannot really say that there are certain albums that sound better on vinyl than an mp3 as typically almost all music sounds better from a vinyl record.

Vinyl recordings give a much warmer, cleaner sound than something that has a change of sound depending on your Internet connection and speed of download and having to hear it through tiny computer box speakers (unless you are a nerd like me and have even your computer wired through an almost unnecessary but necessary sound system). Therefore, my recommendations I shall give are of albums I have either listened to for the first time through vinyl or have heard when my brain was given to the birds and made such a wonderful impact. My only hope is that people begin to truly understand and most importantly, appreciate a beautiful record.

1.) Beach Boys- Pet Sounds.
2.) The Velvet Underground- The Velvet Underground & Nico.
3.) Leonard Cohen- The Best Of.
4.) Nilsson- Nilsson Sings Newman.
5.) Funkadelic- Maggot Brain.
6.) Propagandhi- Less Talk, More Rock.
7.) Spacemen 3- The Perfect Prescription.
8.) Ride- Nowhere.
9.) Brainticket- Celestial Ocean.
10.) Sun Ra- Atlantis.
11.) Sly & The Family Stone- Stand!
12.) Hawkwind- Doremi Fasol Latido.
13.) The Supremes- Where Did Our Love Go.
14.) Yume Bitsu- Golden Vessyl Of Sound.
and last but not least, the very first vinyl record I ever heard as a child which probably ultimately got me into music-
15.) Michael Jackson- Thriller.

John Baldwin I began playing records when I was 13. CD's were the standard, but even at a young age I understood how "cool" records were. Not only was some of the most interesting music released exclusively on vinyl, it was cheaper. I remember going to a record shop and seeing a brand new CD for $10 and the LP was only $8. I obviously went with the cheaper option and my record purchasing only continued.

When someone asks which records you "MUST" hear "on vinyl" I always respond in the same way because ALL RECORDS sound better on vinyl. A nice record player, a nice needle, a quality amp, and a good set of speakers will ALWAYS sound tops because it is. Though, if you asked me what my favorite records were that you simply MUST hear on vinyl this would be my list.

The Clash – London Calling
Kate Bush – Hounds Of Love
Chumbawumba – Pictures of Starving Children Sell Records….

Thanks to the folks at Cactus Music for Their Thoughts.

If you like music, I suggest checking out Cactus Music's website. They often have live, free music at their store which is a cool thing and you should support local cool things so they stay and stay cool.

As for Bill and I, the album we both very much like in album form is the jazz album called The Sidewinder by Lee Morgan.

Do you have any whole album suggestions you would like to add?

Audition Tips for Who Wants To Be A Millionaire

Steph Stradley — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:55:49 +0000

The syndicated version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire is coming to Houston on Monday to audition contestants. I participated in auditions in Houston almost 11 years ago, got the call to be on the show, won $64,000 (minus way too many taxes).

I ended up doing this because my very cool mother-in-law encouraged me to try out. The show experience was one of the most surreal things that has ever happened in my life.

I've helped other people get on the show since then, and thought I'd share some Who Wants To Be A Millionaire audition tips.

Audition Logistics

Details. Details on where the WWTBAM Houston auditions are can be found here. The WWTBAM rules/eligibility info here. I am no longer eligible because I've been in the hotseat.
Prepare for Lines. Show up early. Bring patience, a bottle of water, something to read. It may be a while before you can get a bathroom break so take care of business. I've tried out for multiple game shows, sometimes you wait inside the hotel, sometimes they line you up outside. (Yes, in the heat). They have a limit of how many people they can test at a time. And sometimes they may choose to cut off the line.
What to Bring. Identification card. Prepare for either hot or cold. For females, have a small mirror in your purse to re-apply makeup, do hair and whatnot.
What to Wear. Think of this like a casual first date. You want to make a good first impression. If you get to the interview portion, they will take a headshot picture. Wear something you think is flattering, shows who you are, and you don't mind having to stand in a long line wearing it. Not cocktail stuff, but not schluby where they wonder if you haven't anything decent you can wear on the show. (Unless some sort of hipster schlub is part of your uh look).

The Written Test

Nature of Test. The audition test is a general interest test in a multiple choice format. Like the questions from the show. It is timed.
Is The Test Hard? Depends. Sometimes trivia type people have trouble with the People Magazine sorts of pop culture questions. Sometimes pop culture folks have problems with the trivia things or stuff they used to know when they were in 5th grade. Some people fail one of the tests, get a different set of questions and pass. They won't tell you what passing is.
Sitting in Chairs. When I took the test, we were jammed in a room with a lot of chairs. If you can sit at the end of the row, that might be handy. I ended up sitting next to this odd guy who was loudly and unhappily talking to himself.

The Audition Interview

Smart Isn't Enough. For those who pass the written test, they then are asked to come to what is called the "Audition Interview." Basically, they your picture, and you stand in front of a group of producers who ask you questions. If you "pass" both the written test and the audition interview, they put you in what they call the "Contestant Pool." They want to make you audition to be on the show to make sure that Meredith Vierra has interesting people to chat with in the hotseat. They don't want people who freeze up when they in front of an audience and on camera.
Be A Caricature. Reality TV isn't real. Producers don't want real. They say they want real, but most real is boring and practical. They want interesting. Reality characters can be summed up with a stereotyped sentence. What is different, interesting about you? For me, I was that fanatic sports-loving woman. Four words. (I talked about the Houston Texans before they played their first game). Collect interesting things? Play instruments? Have a thing you've overcome in your life? Something weird or quirky but not scary. You want to be a character that isn't obviously a character. Be yourself, but maybe a little more emphatically you.
Be Easy for the Producers. Fill out a form? Use neat handwriting. Follow their directions. Don't be a pain, and don't do anything they might see as weird or threatening. Sometimes odd people show up at these sorts of events.
Basic Interview Techniques. Have a quick smile. Use mannered eye contact. Have an engaging conversation with them. The producers want to look good, and the way they look good for their bosses is picking good TV.
Be Prepared With INTERESTING Sound Bite Answers. Be prepared to tell your one sentence sum up of yourself and why you want to be on the show. A basic question you might get: What would you do with the money? They don't want a normal sensible answers like paying off the mortgage or paying for kids education. Something interesting, heartwarming good TV. Are you a risk taker? Work that into the conversation. Say your most interesting things first, and talk until they ask you something else. They want to know you are an easy conversationalist. A game show is sort of like a talk show for non-celebrities with games mixed in.
Special Info for Middle Aged White Guys. The early years of WWTBAM had lots of middle aged white guys on it. Because stereotypically, white guys like trivia and they didn't have an in-person audition process; they had a phone-in test. Even with the audition process, a lot of white guys try out. So if you are a white guy, you are going to have to try harder to not be fungible white guy. You are going to have to look, dress, and act like you are impressing the hottest girl ever. You aren't going to have that much time to impress because they may not ask you as many questions. So you better be heartwarming, good quirky not scary, or whatever your shtick is very quickly.
Geography. They are auditioning in different places around the country, so if you are a student from some place else, you might want to say that is your home town. From a Houston suburb? Write down that suburb. They want diversity of everything on their show–young, old, race, geography, conventional looking, interesting looking. Melting pot.
You Are Auditioning From The Beginning. Assume that someone from the show is always watching you. The year that I auditioned, they had someone who entertained the group while the written test was being scored. Sometimes they ask for volunteers to be up front to do stuff. My year, they asked for impressions. I did The Worst Impression Ever but I did something. (I turned around, flipped my hair over, turned back around, and I was Cousin It–yes, I know that is profoundly stupid. But hey, maybe that stupid helped get me $64,000 less tax).

Good Luck, Have Fun, and Breathe

Please let me know if you have any additional questions or suggestions.

I was on the show because my mother-in-law saw the article in the Houston Chronicle and insisted I go the next day. Wrote an overly-long piece on my WWTBAM show experience here. It's a longshot to get on the program, but I did it, and got my best friend to do it too. So it isn't impossible unless you don't try.

If you get chosen to be on the show, let me know and I can give you some additional advice.

Books to Read: The Bum Phillips Autobiography

Steph Stradley — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:19:04 +0000

I've been catching up on my summer reading, and very much want to recommend the autobiography, "Bum Phillips: Coach, Cowboy, Christian."

It's a quick read, and something worth sharing with your pre-teens, teenagers too. He would likely be embarrassed by folks saying this, but he has lived a very very badass life beyond just the Houston Oilers stuff. I also love how earnest it is in a time when earnest isn't always appreciated.

Bum Phillips tells his whole story:

From growing up in East Texas during the Great Depression

His Marine times in the Pacific during World War II

Texas high school, college and NFL coaching, and the beginnings and history of modern football coaching, thoughts on leadership

The Luv Ya Blue phenomenon

His family life and retirement

And how he became closer to God in his later life

I know some folks aren't comfortable about people talking about religion. He makes a point about how he doesn't want to shove it down people's throats, but he feels the need to mention it given the importance in his life. I've mentioned before that some folks are putting an opera together based on this book. I'm not sure how that's going to be done but his life is certainly operatic in scope–you could picture a lot of this in your head like a movie. (Confession: I cried in parts).

Who Should Read This Book.

The book is written from the perspective of someone who has lived a very full, often difficult life. I thought I knew about his story, but I was surprised.

Solid read for:

Houston football fans

People interested in little-known information football history

Business people interested in leadership, family lessons

If you just like reading interesting, inspiring, true stories

As I mentioned, appropriate for pre-teens, teens

Purchased by churches to re-sell to congregations

I thought this would be the sort of book I'd like, but I was surprised how much I enjoyed it.

How to Buy.

Proceeds from the sale of this book go to the Bum Phillips Charities (He explains the charities more in the book. Very inspirational). You can go to his website to either get an autographed copy or go to Amazon or Barnes and Noble for the book/ebook . Sometimes they have them at the Go Texans store at Reliant.

I'm not much of an autograph person, but Bum Phillips y'all. It's the sort of book that would make a great gift.

