UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY NOMINEE FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GENERAL (PUBLIC)
1. Name: Abounding name (include any aloft names used).
Harriet Ellan Miers
2. Position: Accompaniment the position for which you accept been nominated.
Accessory Amends of the Supreme Cloister of the United States
3. Address: Account accustomed arrangement address. If accompaniment of abode differs from your abode of employment, amuse account the accompaniment breadth you currently reside.
The White House Washington, D.C. 20502
I currently abide in Virginia, but additionally advance a home in Texas.
4. Birthplace: Accompaniment date and abode of birth.
August 10, 1945 Dallas, Texas
5. Marital Status: (include alpha name of wife, or husband’s name). Account spouse’s occupation, employer’s name and business address(es). Please, additionally announce the cardinal of abased children. Single
6. Education: Account in about-face archival order, with best contempo first, anniversary college, law school, and any added institutions of academy apprenticeship abounding and announce for anniversary the dates of attendance, whether a bulk was received, and the date anniversary bulk was received.
Southern Methodist University Academy of Law, 1967-1970, JD, May 24, 1970 Southern Methodist University, 1963-1967, BS in Mathematics, May 21, 1967
7. Appliance Record: Account in about-face archival order, advertisement best contempo first, all authoritative agencies, business or able corporations, companies, firms, or added enterprises, partnerships, institutions and organizations, non-profit or otherwise, with which you accept been affiliated as an officer, director, partner, proprietor, adopted official or agent aback graduation from college, whether or not you accustomed acquittal for your services. Accommodate the name and abode of the employer and job appellation or job description, or the name and abode of the academy or alignment and your appellation and responsibilities, breadth appropriate.
February 2005-Present: Admonition to the President, The White House, Washington, D.C. 20502.
July 2003-February 2005: Deputy Arch of Agents for Policy, The White House, Washington, D.C. 20502.
January 2001-June 2003: Agents Secretary, The White House, Washington, D.C. 20502.
1972-2001: Managing Accomplice / Partner, Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP (previously President / Shareholder, Locke Purnell Rain Harrell and ahead Shareholder, Locke, Purnell, Boren, Laney & Neely, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200, Dallas, TX 78701.
Spring 1984: Balloon Advancement Instructor, Southern Methodist University Academy of Law, 3300 University Blvd., Carr Collins Building, Room 130, Dallas, TX 75205.
1970-1972: Law Clerk, U.S. Commune Cloister for the Northern Commune of Texas, Adjudicator Joe Estes, 1100 Commerce, Room 1452, Dallas, TX 75242.
May 1969-August 1969: Law Clerk, Belli Ashe Ellison Choulos & Lieff, no best exists, San Francisco, CA.
1964-1969: Computer Centermost Helper, Southern Methodist University, Computer Center, 3300 University Blvd., Carr Collins Building, Room 130, Dallas, TX 75205.
Sometime amid 1963 – 1972: Computer Centermost Helper, Southwestern Medical School, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390.
Added Aloft Business Activities
1998 (approx)-Present: Harriet Miers P.C., 5115 Royal Crest Drive, Dallas, TX 75229.
Mid-1980’s: HM Investments, 5115 Royal Crest Drive, Dallas, TX 75229.
Mid-1980’s: HEM Investments, 5115 Royal Crest Drive, Dallas, TX 75229.
Late 1990s: Member, Lath of Directors, Attorneys’ Accountability Assurance Society, 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5700, Chicago, IL 60606.
January 1993-1997: Member, Lath of Directors, Capstead Mortgage Corporation, One Lincoln Park, 8401 North Central Expressway, Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75225.
Dates not available: Member, Lath of Directors, Comerica Bank (Texas Division), a banking casework company, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
Dates not available: Member, Lath of Directors, Tyler Cabot Mortgage Antithesis Fund. Acquaintance admonition is not available.
Dates not available: Chair, Greater Dallas Chamber Bounded Authoritative Affairs Lath and Controlling Committee, 700 North Pearl Street, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75201.
Aloft Amalgamation Administering
2000: Chair, Women’s Administering Council, United Way, 1800 North Lamar, Dallas, TX 75202.
1998-2001: Member, Lath of Directors, Dallas 2012 Committee. Alignment no best exists.
1999: Vice-Chair, Burghal of Dallas Belief Assay Assignment Force. Acquaintance admonition is not available.
1992-1994; 1997-1999: Member, Lath of Directors, Dallas Citizens Council, 901 Main Street, Suite 6212, Dallas, TX 75202-3753.
June 1989-March 2001: Controlling Committee, Southern Methodist University Academy of Law, 3300 University Boulevard, Carr Collins Building, Room 130, Dallas, TX 75205.
1987: Chair, Advising Committee, Girls, Inc. of Dallas, 2040 Empire Central Drive, Dallas, TX 75235.
1985-2001: Lath of Trustees, Carnality Chair, Controlling Planning Committee, Centermost for American and All-embracing Law (Southwestern Accustomed Foundation) 5201 Democracy Drive, Plano, TX 75024.
1983-Present: Lath of Consultants Associate (1983-1987 Lath of Directors, 1987-1989 Accessory Lath Member, 1993-Present, Lath of Consultants Member), Pioneer Bible Translators, 7500 W. Camp Acumen Road, Dallas, TX 75236.
1974: Lath Member, Dallas Accustomed Services, 1515 Main Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
Dates not available: Lath Member, Adolescent Women’s Christian Association, 1015 18th Street NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C., 20036.
Dates not available: Lath Member, Adolescent Affliction Dallas, 8585 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 500 South, Dallas, TX 75247.
Dates not available: Lath Member, Amalgamation Lath of Greater Dallas, 1349 Empire Central, Suite 400, Dallas, TX 75247.
Dates not available: Lath Member, Goodwill Industries of Dallas, 3020 N. Westmoreland, Dallas, TX 75212.
Dates not available: Lath Member, EXODUS Ministry, Inc., 4630 Munger Avenue, #110, Dallas, TX 75204.
Dates not available: Chair, Academy Apprenticeship Assignment Force, Goals for Dallas. Acquaintance admonition is not available.
Dates not available: Lath Member, Advance Centermost Resource Clearinghouse. Acquaintance admonition is not available.
Dates not available: Dallas Athletic Club, 4111 La Prada, Dallas, TX 75228.
Aloft Government Administering
May 1995-March 2000: Chair, Texas Activity Commission, 611 E. 6th Street, Austin, TX 78701.
February 1993-November 1995: Chair (1994), Authoritative Choice Committee, Burghal of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
June 1989-November 1991: Member-at-Large, Dallas Burghal Council, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
October 1989-November 1991: Ad Hoc Accessible Apartment Committee. Acquaintance admonition is not available.
June 1989-November 1991: Trustee, Dallas Badge and Blaze Alimony Board, 2301 North Akard Street, Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75201.
1989-1991: Director, North Texas Commission, 8445 Freeport Parkway, Irving, TX 75063.
1989-1991: Chair, Railtran Advising Committee. Acquaintance admonition is not available.
Dates unknown: Chair, Lath to Assay Burghal Budget Process, Acquaintance admonition is not available.
I accept fabricated my best efforts to accommodate all organizations of which I was a member. However, I may accept been a associate of added organizations for which I no best accept records.
8. Aggressive Account and Draft Status: Analyze any account in the U.S. Military, including dates of service, annex of service, rank or rate, afterwards cardinal and blazon of acquittal received. Amuse list, by almost date, Selective Account classifications you accept held, and accompaniment briefly the affidavit for any allocation added than I-A.
9. Ceremoniousness and Awards: Account any scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, bookish or able ceremoniousness or awards, honorary amalgamation memberships, aggressive awards, and any added adapted acceptance for outstanding account or accomplishment you accept received.
Honorary Doctorate, Pepperdine University Academy of Law Outstanding Alumni Award, Southern Methodist University Academy of Law Outstanding Alumni Award, Southern Methodist University Woman of the Year, Today’s Dallas Woman Women of Excellence Award, Women’s Enterprise Magazine Louise D. Raggio Award, Dallas Women’s Attorneys Amalgamation Anti-Defamation League, Jurisprudence Accolade 1996 Merrill Hartman Award, Accustomed Casework of North Texas Sarah T. Hughes Award, Women in the Law Section, Accompaniment Bar of Texas 1992 Human Relations Award, American Jewish Lath 1992 Justinian Accolade for Amalgamation Account DAYL Outstanding Adolescent Advocate of Dallas Borough Accolade for Administering and Commitment, Girls Club 2005 Sandra Day O’Connor Award, Texas Centermost for Accustomed Belief and Professionalism Southern Methodist Law School: Comments Editor of the Southwestern Law Journal (now SMU Law Review), Barristers, Moot Cloister Lath Southern Methodist University “M” Award, Mortar Board, Kirkos
10. Bar Associations: Account all bar associations or accustomed or judicial-related committees, accession panels or conferences of which you are or accept been a member, and accord the titles and dates of any offices which you accept captivated in such groups. Also, if any such association, lath or arrangement of which you were or are a associate issued any reports, affairs or activity statements able or produced with your participation, amuse accouter the lath with four (4) copies of these materials, if they are accessible to you. Amuse additionally accommodate four (4) copies of any resolutions on which you voted, the agnate votes and minutes, as able-bodied as any speeches or statements you fabricated with attention to activity decisions or positions taken by the association, lath or arrangement that you alternate in. “Participation” includes, but is not apprenticed to, associates in any alive accumulation of any such association, lath or arrangement which produced a report, advertisement or activity account alike breadth you did not accord to it.
American Bar Amalgamation 1976-Present 1980-1981 Chair, Adolescent Attorneys Division Lath on Antitrust Law 1985-1988 Co-Chair, Business Torts Activity Committee, Breadth of Activity 1987-1990 Member, Bunch on Accustomed Casework to the Accessible 1989-1998 Member, Lath of Editors, ABA Journal (Chair, 1998) 1992-1997 Member, House of Delegates, apery Accompaniment Bar of Texas 1993-1994 Member, House of Delegates, Adapted Lath on Hearings 1993-1995 Member, Continuing Lath on Bar Activities and Casework 1993-1997 ABA Associates Chair for Accompaniment of Texas (Co-Chair, 1997-1999) 1993-1995 Member, Adapted Lath on Governance 1994-1996; Chair, House of Assembly Lath on Rules and Agenda 1999-2000 1995-1996 Member, Continuing Lath on Amalgamation Communications, apery ABA Journal Lath of Editors 1995-1998 Member, Continuing Lath on Acclamation Law 1996-1998 Chair, House of Assembly Lath on Credentials & Admissions 1997-1999 Member, House of Assembly Apery Dallas Bar Amalgamation 1998-1999 Chair, House of Assembly Select Lath 1998-1999 Member, Continuing Lath on Accustomed Aid and Busted Defendants 1999-2001 Member, Lath of the Lath of Governors Fund for Amends & Apprenticeship 1999-2001 Member, House of Assembly as Accompaniment Agent for Texas 1999-2001 Member, Nominating Lath (as a accompaniment delegate) 1999-2000 Member, Continuing Lath on Accustomed Aid and Busted Defendants 2000-2001 Member, Lath of Governors Lath on Assay About the Approaching of the Accustomed Profession, as the adumbrative of the Bureau on Multi-jurisdictional Convenance 2000-2001 Chair, Bureau on Multijurisdictional Convenance 2000-2001 Chair, House of Assembly Lath on Technology and Communications 2002-2003 Federal Government Liaison, Activity Breadth I withdrew from best American Bar Amalgamation activities in 2001 aloft arrangement to the White House. Accompaniment Bar of Texas 1991-1994 President-Elect, President, and Immediate Past President Date unknown: Director, Actuality Accolade Lath Date unknown: Chair, Goals and Accomplishing Lath Date unknown: Carnality Chair, Accompaniment Bar Antitrust Breadth Lath Date unknown: Chair and Carnality Chair, Accustomed Casework to the Poor in Civilian Affairs Date unknown: Member, Administering of Amends Lath Date unknown: Member, Admiral Orientation Lath Date unknown: Member, Accustomed Admonition Advising Lath Date unknown: Member, Accompaniment Bar Activity Breadth Lath Date unknown: Councilmember, Women in the Law Breadth Dallas Bar Amalgamation (joined in 1971) 1984-1987 President-Elect, President, and Immediate Past President Date unknown: Chair of the Lath Date unknown: Carnality Chair of the Lath Date unknown: Carnality President, Activities and Authoritative Date unknown: Secretary Date unknown: Member, Evaluation Committee, Lath for a Able Attorneys Date unknown: Activity Fellow, American Bar Foundation Date unknown: Activity Fellow, Texas Bar Foundation Date unknown: Charter Fellow, Lifetime Member, Dallas Bar Foundation
I accept fabricated my best efforts to accommodate all organizations of which I was a member. However, I may accept been a associate of added organizations for which I no best accept records.
11. Bar and Cloister Admission:
a. Account the date(s) you took the assay and date you anesthetized for all states breadth you sat for a bar examination. Account any accompaniment in which you activated for alternate acceptance afterwards demography the bar assay and the date of such acceptance or abnegation of such admission.
Accompaniment Bar of Texas Assay administered in July 1970. Accustomed to the Accompaniment Bar of Texas on September 18, 1970. Alternate Acceptance to the Commune of Columbia Bar on April 4, 1997.
Beforehand this year, I accustomed apprehension that my ante for the Commune of Columbia Bar were behind and as a aftereffect my adeptness to convenance law in D.C. had been suspended. I anon beatific the ante in to antidote the delinquency. The non-payment was not intentioned, and I adapted the bearings aloft accepting the letter.
b. Account all courts in which you accept been accustomed to practice, including dates of acceptance and any lapses in membership. Amuse explain the acumen for any blooper of membership. Accord the aforementioned admonition for authoritative bodies which crave adapted acceptance to practice.
Supreme Cloister of the United States, April 19, 1982.
United States Cloister of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, October 1, 1981 – January 23, 2003. In January 2003, afterwards the Fifth Ambit instituted new fee rules, I did not re-apply for acceptance because I was not practicing law in the clandestine sector.
United States Commune Cloister for the Eastern Commune of Texas, February 12, 1996. United States Commune Cloister for the Northern Commune of Texas, August 1, 1971. United States Commune Cloister for the Southern Commune of Texas, October 27, 1989. United States Commune Cloister for the Western Commune of Texas, April 6, 1987.
a. Account all professional, business, fraternal, scholarly, civic, charitable, or added organizations, added than those listed in acknowledgment to Questions 10 or 11 to which you belong, or to which you accept belonged, or in which you accept alternate aback graduation from law school. Accommodate dates of associates or participation, and announce any arrangement you held. Accommodate clubs, alive groups, advising or beat boards, panels, committees, conferences, or publications. Amuse alarm briefly the attributes and objectives of anniversary such organization, the attributes of your accord in anniversary such organization, and analyze an ambassador or added actuality from whom added abundant admonition may be obtained.
Aloft Business Activities 1998 (approx.)-Present: Harriet Miers P.C., a amalgamation that is no best alive aural amalgamation at Locke Liddell and Sapp, LLP, 5115 Royal Crest Drive, Dallas, TX 75229.
Late 1990’s: Member, Lath of Directors, Attorneys’ Accountability Assurance Society, a alternate allowance aggregation endemic by the law firms it insures. Contact: Chairman of the Board, Richard Levy, (441) 292-9989.
January 1993-1997: Director, Capstead Mortgage Corporation, a absolute acreage advance company. Contact: Paul Low, Chairman, (214) 874-2323.
Mid-1980’s: HM Investments, amalgamation to ascendancy oil and gas interests, 5115 Royal Crest Drive, Dallas, TX 75229.
Mid-1980’s: HEM Investments, an advance vehicle, 5115 Royal Crest Drive, Dallas, TX 75229. Dates not available: Member, Lath of Directors, Comerica Bank, Texas, Contact: President & CEO, Texas Division, Charles Gummer, (214) 589-1400.
Dates not available: Member, Lath of Directors, Tyler Cabot Mortgage Antithesis Fund, an advance company. Acquaintance admonition is not available.
2000: Chair, Women’s Administering Council, United Way, a altruistic non-profit organization. Contact: Maribess Miller, Chairwoman, (214) 978-0000.
Fall 1998-January 2001: Member, Lath of Directors, Dallas 2012 Committee, a non-profit alignment that represented Dallas in a bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games. Alignment no best exists. Contact: Tom Luce, Aloft Chairman of the Lath (currently with the U.S. Department of Education), (202) 260-7392.
1996-2000: Member, Martindale Hubbell Lexis Nexis Advising Board, a accustomed agenda company. Contact: Ed Biggalow, Human Resources, (800) 526-4902.
1993-2005: Member, Petroleum Club, a amusing and business club. Contact: (214) 871-1500.
1992-1994; 1997-1999: Member, Lath of Directors, Dallas Citizens Council, a accumulation of bounded business leaders. Contact: Elaine Agather, (214) 871-1500.
1987: Member, Progressive Voters League, a bounded political organization. Alignment no best exists.
1987: Chair, Advising Committee, Girls, Inc. of Dallas, a borough non-profit adolescence organization. Contact: Cecilia Boone, Dallas Chair, (214) 654-4530.
1987: Mayor’s Assignment Force on Crime, an alignment that fabricated recommendations to burghal administering on badge reforms. Contact: (214) 670-4054.
1985-2001: Lath of Trustees, Carnality Chair, Controlling Planning Committee, Centermost for American and All-embracing Law (formerly accustomed as the Southwestern Accustomed Foundation), an all-embracing nonprofit educational institution. Contact: Mark Smith, (972) 244-3400.
1983-Present: Lath of Consultants Associate (1983-1987 Lath of Directors, 1987-1989 Accessory Lath Member, 1993-Present, Lath of Consultants Member), an alignment that works to construe the Bible into languages into which it has not yet been translated. Contact: Randal Smith, (972) 708-7460. 1974: Lath Member, Dallas Accustomed Services, an alignment that provides accustomed representation to the poor. Contact: Herese Cook, (214) 748-1234.
Dates not available: Lath Member, Adolescent Women’s Christian Association, a women’s accumulation that provides casework to the amalgamation such as calm abandon blockage programs. Acquaintance admonition is not available.
Dates not available: Lath Member, Adolescent Affliction Dallas, a state-funded, partially subsidized adolescent affliction program. Contact: Susan Hoff, President, (214) 630-7911.
Dates not available: Chair, Greater Dallas Chamber Bounded Authoritative Affairs Lath and Controlling Committee, an amalgamation of bounded businesses with an absorption in accessible policy. Contact: Jo Trizila, Ambassador of Media Relations, (214) 746-6600.
Dates not available: Lath Member, Amalgamation Lath of Greater Dallas, a nonprofit organization. Contact: Martha Blaine, Controlling Director, (214) 871-5065.
Dates not available: Lath Member, Goodwill Industries of Dallas, a non-profit alignment that provides job training and appliance casework to bodies with barriers to employment. Contact: Rod Ginther, (214) 638-2800.
Dates not available: Lath Member, EXODUS Ministry, Inc., a Christian alignment that assists ex-offenders and families. Contact: Glenn Able, (214) 827-3772.
Dates not available: Chair, Academy Apprenticeship Assignment Force, Goals for Dallas, a bounded alignment focused on apprenticeship reform. Acquaintance admonition is not available. Contact: John Lewis, Aloft Controlling Director, (214) 841-9501.
Dates not available: Lath Member, Advance Centermost Resource Clearinghouse, a bounded advance befalling center. Contact: (214) 370-4100.
June 1989-March 2001: Southern Methodist University Academy of Law, Controlling Committee, a accumulation that meets alert a year to altercate all aspects of the law school, including admissions and finances. Contact: Dean John Attanasio, (214) 768-2621.
Dates not available: Member, Charter 100, an alignment of Dallas business women and borough leaders. Acquaintance admonition not available.
Dates not available: Member, Advising Committee, Dallas Absolute Academy District’s Allurement Academy of Government and Law, a accessible allurement school. Contact: Robert Geisler, (972) 925-5950.
Dates not available: Member, Commons on Wheels Assignment Force, a non-profit alignment that provides commons for the elderly. Acquaintance admonition is not available.
Dates not available: Member, Dallas Women’s Foundation, Contact: Julie Bleicher, President, (214) 965-9977.
Dates not available: Member, Advising Committee, Women’s Centermost of Dallas, a bounded non-profit amalgamation committed to adequate women. Acquaintance admonition not available.
Dates not available: Dallas Forum. Acquaintance admonition not available.
Dates not available: Dallas Athletic Club, 4111 La Prada, Dallas, TX 75228, Contact: (972) 279-6517.
Aloft Government Administering
1999: Vice-Chair, Burghal of Dallas Belief Assay Assignment Force, appointed by a burghal lath associate to assay the city’s belief guidelines. Acquaintance admonition not available.
May 1995-March 2000: Chair, Texas Activity Commission, a bureau amenable for the administering and auction of activity products. Contact: Gary Grief, Acting Director, (512) 344-5160.
February 1993-November 1995: Chair (1994), Authoritative Choice Committee, a Dallas Burghal Lath bureau that makes recommendations for borough adjudicator nominations. Contact: Marshall J. Doke, Jr., Chair, (214) 999-4733.
June 1989-November 1991: Trustee, Dallas Badge and Blaze Alimony Board, amenable for the administering of the badge and blaze alimony system. Contact: Lt. Gerald Brown, (214) 638-3863.
December 1991-end date unavailable: Burghal Advocate Search Committee, the Lath was formed by Dallas Burghal Lath to accessory for the best able candidates to serve as advocate for burghal of Dallas. Acquaintance Adjudicator Sam Lindsey, (214) 753-2365.
October 1989-November 1991: Ad Hoc Accessible Apartment Lath (appointed by the Mayor). Acquaintance admonition is not available.
June 1989-November 1991: Member-At-Large, Dallas Burghal Council, an adopted aldermanic anatomy that works with the Mayor in account to the Burghal of Dallas. Contact: (214) 670-4054.
August 1987-August 1988: Amalgamation Development Advising Lath (appointed by the Mayor). Acquaintance admonition is not available.
1989-1991: Chair, Railtran Advising Committee, bounded busline advising committee. Acquaintance admonition is not available.
Dates not available: Director, North Texas Commission, a bounded non-profit bread-and-er development consortium. Contact: Dan S. Petty, President & CEO, (972) 621-0400.
Dates unknown: Chair, Lath to Assay Burghal Budget Process. Acquaintance admonition is not available.
I accept fabricated my best efforts to accommodate all organizations of which I was a member. However, I may accept been a associate of added organizations for which I no best accept records. In any instance in which I accept not provided dates, my annal do not announce that information, and I accept been clumsy to verify the dates of associates or service.
b. If any of these organizations of which you were or are a associate or in which you alternate issued any reports, affairs or activity statements able or produced with your participation, amuse accouter the lath with four (4) copies of these materials, if they are accessible to you. Amuse additionally accommodate four (4) copies of any resolutions on which you voted, the agnate votes and minutes, as able-bodied as any speeches or statements you fabricated with attention to activity decisions or positions taken by the association, lath or arrangement that you alternate in. “Participation” includes, but is not apprenticed to, associates in any alive accumulation of any such association, lath or arrangement which produced a report, advertisement or activity account alike breadth you did not accord to it. If any of these abstracts are not accessible to you, amuse accord the name and abode of the alignment that issued the report, affairs or activity statement, the date of the document, and a arbitrary of its answerable matter.
I accept not maintained claimed annal for the all-inclusive majority of organizations with which I accept been affiliated. Breadth I accept been able to dedicated annal acknowledging to this request, they are attached.
c. Amuse announce whether any of these organizations currently discriminate or aforetime discriminated on the base of race, , or adoration – either through bookish associates requirements or the activated accomplishing of associates policies. If so, alarm any activity you accept taken to change these behavior and practices.
To my knowledge, none of these organizations had associates requirements or behavior that were abominable during or above-mentioned to my membership.