The Texas Political Robocall Shame List

Steph Stradley — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:43:35 +0000

I'm not sure why politicians think that robocalling the electorate is a good idea. One of the most popular pieces of federal legislation was the establishment of the National Do Not Call Registry in 2003. Sadly, one of the exceptions to the bill allows for political calls, and increasingly those calls are made by recordings.

I can't fathom that there is any data that suggests intentionally annoying people in their houses with recorded messages during dinner is an effective campaign strategy. So this blog post is my windmill tilting to make them go away.

Political Robocall Apology: A Story

A few years ago, I received a robocall from Jerry Patterson's campaign. I contacted his office and said I preferred not to receive these calls. Surprisingly, I heard back from Mr. Patterson who said the following:

1. He apologized for the call. He said he reluctantly used them because it is expensive to run a statewide campaign.

2. He agreed to take my number off of their list.

3. And that if I received another phone call, he gave me his phone number to call him personally to take care of it.

That's an unusual experience. Personally I'd prefer for the Do Not Call Registry to include political calls, but barring that, banning robocalls. Because with robocalls, as opposed to talking to a human being, you can't tell them to take your name off their list.

The Short Term Solution: Public Shaming for Texas Political Robocallers

Political calls are like an unfunny prank call to me. By older people who should know better. It's shameful behavior to interrupt the peace of a person's home. So when the law won't take care of obnoxious behavior, all we can do as individuals as to publicly shame candidates. Asking them not to use this form of campaigning that just about everyone of any political persuasion agrees is unwelcome and ineffective.

Texas Political Robocaller List of Shame

The following people will be on my Political Robocaller List of Shame (Until such time they categorically reject such offensive campaigning techniques). Are you getting annoyed by robocallers too? Leave their names in the comments:

David Dewhurst – Running for US Senate

Warren Chisum – Running for Railroad Commission

Paul Bettencourt - The former Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector isn't running for anything. But I received a grotesque, painful number of robocalls from him touting various candidates.

COMMENTER UPDATE:

Ted Cruz – One of my longtime commenters says he's receiving Ted Cruz robocalls.

This is not meant as a political post. I don't much like politics because generally speaking I like looking for areas of agreement instead of neener neener talk which seems to be what is considered the preferred form of statesmenship these days.

But what most sentient beings can agree on is unwelcomed calls to your house from a recording should be eradicated from the universe. That's not a political statement but rather one of just basic manners.

I actually sympathize with folks running for office as it seems to be a great thing to do if you like begging for money, public abuse and having your work being trying to fix things that may be impossible to fix. So in sum, what I'm saying is, hey do your thing politicians, just don't robocall people. And if you legislatively eliminate robocalling, I will buy you the beverage of your choice. (And for those thinking this, no I can't get rid of my land line as my cell service in my house is unreliable).

‘Online Impersonation’ is a Crime in Texas

Steph Stradley — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:11:39 +0000

Did you know that "Online Impersonation" is a crime in Texas? I thought I knew a lot about the web, but ran across this relating to a legal case I know about.

Enacted into law in 2009, here's the complete Texas 'Online Impersonation' statute. In key part:

"Sec. 33.07. ONLINE IMPERSONATION. (a) A person commits an offense if the person, without obtaining the other person's consent and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person, uses the name or persona of another person to:

(1) create a web page on a commercial social networking site or other Internet website; or

(2) post or send one or more messages on or through a commercial social networking site or other Internet website, other than on or through an electronic mail program or message board program.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person sends an electronic mail, instant message, text message, or similar communication that references a name, domain address, phone number, or other item of identifying information belonging to any person:

(1) without obtaining the other person's consent;

(2) with the intent to cause a recipient of the communication to reasonably believe that the other person authorized or transmitted the communication; and

(3) with the intent to harm or defraud any person.

(c) An offense under Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree. An offense under Subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the actor commits the offense with the intent to solicit a response by emergency personnel."

Following the letter of this law, there may be a lot of criminals. "Harm" can be very broadly construed–one person's joke is another person's harm. This New York Times article about online Texas political shenanigans might identify some third degree felony law breakers.

I'm not sure how many actual Texas prosecutions have come from this law. A case out of Austin was dismissed because the person accused of the crime was from Cincinnati.

I am aware of someone who wasn't prosecuted for this but was threatened with prosecution, and experienced significant harm in his personal life relating to a parody Twitter account. Seems to me that there are some First Amendment concerns with a broadly written law that makes this a third degree felony.

The more you know….

United Airlines Goes to the Bud Adams School of Public Relations

Steph Stradley — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:52:05 +0000

Who advises United Airlines on their public relations in Houston? Former Houston Oilers owner Bud Adams?

Saw this comment after the Houston Chronicle article reporting that United Airlines was cutting jobs after the Houston counsel vote allowing international flights out of Hobby Airport:

Hey United, you're not the first one to try and coerce the citizens of Houston into something they didn't want to do. Go ask Bud Adams how that worked out for him. He bailed on the 4th largest city in the country because he didn't get his way. His team now plays in the 20th largest city of the country. Now that was the plan of a genius. Wanna get away?

I understand that it isn't easy to handle a merger between two big companies. But dismantling a local well-regarded airline, taking away HQ jobs to send them to a costlier city, replacing it with terrible customer service and then after all that, making really nonsensical threats doesn't seem to be a great business plan for a service industry.

Sounds like Bud. Get huge money concessions to renovate Astrodome, put a terrible product on the field, provide horrible customer service and then threaten the city. At least Bud Adams no longer needs Houston fans.

United is going to make cutbacks as just a part of the economics of a merger. I get that. To insult our intelligence and suggest that IAH direct to Paris is being canceled because a few years from now Southwest Airlines will have some small planes flying to South/Central American destinations is absurd.

United Airlines "Loyalty" Program – You Have Options, Sorta.

I used to be a Continental Elite member, and the thought of flying any other airline was absurd to me. Even after all the miles I flew, I had very few bad experiences with Continental. Now I'm afraid to fly on United because of the poor customer service I've received. Recently, I watched an entire movie before takeoff because the pilots said they were waiting to hear from Houston to calculate fuel loads. A few weeks ago, my friend had to wait 5 hours for her plane to arrive to take her home because they didn't have a crew available to even fly the plane to her location.

And pray you never have to call United for a customer service issue unless you like hearing Rhapsody in Blue ruined for life because you were on hold so long.

Why does @United have a Twitter account? You do a search of it at any time, and it is a parade of mostly unanswered horribles.

I get few benefits to having frequent flyer points with United. Since the merger, I have received zero upgrades, even off of a wait list. In addition, they no longer directly accept American Express points as a way to purchase tickets.

And now, if you travel with your children, it looks like United now expects you to pay extra to sit with them.

American Express, on the other hand, has a program where you can use their points to purchase flights on any airline. You book through them, they charge the entire amount of the flight on your Amex, and then refund a portion of your tickets based on points. No blackouts, and actually is a pretty good points deal if the original seat isn't an expensive one.

Why should I have loyalty to a company that has zero loyalty to Houston? That has terrible customer service? That overtly threatens our region?

Given the merger, I know flights out of Houston are even more limited. And observationally, that it is often cheaper to fly out of San Antonio, Austin or Dallas because of the lack of competition out of Houston. For our city's sake, I dearly hope United gets their customer service act together, or that Houston gets some more airline competition.

From a PR perspective, it would be hard for United to make Houstonians any more angrier at them than they are now. If you have a complaint about any airline, here's the link to report it to the government which does nothing with your complaints other than public shaming.

Roger Goodell Moves the Goal Line: Part 2 Saints Bountygate Q&A

Steph Stradley — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 23:55:04 +0000

Before reading this Q&A, please read Part 1, "Saints Bountygate is Now Saints Litigate: Common Q&As." Documents relevant to the "Bountygate" issue are located there, along with answers to a lot of talk radio type questions.

Please read the documents yourself and draw your own conclusions. Here are my answers of additional questions received from NFL fans:

Will the failure of the players to participate in the June 18th hearing in front of Roger Goodell work against them?

That's the question posed by the Pro Football Talk Mike Florio's blog post, "Failure to participate in appeal process could come back to haunt players."

I'm not sure the players had any good choices to make by the time the June 18th meeting happened. Legally, they are playing defense. They were faced with making the better of bad choices.

I suggest reading the June 18th transcript of the hearing to hear both the NFL's and the players' point of view on why player participation didn't happen. Will also note that there's some factual question whether the players had a meaningful opportunity to meet with the commissioner before he ruled on the player's fate.

Here are some reasons why the players may not have chosen to participate:

1. It may undermine your future lawsuit to participate in a process you know is a sham. Participation can equal validation.

2. Roger Goodell is moving the goal line. The NFL keeps changing the reasoning for why the punishments are the way that they are. So maybe a player denies bounties, then maybe the player is getting the same strong punishment for something else–lies, pay for performance, leadership role in pay for performance, not discussing things quickly with the commissioner?

With most NFL punishments, it is very clear what the player is getting punished for–usually some sort of criminal event or drug use in violation of rules. In this situation, it is an evolving offense. For example, the note "Cart-offs" may not mean actual hits intended to hurt players so they have to get carted off the field, but then the NFL argues that terminology is still very bad because it incentivizes actions more likely to hurt people.

Goodell has strongly condemned payments to injure, and has accused players of funding this, but the evidence relating to player performance pools (rewarding normal positive/negative plays) seems stronger than the pay to injure, pay to hurt a particular player evidence.

3. Given what Goodell said before the hearing, how can you fathom he'd change his mind about anything? Goodell says part of the punishment of Sean Payton is that Payton lied to him, and in Payton's brief statement after the punishment he said that he did everything in his power to answer the questions honestly. Both parties can believe they are right, but only Goodell's point of view matters.

How do you prove a negative? To the degree Goodell wants it. Swear on stack of Bibles? Lie detector test? See if you are a witch and float? If they keep changing the evidence that they are relying on, how do you refute it if you can't talk to witnesses, know who saying stuff against you, give reasons why that evidence is bad?