13. Appear Writings, Affidavit and Speeches:
a. Account the titles, publishers, and dates of books, articles, reports, belletrist to the editor, beat pieces, or added absolute you accept accounting or edited, including absolute appear abandoned on the Internet. Amuse accumulation four (4) copies of all appear absolute to the Committee. “Recommended Reading: Issues for the Multijurisdictional Advocate breadth pro hacvice Acceptance Does Not Apply,” Arkansas L. Addendum 131, 2001. “When Two Become One: Steps to a Successful Close Merger,” Texas Law 67, June 26, 2000. “ABA Study of Multistate Convenance on Fast Track,” 36 Tennessee Bar Journal 6, 2000. “Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice,” 11 Able Advocate 20, 2000. Continuing Accustomed Apprenticeship Materials: “Texas Activity Allowance Update,” ALI/ABA Arrangement on Activity Allowance Litigation, Advance Cardinal SD65, 1999. (Available on Lexis, but no Lexis commendation or certificate number). “Science, Business, or Art? (President’s Opinion),” 56 Texas Bar Journal 446, 1993. “As if the Funds were our Own… (President’s Opinion),” 56 Texas Bar Journal 330, 1993. “What We Accept Actuality Is a Failure to Communicate,” 56 Texas Bar Journal 210, 1993. “Our Cardinal One Antecedence (President’s Opinion),” 56 Texas Bar Journal 106, 1993. “Focusing on the Positive (President’s Opinion),” 56 Texas Bar Journal 6, 1993. “Don’t Blame the Accustomed Arrangement for Fort Account Rampage,” Texas Law 10, July 27, 1992. “Time to Anticipate (President’s Opinion),” 55 Texas Bar Journal 1112, 1992. “Parts of the Accomplished Alive Calm (President’s Opinion),” 55 Texas Bar Journal 1012, 1992. “Inclusion, Apprenticeship and Mentoring (President’s Opinion),” 55 Texas Bar Journal 910, 1992. “Justice for All – All for Amends (President’s Opinion),” 55 Texas Bar Journal 780, 1992. “The Absolute Issue… (mandatory pro bono) (President’s Opinion),” 55 Texas Bar Journal 664, 1992. “Legacies of a Advocate (President’s Opinion),” 55 Texas Bar Journal 548, 1992. “Not Aloof An Ordinary Saturday,” Dallas Morning News at 33A, May 1, 1986. “Farewell (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, Dec. 16, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, Nov. 25, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, Nov. 11, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, Oct. 28, 1985. “The Dallas Bar is Committed to Acknowledging the Accessible Defenders Affairs (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, Oct. 21, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, Oct. 14, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, Sept. 29, 1985. “Pro Bono the Arts (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, Sept. 16, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, Sept. 9, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, Aug. 27, 1985. “Belo II Update (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, Aug. 19, 1985. “The Choice to Serve (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, July 15, 1985. “Courthouse Update,” President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, July 8, 1985. “A Activity of Service: A Legacy of Affair (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, June 17, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, June 10, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, June 3, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, May 27, 1985. “Professionalism Includes a Sense of Albatross to the Accustomed Arrangement and the Amalgamation in which We Live (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, May 20, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, May 13, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, May 6, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, April 29, 1985. “Open Letter to Commune Advocate Henry Wade,” (President’s Report), Dallas Bar Headnotes, April 22, 1985. “The Dallas Bar Will Remain Committed to Fulfilling its Responsibilities as Stewards of the Amends System” (President’s Report), Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, April 15, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, April 8, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, April 1, 1985. “Bond Acclamation Update (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes, March 25, 1985. “Big D is for DAYL (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, March 18, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, March 11, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, Feb. 25, 1985 “One of the Best Cogent Contributions to the Dallas Amalgamation by the Dallas Bar (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, Feb. 18, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, Feb. 11, 1985 President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, Feb. 4, 1985 President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, January 28, 1985 “A Decade Afterwards (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, January 21, 1985. President’s Report, Dallas Bar Headnotes, January 14, 1985. “Lawyers Help Feature Dallas (President’s Report),” Dallas Bar Headnotes 4, Aug. 20, 1984. “Note, Mental Suffering – Texas Stands Close – No ‘New’ Tort,” 22 Southwestern Law Journal 669, 1968. “Dallas Bar Loses Past President and A Abundant Friend,” Dallas Bar Headnotes, Undated. b. Amuse accumulation four (4) copies of any testimony, official statements or added communicß¾8èêà[email protected]ðÊàc@Êà[email protected]ðÊàc@Êàations relating, in accomplished or in part, to affairs of accessible policy, that you accept issued or provided or that others presented on your account to accessible bodies or accessible officials. Annal apropos to my account on the Texas Activity Bureau and the Dallas Burghal Lath accept been provided to the Committee. These annal accommodate abstracts that are responsive. I accept att
c. Amuse account all speeches, talks, or presentations by you which chronicle in accomplished or in allotment to issues of law or accessible policy. For anniversary one, amuse accord the name and abode of the accumulation afore which the accent was given, the date of the speech, and a arbitrary of its answerable matter. For anniversary of these, amuse accumulation four (4) copies of your able animadversion or any outline or addendum from which you spoke. If a recording or archetype is available, amuse accumulation four (4) copies of those as well. If columnist belletrist about the speech, talk, or presentation are accessible to you, amuse accumulation them. 14. Accessible Office, Political Activities and Affiliations:
a. Account chronologically any accessible offices you accept held, added than authoritative offices, including the acceding of account and whether such positions were adopted or appointed. If appointed, amuse accommodate the name of the abandoned who appointed you. Also, accompaniment chronologically any bootless candidacies you accept had for constituent arrangement or bootless nominations for appointed office.
Dates unknown: Chair, Lath to Assay Burghal Budget Process. Added admonition is not available.
1970-1972: Law Agent to Adjudicator Joe Estes, U.S. Commune Cloister for the Northern Commune of Texas. Appointed by Adjudicator Joe Estes.
August 1987-August 1988: Associate of the Amalgamation Development Advising Committee. Appointed by Dallas Mayor Annette Strauss.
1987: Mayor’s Assignment Force on Crime. Appointed by Dallas Mayor Annette Strauss.
1989-1991: Chair, Railtran Advising Committee.
June 1989-November 1991: Trustee, Dallas Badge and Blaze Alimony Board.
June 1989-November 1991: Member-at-Large of the Dallas Burghal Council. Elected.
October 1989-November 1991: Associate of Ad Hoc Accessible Apartment Committee. Appointed by Dallas Mayor Annette Strauss.
February 1993-November 1995: Chair (1994), Authoritative Choice Committee, Burghal of Dallas.
May 1995-March 2000: Chair, Texas Activity Commission. Appointed by then-Governor George W. Bush.
1999: Vice-Chair, Burghal of Dallas Belief Assay Assignment Force, appointed by Burghal Councilmember Mary Poss to assay the city’s belief guidelines.
January 2001-June 2003: Agents Secretary, The White House. Appointed by President George W. Bush.
July 2003-February 2005: Deputy Arch of Agents for Policy, The White House. Appointed by President George W. Bush.
February 2005-Present: Admonition to the President, The White House. Appointed by President George W. Bush.
b. If, in amalgamation with any accessible arrangement you accept held, there were any reports, memoranda, or activity statements able or produced with your participation, amuse accumulation four (4) copies of these materials. Amuse additionally accommodate four (4) copies of any resolutions, motions, legislation, nominations, or added affairs on which you voted as an adopted official, the agnate votes and minutes, as able-bodied as any speeches or statements you fabricated with attention to activity decisions or positions taken. “Participation” includes, but is not apprenticed to, associates in any subcommittee, alive accumulation or added such group, which produced a report, advertisement or activity account alike breadth you did not accord to it. If any of these abstracts are not accessible to you, amuse accord the name of the document, the date of the document, a arbitrary of its answerable matter, and breadth it can be found.
The Lath has been provided with accessible annal from my administration on the Dallas Burghal Lath and the Texas Activity Commission.
c. Account all memberships and offices captivated in and casework rendered, whether compensated or not, to any political party, acclamation committee, or alteration team.
Amuse accumulation four (4) copies of any affairs allegory issues of law or accessible activity that you wrote on account of or in amalgamation with a presidential alteration team.
Treasurer, 1994 Nathan Hecht Authoritative Campaign
Accustomed Counsel, George W. Bush Lath
Accustomed Counsel, 1994 Alteration for Governor George W. Bush
Accustomed Counsel, 1994 Inaugural of Governor George W. Bush
Chair, Attorneys for Bush 2000
Presidential Transition, 2000-2001, Formed with the Alteration Aggregation apropos the Department of Justice.
I additionally provided accustomed casework to the Presidential Acclamation Lath in 2000.
While in clandestine practice, I provided breezy admonition and admonition in amalgamation with accompaniment authoritative campaigns in Texas.
This admonition is as complete as I can accommodate at this time.
d. If in amalgamation with any accessible office, you accept anytime filed a banking acknowledgment anatomy or belief anatomy or any agnate form, amuse accumulation four (4) copies of anniversary one. See absorbed banking acknowledgment forms.
15. Accustomed Career: Amuse acknowledgment anniversary allotment separately.
a. Alarm chronologically your law convenance and accustomed acquaintance afterwards graduation from law academy including:
i. whether you served as agent to a judge, and if so, the name of the judge, the cloister and the dates of the aeon you were a clerk;
I served as a law agent to Arch Adjudicator Joe Estes of the U.S. Commune Cloister for the Northern Commune of Texas from 1970-1972.
ii. whether you accomplished alone, and if so, the addresses and dates;
iii. the dates, names and addresses of law firms or offices, companies or authoritative agencies with which you accept been affiliated, and the attributes of your amalgamation with each. Accessory (1972-1978), afresh Shareholder (1978-1998), and afresh Accomplice (1998-January 2001) of the aforementioned close for 28 years: Locke, Purnell, Boren, Laney & Neely, afterwards alliance Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, afterwards alliance Locke Liddell & Sapp
Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP 2200 Ross Avenue Suite 2200 Dallas, Texas 75201-6776
Agents Secretary (January 2001 – June 2003), afresh Deputy Arch of Agents for Activity (June 2003 – February 2005), and afresh Admonition to the President (February 2005 – Present) The White House Washington, D.C. 20502
b. Describe: i. the accustomed appearance of your law convenance and announce by date aback its appearance has afflicted over the years.
My law convenance has included both accessible and clandestine service.
First, in accessible service, I accept served aback 2001 in assorted White House positions, best afresh as Admonition to the President. The Admonition to the President is the arch accustomed adviser to the President and the White House. I, and my office, accommodate admonition on a ample ambit of affairs implicating constitutional, approved and authoritative law, including the amends of proposed regulations and statutes, built-in prerogatives of the controlling branch, accustomed policy, all-embracing law and accord obligations, ethics, borough security, controlling appointments, and authoritative nominations. I additionally served as Deputy Arch of Agents for Activity and Agents Secretary to the President. In these positions, I provided and managed recommendations and admonition on accessible activity and accustomed issues to the President and added White House officials.
Additionally in accessible service, I accept served as an adopted associate of the Dallas Burghal Lath (1989-1991) and as the Chair of the Texas Accompaniment Activity Bureau (1995-2000). Although I did not serve carefully as a lawyer, in both of these positions I drew heavily on my accustomed accomplishments and contributed to the administering laws of Dallas and the Accompaniment of Texas respectively.
In clandestine practice, from 1972 until 2001, I was an accessory and afresh a accomplice with Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, and its antecedent firms. My convenance is best declared as a accustomed activity and counseling practice. In my years in clandestine convenance I provided a ample ambit of accumulated and abandoned audience with counseling, transactional assistance, and activity services.
I began my career as an accessory in the accumulated breadth of the firm, but anon confused to bartering litigation. Over the years, I accept handled activity affairs including antitrust, chic action, contracts, family, Aboriginal Amendment, immigration, bookish property, accessories liability, absolute estate, mortgage lending, and antithesis law. My audience accept ranged from multi-billion dollar all-embracing corporations to individuals. Abounding of my clients, both individuals and corporations, adapted a ambit of services, including litigation, transactional issues, and accustomed accustomed counseling.
I accept litigated affairs in the Texas accompaniment courts and in the Federal courts, predominantly those in Texas and the United States Cloister of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. My appearances in cloister included arguing motions, administering abounding evidentiary hearings and trials, and conference and arguing appeals. Accustomed the attributes of a avant-garde accumulated activity practice, however, abounding cases were apprenticed afterwards absolute activity or afterwards a trial, and accordingly are not reported.
I accept acerb in attorneys volunteering their time and giving aback to their communities. While in clandestine practice, I fabricated the time to accommodate accustomed casework pro bono, including assignment of a non-trial nature, such as contracts, ancestors law, and wills. I pursued two such cases, one on account of a prisoner, and the added on account of a amusing aegis claimant, all the way to the Supreme Cloister of the United States, which denied certiorari. In accession to my practice, throughout my career, I accept served in abundant administering capacities in the Dallas Bar Association, Accompaniment Bar of Texas, and the American Bar Association. In these positions I formed to advance the convenance of law and the accustomed arrangement generally.
Anon afterwards law school, from 1970 to 1972, I was a law agent to Adjudicator Joe Estes, U.S. Commune Cloister for the Northern Commune of Texas. I conducted assay and brash Adjudicator Estes on the assorted issues that appear afore the Federal commune courts, both bent and civil.
ii. your archetypal aloft audience and the areas, if any, in which you accept specialized. I accept represented a ample ambit of clients, including individuals, partnerships, baby and ample corporations, and accompaniment and bounded government entities. For example, my audience included: Microsoft Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc., SunGard Abstracts Systems, Inc., Schering Plough Corporation, C. R. Bard, Inc., Lomas Banking Amalgamation and individuals accompanying to the corporation, Texas Automobile Dealers Association, Aegis Activity of Denver, Chase Manhattan Bank, Accustomed Cable Corporation, Barrick Gold, Artery Insurance, the Dallas Cloister of Appeals, Computer*Thought Corporation, Estronics, Inc., Federal Borough Mortgage Corporation, PNC Mortgage Corporation, Sears Mortgage Corporation, Polk & Patton Energy, Teachers Allowance & Annuity Association, A. H. Belo Corporation, Shintech Incorporated, Trinity Industries, TXI Industries, and Smith County, Texas.
c. Alarm whether you appeared in cloister frequently, occasionally, or not at all. If the abundance of your appearances in cloister varied, alarm such variance, accouterment dates. I maintained an alive activity convenance throughout my career in the clandestine sector. During some periods, appearances in cloister would be frequent, and in some periods, appearances in cloister would be occasional, depending on the attributes of the affairs at hand. i. Announce the allotment of these appearances in:
1. Federal courts; 2. accompaniment courts of record; 3. added courts.
While it is difficult to almost these percentages, I had cases in both the Federal courts and Accompaniment courts. My assignment was not balloon accelerated due to its nature, but I approved cases and argued appeals in both Federal and Accompaniment courts.
ii. Announce the allotment of these appearances in: 1. civilian proceedings; 2. bent proceedings. Almost all civil.
d. Accompaniment the cardinal of cases in courts of almanac you approved to adjudication or acumen (rather than settled), advertence whether you were sole counsel, arch counsel, or accessory counsel. For any appellate cases, accompaniment whether you fabricated articulate arguments, and accumulation four (4) copies of any briefs that were filed for those cases.
i. What allotment of these trials were: 1. jury; 2. non-jury.
While it is difficult to almost these percentages, I accept articular eight cases that were approved to verdict. I was advance admonition or sole admonition in four, advance bounded admonition in one, and accessory admonition in three.
I anamnesis arguing the afterward appellate cases: Jones v. Bush, 244 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1062 (2001); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Esprit Finance, Inc., 981 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, 1998); Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995); Thanksgiving Tower Partners, et al. v. Anros Thanksgiving Partners, 64 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 1995); Perry v. Stewart Appellation Co., 756 F.2d 1197 (5th Cir. 1985); In re Grand Lath Proceedings, Misc. No. 1331, 712 F.2d 973 (5th Cir. 1983); Southwest Securities, Inc. v. Sungard Abstracts Systems, Inc., 2000 WL 1196338 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000). I may accept argued at the appellate akin in added cases that I cannot anamnesis and for which I accept no records.
e. Alarm your practice, if any, afore the Supreme Cloister of the United States. Amuse accumulation four (4) copies of any briefs, amicus or otherwise, and, if applicable, any articulate altercation transcripts afore the Supreme Cloister in amalgamation with your practice. Accord a abundant arbitrary of the actuality of anniversary case, analogue briefly the absolute and accustomed issues involved, the affair or parties whom you represented, alarm in detail the attributes of your accord in the activity and the final disposition of the case, and accommodate the abandoned name, addresses, and blast numbers of co-counsel and of arch admonition for anniversary of the added parties.
I represented audience in three cases in which certiorari to the Supreme Cloister of the United States was sought.
1. Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 (N. D. Tex. 2000), abatement denied, 244 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 2000) (unpublished), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1062 (2001).
I served as advance admonition for then-Governor George W. Bush in this case involving the 2000 presidential election. The activity afraid a article of the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution that provides: “The Electors shall accommodated in their corresponding states and vote by election for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an aborigine of the aforementioned accompaniment with themselves.” U.S. Const. amend. XII. This article confined a associate of the Balloter Academy from voting for citizenry of the aforementioned accompaniment as him or herself for both President and Vice-President. Texas voters brought clothing in the United States Commune Cloister for the Northern Commune of Texas, arguing that George Bush and Richard Cheney were both citizenry of Texas, which barred Texas Electors from voting for both candidates. The plaintiffs approved a basal admonition to anticipate the Texas Electors from casting their votes for both then-Governor Bush and Mr. Cheney.
The case angry primarily on two accustomed issues: first, whether the plaintiffs had continuing beneath Article III of the Constitution to accompany their action, and second, whether Mr. Cheney was an aborigine of Texas or Wyoming. As admonition for then-Governor Bush, I dedicated the activity on his account in the commune court, filing, forth with admonition for Mr. Cheney, a Motion to Aish and a Abrupt and Appendix in Activity to the Appliance for Basal Injunction. In these filings, I argued on account of then-Governor Bush that the plaintiffs lacked built-in continuing to sue beneath the accordant article of the Twelfth Amendment, and in the accession that Mr. Cheney was an aborigine of Wyoming rather than Texas aural the acceptation of the Twelfth Amendment. The commune cloister accustomed the motion to aish on the base that the plaintiffs lacked standing; it additionally denied the plaintiffs’ appliance for a basal injunction, captivation that the plaintiffs had bootless to appearance a abundant likelihood of success on their altercation that Mr. Cheney was an aborigine of Texas. Jones, 122 F. Supp. 2d at 715.
The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Cloister of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I, calm with admonition for Mr. Cheney, filed the abrupt on account of appellees. The abrupt dedicated the commune court’s backing apropos continuing and Mr. Cheney’s inhabitance. The day afterwards the abrupt was filed, and the aforementioned day as the articulate argument, the Fifth Ambit denied the appellants all requested relief. See 244 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 2000) (unpublished). Aback appellants petitioned the Supreme Cloister to assay the case, respondents waived acknowledgment to the petition, which abode the Cloister denied. See 531 U.S. 1062 (2001).
Counsel: For Governor George W. Bush: Jerry K. Clements Roger B. Cowie Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 (214) 740-8000
E. Lee Parsley E. Lee Parsley, P.C. 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 240 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 481-8800
For Richard B. Cheney: Robin P. Hartmann Stacy L. Brainin Haynes & Boone LLP 901 Main Street Suite 3100 Dallas, TX 75202-3789 (214) 651-5000
For Elton Bomer, Texas Secretary of State: Stacy L. Brainin Haynes & Boone LLP 901 Main Street Suite 3100 Dallas, TX 75202-3789 (214) 651-5000
For the Texas Electors: Hon. John Cornyn (Former Advocate General, Accompaniment of Texas) 517 Hart Senate Arrangement Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-2934
Andy Taylor Andy Taylor & Associates, P.C. 405 Main Street, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 222-1817
Brent A. Benoit Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP 3400 JP Morgan Chase Tower 600 Travis Street Houston, TX 77002 (713) 226-1570
For the Texas Registered Voters: Charles W. McGarry The Law Arrangement of Charles McGarry 701 Business Street, Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 748-0800
James A. Jones Accustomed abode alien Prof. Sanford V. Levinson The University of Texas Academy of Law 727 E. Dean Keeton Street Austin, TX 78705 (512) 232-1351
William K. Berenson Law Offices of William K. Berenson Suite 900 River Plaza Tower 1701 River Run Fort Worth, Texas 76107 (817) 885-8000 2. Popeko v. United States, 513 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 917 (1975)
I served as the court-appointed advocate for Alex A. Popeko in the abode of his habeas claim. Mr. Popeko was bedevilled in 1960 on two counts of causing to be transported in artery business falsely made, artificial and apish securities, in corruption of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and one adding of cabal to accomplish the closing offense, in corruption of 18 U.S.C. § 371. He was bedevilled to two afterwards 10-year acceding of imprisonment, one per absolute count, and to a 5-year appellation of imprisonment on the cabal count, circumstantial with the book on the added absolute count. On absolute appeal, the Fifth Ambit affirmed. Popeko v. United States, 294 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1961). In 1962, Mr. Popeko filed a motion for alteration of an actionable book beneath Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. The commune cloister denied the motion, and the Fifth Ambit afresh affirmed in a abrupt opinion. Popeko v. United States, 309 F.2d 752 (5th Cir. 1962) (per curiam).
Over a decade later, in 1973, Mr. Popeko filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or absolute book pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He arguable that, although the two artificial the checks in catechism were abandoned cashed at altered banks in San Antonio, the artery busline of the checks did not activity until the San Antonio Annex of the Federal Reserve Bank forwarded them in the aforementioned envelope above accompaniment curve to the Detroit Annex of the Federal Reserve Bank. Consequently, he argued, he had committed abandoned one abomination acknowledgment abandoned one 10-year sentence. The commune cloister alone this argument, captivation that, because Mr. Popeko had adjourned the checks separately, he had committed two crimes acknowledgment two aesthetics and 10-year sentences, alike admitting the checks were afterwards transported calm in the aforementioned envelope.
I represented Mr. Popeko in the Fifth Ambit on abode of the abnegation of his § 2255 motion. The Fifth Ambit affirmed. 513 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1975). It captivated that it had already alone Mr. Popeko’s “single offense” altercation in its 1962 accommodation apropos his Aphorism 35 motion; although the 1962 accommodation had not absolutely addressed the argument, it had necessarily alone the contention, and the cloister was apprenticed by that antecedent decision. Id. at 773. The cloister afresh acclaimed that its position on the “single offense” affair accorded with that of the Eighth Ambit in Amer v. United States, 367 F.2d 803 (8th Cir. 1966), but was at allowance with that of the Ninth Ambit in Gilinsky v. United States, 368 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1966).
I afresh represented Mr. Popeko in his abode to the Supreme Cloister for a command of certiorari. In that petition, I argued on account of Mr. Popeko that the Supreme Cloister should assay the case to dness the aperture amid the Federal appellate courts that the Fifth Ambit had noted. Such accommodation are one of the primary affidavit why the Supreme Cloister agrees to assay accurate cases. See Supreme Cloister Aphorism 10(a) (a appliance for acceding assay is that “a United States cloister of appeals has entered a accommodation in battle with the accommodation of accession United States cloister of appeals on the aforementioned important matter”). The abode additionally apprenticed that the Fifth Circuit’s captivation on the “single offense” affair conflicted with Supreme Cloister precedents.
The United States filed a advertisement in opposition, arguing principally that the Fifth Ambit was absolute to abatement to amend Mr. Popeko’s claim, accustomed that it had ahead absitively the affirmation adjoin him in the Aphorism 35 appeal. Mem. for the United States in Opp. 2-3. The United States accustomed the ambit aperture (and, in fact, acquainted that the Seventh Ambit had aing the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, see United States v. Dilts, 501 F.2d 531 (7th Cir. 1974)), but argued, amid added things, that “[i]t is not assertive that, in appearance of the decisions in three added circuits to the contrary, the Ninth Ambit now would attach to its cardinal in Gilinsky.” Id. at 3 n.2.
The Supreme Cloister denied the abode for certiorari. 423 U.S. 917 (1975).
For the United States: Jeremiah Handy (deceased) Aloft Abettor U.S. Advocate Hon. Robert H. Bork (at certiorari stage, as Solicitor General) American Enterprise Institute 1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
3. Ware v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 912 (1982)
I represented Caroline Ware, an busted mother with a ninth brand apprenticeship who had formed as a nurse’s abettor to abutment six children, in this activity apropos Amusing Aegis affliction allowances and Amusing Aegis added income.
Ms. Ware activated for allowances afterwards the abetment of an attorney. Her affirmation was initially denied; she afresh requested a hearing. At the audition afore an authoritative law adjudicator (ALJ), Ms. Ware proceeded afterwards an attorney. The ALJ denied all benefits, absolute that the medical affirmation did not announce that Ms. Ware had an crime astringent abundant to avert her from her accustomed assignment activity. That accommodation became the final accommodation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Richard S. Schweiker.
At the appellate stage, I represented Ms. Ware pro bono on a barometer from the Dallas Accustomed Casework Corporation. Afterwards the commune court, accepting the advancement of a cloister judge, alone Ms. Ware’s abode for assay of the ALJ’s decision, I filed an abode to the Fifth Ambit on Ms. Ware’s behalf, arguing that the ALJ break bootless to accede Ms. Ware’s abstract complaints of affliction as adapted by case law, that Ms. Ware was biased by her beforehand abridgement of counsel, that the ALJ bootless to acquaint Ms. Ware that she bore the accountability of affidavit and to explain to her the bulk of counsel, and that the ALJ bootless to advance absolutely all accordant facts, a botheration worsened by the absence of counsel. The Fifth Ambit affirmed. 651 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1981). It captivated that the ALJ had absolutely erred in declining to accede Ms. Ware’s abstract complaints of pain, but that, on the almanac as a whole, “no added allegation could be fabricated that would adapt the ALJ’s determination.” Id. at 412. It added captivated that the antecedent absence of admonition did not ageism Ms. Ware, id. at 413, and that there was no acumen to anticipate that the development of added affirmation would accept helped Ms. Ware, id. at 414. Ms. Ware petitioned for rehearing, which the Fifth Ambit denied.
With the abetment of co-counsel, I represented Ms. Ware afore the Supreme Cloister in her abode for certiorari. The abode afresh arguable that the ALJ bootless to accede Ms. Ware’s abstract complaints of pain, and that the ALJ bootless to admonish Ms. Ware apropos her accountability of affidavit and the bulk of counsel; consequently, the abode argued, the case should be adjourned to the ALJ. The government waived its adapted to respond, and the Cloister denied the petition, 455 U.S. 912 (1982).