The players already are in a position where they are refuting things not given to them in the evidence from the NFL, but refuting things they've heard in the media that might be the things the NFL is relying on. The players are being asked to question the investigators, but have a hit or miss opportunity to question the people with first-hand knowledge.

One moment the NFL is claiming that the video of Anthony Hargrove is a key part of the case, and the next moment they say they aren't relying on that for the punishment, but they are keeping Hargrove's punishment exactly the same as when they thought they had incriminating video. What other evidence is not reliable?

To participate in this environment, given the player's view, is a sham. For them it isn't a fair hearing but more akin to asking your executioner where exactly you need to put your head on the block.

Why don't the players ditch all the lawyering and take Roger Goodell up on his offer to listen to their evidence outside the structure of the CBA?

Theoretically, Goodell could have an open mind about this case. But there is no reason, facts, history for the players to believe that talking to the Commissioner would lead to any better results than when Saints Head Coach Sean Payton spoke with Goodell.

The only time that Goodell has been lenient to players in the past is if they demonstrate contrition, do some sort of treatment, keep their nose clean. What could the players do to change Goodell's mind with the shifting sands allegations and evidence? I can't think of any proof that would be sufficient enough for Goodell to change his mind on punishment.

How can Roger Goodell protect whistleblowers from repercussions while still penalizing the players he believes paid to injure other players?

There is a difference using whistleblower information to identify a practice or stop a practice from continuing versus using it to discipline players, hurt their income and careers and publicly harm their reputation.

Certainly, the NFL has an interest in encouraging people with knowledge of bad acts to come forward without fear of reprisals. The NFLPA argues in its complaint that once that information is used to discipline an employee, the law requires those witnesses be available for further examination. (Pp. 70-71 of NFLPA v NFL).

On a slightly different point, Mike Florio at Pro Football Talk eviscerates the NFL's contention that secret witnesses help maintain "the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of professional football." That is worth a read.

Fair shmair, this is the process that the players agreed to. Why all this talk of fairness?

I answered this question some in the last post. There is a difference of opinion between the NFL and the NFLPA on what is required by the CBA as far as the level of due process and who the arbiter can/should be. The players are not arguing that the CBA is unfair but rather that Roger Goodell and the NFL are not following the procedures that are explicit and implicit in the CBA.

I strongly suggest reading the final disposition of the matter signed by Roger Goodell (but certainly not written by him because of all the legal blah blah in it). It makes the compelling yet awkward argument that this is a fair procedure, trust me I'm fair, but too bad if I'm not fair because the players agreed to this. Not sure that argument adds to integrity and public trust of the NFL, especially after all the public questions that have been raised about much of the Bountygate evidence revealed so far.

Certainly Saints fans aren't feeling that integrity, public trust thing.

What should be expected from the settlement conference in front of the Magistrate scheduled July 23rd?

A Federal magistrate can be described as a Federal court helper judges–they help with a lot of judgely administrative tasks. Some magistrates have more ability in mediating situations than others. Mediating is just a fancy way of saying help voluntarily settle.

Early settlement conferences in courts are standard procedure because courts would prefer for parties to work things out themselves instead of the courts having to do it. It's cheaper, faster than full boogie trials, and settlements can often lead to resolutions that are better for the parties than what the judge decides.

Usually settlement conferences don't amount to much. But this isn't a usual, normal money damage case. There is a great deal of public interest in quick closure in a way that works to the benefit of both the NFL and players.

Some magistrates are better than others in trying to engage the parties in real settlement discussions. It may be that there is such a profound lack of trust, middle ground, that any settlement discussion just can't happen.

That being said, if Goodell wanted a mechanism to talk to the players outside the CBA context to get real information in the case, this could be a face saving way for each party to share information. The court is the party forcing the discussion, not either side caving in.

Do you see Saints penalty = SMU death penalty? Overly severe, but never used again?

I think it depends on the outcome of this litigation.

If you read the Roger Goodell final appeals letter, it stands for the proposition that Roger Goodell can basically do whatever he wants with whatever fairness standards he deems as it relates to "conduct detrimental to the intrigrity of, public confidence in, the game of football."

If you read the NFLPA complaint, it suggests that there are fairness protections that are both spelled out and implicit in this CBA and in any CBA.

As I've noted before, just because you have the power to do something, doesn't mean that it is a wise thing to do. Bringing a punishment that goes beyond deterrence into vengence hurts fans that had nothing to do with the original problem.

Bountygate is an example of the Commissioner bringing a severe, unprecidented punishment for something 1. More important to the NFL now than it was in the past. 2. He believed he was deceived and ignored about. If that set of circumstances happens in the future, I don't see why he wouldn't drop the vengeance hammer on another fanbase, team, player. Maybe not on this specific issue, but some other thing that becomes a pet issue.

I've written about the rise of the Commissioner's power since 2007, and the emphatic, emperial use of that power in 2009. Clearly Roger Goodell is not afraid to assert his authority, especially now that he has a new CBA in place and doesn't have to negotiate with the NFLPA. There's no reason to believe absent court/arbitrator rulings to the contrary that Goodell won't use overwhelming punishment in the future with whatever fairness standards he feels are appropriate.

Related Articles:

Saints Bountygate is Now Saints Litigate: Common Q&As July 5, 2012, Contains Key Litigation Documents, Part 1 of My Q&A on Bountygate Issues

NFL Exit Strategy for Saints Bountygate Mess? July 3, 2012, Written Before Goodell's Final Decision on Player Discipline

Why the New Orleans Saints Bounty Penalties are Too Harsh March 27, 2012, Written After Coach/Team Penalty Announced by Before Player Discipline; Highlights Difficulty of Doing NFL Investigations

Saints Bountygate is Now Saints Litigate: Common Q&As

Steph Stradley — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:07:10 +0000

This week in dysfunctional labor relations pits the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) against the NFL. Unsurprisingly, after the NFL came out with their final determination in the so-called Saints Bountygate bounty/pay for performance issue, the NFLPA filed suit against the NFL on behalf of all the penazlied players except Jonathan Vilma.

This is after Saints player Vilma had already sued Roger Goodell for defamation, and Goodell and the NFL to stop his punishment.

If you are a NFL fan who wants to have an informed opinion about these matters, I suggest reading the actual legal documents.

Some people believe that this is something that only Saints fans should have interest in, but if you are a NFL fan, you should have a concern about these troubling detailed allegations. If Roger Goodell can do draconian punishment with unusual due process protections to the Saints and their players, they can do this to any team.

And if you are not interested in this matter, the documents double as a cure for insomnia.

Also want feedback from lawyers who might have expertise in this area or have practiced in front of the Eastern District of Louisiana to leave their comments here for sort of a roundtable discussion.

All of the following are Scribd links.

Common Bountygate Litigation Q&As.

Maybe you've read the legal documents, maybe not. Here's some common questions/misconceptions I've been asked about and the answers as I see them:

If the NFLPA agreed to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) process involving the NFL Commissioner as judge, jury, executionor, isn't it way too late for the players to be complaining about it now?

In any negotiation, each side has to give on things. The NFLPA tried to get the role of Goodell changed in the CBA but was unable to negotiate that.

That being said, Vilma and the NFLPA aren't arguing against the CBA procedures. They are arguing that the NFL failed to follow the new CBA as written.

Vilma is arguing that the decision making and document sharing wasn't done timely.

The NFLPA is making a more sweeping argument saying that both the fairness procedures in the CBA and just basic "industrial due process" weren't followed. That is, the NFLPA didn't have to build in a lot of detailed technical fairness procedures into the process because they are just a part of normal fairness procedures in other CBA contexts. Industrial due process is that bare minimum standards of due process that are allowed all disciplined employees in arbital proceedings.

How are the courts going to rule on this stuff?

In general, do not try to predict what federal judges are going to do. They have a job for life as long as they don't do anything completely criminal. And even then, it is hard to get rid of them.

More specifically to this case, this is a bizarre situation. As both the NFL and the NFLPA state, the punishment in Bountygate was unprecedented.

Not only is the punishment unusually harsh, but it is an odd circumstance. With many of his off-the-field punishments, Goodell has access to police investigation records. And it is obvious that the player did something bad and dumb even if they haven't been criminally prosecuted fully yet. And often there are enough carrots with his stick punishment, that players know they can get on the field quicker if the player is sufficiently contrite, does some sort of therapeutic penance and stays out of trouble. These are usually one-off situations that affect one player's particular criminal event.

Or in Spygate, the punishment was swift, sure, punitive, but didn't overly effect people's long range careers.

In Bountygate, the players have a very limited playing career, feel punished for an organizational issue and are very much contesting the allegations made against them. Whether the players did this or not, Bountygate affects every aspect of league punishment and stands for the proposition that players can be penalized for things organized and promoted by their teams based on secret evidence.

I'm guessing that if the investigation had been finalized prior to the signing of the CBA, the NFL may have used a fairer procedure and may have done lesser punishment. I'm guessing, if the NFLPA knew that the NFL would provide sanitized limited evidence in an untimely fashion and call it fair, they would have fought the NFL harder to make employee protections more explicit.

Doesn't the NFL need to protect the whistleblower(s) in Bountygate?

Whistleblower laws in the United States are a patchwork of different laws for different circumstances. Usually those circumstances are very limited. Most whistleblower laws protect employees against retaliation from their employers in very narrow situations, not from other employees finding out what you told your employer.

Do think the NFL has an interest in keeping whistleblower information secret. However that interest seems to diminish when they use that information to take a disciplinary action that deprives an employee of money, harms his limited playing time career, damages his professional reputation.

What are the odds of Jonathan Vilma's defamation case in winning?

Public figures who have false allegations made against them that causes them harm are often urged to sue for defamation. Few do. Why?

It's expensive. And public figures have a higher hurdle to prove than non-public figures. They have to prove "actual malice," which means that the person making the statement knew it to be false or said it with reckless disregard for the truth. In addition, if it is a matter of public interest, often those statements can be protected from defamation claims.