Counsel: Co-counsel for Ms. Ware: Hon. Elizabeth Lang-Miers Amends 5th Commune Cloister of Appeals 600 Business Street, Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 712-3400
For Schweiker: Martha Joe Stroud Accustomed abode unknown. Rex E. Lee (at certiorari stage, as Solicitor General) (deceased)
16. Litigation: Alarm the ten best cogent litigated affairs which you alone handled. Accord the citations, if the cases were reported, and the agenda cardinal and date if unreported. Accord a abridged arbitrary of the actuality of anniversary case. Analyze the affair or parties whom you represented; alarm in detail the attributes of your accord in the activity and the final disposition of the case. Additionally accompaniment as to anniversary case:
a. the date of representation; b. the name of the cloister and the name of the adjudicator or lath afore whom the case was litigated; and c. the abandoned name, addresses, and blast numbers of co-counsel and of arch admonition for anniversary of the added parties.
If any of these cases has already been declared in 15(D) above, it charge not be afresh here. In addition, account all litigated affairs in which you were involved, if not covered in 15(D) aloft or in the aboriginal allotment of this question.
1. Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. App.Texarkana 1995, pet. dism’d). I served as advance bounded admonition for Microsoft and was the arch applicant contact. This case was an abode from a state-court cardinal that had accustomed the plaintiffs’ motion for chic certification. The accustomed chic of software purchasers sued Microsoft alleging aperture of accurate warranty, aperture of adumbrated warranty, biased enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty–Federal Barter Bureau Improvement Act, and Washington Consumer Aegis Act. The case angry on the coaction amid accompaniment and Federal chic activity laws, and additionally aloft Federal built-in issues involving the able appliance of the Due Activity Article and the Abounding Acceptance and Acclaim Clause. Added issues included the abstract attributes of the amercement breadth no absolute accident of abstracts was apparent and whether or not reliance-based causes of activity could be certified as a chic activity in ablaze of the aggregation of abandoned actuality issues arising from anniversary chic member’s circumstances. Microsoft arguable that the balloon court’s chic acceptance abandoned Microsoft’s due activity rights beneath the accompaniment and Federal constitutions and the Abounding Acceptance and Acclaim Article of the United States Constitution. Specifically, Microsoft argued that the balloon cloister abandoned the Constitution by applying Texas law to plaintiffs alfresco Texas whose own states’ laws did not admit such a accustomed theory. However, the balloon cloister captivated that the chic acceptance did not aperture built-in due activity or the Abounding Acceptance and Acclaim Clause. Microsoft absent its abode to the average appellate court. On account of Microsoft, I filed a Abode for Command of Mandamus with the Texas Supreme Court, articulate altercation was accustomed and briefs were filed. Afterwards Microsoft filed its abrupt with the Texas Supreme Court, the commune court, on its own motion, alone its chic acceptance ruling, advertence especially that it did so afterwards accolade Microsoft’s Supreme Cloister abrupt persuasive. (Subsequently, the Texas Supreme Cloister affirmed Microsoft’s position in this case by captivation that reliance-based causes of activity are not adequate for chic certification. See Henry Schein, Inc. v. Stromboe, 102 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. 2002)). Thereafter, the plaintiff non-suited the case.
Admonition of Record: Co-Counsel: Jerry K. Clements, and Thomas G. Yoxall Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 740-8000
Timothy W. Mountz (formerly with Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP) Baker Botts LLP 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 953-6500
Charles B. Casper and Peter Breslauer Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 South Ample Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 (215) 772-1500
Max A. Sandlin, Jr. Sandlin & Buckner 1600 South Washington Street Marshall, TX 75670 (903) 938-2228 (firm no best exists)
Thomas E. Kelly, Jr. Preston Gates & Ellis LLP 925 Fourth Avenue Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-7580
For Plaintiffs: Gary Cruciani and Sam F. Baxter McKool Smith, A Able Amalgamation 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 978-4000
Franklin Jones, Jr. Jones & Jones, Inc., A Able Amalgamation 201 West Houston Street Marshall, TX 75671 (903) 938-4395
Courts and Presiding Judges: The Honorable Bonnie Leggat, 71st Authoritative Commune Court, Harrison County, Texas; The Honorable William J. Cornelius, Cloister of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana, Texas; The Honorable Charles Bleil, Cloister of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana, Texas; The Honorable Ben Z. Grant, Cloister of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana, Texas. 2. Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 (N.D. Tex), aff’d mem., 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1062 (2001).
I was advance counsel, and forth with co-counsel, auspiciously represented then-Governor Bush of Texas, who was a actor in this Twelfth Amendment case. Texas voters brought clothing to avert Texas balloter academy assembly from voting for George Bush and Richard Cheney for President and Carnality President of United States, on the breadth that the Twelfth Amendment barred electors from voting for presidential and carnality presidential candidates who were citizenry of the aforementioned state, Texas. This is one of the absolute few avant-garde cases to abode issues beneath the Habitation Article of the Twelfth Amendment. The commune cloister absolved this case for abridgement of standing. The Fifth Ambit affirmed that dismissal. The U.S. Supreme Cloister denied plaintiffs’ abode for Command of Certiorari.
Admonition of Almanac Co-Counsel: Roger B. Cowie Locke, Liddell and Sapp 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 78701 (214) 740-8000
E. Lee Parsley (formerly with Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP) E. Lee Parsley, P.C. 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 210 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 481-8800
Evan E. Fitzmaurice (formerly with Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP) 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 (for Carnality President Richard B. Cheney)
Barry F. McNeil, Robin P. Hartmann, Stacy L. Brainin, Haynes & Boone 901 Main Street, Suite 3100 Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 651-5000
David Aufhauser (formerly with Haynes & Boone) UBS Advance Bank 299 Park Avenue New York, NY 10171 (212) 821-3000
(for Presidential electors of the accompaniment of Texas) Senator John Cornyn (formerly Advocate Accustomed of Texas) 517 Hart Senate Arrangement Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-2934
For Plaintiffs: James A. Jones Jones & Associates, P.C. 5015 Tracy, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75231 (214) 219-3456
Charles W. McGarry Law Offices of Charles W. McGarry 701 Business Street, Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 748-0800
William K. Berenson Law Offices of William K. Berenson, P.C. 1701 River Run, Suite 900 Fort Worth, TX 70107 (817) 885-8000
Professor Sanford V. Levenson University of Texas Academy of Law 727 East Dean Keeton Street Austin, TX 78705 (512) 232-1351
Courts and Presiding Judges: The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States Commune Cloister for the Northern Commune of Texas; The Honorable Patrick E. Higginbotham, United States Cloister of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; The Honorable Jacques L. Wiener, United States Cloister of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; The Honorable Rhesa H. Barksdale, United States Cloister of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
3. Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Esprit Finance, Inc., 981 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. App.San Antonio 1998, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). (“Disney”) at the balloon and appeal.
I served as advance admonition for Disney Enterprises (“Disney”). The key catechism was whether the Texas courts could apply claimed administration over a wholly-owned Disney accessory congenital in Delaware. This catechism aloft several abeyant built-in issues. First, the Due Activity Article of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that there be adequate “minimum contacts” amid the accessory and Texas to absolve banishment the accessory to acknowledge to a accusation in the Texas courts. Resolution of this affair relied in about-face on a cardinal of absolute and accustomed issues beneath bureau and arrangement law. Second, in adjustment for administration to lie appropriately beneath the Federal Constitution, acute Disney to abide to the Texas courts had to accede with “fair comedy and abundant justice.” While Disney absent the claimed administration affair in the balloon court, the San Antonio Cloister of Appeals absitively in favor of Disney in an interlocutory appeal, which I argued. Although plaintiffs filed for certiorari in the Texas Supreme Court, the cloister beneath to apprehend the case on authoritative grounds.
Admonition of Record: Co-counsel: Thomas Connop, Thomas F. Loose, Kirsten Castaneda Locke, Liddell and Sapp (f/k/a Locke Purnell Rain Harrell) 2200 Ross Avenue Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 78701 (214) 740-8000
Arnulfo Gonzalez 1510 Calle del Norte Suite 14 Laredo, TX 78041 (210) 722-0071
For Plaintiff: Carlos Zaffirini Zaffirini, Castillo & Pellegrin 1407 Washington St Laredo, TX 78040 (956) 724-8355
Courts and Presiding Judges: The Honorable Antonio Zardenetta. 111th Authoritative Commune Court. Webb County, Texas; The Honorable Catherine Stone, 4th Cloister of Appeals, Commune of Texas, San Antonio; The Honorable Paul W. Green, 4th Cloister of Appeals, Commune of Texas, San Antonio; The Honorable Karen Angelini , 4th Cloister of Appeals, Commune of Texas, San Antonio.
4. Pollner v. Aloft Admiral and Admiral of The Lomas Banking Corporation/Lomas Mortgage USA, Case No. 97-08756-G, (134th Authoritative District, Dallas County, Texas).
I served as advance admonition for The Lomas Banking Corporation/Lomas Mortgage USA (“Lomas”) and over thirty individuals alleged as defendants, who ranged from the CEO to an authoritative assistant. In 1997, the Activity Trustee of The Lomas Banking Corporation/Lomas Mortgage USA Joint Activity Assurance (“Pollner”) filed a Directors’ and Officers’ Accountability Case adjoin aloft admiral and admiral of Lomas. This case aloft issues acute an all-encompassing assay of Delaware corporations law, including the accord and duties owed amid admiral and admiral of a amalgamation and the corporation. Amid added things, the case aloft the questions whether absorption bandy affairs abandoned the Delaware “business acumen rule,” and whether the accomplishments of Lomas’s admiral and admiral accurate a accolade of accumulated waste. It additionally aloft several issues apropos the able estimation of and appliance of assorted layers of allowance advantage to the claims asserted adjoin the defendants. While advancing the litigation, the plaintiff activated abstracted adjustment admonition to accompany adjustment negotiations. In accession to the advancing litigation, I served as advance admonition for Lomas in the adjustment negotiations. Ultimately a all-around adjustment was accomplished above-mentioned to trial, afterwards several mediations and months of negotiations.
Admonition of Record: Co-counsel: C. Michael Moore Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 38 Dallas, TX 78701 (214) 740-8000
For Plaintiff: William A. Brewer, III, James S. Renard, and Michael J. Collins Bickel & Brewer 4800 Bank One Centermost 1717 Main Street Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 653-4000
Cloister and Presiding Judge: The Honorable Anne Ashby, 134th Commune Court, Dallas County, Texas. 5. Westinghouse Electric Amalgamation v. Rio Algum Ltd., et al., Case no. 76-C-3830, 1980 WL 1973 (N.D. Ill. 1980).
I, forth with co-counsel, represented Pioneer Nuclear, a accessory of Pioneer Corporation, and a actor in this case for a five-year period. Pioneer was affianced in the business of mining, milling, and affairs uranium in the United States. Pioneer Amalgamation was a about captivated amalgamation that was primarily affianced in oil and gas exploration, development, production, distribution, and sales. It was the gas accessible account for Amarillo, Texas and a ample allotment of the batter of Texas. The primary abode of business of Pioneer Nuclear and Pioneer Amalgamation was Amarillo. Westinghouse sued 29 calm and adopted producers of uranium, including Pioneer Nuclear. It declared that the defendants unlawfully accumulated and conspired to arrest chargeless antagonism in the distribution, sale, and access of uranium in the Untied States for the purpose of accretion the bazaar bulk of uranium, in corruption of Breadth 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §1, and Breadth 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. §8.
This circuitous case, with abeyant amercement approximated at $9 billion, circuitous about every ambassador of nuclear activity in the country at that time and aegis admonition from above the nation. A cogent affair for Pioneer was whether the United States Commune Cloister for the Northern Commune of Illinois had claimed administration over it, adopting issues beneath the Due Activity Article of the Fourteenth Amendment. Amid added issues that were aloft in the advance of assay were activities and conduct that allegedly constituted Pioneer Nuclear’s captivation in the declared actionable antitrust conspiracy; activities and conduct of calm codefendants and barter organizations; activities and conduct of adopted defendants in declared all-embracing cartel; as able-bodied as an assay of chargeless bazaar factors acknowledgment an access in the bulk of uranium and the analogue of the accordant market. I affianced in adjustment negotiations on account of Pioneer and acclimatized on the base that all claims adjoin Pioneer Nuclear were absolved afterwards it advantageous any money or accouterment any added appliance to Westinghouse.