And in this particular case, Goodell is arguing that the courts don't have the jurisdiction to handle defamation matters related to things in the CBA. This point is the important one. If a court has no jurisdiction, means that broad judicial lawsuit discovery doesn't happen at all. The NFL wants to say their information is solid, their process is fair, but they don't want to share any of the information without it being heavily sanitized. If Vilma gets passed this first procedural hurdle, federal court discovery is very broad in scope, and just about everything will be out in the open.

So aren't these lawsuits just about getting discovery information?

That's a part of the Vilma defamation complaint. I wouldn't just reduce it to just that because it is bad thing to have your reputation tarnished in a way that you believe is false in a way that affects your ability to make a living. Defamation suits are an expensive, emphatic, often futile way of saying, "I didn't do this."

Defamation suits are serious business. Typically, most human resource lawyers for companies advise supervisors not to make public statements about company investigations of employees or former employees for defamation concerns. Of course, those situations usually do not involve things of public interest nor public figures.

If you look at both the Vilma and the NFLPA cases, it goes beyond just figuring out what the NFL's evidence is instead of relying on "just trust us." This involves larger important matter of: If Goodell is making career altering decisions, what is the minimum level of due process that he needs to do and what protections do players have against false accusations?

That is a big deal, a 10-year-length of the CBA big deal.

Why didn't the players talk to Goodell and defend themselves? Why don't they talk to Goodell now since Goodell said he'd think about reconsidering the punishment?

If you read the complaints and the public statements about this, there are differing accounts of whether the players and/or their attorneys had the ability to meet with Goodell.

There's a dispute on the nature of the evidence that the NFL needed to provide the players and the timing of that evidence.

Ultimately, the players are put in a very bad situation. They are the subject of general accusations against them coming from a secret source. It is difficult to prove a negative, particularly when you can't examine the evidence against you and may have limitations in accessing and questioning witnesses.

Goodell is holding out the carrot of some sort of outside of the CBA reprieve if the players talk to him, but I'm not sure there is any middle ground. If someone believes you are lying, and are punishing you partially because he thinks you are lying, it is pretty hard to convince someone to the contrary.

This is dumb. I am sick of hearing about it. Why can't the NFL and NFLPA get along?

Best question of all.

I hereby agree to mediate this disagreement for 1/10th of what the lawyers are getting paid to litigate this and fund my childrens' college educations.

Mediation actually is a way that parties in litigation can come up with a result that everyone can live with. When courts order this, and make the parties do this, it allows both sides to save face by forcing them to talk without harming their litigation cases.

The NFL would likely want no part of that because they don't want the courts to have the ability to tell them to do anything. The NFLPA/players would likely think it is futile given the NFL's public statements to make the Saints an example. It's very hard to mediate when each side perceives no middle ground.

The NFL and the players could do a mediation outside of being a court ordered one. A time out. I've used these in disputes even before litigation has occurred and resolved things in a face-saving way for everyone.

High stakes power, PR, money and ego issues make any sensible, quick resolution difficult. Would not be unexpected for this matter to evolve a bit like the Star Caps one, where the punishments are deferred until process issues have time to be sorted in the courts.

Related Articles:

NFL Exit Strategy for Saints Bountygate Mess? July 3, 2012, Written Before Goodell's Final Decision on Player Discipline

Why the New Orleans Saints Bounty Penalties are Too Harsh March 27, 2012, Written After Coach/Team Penalty Announced by Before Player Discipline; Highlights Difficulty of Doing NFL Investigations.

NFL Exit Strategy for Saints Bountygate Mess?

Steph Stradley — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:34:28 +0000

As I noted last March in my blog post entitled, "Why the New Orleans Saints Bounty Penalties are Too Harsh," the NFL was likely going to face issues with the Saints Bountygate investigations and if they extended the penalties to players as well.

As I explained then, I am not a Saints fan, nor am I advocating bounties or pay for injury or pay for performance pools.

No one is. If there ever were a "culture of bounties," such a thing is dead. Not just because of the unprecedented NFL penalties but because of public stigma and the prohibition against them couldn't be any more clear now.

As a fan of the NFL, I am concerned with the procedures the NFL uses to choose particular discipline. If they use a flawed and arbitrary punishment/investigation method as it relates to the Saints, the NFL can do this to any team for whatever their pet issue du jour is.

How Can There Be Bountygate Closure?

Unlike the Spygate punishment, there can't be any quick punishment and closure of Bountygate. The Spygate tapes were destroyed and the punishment was significant and mostly at the top organizational level.

Saints fans understood there would be some punishment. Nobody anticipated the unprecedented scope and harshness of it.

Generally speaking, if the only punishment for a situation is an excessive one, it increases the incentives to contest it.

The coaching staff doesn't have a huge incentive to significantly contest the punishments because their careers have an extended duration, and they want to get back into Roger Goodell's good graces. The players have a shorter playing career–suspensions take away a huge part of their lifetime NFL income.

Here's a link to the Vilma v. NFL complaint filed over the weekend. In basic terms, Vilma's lawyers are claiming that the NFL violated the CBA in the way that they did the hearing, are trying to compel Goodell to make a final decision, and are asking for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against beginning the suspension assuming that is ruled.

I strongly suggest that all NFL fans read that complaint. Of course, it is written from an advocacy standpoint, but it does raise troubling questions about the process and nature of the NFL investigation.

Integrity and Public Confidence in the NFL.

The NFL's approach to the Bountygate evidence has been mostly "trust us." The limited information released has been leaked in dribs and drabs over time.

Ironically, the NFL personal conduct policy was put into place to deter "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League." It seems to me that promoting punishments that harm peoples' reputations and take away their livelihood in a process that is not perceived as fair and transparent doesn't reflect highly on the NFL.

Even if parts of their evidence are inaccurate or wrong, the NFL not likely going to want to reverse course because of two factors: 1. Upholding the principles of league discipline and not wanting to look like they cave every time some lawyer guy files suit; 2. The looming concussion litigation out there, and how the NFL handled the punishments in this situation.

Just Because You Can Do Something, Doesn't Mean You Should.

Defenders of Goodell's punishment claim that if the players don't like the form of punishment, they should have fixed that in the CBA. I suspect had the NFLPA known the extent of punishment and the NFL's failure to share even basic investigational evidence, they may have fought harder on the the Goodell-only form of judge, jury, appeal process.

Vilma's lawyers are claiming that even those procedural fairness protections contained within the CBA weren't followed.

And CBA or no, just because the legal system might allow you to do a questionable investigation and do a punishment that goes far beyond deterrence into vengeance, doesn't mean that doing so is good for the league. There is a profound lack of trust among the NFL, players and fans on how this situation was handled.

But that is the past. Toothpaste out of the tube and all. How do you engender trust in the process for the future? Trust by fans? How can the NFL move beyond this into closure?

Sometimes, when you are truly in a position of strength, the best approach is to give in a bit even though you don't have to. That just because you have the money and the lawyers and the leverage and the power to get your way fairness be damned, doesn't mean it is wise to do so. There's a high price of winning if you lose goodwill and trust and hurt the reputations of everyone during the process.

But what about the players injured in Bountygate? Every week of the NFL results in injuries. That's the thing. It is inherent to a violent sport. Punishing a select group of players who may or may not have participated in a program promoted by their defensive coordinator doesn't change that.

I'm less concerned with Bountygate, and more concerned with future Goodell punishments of teams, players, coaches. Bountygate illustrates an arbitrary punishment system with an investigation that might actually be right, but I have no confidence in given the public information revealed about it. Saints fans weren't at fault in Bountygate, yet they receive the punishment and are supposed to just be fine with it. (I don't remember who said it on Twitter, but someone suggested that Roger Goodell show up to the Super Bowl in New Orleans in hologram form. He might want to look into that).

Ideas for an NFL Exit Strategy?

I'm not sure what the NFL's exit strategy will be in this case. Likely just paying the lawyers a bunch more money than they've already been paid.

As an attorney who worked in-house for large organizations, I know that lawyering up is often the expensive path of least resisistence to risk-adverse, ego-full clients who aren't paying the bills out of their own pocket.

I've tried to figure out what could constitute closure in this case–which would address the NFL's concerns but also the reputational/professional ones of the players involved. And the anger and fairness concerns of an entire Saints fanbase. Just seems like the course that is going on right now is a lose/lose for everyone. Players defending themselves. The NFL slowly dripping out negative information. Saints fans angry at uncertainty and poor information.

I like to find positive outcomes to negative situations but I don't think one exists here. The NFL doesn't give concessions except when they are forced to.

Or you might be of the view that it doesn't matter that Bountygate is a PR blackeye to everyone involved. And even if the information about Vilma and other players isn't accurate, it is fine to sacrifice them in the desire to save the sport. Can't say I like ends justifies means sort of business practices.

Whether you think what the NFL did was right or wrong, is there any way to get closure in a timely way? I think there is too much ego, money and principal involved which means that the lawyers get paid until all legal methods are exhausted.

Awesome Things in Houston: Great Breakfast Tacos Everywhere

Steph Stradley — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:50:11 +0000

"@RyanLostinTX I’d like to ask breakfast taco’s father for permission to seek its hand in marriage " (I didn’t have a picture of breakfast tacos this morning for a blog illustration. MS Paint to rescue.)

Back in the day, when I was trying to get my first real job, I put Tex Mex on my resume as an interest. In school I didn't have too many interests other than watching/playing sports, studying, and well, cheap Tex Mex food. Also a way to signal to employers that I had no interest whatsoever of leaving Texas.

Turned out that in short interviews with various people, we ended up talking about Tex Mex food a lot. Employers are often just trying to find out if you have decent BS and that you won't be an horrible person to work with.

Besides, who doesn't like Tex Mex food? People you can't trust, that's who.

People who are breaking the Texas Constitution probably. It's a pretty long Constitution and a requirement to like Tex Mex is likely in there. Something about ZZ Top too.