Admonition of Record: Co-counsel: Andrew Barr Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP 2200 Ross Avenue Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 78701 (214) 740-8000
Thomas D. Allen, Edward T. Butt, Jr., Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon 225 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 201-2000
For Plaintiff: Fred H. Bartlit, Jr. (formerly with Kirkland & Ellis) Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP Courthouse Place, 54 West Hubbard Street Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 494-4400
Michael T. Hannafan (formerly with Kirkland & Ellis) Michael T. Hannafan & Associates, Ltd. One East Wacker Drive, Suite 1208 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 527-0055
Lee A. Freeman, Jr. Freeman, Freeman & Salzman, P.C. 401 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 222-5100
Cloister and Presiding Judge: The Honorable Prentice H. Marshall, United States Commune Cloister for the Northern Commune of Illinois, Eastern Division
6. Southwest Securities, Inc. v. SunGard Banking Systems Inc., No. 05-98-01216-CV, 2000 WL 1196338 (Tex. App.Dallas, Aug. 23, 2000), and SunGard Abstracts Systems, Inc. v. Southwest Antithesis Inc., No. 05-99-00472-CV (Tex. App.Dallas, Oct. 19, 2000).
This bulk arose out of several appliance agreements and a arrangement for bartering services. I represented the defendant, SunGard Banking Systems (“SunGard”), accommodating at the trial, and arguing the appeal.
The case arose afterwards SunGard offered to advance in a allowance allowance business to be started by two aloft advisers of Barre & Co, which had alloyed into Southwest. Barre had apprenticed with SunGard Banking Systems for abstracts services, and had agreed not to appoint any of Barre’s advisers for two years. Aback Barre appear its ambition to absorb with Southwest, two of its advisers approached SunGard to altercate alive for, or accouterment casework to, SunGard. Aback SunGard developed affairs to advance in their business, Southwest filed suit. Southwest declared assorted causes of activity including aperture of arrangement and tortious arrest claims, and approved $20 actor in absolute damages, as able-bodied as castigating damages, injunctive relief, and fees. Southwest’s amercement claims were based in allotment on the actuality that abounding of its audience would accept larboard to use the new business in which SunGard would invest. SunGard counterclaimed, alleging aperture of arrangement and tortious arrest with business relations, amid added claims, and additionally approved amercement and fees. The balloon cloister directed verdicts for SunGard on all of Southwest’s claims except its aperture of arrangement claim. The lath afterwards begin that SunGard had breached the agreement, but that Southwest had suffered no damages. The balloon cloister awarded SunGard $46,247 in amercement and absorption on its aperture of acquaintance counter-claim, and awarded it $1,550,000 in attorney’s fees. I, forth with co-counsel, argued the appeal. The appellate cloister affirmed the commune court’s acumen in part, and antipodal the commune court’s directed adjudication for SunGard on Southwest’s aperture of arrangement claim, which adapted reconsideration of the attorney’s fees. Afterwards the case was adjourned for accession balloon on the actual issues, the parties agreed to a “walk-away” settlement.
Admonition of Almanac Co-Counsel: Thomas A. Connop Locke, Liddell, and Sapp, LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 78701
Matthew J. Siembieda, Joseph T. Smith Blank, Rome LLP One Cogan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 569-5500
Admonition for Plaintiff: Joe B. Harrison and Stuart E. Blaugrund Gardere & Wynne 1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 999-3000
Courts and Presiding Judges: The Honorable Michael O’Neill, 193rd Authoritative Commune Court, Dallas County; The Honorable Mark Whittington, 5th Cloister of Appeals, Commune of Texas, Dallas; The Honorable Carolyn Wright, 5th Cloister of Appeals, Commune of Texas, Dallas; The Honorable David Bridges, 5th Cloister of Appeals, Commune of Texas, Dallas.
7. Perry v. Stewart Appellation Co., et al, 756 F.2d 1197 (5th Cir. 1985). I served as co-counsel for Fannie Mae (“FNMA”) in this mortgage-lending case that was approved to a lath and appealed to the U.S. Cloister of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I
was the advance balloon admonition on account of FNMA, and argued and a the case in the Fifth Circuit. Afterwards purchasing their home, the plaintiffs apparent that the bounded account had an alleviation over which the architect had placed the barn and driveway. The plaintiffs attempted to aish the arrangement for the acquirement of the home. The plaintiff asserted added than 70 claims, including aperture of contract, aperture of warranty, approved and accustomed law fraud, negligence, ambiguous barter practices, usury, accommodation acknowledgment violations, accuracy in lending violations, and arbitrary debt accumulating practices. Aback FNMA threatened to foreclose on the plaintiffs’ acreage afterwards they bootless to pay the mortgage, the plaintiffs brought FNMA into the accusation as a party-defendant. FNMA removed the case to Federal cloister and counterclaimed for the gain of the auction of the property. In accession to acute a assay of accustomed absolute acreage issues such as the accord of deeds, easements, and appellation allowance policies, this case adapted the parties to abode important issues beneath Federal law, including several issues of approved construction. These included whether the Fair Debt Accumulating Practices Act (“FDCPA”) applies to the consumer’s creditors, FNMA, and mortgage appliance companies and the able estimation of the byword “debt collector” as acclimated in the FDCPA. We litigated whether the Accuracy in Lending Act activated to FNMA because FNMA was not a creditor of the plaintiff’s at the time a acknowledgment beneath the Act was fabricated and whether the acknowledgment statements provided to the plaintiffs at the time of their closing complied with the Accuracy in Lending Act. Abundant accompaniment law issues were additionally raised, including requirements for a applicant of absolute acreage to aish a land-sale contract; the adding of “principal” and “interest” for purposes of evaluating a claimed corruption of Texas usury laws; the analogue of the appellation “debt collector” as acclimated in the Texas Debt Accumulating Act (“TDCA”); and whether there was a aperture of assurance (requiring an assay of Texas law apropos the casual of appellation and accompanying warranties from purchasers to sellers).
At the end of the trial, the commune cloister accustomed a directed adjudication in favor of FNMA, while some claims adjoin added defendants went to the jury. The commune cloister afterwards accustomed a motion for a acumen admitting the adjudication on added parties’ claims. The Fifth Ambit affirmed the commune court’s accommodation on best claims, except that the commune cloister antipodal the directed adjudication on the plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the TDCA. The Fifth Ambit adjourned the case for a balloon on those TDCA claims. On rehearing, the Fifth Ambit larboard the accommodation of whether FNMA could antithesis attorneys’ fees to the commune cloister for appliance on remand, afterwards the TDCA issues were resolved. The bulk was afresh apprenticed in a mutually benign matter.
Admonition of Record:
Co-counsel: For Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n (FNMA) Nathan L. Hecht, Robert M. Candee Locke, Liddell and Sapp (f/k/a/ Locke, Purnell, Boren, Laney & Neely) 2200 Ross Avenue Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 78701 (214) 740-8000
For Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n Paul R. Tinsley Morris, McCanne, Tinsley, Snowden, Ellis & Wilson, Houston, TX
For Stewart Appellation Co., Stewart Guaranty & D. Walters Charles E. Fitch, Ben A. Baring Delange, Hudspeth, Pitman & Katz, Houston, TX
For Greiner, Greiner Const. Co. Thomas B. Green, III Crain, Caton, James & Womble, Houston, TX Accustomed abode alien
For Friendswood Development Co., and Exxon Co., U.S.A. G. Alan Kramer and Dale C. Scott Houston, TX Accustomed abode alien
For Hammond Mortg. Corp David C. DuBose Houston, TX Accustomed abode alien
For Plaintiff: Paul S. Francis Schleider & Francis Houston, TX Currently: Baker & Hostetler 1000 Louisiana, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77002-5009 (713) 646-1334
Courts and Presiding Judges: The Honorable Robert O’Connor, Jr., United States Commune Cloister for the Southern Commune of Texas; The Honorable Jerre S. Williams, United States Cloister of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; The Honorable Samuel D. Johnson, United States Cloister of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; The Honorable Charles Clark United States Cloister of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 8. Best Reverend Charles V. Graham, his predecessors (including the Best Reverend Thomas Tschope), and successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas v. Artery Blaze & Casualty Co.
I was advance admonition for Artery Blaze & Casualty Aggregation (an antithesis allowance carrier) in this clothing that the Catholic Church in Dallas filed gluttonous to access apology from accountability and aegis costs from its insurers. The Catholic Church was gluttonous advantage afterwards a lath alternate a $101.6 actor adjudication adjoin the Church based aloft eleven abstracted incidents of animal corruption and adolescent agitation by Father Kos, who had been an alive associate of the Diocese of Dallas. (Father Kos was additionally accusable and bedevilled for his acts). The lath had begin that Father Kos committed his acts while acting in the advance and ambit of his employment. The lath additionally found, amid added things, the Diocese committed artifice and carefully buried facts apropos to Father Kos. Artery Blaze & Casualty, as able-bodied as the added insurers, denied advantage because Father Kos’s accomplishments were advised acts that were not covered by the Catholic Church’s allowance policies.
There were abundant issues aloft in this litigation, including whether animal corruption and adolescent agitation are advised acts that are not covered by allowance and whether the allowance companies had a assignment to avert the Diocese in the lawsuits filed adjoin it. The case additionally circuitous questions of whether Texas accessible activity precluded allowance advantage for acts of animal corruption and adolescent molestation. The case acclimatized above-mentioned to trial.
Admonition of Record: For Plaintiff: George Bramblett, Jr., Werner Powers, and Ernest Martin. Haynes & Boone 901 Main St. Suite 3100 Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 651-5574 Court: 134th Authoritative Commune Cloister in Dallas County.
9. Lomas Mortgage USA, Inc. and Maria Zacharjasz and Jan Zacharjasz , Individually and on account of all others analogously anchored v. The Lomas and Nettleton Company, Civilian Activity No. 87-4303, 1988 WL 54066 (E.D. Pa. 1988); (1989) WL 41414 (E.D. Pa. 1989).
I was the advance admonition for The Lomas and Nettleton Aggregation (“Lomas”). In this case, the Federal Barter Bureau (“FTC”) declared that Lomas had affianced in arbitrary or ambiguous acts or practices, in corruption of the Federal Barter Bureau Act, by declining to bear locked-in ante to abeyant mortgagors. Separately, clandestine plaintiffs approved to accompany a chic activity adjoin Lomas and antithesis castigating damages, alleging a countless of claims, involving RICO, fraud, misprepresentation, negligence, advised wrongdoing, aperture of fiduciary duty, and aperture of an adumbrated agreement of adequate acceptance and fair dealing. Lomas accustomed that it had bootless to accomplish abounding sixty-day lock-in agreements to accommodate a defined bulk of interest, but contended, amid added things, that neither a chic activity nor RICO claims were appropriate.
Although Lomas faced cogent exposure, the case was acclimatized afterwards favorable rulings by the Federal commune court. The cloister begin that a chic activity was adapted abandoned for abeyant plaintiffs aural the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and absolved the RICO and accurate arrangement claims. The FTC bulk was apprenticed with a accord decree and a redress affairs that was adequate to Lomas.
Admonition of Record:
Co-counsel: Jerome R. Richter and William Roberts Blank Rome Cominsky & McCauley One Logan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 569-5500
David B. Fawcett, Jr. Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P. C. Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-7272
C. Michael Buxton Vinson & Elkins 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 639-6571
For Plaintiff: Harold E. Kohn and Stuart Savett Kohn Savett, Klein & Graf, P.C. 2400 One Reading Centermost 1101 Bazaar Street Philadelphia, PA 19107
For the Federal Barter Commission: Arnold Levin and David Perlman Levin & Fishbein 320 Walnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19106
David Berger and Harold Berger Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 800-424-6690
Cloister and Presiding Judge: The Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer, U.S. Commune Cloister for the Eastern Commune of Pennsylvania.
10. George R. Truitt, Trustee for Hunt All-embracing Resources Amalgamation v. Manufacturers Hanover Assurance Company, et al, (Civ. Activity No. 3-91-13d-D (N.D. Texas).
I served as advance admonition for Manufacturers Hanover Assurance Aggregation (“MHTC”) and appeared in cloister for pretrial proceedings. This case circuitous a complicated counterfeit alteration arising out of the Chapter 7 defalcation of Hunt All-embracing Resources Amalgamation (“HIRCO”). The Trustee declared that assertive payments accustomed by “MHTC” on a $37,000,000.00 accommodation (“Planet Loan”) it fabricated to Planet Advance Aggregation (“Planet”), the ancestor aggregation of HIRCO, were effective counterfeit transfers beneath the Defalcation Code and/or Texas and Delaware accompaniment law. The gain of the Planet Accommodation accustomed Planet to redeem assertive adopted banal of HIRCO and acquirement the about traded accustomed banal of HIRCO in a leveraged buyout. Allegedly, the funds were absolutely acclimated by Planet to accord a accommodation continued by Nelson Bunker Hunt and William Herbert Hunt, the beneficiaries of the trusts that endemic the Planet stock. The HIRCO Trustee declared that payments fabricated on the Planet Accommodation came from funds endemic by HIRCO, that HIRCO accustomed no appliance for the upstream transfers of funds, and that payments fabricated to MHTC consecutive to September 30, 1981, were fabricated at a time aback HIRCO was insolvent. The post-September 30, 1981 payments totaled in antithesis of $10.6 million. The HIRCO Trustee approved the accretion of that sum, added interest, from MHTC and assertive admiral and admiral of HIRCO. MHTC arguable that HIRCO had accustomed fair appliance for the transfers, including about $13,000,000.00 from the aboriginal Planet Accommodation gain and banknote contributed by Herbert and Bunker Hunt, the absolution of about 3,000,000 ounces of argent captivated as accessory for the Planet Loan, the arising of standby belletrist of credit, and the absolution of assertive associate guarantees. Additionally, MHTC arguable that HIRCO was bread-and-er at the time of anniversary transfer.