Saturday morning, people on the Twitters started talking about great breakfast tacos. Got me hungry and thinking: Why not crowdsource the best breakfast taco places in town? The following were people's quick responses but I'm sure you can add your neighborhood's fave breaky taco places because they are everywhere in Houston.

My list of favorite restaurants in Houston has some Mexican food places in it but usually my fave breakfast taco place depends on what side of town I'm on when I'm hungry. (And what time of day it is–love the places that serve all day Mexican breakfast. That should be added to the Texas Constitution. It's a better idea than most of what the TexLege suggests).

Texas v Rodriguez: ‘Stand Your Ground,’ CHLs, Self Defense – Facts and Law

Steph Stradley — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:13:49 +0000

Houston criminal lawyers Neal Davis and my husband Bill Stradley represented Raul Rodriguez, a man convicted of murdering his neighbor in a confrontation relating to loud music from a party. A jury sentenced Mr Rodriguez to 40 years in prison.

There have been many media reports about this case. It is difficult to find ones that are entirely factually accurate.

Public Interest in Stand Your Ground Laws, Gun Policy.

This case has generated public interest for many reasons: 1. The 22:03 minutes leading up to the shooting are all captured on video. 2. Kelly Danaher was a widely-beloved teacher, husband, father who died over something that didn't have to happen. 3. The very publicized Trayvon Martin case has brought public attention to concealed handgun licenses and stand your ground laws.

I have been following the case and the media coverage very closely. Often with legal issues of public interest, I've observed that much of what is reported in the media is usually not quite right or can be misleading.

It's hard to report legal issues in a way that is accurate, fair, and complete. There are time and space constraints of many media forms. Some outlets do not rely on original reporting but making assumptions based on reporting of others. Sometimes the media doesn't understand legal rulings and misreports them. Reporters may have limited access to key facts, especially facts from the defense point of view, due to attorney confidentiality during trial preparation. Most media outlets did not show the complete video due to space limitations, and depending on which excerpts you watch, it can make things look differently. Even seeing the video without context can make it appear different.

And sometimes media coverage can be sensationalized to what is most Facebook sharable. I've seen this case reduced to things like, "Man shot because of loud music." It is not my intent to shake my fist at a hostile media as I understand first hand how difficult it is to get the story right, fair, and quickly. I'm just adding a perspective I don't think has been widely discussed.

If this ruinous case is going to be part of the public discourse on self defense laws, stand your ground and concealed handgun licenses, then at a minimum, people should understand the facts, law before drawing conclusions.

This blog post will serve as an attempt to answer basic questions, clarify key issues relating to this trial. It is based on what I know of the testimony, the law, and the evidence that is all public record. I've heard plenty of public comments on this case, and many of the basic and agreed facts are perceived incorrectly.

The final agreed transcript of the video is at the end of this blog post (strong language warning).

Rodriguez Fact and Law Sheet: Stand Your Ground, Concealed Handgun Licenses, Self-Defense, Texas Law

Why didn't Raul Rodriguez call the police about his noise complaint?

Rodriguez did call the police that night. Many times. Before he went towards his neighbors house to meet with the police. While he was waiting for the police. During the confrontation with his neighbors. He was on the phone with police the exact moment of the shooting.

If the party was so noisy, why didn't the police stop it?

Uncertain. The police arrived at the party area twice. The party goers were doing karaoke on their porch on and off during the day and into the evening. The nature of karaoke is that it is intermittent. If the police arrived when there was no singing, then there would be nothing to quiet down.

The incident happened in a wooded area outside of Houston. The party-goers could easily believe they weren't bothering anyone. Rodriguez who lived two houses down, lived in a trailer home with thin walls.

The video is shot a little after midnight.

Why did Raul Rodriguez have a video camera with him?

At the scene of the shooting, police found a internet printout from the Constable's office about the acceptable decibel levels and filing nuisance complaints. Rodriguez had this print out with him, and as he says on the video, was intending to meet the police in the street outside his neighbor's home to document how loud the noise levels were.

What noise? The video doesn't have party noise.

Some excerpts of the video do not have the party noise in them. In the first roughly 14 minutes of the video, you can hear karaoke/microphone talking that was coming from the party. It sounds loud on the video with people shouting back and forth on the microphone.

Why did Rodriguez carry his gun with him?

The testimony was that Rodriguez possessed a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) and holstered his gun with him every place where it was legal to do so. This is not an uncommon practice for Texas CHL owners. The Governor of Texas, Rick Perry apparently takes his laser-sighted pistol with him while jogging, and reportedly shot a coyote that threatened his dog.

Why did Rodriguez go to his neighbor's driveway/property with a gun?

Rodriguez never went to his neighbor's house or was ever on any part of his neighbor's property. He was standing on the public street in front of his neighbor's driveway waiting on police officers to arrive with his gun concealed and holstered. It was not his intention to confront anyone. It was his intention to meet the police officers and show him the video of the music.

Under what circumstances can you brandish a gun in Texas?

Under Texas Penal Code 9.04: "The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force."

The short version of that is if you have reasonable belief of immediate fear for your life or of ~~serious~~ bodily injury, you can brandish your weapon. [Correction 5:55pm 6/27]

Under Texas law, a jury is to evaluate the need for use of deadly force from the point of view of the person who threats the use of force or uses it. A "reasonable belief" in the need to use force is that which would "be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstance as the defendant."

Why did Rodriguez draw his gun?

Originally, as is shown in the video, he thought a car that was approaching him was the police. Instead it was one of the people at the party.

It is clear from the first discussions between the party goers and Rodriguez that Rodriguez is frustrated that they won't turn down the music, and the party-goers are baffled by why this neighbor is standing in the road with a video camera.

The original communication between the people starts out in a hostile way. Rodriguez does a poor job of communicating why he is there. And one of the party-goers is hostile about turning down the music. At this point, an unknown number of party-goers start advancing from the driveway towards Rodriguez and don't stop despite his repeated requests for them to do so.

In addition, as was shown in the pictures in court, the person who was killed had a flashlight in a holster that looks like a gun and was approaching him quickly from the side.

Rodriguez is also a disabled firefighter and may have felt particularly threatened due to his condition by the aggressive words/body language of the numerous people in the dark and had to make a split second decision to threaten the use of deadly force.

After he showed his gun, he put it back away after the party-goers backed away from him.

Why did Rodriguez "Stand His Ground" instead of retreating given the anger of the party-goers at the brandishment of the gun?

Under Texas law, there is no requirement to retreat before the use of deadly force. As was codified in Texas Penal Code 9.32(c) in 2007: "A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section."

As the user of a CHL on public property, Rodriguez had a legal right in Texas to be present at the location where deadly force was used and had no legal duty to retreat. In Texas, the jury is given what is called a "charge" to explain how to make their decision.

The charge given to the jury said, "You are not to consider whether the defendant failed to retreat."

Who cares what Texas law says. Why didn't he retreat if he were actually afraid?

In an early part of the video, he mentions a concern that the police will show up to his house late to discuss the noise complaint and not in a timely way. During the confrontation, he tells the dispatcher he is worried that the people at the party will suggest that he was waving his gun around instead of what really happened: him branding the weapon, and then re-holstering it. So if he leaves, he worries the police will believe the party-goers version of events. Throughout the confrontation, the party-goers repeat how Rodriguez is going to jail.

And at one point, both the party-goers and Rodriguez are all calling the police at the same time.

Near the end of the tape, Rodriguez does get slightly further away from the angry party-goers when he is talking to the police.

Didn't Rodriguez "provoke person against whom force was used" and under Texas law, doesn't that mean he's not allowed to claim self-defense?

Under Texas Penal Code 9.32(c), you are not allowed to Stand Your Ground if you provoked the incident. Provocation is not defined by 9.32(c).

Provocation is defined by 9.31(b)(4): "The use of force against another is not justified….if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor."

There is a long line of case law in Texas about what provocation means. In sum, you aren't allowed to murder someone or provoke them so that you have an excuse to murder them and then claim self-defense.

Intent is an essential part of the case law on provocation. It's not enough that the shooter riled people up, or even intended to rile people up. The prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter riled people up with the intention to shoot someone.

The prosecution claimed that the defendant used CHL buzzwords of "fear for life" "stand my ground" on video so that when he shot someone, he could claim self-defense.

The defense claimed that the facts and the video shows that he didn't want to shoot people. And that at the moment of the shooting, he was on the phone with police and was startled and afraid when he was rushed at.

There is a lot of case law on the issue of "provoke the difficulty" because it is easy even for lawyers to confuse the common view of provoke, with the legal view that it is provocation with the intent to be forced to kill in self-defense. The charge given to the jury on provocation isn't the easiest to follow along as in its entirety; it goes for about 1 1/2 pages of the charge. In small, relevant part:

"if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Raul Rodriguez immediately before the difficulty, then and there did some act, or used some language, or did both, as the case may be, with the intent on his, the defendant's part, to produce the occasion for shooting Kelly Danaher, and to bring on the difficulty with the said Kelly Danaher, and that such words and conduct on the defendant's part, if there was such, were reasonably calculated to, and did, provoke a difficulty, and that on such account Kelly Danaher attacked the defendant with deadly force, or reasonably appeared to the defendant to so attack him or to be attempting to attack him, and that the defendant then shot Kelly Danaher with a firearm, in pursuant to his original design, if you find there was such, then you will find against the defendant on the issue of self-defense."

Not the easiest read. Not sure that this should apply to this case because the prosecution claimed throughout the trial that Danaher didn't charge Rodriguez triggering the shot. Or perhaps as a matter of law and not for a jury to decide, you can't be provoking an incident if you are on the phone with the police at the moment of incident. If your intent is to provoke a reason to murder someone, being on the phone with the police is an odd way of demonstrating that. But how do you get the Stand Your Ground sort of no duty to retreat language in the jury charge language if you don't have the definition of provocation under the law?