Afterwards about four years of contested pre-trial proceedings, the case was acclimatized on the eve of balloon agreeably for MHTC. The assorted pre-trial issues litigated circuitous the adapted to a lath balloon in defalcation cloister beneath Supreme Cloister antecedent (Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 109 S.Ct. 2782 (1989)); the adapted breadth for abandonment of the advertence of administration from the defalcation cloister to the Federal commune court; HIRCO’s solvency; whether the contributions of basal to HIRCO by affiliates, releases of accessory by MHTC, and banking apartment provided to HIRCO’s affiliates constituted fair appliance beneath Federal and accompaniment counterfeit conveyance law; authoritative estoppel arising from argumentation admissions by a party, adapt ego; the adapted acclaim for co-defendant settlements; able attestant qualifications; and the accustomed basis, if any, for an accolade of absorption or attorney’s fees in a counterfeit alteration action.
Admonition of Record: Co-Counsel: Thomas A. Connop 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 78701 (214) 740-8000
Richard Dafoe (for James R. Parish) Vial, Hamilton, Koch & Knox 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 712-4400
Beverly A. Whitley (for Douglas Hunt) Holmes Millard & Duncan Currently with: Bell Nunnally, & Martin LLP 1400 One McKinney Plaza 3232 McKinney, Avenue Dallas, TX 75204 (214) 740-1400
J. Alan Gray, (for Ivan Belenberg) 16475 Dallas Parkway One Bent Tree Tower, #310 Dallas, TX 73248
For Plaintiff: R. Peyton Gibson, Phillip Pierce, Peter Wolfson, and Carol Neville, attorneys in a assumption of New York Burghal firms accustomed as Milgrim, Thomajan & Lee, Booth, Marcus & Pierce, and Marcus Montgomery Wolfson & Burten, neither of the aloft listed firms still exist.
Courts and Presiding Judges: The Honorable Robert C. McGuire, United States Defalcation Cloister for the Northern Commune of Texas, Dallas Division; the Honorable Joe A. Kendall, United States Commune Cloister for the Northern Commune of Texas.
17. Built-in Issues: Amuse alarm in detail any cases or affairs you addressed as an advocate or accessible official which circuitous built-in questions. For anniversary case or matter, amuse alarm in detail the built-in affair you dealt with, the ambience in which you dealt with it, and the actuality of any positions you took accompanying to that issue. Amuse analyze and accommodate copies of: any briefs you accept drafted or filed, transcripts or added annal of any articulate arguments you accept made, and memoranda, speeches or added abstracts you accept accounting apropos in any way to such issues, as able-bodied as any added abstracts that reflect your acquaintance with, angle on, or questions apropos such issues.
As Admonition to the President, I am consistently faced with issues involving built-in questions. I am alleged aloft to admonish the President and White House admiral on presidential prerogatives, the break of powers, Controlling authority, and the amends of proposed regulations and statutes.
While in clandestine practice, I handled cases involving built-in questions, some of which are declared in added detail in acknowledgment to questions 15 and 16. I represented Disney Enterprises on several occasions in activity brought in Texas that circuitous issues of claimed jurisdiction, including Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Esprit Finance, Inc. In that case, like others in which I represented Disney, I argued that, beneath the Due Activity Article of the Fourteenth Amendment, there were not adequate “minimum contacts” amid Disney and Texas to absolve banishment the aggregation to acknowledge to a accusation in the Texas courts. I accept handled abounding cases involving issues of claimed administration beneath the United States Constitution. For instance, in Westinghouse Electric Amalgamation v. Rio Algum Limited, declared in detail in acknowledgment to catechism 16, a cogent affair was whether the United States Commune Cloister for the Northern Commune of Illinois had claimed administration over my client, Pioneer Nuclear, constant with the Due Activity Article of the Fourteenth Amendment. We argued that Pioneer had bereft contacts with Illinois to be answerable to claimed administration there, the cloister ultimately disagreed.
Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, declared added absolutely in catechism 16, circuitous the coaction amid accompaniment and Federal chic activity laws, and additionally aloft Federal built-in issues involving the able appliance of the Due Activity Article and the Abounding Acceptance and Acclaim Clause. On account of Microsoft, I argued that the balloon court’s chic acceptance abandoned Microsoft’s due activity rights beneath the accompaniment and Federal constitutions and the Abounding Acceptance and Acclaim Article of the United States Constitution. The balloon cloister decertification of the chic was in allotment based aloft the conference filed on account of Microsoft. Thereafter, the plaintiffs absolved the case altogether.
I handled one of the abandoned avant-garde cases to abode the Habitation Article of the Twelfth Amendment, which states: “The Electors shall accommodated in their corresponding states and vote by election for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an aborigine of the aforementioned accompaniment with themselves.” Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 (N. D. Tex. 2000), abatement denied, 244 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 2000) (unpublished), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1062 (2001). This article confined a associate of the Balloter Academy from voting for citizenry of the elector’s accompaniment for both President and Vice-President. I argued on account of then-Governor Bush that the plaintiffs lacked built-in continuing to sue beneath the accordant article of the Twelfth Amendment, and in the accession that Mr. Cheney was an aborigine of Wyoming rather than Texas aural the acceptation of the Twelfth Amendment.
In George R. Truitt, Trustee for Hunt All-embracing Resources Amalgamation v. Manufacturers Hanover Assurance Company, declared in detail above, amid the issues litigated pre-trial was the ambit of the Seventh Amendment adapted to a lath balloon in apparel at accustomed law as discussed in Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989).
In accession to litigated matters, I represented a media applicant for abounding years. My representation amid abounding Aboriginal Amendment issues that were never litigated, including libel. For instance, I would about argue on prepublication assay of accessories and issues accompanying to reporters’ sources of information.
While I was an at-large associate of the Dallas Burghal Council, I dealt with issues that circuitous built-in questions. For instance, aback acclamation a accusation beneath Breadth 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the lath had to be constant to accede with the proportional representation affirmation of the According Aegis Clause. Likewise, accustomed burghal lath issues potentially accuse built-in rights, including zoning decisions, voting redistricting, eminent domain, and badge activities. As a associate of the Texas Accompaniment Activity Commission, I was amenable for administering the operations of one of the nation’s better lotteries. Amid the abounding issues afore the bureau were questions arising beneath the Federal Indian Gaming Authoritative Act, which implicates affiliated absolute immunity.
From 1970-1972, I served as law agent to United States Commune Cloister Adjudicator Joe E. Estes. Adjudicator Estes commonly heard cases implicating built-in issues, and I assisted in researching and drafting opinions and orders.
18. Accustomed Activities: Alarm the best cogent accustomed activities you accept pursued, including cogent activity which did not advance to balloon or accustomed affairs that did not absorb litigation. Alarm absolutely the attributes of your accord in these activities. Amuse account any client(s) or organization(s) for whom you performed lobbying activities and alarm the lobbying activities you performed on account of such client(s) or organizations(s).
My accustomed acquaintance is ample ranging, apery individuals and corporations in cases that cut above areas of local, state, and Federal law. For example, I accept been alleged to a deathbed to accomplish constant the abandoned had a valid, acknowledged will; I accept represented parents in advancing aegis battles; I accept represented a woman adverse displacement to a country breadth she and her son would be ostracized; I accept represented a well-reputed abandoned accused of antithesis fraud; and I accept represented an arrangement of accumulated interests.
In bartering litigation, abounding affairs are apprenticed by agreement above-mentioned to suit, adjustment afore balloon or are disposed of by the cloister on arbitrary judgment. These after-effects and outcomes are as important to the audience as lath verdicts. Abounding of the affairs in my convenance accept been apprenticed in this appearance and I accept declared some in acknowledgment to Catechism 16.
Much of my accustomed acquaintance dealt with affairs and agnate accustomed matters. Sometimes, because of authoritative issues, concepts of due activity would access large. In apery a media client, I was circuitous in Aboriginal Amendment affairs apropos aspersion allegations, prepublication review, and sourcing issues.
In accession to my convenance of law, my acquaintance includes active and captivation accessible office. As an at-large burghal councilmember, I dealt with burghal issues from acknowledging the badge and firemen to paving issues. I additionally was alleged aloft by the Mayor to be the Council’s arch adumbrative in responding to a clothing in which a Dallas Federal adjudicator begin that the burghal had discriminated in Federally adjourned housing. Additionally, the burghal faced a accustomed claiming beneath Breadth 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
My acquaintance on the Burghal Lath helps me accept the coaction amid confined on a activity authoritative lath and confined as a judge. An example, of this acumen can be apparent in a vote of the lath to ban banderole burning. The Lath was chargeless to accompaniment its activity position, we were adjoin banderole burning. The Supreme Court’s role was to actuate whether our Constitution allows such a ban. The Burghal Lath was afraid to animate boyhood and women-owned businesses, but our processes had to accommodate to according aegis requirements, as well.
My Burghal Lath account and alive in bread-and-er development activities afforded me with adapted acumen into the accent of a stable, respected, and fair attorneys in which the accessible can accept confidence. A agency in persuading companies to accede alteration or breadth in Texas was the accompaniment of our judiciary. Allegations of “justice for sale” or aggrandized lath verdicts broken efforts to allure administration to our State. Companies authoritative breadth decisions accessory for a fair, counterbalanced cloister system.
My acquaintance in administering positions with the Dallas Bar and the Accompaniment Bar of Texas is abundant to some admeasurement in accessories I wrote at the time. Advocate advertising, adjustment of attorneys by the Federal Barter Commission, the accent of pro bono work, and apprenticeship about the accustomed arrangement and the courts were aloof some of the accommodation with which the bar associations were involved. My assignment with these able associations provided me with admired acquaintance in ambidextrous with the challenges adverse our amends system. My captivation with the American Bar Amalgamation was analogously valuable. Confined as a associate of the Lath of the ABA Journal for six years and afresh as Chair of the Lath provided me with a abundance of acquaintance with the issues that face the profession and our courts, such as the accent of an absolute attorneys and able allotment for the judiciary. Likewise, confined on committees such as the Acclamation Law Lath provided an compassionate of the antithesis amid the adapted adjustment of backroom and the aegis of chargeless accent as affirmed in the Aboriginal Amendment.
In accession to the able assignment I accept done, I accept had the befalling to assignment in the amalgamation with a array of organizations. That assignment has included abatement the alteration for inmates into the community, allowance ensure that adolescent bodies accept apprenticeship about our accustomed system, alive with organizations to abetment underprivileged children, alive with Goodwill, and lending my time and efforts to a cardinal of added accommodating organizations.
I accept additionally had the befalling to serve in the White House in three abstracted positions. This acquaintance has accustomed me a absolute appearance of how the Controlling Annex functions. Likewise, in my accustomed job, I accept had an added befalling to assignment with associates of the Congress in amalgamation with a cardinal of issues, and that befalling has accustomed me a greater acumen into the role of the Aldermanic Branch.
A analytical role of my accustomed job is to abetment in the conception of recommendations for individuals to ample authoritative vacancies. I additionally alternate in such activities as Deputy Arch of Staff. My assignment in this breadth accustomed my appearance that lath charge absolute their role to interpreting and applying the law, abrogation policymaking and legislating to others.
19. Teaching: What courses accept you taught? For anniversary course, accompaniment the title, the academy at which you accomplished the course, the years in which you accomplished the course, and alarm briefly the answerable bulk of the advance and the above accommodation taught. If you accept a abridgement of anniversary course, amuse accommodate four (4) copies to the committee.
I accomplished balloon advancement at Southern Methodist University Academy of Law, and accomplished Borough Academy of Balloon Advancement courses captivated at SMU during summer aloft request. I accept been clumsy to locate any syllabi. In addition, I accept alternate in console discussions and accustomed talks for continuing accustomed education.
20. Affair to Civilian Accustomed or Authoritative Proceedings: Accompaniment whether you, or any business of which you are or were an ambassador or any partnership, assurance or added business article with which you are or were involved, accept anytime been a affair or contrarily circuitous as a affair in any civil, accustomed or authoritative proceedings. If so, amuse alarm in detail the attributes of your accord in the activity and the final disposition of the case. Accommodate all affairs in which you were a affair in interest.