I apologize for the length of this answer. It took me a while to wrap my brain around the provocation aspects of these particular facts. It can't be easy for a jury.

What caused Rodriguez to shoot? The tape gets very dark at the end.

Near the end of the tape, the truck that is partially illuminating the shot is pulled into the driveway. In addition, Rodriguez puts his flashlight down to hold his cell phone to call police.

Right before the shooting, there is a large bang that sounds like a gun. Rodriguez audibly reacts to that noise. No one is able to say what that noise was.

At the time of the shooting, Rodriguez is talking to police. The exact thing that happens after that is hard to tell because the camera is dropped.

What is agreed by all is that one of the party-goers makes a loud laugh right before the shooting.

At trial, it was claimed by the prosecutors that he took a few steps forward and just waved his arms.

At trial, it was claimed by the defense that the three guys who were shot charged toward Rodriguez, after the first person committed to charge toward him to disarm him while yelling.

Why should Rodriguez been afraid of his neighbors? They were his neighbors having a birthday party.

After he pulled his weapon and then re-holstered it, what was a difficult encounter with neighbors turned into a hostile one. They were threatening him and using profanity. At least one statement suggested that someone was going to get their own gun. Some party goers appeared intoxicated, and test results showed a few were over three times the legal driving limit of alcohol. Testimony at trial from one of the witnesses was that they "wanted to kick his ass."

Under Texas law, self-defense doesn't have to be against an actual attack. As the jury charge noted, "a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would had the danger been real, provided that he acted upon a reasonable apprehension of danger, as it appeared to him from his standpoint at the time, and that he reasonably believed such deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force by his assailants."

The law says that the jury is supposed to give the person claiming self-defense the benefit of the doubt. From the jury charge, "if you have a reasonable doubt on said occasion and under the circumstances, then you should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and say by your verdict, not guilty."

Some media reports say that Rodriguez walked away from the event without injury. Is that true?

Immediately after the shooting, Rodriguez received the abrasions shown on his face in his mug shot and had a broken ankle which made it difficult to walk. He was immediately arrested and put into the back of a patrol car.

Some of the stuff I heard about Rodriguez was that he was a bad person. What is the story on that?

The adversarial process means that the prosecutors will scrutinize every aspect of a defendant's life in the search for bad information about them. Things with innocent explanations are then evaluated in hindsight with the view that the person is a bad person because someone is dead.

During trial, a number of people testified about negative things about Mr. Rodriguez. They characterized him as a bad neighbor who was angry, aggressive and gun-hungry. In closing arguments, the prosecutor claimed that family members who testified for him were brainwashed by him to do so.

Cross-examination and with rebuttal evidence contradicted the prosecution's evidence and argument. Testimony revealed he served his country in the Navy for around 10 years and was a firefighter after that. He stopped being a firefighter after becoming disabled on the job. He had a clean criminal record.

What was the sentencing range for this case?

The jury was given the stark choice between acquittal and finding Rodriguez guilty of murder. The punishment range for this crime is 5 to 99 years or life.

What should CHL holders/gun owners learn from this case?

This is where I diverge from both facts and law and squarely into my own opinion. (Nothing in this blog post, of course, should be considered legal advice):

The theory that you may learn in CHL class may be very different then when you are confronted with conflict in the real world and need to make split second decisions on the use of deadly force.

When a police officer uses deadly force in self-defense, prosecutors and juries tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, even in some circumstances when they were wrong about an apparent threat. (e.g. they thought there was a weapon but there wasn't). People acknowledge that police are trained in using guns and when to use them and are often confronting danger in the day to day of their job.

When a private citizen uses deadly force in self-defense, they need to be prepared to be charged with a crime as they do not get such benefit of the doubt. They often need to hire an attorney, possibly go to trial, possibly go to jail.

This is especially true if the person killed has many people who loved them.

The adversarial process means that the person who uses a weapon will often get every aspect of their life scrutinized for information that could possibly paint them in a poor light.

If they own many guns as some gun owners do, attempts will be made to make bad inferences from that. If someone is a CHL holder and is wearing their gun outside their house, bad inferences will be made from that. If they served their country in the military, they may be painted as militant and controlling.

Nothing of defendant's life will escape inspection: their work, their family life, their social life, their private internet and cell usage, their personality, everything about them. Things that they've said or done that may have innocent explanations will be interpreted in the adversarial process in the worst way. Even if they have a perfectly clean police record, any gossip about conflict or bad acts will often be a part of the adversarial process.

For CHL holders, it may be easier to demonize people who are charged with using deadly force in an illegal way. And believe that you would never get yourself into that situation. And that you never get into confrontations. And that no-one would attempt to paint you as an angry aggressive, gun-hungry bully after you were accused of murder.

Raul Rodriguez was waiting in the street for the police to arrive so he could make a nuisance complaint. I don't think he could have planned the events to go the way they ended up going. It is easy to judge Rodriguez in retrospect, but much harder to deal with your own future uncertainties.

A recent Texas A&M study suggests that homicide convictions are up [pdf ] in those states that allow expanded self-defense rights that do not require retreat. If you are a CHL holder who takes your gun with you most places, just by basic math it increase the chances that you might get into confrontations that you do not anticipate.

For those who care about bias or apparent bias beyond what was obviously identified in the first paragraph as my reason for heightened interest in this case, I am a Houston lawyer (a generalist by background), a longtime gun owner, and often write about legal topics for an audience of non-lawyers and lawyers. Not sure that matters any, but some people care about that.

Questions and Comments: An Appeal for Civility and Reason on Emotional Topics.

My policy is to be fairly open about moderating blog comments and allow pretty much anything that isn't vulgar. However, due to the sensitive, tragic nature of the subject of this blog post, I do not want it to devolve into a stupid ugly trolling debate about US gun policy or anything about the people involved in this case. There are plenty of places on the web where you can find that sort of thing.

Much of my blogging is a response to that–to try to find reasoned discussion of often difficult, sometimes painful, divisive topics. I understand that this case is very much about deep crushing emotion, but the appropriate forum for that is not anonymous blog commenting.

I'm not intending to persuade you of anything because what is done is done. Just offering another perspective because I've been asked about this case a lot, and it is yet another example why I am so skeptical/cynical about reporting of controversial, emotional topics, especiallly those of a legal/political nature.

So you can leave comments or questions if you want. I strongly suggest that this isn't one of those blog posts where you skip to the bottom to comment without reading or just a quick skim. There is no guarantee I will publish it if I worry it could be at all hurtful to anyone or if it just strikes me in a bad way. Enough hate in the world without creating a forum to add to it.

If you are interested, I suggest donating to the Kelly Danaher Memorial Fund.

Transcript of the Raul Rodriguez Video:

Raul Rodriguez Video Transcript Final Agreed Transcript via StradleyLaw.com/blog

Raul Rodriguez Jury Charge

Update: 6/29 – Here's a copy of the actual jury charge in the Raul Rodriguez case. The Stand Your Ground section is listed on page 4, and mentions "provoked the person" without defining it. The "provoke the difficulty" language starts on page 10 and isn't really connected with the Stand Your Ground language on page 4.

If you are someone who used self-defense, and your case goes in front of a jury, this is the sort of language the jury will use to determine your guilt or innocence.

Raul Rodriguez Jury Charge – StradleyLaw.com/blog

My List of Top Houston Restaurants

Steph Stradley — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:29:17 +0000

From Kata Robata. Ate some of this first, then took a picture because it was fantastic.

Very much enjoyed reading Alison Cook’s Top 100 Houston restaurants list. As she noted, it isn’t not her Houston best restaurant list, but the ones that she really finds memorable, for whatever personal reasons that speak to her. Her list is particularly good in identifying ethnic food restaurants that you might not be familiar with.

Inspired by her list, I tried to come up with my own list to see if I could even come up with 100 restaurants that I really love. I couldn’t.

My criteria for my list?

My list criteria was a combination of these factors: Is it worth paying for a babysitter? Do I go out of my way to eat there? Do I eat there a lot? Would I despair if that restaurant closed? When people ask me for a recommendation in a particular place in town or for a particular type of food or for a particular purpose, would I send them there? Would I wait in a line to eat there? If I were celebrating a special event or going out with girlfriends, would I be happy about going to this place? Does eating this food give me joy? Does eating this food give me both a great meal and good fuel for a living healthy?

I know that my list is missing a number of standards. Some may be because I haven’t gone there. Some may be omitted because if someone suggests going there, my first thought is “Ugh, bleep no. Can’t we go to _______ instead?” So many well-regarded restaurants that I wish I liked but just never had a great experience at.

Also note, Mexican food restaurants are under-represented on this list. I could do an entire list of fave Mexican joints for different purposes, food types, beverages, locations, etc. When I was looking for my first legal job, I had Tex Mex food listed on my resume as one of my interests. It turned out in interviews, we tended to talk opinions on Tex Mex places more than boring legal stuff.

This is not a foodie list. I used to be a foodie before foodie became a word and then I had kids. With kids you have to pay for a babysitter and the food so I don't go out a ton.

I did not put the links to these restaurants in this blog post because I do not have a staff, and there’s this thing called Google. After the list, I share the real-talk scoop why I like a particular restaurant.

Steph Stradley’s List of Top Houston Restaurants in an Amount Less Than Alison Cook’s Top 100 Houston Restaurants.

Uchi
Mark’s American Cuisine
Kata Robata
t’afia
The Moveable Feast
Otelia’s
RDG + Bar Annie
Katsuya
Indika
Texans Tailgating
Underbelly – updated
Taco Milagro
Harvest Grille
Brasserie Max & Julie
Ninfa’s on Navigation
Brasserie 19
benjy’s
La Fisheria – updated
Mission Burrito
Empire Café
Haven
TQLA
Vic & Anthony’s Steakhouse
Revival Market
Pappa’s Steakhouse
Buffalo Grille
Fadi’s
Hugo’s
Taqueria Laredo
Island Smoothie
Juan Mon’s
Hobbit Hole
Hearsay
Ibiza
La Griglia
Breakfast Klub
Sylvia’s Enchilada Kitchen
Uptown Sushi
Grotto
Berryhill Tamale
La Plaza
Morton’s The Steakhouse
Tutti Frutti aka The Kenny G Yogurt Shop
Shandy’s
Paulie’s

Places on my want to check out list in order (aka "Hey friends, let's meet to eat"):

Tony’s
Oxheart
Roots Bistro
Killen’s Steakhouse
Reef
Beaver’s Icehouse
Best hamburger joints worth the cholesterol.
Find some go-to Thai places, Vietnamese places (My faves no longer exist)
Places you tell me I have to go to.

I’d like to see other people’s Houston faves list. I don’t have any special background in food judging other than my friend Melinda says I love food more than any other person she knows.

What place isn’t on my list that I should check out, or check out again?

About My List of Top Houston Restaurants in an Amount Less Than Alison Cook’s Top 100 Houston Restaurants.

Uchi – Great combination of surprising, wonderful food and people watching. My favorite sushi bar to sit at in town.

Mark’s American Cuisine – Somebody else paying? Special occasion? Important dinner? Want grown up service, grown up food, cool non-boring, non-strip center building, no disappointments? Mark’s always my first choice. Always.

Kata Robata – This is on the top of my list of restaurants I want to go back to very soon. I want to experience those tastes again.

t’afia – When I lived that direction, I used to go to Monica Pope’s Quilted Tocque so much they must have thought I was a stalker. Devastated when that closed. Happy that t’afia exists.

The Moveable Feast – Is it too much to ask for good food that is also good for you? It should be easier than it is to find healthy food at restaurants. If terrorists had the health effect on our population like the food industry does, Americans wouldn’t stand for it. Moveable Feast is where I go for my veggie fix. Like the brown rice, black beans they have as a side to many dishes. Quick. Fresh. Inexpensive. Free Wifi.

Otelia’s – “No Tex Mex!” On their menu, they want to convey that they are a Mexican restaurant not a Tex-Mex joint. Rhetoric aside, I am addicted to their Enchilada Verde Dinner. The green sauce is very unlike ones in other places, it has a tangy taste I can vividly imagine in my brain.

RDG + Bar Annie – In our casual society, there are very few excuses to get really dressed up. (Read: Gee, I have some nice dresses but am always in my gym clothes). You go here with your girlfriends to people watch, get your catty on, and eat good food. It’s both hilarious and delicious.

“Check it. Mutton dressed like lamb.”

“Which number is higher: Women with fake ones or dudes with hair plugs.”

“The Worst Hypothetical Ever: Is there any amount of money on this planet to be romantic with that guy.”

From Katsuya. I am not a food photographer. Obviously. I often take pictures of sushi to send to my friend Diane. As we both like sushi.

Katsuya – Another dress up place with great people watching and delicious food. Pricy, but love their specialty cocktails. I’d put this high up on the list for places to go with your girlfriends for someone’s birthday.

Indika – I had high expectations about this place from what I heard. All my previous experience at recommended Indian food restaurants have disappointed. Love this food. Love it. Why don’t I eat here more often? Really really good.

Texans Tailgating – I couldn’t think of a favorite BBQ place in Houston. I know all the regular, reasonably good joints but none of them have that yes, I have to travel across town to go there specialness to them. By far, the best brisket, ribs, BBQ chicken, pork I’ve had in Houston was from tailgating before Houston Texans games. The second best BBQ, the husband Bill makes. We bought our custom made smoker from “Pitts by JJ.”

Okay, maybe that’s cheating to put those on a best restaurants in Houston list, but I’m fussy about meat. If I’m going to jack with my cholesterol, it better be blow your doors off spectacular. There are plenty of reasonably good BBQ joints in town far better than what can be found in most parts of the country but nothing so much better to be worth mentioning. So, yeah, I’d rather eat that stuff at a good tailgate or at my house than at any restaurant in town. That and I’m assured the company is always good.

Underbelly – Finally got to try Underbelly. Beautiful space, attentive service, and delicious fresh locally-sourced food. Very good to go with a group because much of the menu is meant to be shared family style.

Taco Milagro – When this restaurant first opened, I loved it but worried it wouldn’t make it because it was empty all the time. I had this weird feeling that if I ate there a lot that somehow I could make it survive through my efforts alone. Yeah, weird I know. Glad it still exists and thrives.

My favorite thing to order isn’t on the menu but was suggested to me when I was debating two items and they were happy to make it a combo: One Tostada de Pollo and One Chile Relleno. Really that should be on the menu just like that because I manufacturer errands on that side of town just to order that combo.

They serve my favorite margaritas in Houston, and I like their salsa bar. It’s a great central location for a casual meet up with friends, especially when they have bands playing.

Harvest Live Grille and Bar – Relatively new restaurant that serves a huge menu of organic food. It is not inexpensive, the menu is a little odd and the décor is a little odder, but it’s easy to eat vegetables here that are cooked in creative ways.

Very much enjoy their salad bar that you can purchase as an add-on to your meal. I’m not much of a salad bar person, but they have all the best stuff (including Kale which is supposed to be the ultimate super food), and a remarkable mustard salad dressing that I wish I could buy at the store. Best grilled fish I've had in a while.

Brasserie Max & Julie – I love going to France. It has been too long. It’s been far too long since I’ve been there, and far too long since I’ve been to Brasserie Max & Julie. Need to fix both of those problems soon.

Ninfa’s on Navigation – Back in college before I knew what cholesterol and stuff was, I remember the first time I tried their Queso Flameado. And marveled at how warm, delicious their flour tortillas were.

Comfort food. The place you take out-of-towners when they want the idealized, accessible version of Tex Mex.

Brasserie 19 – The bread. I wish it were delivered to my house all warm like that. One of those places I like to go with girlfriends or another couple. Lots of energy. Good food.

benjy’s – Every time I go there, I want to order everything on the menu. I like their music. The bar on top of the benjy’s in Rice Village has many fond memories.

La Fisheria – When I'm in Mexico, I always want to order the seafood dishes, but am afraid to because fears of stomach problems. Come by those fears honestly after fainting from illness after a trip to Puerto Vallarta.

La Fisheria is like running off the Mexico without having to pay a ton of money to United, and getting stomach safe, incredibly delicious Mexican style seafood But even better than that even. Like the some of the best seafood you'd have in Mexico or any location. And do not skip dessert and coffee. Incredible, creative, delicious. I can't wait to go back.

Mission Burrito – The best rollup burrito place by far. Not even close. All the other rollup burrito places on the planet should be eliminated and replaced by Mission Burritos. I love their Que Mas Salad. I am not much of a salad for meal person because I am a big eater, but I adore that salad and will drive long distances to eat it.

Empire Cafe – May be my favorite breakfast place, and I’m a breakfast person. The coffee. Breakfast needs to have quality coffee.

Love the Hunter’s Style Eggs. Not sure if they still have it, but they used to serve these blueberry oatmeal pancakes along with some salmon egg dish as a weekend special. I wish they had those blueberry oatmeal pancakes all the time. I’ve told them that before. A few times. Because I really love them. I don’t think they did it though.

In a brief period of time when I was trying to become a running person before I gave that up because running is boring, this was the place I liked to go after my runs.

Haven – In a city where many of the better restaurants are in strip centers or boring looking buildings, I love this combination of space and food. This is the sort of restaurant you go to in order to catch up with friends.

Behind the bar at TQLA

TQLA – I am not a tequila drinker. I make an exception when I go to TQLA. Love their tequila flights with their home made sangrita. The sangrita has this wonderful salt, sweet, spice combo taste to it. This is one of those stuck in your brain tastes that make you want to go back to a place.

I enjoy New Mexico-style southwestern cuisine, and it can be hard to find quality examples in Houston. Love this place. I don’t do Washington Avenue, but if I’m that way, this is where I am going. They have an actual parking garage behind the restaurant so you don’t get towed or park amongst undesirability.

Vic & Anthony’s Steakhouse – I’m good eating here for just about any reason, but I love this bar to watch sports on the TVs above the bar, eat great food, drink quality wine. This is my perfect spot to eat at before Astros games because Minute Maid food tends to make me ill.

Revival Market – I am not a hotdog eater. Except here where they are so delicious they are worth the calories.

They also have a shop where they sell locally produced foods and they butcher their own meat. I asked someone who worked there what the best cut of meat was, and they suggested the ribeye. That’s not my common steak to grill but went for it. BEST STEAK EVAAAAR.

Pappa’s Steakhouse – Oh, yeah. Galleria area? You paying? We talking business? Celebrating making big money or something? This is where we are going.

Alas, nobody is doing big business deals with me where I make lots of money so I don’t go here much. Someone please, do a big business deal with me and buy me an expensive bottle of red wine from their magnificent wine list.

Buffalo Grille – Solid breakfast choice. A fun one to take yankee friends to because of the western décor. I want their pancake recipe. Love the apple pecan pancake. So good, it doesn’t need syrup.

Fadi’s – My mother had never tried Mediterranean food and said she wasn’t hungry. Then I ordered her the Vegetarian Platter. She crushed it.

This is a great place to take the food to-go as well.

My husband wants to add that this would be #1 on his list. Even the Fadi's leftovers that sit in the fridge are better than a lot of restaurants.

Hugo’s – There’s no place in Houston like it. When you want to eat Mexican food but more upscale than most places. Great place to take out of towners who don’t get much quality Mexican food.

Taqueria Laredo – Get there before the line goes out the door. Love the breakfast tacos. Cheap. Bonus: Lots of Texans logo stuff around the restaurant.

Island Smoothie – Another good food that is good for you place. Wish there were more places like this. Very much like their vegetable, chicken over brown rice platter. I keep wanting to come here for breakfast because their menu looks appealing, and then I forget.

Juan Mon’s – Not a sandwich person. But I LOVE their sandwiches. By far, they use the best bread. And they have some sort of sauce that is on some of their sandwiches which is so spicy it makes my brain hot.

Hobbit Hole – I want to order everything on the menu, please.

Hearsay – If I want a bite near the office downtown, this is where I like to go. I can sit at the bar, watch some tube, maybe do some work, get a quality meal.

Ibiza – Consistently good meals. Never disappointed.

La Griglia – Love the combination of energy and quality food. Sometimes you want good Italian food in a no-flip flops atmosphere.

Breakfast Klub – No way I’d go there on a weekend, but this is one of those places I’ll drive out of my way to go to. Like their coffee, like their bacon. Love how friendly their staff is. Feels like home.

Sylvia’s Enchilada Kitchen – I have an addition to the Mexico City chicken enchiladas with the goat cheese on top. The picamole which is sort of a chunky guacamole has its addictive qualities as well.

Uptown Sushi – Quality sushi in the Galleria areas in an event sort of atmosphere? I’m there.

Grotto – Good quality Italian food in the Galleria area. A good place to meet. If you are feeling under the weather, get their Zuppa Maritata “wedding soup” to go.

Kobe Japanese Cuisine – You want quality sushi in a friendly neighborhood atmosphere where you feel comfortable taking your kids and not dressing to the nines? You go here. Like sitting at the bar watching sports on their TV.

El Rey drive-thru. Looks like a cute doggy is ordering delicious coffee too.

El Rey Taqueria – Sometimes you want to eat well but have zero time for a sit down meal. I think El Rey has the best drive thru food in town. They have breakfast tacos. They have good roasted chicken, served with rice, blackbeans and plantains.

I often go here just for the coffee. Their coffee is not just the best drive thru coffee but is just delicious and not at a crazy price. Their website calls it the “Best Coffee Money Can Buy.” I never get their regular coffee, but I like a variety of their espresso drinks. Drinking one of their lattes right now.

Berryhill Tamale – I’m a huge supporter of any place that offers all day Mexican breakfast. I also support places that will do egg whites for you by request. Berryhill will do both. I like their vegetarian breakfast taco made with egg whites served on a corn tortilla. There’s plenty of places in Houston to get a artery hardening breakfast taco that is delicious, but I like the idea that I can get a breakfast taco that won’t put me at war with my skinny jeans.

Oh, and if you are in the mood for a reliably good fish taco, they do a nice one for not a ton of money.

La Plaza – One of the many of small, inexpensive, independent Mexican restaurants across our city. (Map here because you might not know of it). I like their breakfast, even their American breakfast items. I don’t eat waffles much, but I’ll eat their’s if I’m in the mood.

Must be good. Many cops eat here.

Morton’s The Steakhouse – If you are going to spend a lot of money on a steak, you want professional service and to be treated very well. That’s what Morton’s does.

I will never forget how special they treated my sister when she wanted a nice steak before going to the hospital. They treated her like the queen of the universe. And I knew that if we went there they’d treat her like the queen of the universe. Treating people like royalty is Morton's niche.

Tutti Frutti aka The Kenny G Yogurt Shop (The one near Voss/San Felipe) – I’m a fan of the frozen yogurt trend with many yogurt shops popping up all over town. Frozen yogurt just makes sense in a hot environment, and getting it with fruit toppings is a more healthy treat than ice cream.

The infamous "Kenny G Yogurt Shop" at Voss and San Felipe

My family calls this particular yogurt shop The Kenny G Yogurt Shop. They have 12 Kenny G songs on a loop that they play over and over again. It’s awful. And yet we go back because the yogurt/toppings are good. We feel bad for the employee who works there, and have told him about Pandora for Business that allows businesses to legally stream Pandora for around $25 a month.

Don’t know if the owner will go for it. Fortunately, you can eat your yogurt on the patio and not listen to the Kenny G experience.

Torchy’s – Yes, parking for this Austin export is a pain. And sometimes the lines get unreasonable. But I like a variety of their tacos, particularly those made with corn tortillas.

Going to Torchy’s in Houston is not quite the same as going to Torchy’s in Austin but I’m happy they are here.

The news I’d like is if we got Austin’s Taco Deli in Houston.

Shandy’s – So you just ran around Memorial Park for your health. Now you need fuel. Near the park, Shandy’s is one of those few good food that is good for you choices.

Paulie’s – Every neighborhood needs a casual eatery that has a variety quality food where everybody you are going with will find something they like. This is a nice go to place.

Now when people ask me about places in Houston to eat, I can tell them, send them this link. Any additional thoughts on this, places I need to try?

Sex in the Harris County Criminal Justice Center?

Steph Stradley — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:36:19 +0000

The Harris County Criminal Justice Center often contains unsual sights.

Brian Rogers, a Houston Chronicle courts/crime reporter, put together a tumblr of face tattoos. Often you can marvel at the informal clothing people choose to wear to their court appearances.

The husband Bill often sends me picture of food (I like food) and strange things he encounters. But the picture below defies explanation.

Without cropping this closer to make it crystal clear what this is in its grotesqueness, the picture below is a used condom that Bill saw near the elevator bank of the court house. Yuck, sorry, but whoa.

How did this get here? Did someone have sex at the court house, and if so where? Did someone have this in their pocket going through security and decide to leave it on the floor instead of the many trashcans and bathrooms in the building?

Some things in life you sort of want to know and not know at the same time, you know? I really can't come up with any rational explanation for this.

That’s a Clown Question Bro: Evil Clown Meme

Steph Stradley — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:29:39 +0000

"That's a clown question bro."

The response the underaged Nationals' baseball player, Bryce Harper gave when asked about what his favorite beer in Canada was.

Every time I hear the word "clown," I think of this odd clown painting I discovered at The Antique Guys in the Montrose area. It was such a disturbing painting that I wanted to buy it and put it in my husband's office as a prank.

Even with the cracked canvas, they wanted over $1000 (!!!!?) for it. Um no.

The reason? Apparently it came from some estate sale from some Houston manse, and he thought it was worth something.

You'd have to pay me over $1000 to put that anywhere in my home.

Disturbing picture in many ways. The dismissive clown is bald. Yet has a bit of a chest. Man? Woman? Something else? This picture haunts my dreams. Now it can haunt yours. Glad I could share.

Media Asking Questions.

I am both a consumer of media, and sometimes I wear a media hat and ask questions of folks. And from the media side, I can tell you it can be a challenge to ask questions that elicit any sort of interesting information. Coach/player speak exists because usually all you as readers get is the answer to the question. They can frame what they want to talk about, not what you wanted to know. So, if any public figure gets a question they don't like, they don't have to answer that question, they can say whatever they want that is a non-controversial thing.

Usually players don't respond, "That's a clown question bro," though I must confess, sometimes some derivative of that is what both media/players likely think when they hear a bizarre question.

My Contribution to the Web.

I enjoy reading the web. I enjoying contributing to its content. Here's today's contribution in a large size for your upload, photoshop pleasure and so you can see it in all of its evil carefully painted details. Font Comic Sans, of course.

If you want to read more about the "Clown Question Bro" phenomenon, I suggest checking out this compliation by Dan Steinberg at the Washington Post's Sports Bog.

A Different Kind of Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog…

Steph Stradley — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:38:15 +0000

Greetings to readers from my old Houston Criminal Law blog location or from other parts of the web. This is the new location of my personal blog where I park non-Texans writings. I will continue and enjoy blogging for the Houston Chronicle online about the Texans, but sometimes I want to write about things that don't fit there.

This blog is hosted at StradleyLaw.com because 1. it allows to write without doing the techical website support stuff that I don't like to do; 2. maybe it means people can find our law firm in the vastness of the web. It's not enough to be good at what you do if people can't find you online.

The folks at Schipul have put this together, and unlike my previous blog that looked similar, this blog is powered by WordPress. For most of you, it doesn't matter what the blog software is, but on my end, it makes it so much easier for me to write than on the old software I was using.

Easy to write hopefully means more writing. Though I do write about lawyer topics, I'm hoping that this is a general interest blog that you feel comfortable visiting because it is interesting, informative and/or entertaining.

On June 1st, my husband Bill and I started our own firm, Stradley Law Firm. In basic terms, he does most of the work, and I help out on an as needed basis. This flexible arrangement allows me to spend more time taking care of our kids. The money our firm makes subsidizes my Texans habit/writing among other things. If someone wanted to pay me substantial money to work for them where I'd still have the flexibility to take care of my kids, I'd be open to listening to such offers, but I wanted a pony as a child too, and didn't get that either.

Previously we were a part of Stradley Chernoff & Alford, and though that firm no longer exists as a group enterprise, we still will be doing work with the lawyers from the old firm and are good friends with them.

Though I won't be doing all the technical stuff, I do have to pay more attention to it than I used to. Since the site is relatively new, if you have any questions or comments about the firm site or the blog site, please let me know in the comments so I can fix those things (or get help to fix those things).

The design of the site is what is called "responsive," that is, it is meant to be easy to read on computer, tablets and mobile devices. I like sites that are helpful, clean, easy to read and navigate, and I want my website to be that way as well.

How to Find a Qualified Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer

admin — Fri, 25 May 2012 19:32:35 +0000

We would like for you to consider Stradley Law for your criminal defense case. Whoever you choose to represent you, here are six important factors to consider in finding a lawyer you can feel confident in representing you:

1. Are they Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization?

2. How many years of experience do they have in Criminal Defense Law?

3. Do they have experience in prosecuting cases?

4. Do you communicate well with your lawyer? Do they give you personal, one-on-one service?

5. Do you feel comfortable with the lawyer being your representative in the courthouse, your face to judges, prosecutors, juries?

6. Are you comfortable with their fee structure?

This is just a brief listing of six factors to look at. If you want to read a more in-depth discussion of this subject, please read, "Hiring a Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer: Six Factors to Consider"

Bill Stradley is a Houston Criminal Defense attorney who is Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Criminal Law. He's practice criminal defense law for over 20 years and would like to help you with your case. Please contact Stradley Law at (713)224-5455.