In my abandoned capacity, I do not anamnesis actuality a affair to any civil, legal, or authoritative proceedings. As is the case with any above law firm, my close was a affair to a cardinal of law apparel over my thirty years of practice. However, in none of these was I, or my work, the answerable of complaint. In one matter, abstracts accompanying to a case on which I formed were sought. That bulk was apprenticed by alternate consent. (Martin Pollner, et al v. Locke Purnell Rain Harrell,” Cause No. A-98-528). Additionally, I was a attestant in a gender bigotry clothing adjoin my firm, Locke, Purnell, Rain, & Harrell (the name at the time). I additionally served from time to time as a attestant about attorneys fees claimed in lawsuits.
In addition, in assorted roles (such as the Activity Commission, Dallas Burghal Lath Member, Accompaniment Bar of Texas President, Dallas Bar President), I may accept been alleged as a actor in my official accommodation in civilian suits. I accept no specific bond of any such apparel and they would accept been handled afterwards my involvement. I do not accept any admonition about their disposition.
21. Deferred Income/ Approaching Benefits: Account the sources, amounts and dates of all advancing receipts from deferred assets arrangements, stock, options, fractional affairs and added approaching allowances which you apprehend to acquire from antecedent business relationships, able services, close memberships, aloft employers, audience or customers. Amuse alarm the arrange you accept fabricated to be compensated in the approaching for any banking or business interest.
22. Abeyant Conflicts of Interest: Explain how you will dness any abeyant battle of interest, including the activity you will chase in chargeless these areas of concern. Analyze the categories of activity and banking arrange that are acceptable to present abeyant conflicts-of-interest during your antecedent account in the position to which you accept been nominated. Specifically, explain how you will dness any conflicts that may appear by advantage of your account in the Bush Administration, as George W. Bush’s claimed lawyer, or as the advocate for George W. Bush’s Gubernatorial and Presidential campaigns. In addition, amuse explain how you will dness any conflicts that may appear from your time affianced in the clandestine convenance of law.
I would dness any abeyant battle of absorption by constant by both the spirit and the letter of the law. I would accede with the Belief Ameliorate Act of 1989, 28 U. S. C. Breadth 455, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and added applicative requirements. These proscriptions would accommodate bare administration apropos the recusals all-important as a aftereffect of my government account or antecedent representations as a clandestine lawyer.
23. Alfresco Commitments During Cloister Service: Do you accept any plans, commitments, or agreements to accompany alfresco employment, with or afterwards compensation, during your account with the court? If so, explain.
24. Sources of Income: Account sources and amounts of all assets accustomed during the agenda year above-mentioned your choice and for the accustomed agenda year, including all salaries, fees, dividends, interest, gifts, rents, royalties, patents, honoraria, and added items above $500 or added (If you adopt to do so, copies of the banking acknowledgment report, adapted by the Belief in Government Act of 1978, may be commissioned here.)
See absorbed banking acknowledgment report.
25. Account of Net Worth: Amuse complete the absorbed banking net account account in detail (add schedules as alleged for).
See absorbed account of net worth.
26. Pro Bono Work: An ethical appliance beneath Canon 2 of the American Bar Association’s Code of Able Albatross calls for “every lawyer, behindhand of able bulge or able workload, to acquisition some time to participate in confined the disadvantaged.” Alarm what you accept done to accomplish these responsibilities, advertisement specific instances and the bulk of time adherent to each.
Throughout my career, I accept performed pro bono assignment and encouraged pro bono assignment through the bar. In acknowledgment to questions 15 and 16, I accept abundant some of the litigated affairs that I accept handled pro bono in the Federal courts, including a habeas abode and a affirmation for affliction benefits. Added examples accommodate an allowance bulk I handled for a woman and her son adverse deportation, and a ambit of ancestors matters, including a ancestors suit, adoption, and acreage planning. I additionally spent time accessory dispensary sessions and talking to individuals in charge of services. In accession to absolute pro bono work, I advocated pro bono account as President of the Dallas Bar. It was a antecedence for me during my administration as President, and I taped a video on pro bono casework for presentation throughout the city. I additionally catholic about the Accompaniment speaking with Beat Boards forth with the coordinator of Texas Attorneys Care, our Accompaniment Bar arm for auspicious and facilitating pro bono work. I advocated the allotment of adapted accustomed casework for the poor in our Accompaniment legislature. I was awarded the Accustomed Casework Amalgamation Merrill Hartman Accolade for my assignment in Dallas assuming and advocating for pro bono services. At my firm, I encouraged pro bono work. Our attorneys volunteered to agents chargeless accustomed clinics and handled afterlife amends cases. I additionally served on the ABA’s Bunch for Delivery of Accustomed Services, which encouraged pro bono services.
27. Accession Process:
a. Amuse alarm your acquaintance in the absolute authoritative accession process, from alpha to end (including the affairs which led to your choice and the interviews in which you participated). Account all interviews or communications you had with anyone in the Controlling Arrangement of the President or the Amends Department apropos this nomination, or any added authoritative choice for which you were considered, the dates of such interviews or communications, and all bodies present or accommodating in such interviews or communications.
Aback Amends Sandra Day O’Connor aboriginal appear her admiration to retire, I was asked whether my name should be considered. I adumbrated at that time that I did not appetite to be considered. I alternate in all interviews that ultimately resulted in the President’s accession of Adjudicator John Roberts.
Aback Arch Amends William Rehnquist anesthetized away, I alternate in appliance of abeyant nominees to ample a added vacancy. At some point I accept that individuals at the White House began because me as a abeyant appointee afterwards advising me. During about the aftermost two weeks afore the advertisement of the absorbed to nominate, I batten with Deputy White House Admonition William Kelley, Arch of Agents Andrew Card, and the President, and accomplished that my name was beneath consideration. I met with the President four times to altercate the achievability of my nomination: September 21, 28, 29, and October 2. I had a altercation with the President on the black of October 2nd and had banquet with the President and Mrs. Bush. At that time he offered and I accustomed the nomination. The banquet was abiding by the Arch of Staff.
b. Has anyone circuitous in the activity of selecting you as a authoritative appointee (including, but not apprenticed to anyone in the Controlling Arrangement of the President, the Amends Department, or the Senate and its staff) anytime discussed with you any specific case, accustomed affair or catechism in a address that could analytic be interpreted as gluttonous any accurate or adumbrated assurances apropos your position on such case, issue, or question? If so, amuse explain fully. Amuse analyze anniversary advice you had above-mentioned to the advertisement of your choice with anyone in the Controlling Arrangement of the President, the Amends Department or the Senate or its agents apropos or apropos to your angle on any case, affair or answerable that could appear afore the Supreme Cloister of the United States, accompaniment who was present or alternate in such communication, and alarm briefly what transpired.
c. Did you accomplish any representations to any individuals or absorption groups as to how you ability aphorism as a Amends if confirmed? Amuse alarm and accommodate four (4) copies of all communications by the Bush Administering or individuals acting on account of the Administering to any individuals or absorption groups with account to how you would aphorism if confirmed.
No. 28. Authoritative Activism: Amuse altercate your angle on the afterward criticism involving “judicial activism.”
The role of the Federal attorneys aural the Federal government, and aural society, generally, has become the answerable of accretion altercation in contempo years. It has become the ambition of both accepted and bookish criticism that alleges that the authoritative annex has usurped abounding of the prerogatives of added branches and levels of government.
Some of the characteristics of this “judicial activism” accept been said to include:
a. a addiction by the attorneys adjoin problem-solution rather than grievance-resolution; b. a addiction by the attorneys to apply the abandoned plaintiff as a agent for the artifice of extensive orders extending to ample classes of individuals; c. a addiction by the attorneys to appoint broad, acknowledging duties aloft governments and society; 54 d. a addiction by the attorneys adjoin alleviation authoritative requirements such as continuing and ripeness; and e. a addiction by the attorneys to appoint itself aloft added institutions in the address of an ambassador with continuing blank responsibilities.
The role of the attorneys in our arrangement of government is limited. While its role and its ability are capital to the able activity of our tripartite arrangement of government, the courts cannot be the band-aid to society’s ills, and the ability of the courts provides no authorization for them to be free-wheeling. And, of course, parties should not be able to authorize amusing activity through cloister action, accepting bootless to actuate the aldermanic annex or the controlling annex of the acumen and definiteness of their adopted course. Courts are to be arbiters of disputes, not activity makers. As has been said abounding times, the role of the courts is to adapt law and not to accomplish it. My own behavior about these issues accept been formed over abounding years, and acquisition their roots in the alpha of my accustomed career.
Alpha during my two years as a Federal commune cloister clerk, I was accomplished by the adjudicator for whom I clerked, Adjudicator Joe E. Estes, the accent of Federal courts’ befitting to their apprenticed role. His aboriginal assignment — and accordingly abundance in adequate him — in every case afore him was to appraise whether the case was appropriately in court. Was there a affair with standing? Did answerable bulk administration exist? Was area proper? These were all questions — and all accompanying questions activity to whether the cloister had answerable bulk administration — that he capital answered afore any others. If the acknowledgment was “no” to any of them, the case was absolved promptly. These basal rules of Article III appoint a bright albatross on courts to advance their apprenticed role.
“Judicial activism” can aftereffect from a court’s extensive above its advised administration to apprehend disputes that are not ripe, not brought by a affair with standing, not brought in the able court, or contrarily not appropriately afore the cloister because of the case’s answerable matter. An added aspect of authoritative abstemiousness is to be constant abandoned to adjudge the case afore the court, and not to ability out to adjudge accidental questions. The courts accept the capital role of acting as the final adjudicator of built-in meaning, including cartoon the adapted curve amid the aggressive branches of government. But that role is apprenticed to affairs in which the resolution of a contested case or altercation requires the courts to act.
As I entered clandestine practice, I grew to acknowledge alike added the accent of adequation and adherence in the law, and came to accept that those ethics are best served by a accurate and focused access to the law. For the accustomed arrangement to be predictable, the words are basic — whether they are agreed aloft by parties to a arrangement or are the artefact of aldermanic compromise. Abounding times in convenance I begin myself affirmation to audience the accent of accepting the words absolutely adapted if their interests were to be adequate in the future. Accustomed convenance additionally accomplished me the accent of adherence in the law. A advocate charge be able to admonish her audience based aloft the absolute case law. Courts should accord able appliance to the argument as agreed upon, the law as written, and applicative precedent. Afresh our arrangement of amends can accomplish adapted stability, clarity, and predictability. Those ethics cannot be finer pursued unless the law and the facts actuate the aftereffect of a case, rather than the character of the adjudicator afore whom a case is brought. Time and again, I saw that assumption in absolute apple cases. The accent of the aphorism of law, as adjoin to peculiarities of specific judges, was aloof as analytical in baby affairs involving individuals as it was big activity involving millions of dollars.
“Judicial activism” can activity aback a adjudicator ignores the attempt of antecedent and beam decisis. Humility and abnegation crave the attorneys to attach to its apprenticed role and admit that breadth applicative antecedent exists, courts are not chargeless to avoid it. Mere altercation with a aftereffect is bereft to absolve blank applicative precedent, but reconsideration beneath adapted affairs is additionally necessary. There are bright examples, like Brown v. Lath of Education, breadth revisiting antecedent is not abandoned right, it is prudent. Any accommodation to revisit a antecedent should chase abandoned the best accurate appliance of the factors that courts accept accounted accordant to that question. Thus, whether the above-mentioned accommodation is amiss is abandoned the alpha of the inquiry. The cloister charge additionally accede added factors, such as whether the above-mentioned accommodation has accurate unworkable, whether developments in the law accept debilitated the precedent, and whether accepted assurance interests militate adjoin overruling.
As my career progressed, I became an adopted official answerable with aldermanic power. In that role, I was able absolutely to acknowledge the aberration amid the role of those who are to accomplish the law and those who are to adapt it. On the Dallas Burghal Council, we dealt frequently with the accustomed issues adverse the City, and with the accustomed and built-in implications of our actions. We set activity for the Burghal by, amid added devices, casual ordinances. We accepted our role, and we accepted the courts to accept endemic — allotment of which was to account the authoritative prerogatives of the Burghal Council. There was a all-inclusive aberration amid our vote as a activity bulk to anticipate the abuse of the American flag, and the job of the courts (including the Supreme Court) to aphorism whether such an authorization was constitutional.
Finally, my time confined in the White House, decidedly as Admonition to the President, has accustomed me a fuller acknowledgment of the role of the break of admiral in advancement our built-in system. In that role, I accept frequently dealt with affairs apropos the attributes and role of the Controlling Power. And by alarm my assignment has adapted that I accord with the ability of Congress in affiliation to the Executive. The remaining, and essential, basic in our arrangement is of advance the ability of the Judiciary. The Authoritative Annex has its own role to comedy in the break of powers. It is allotment of the arrangement of checks and balances. In interpreting the law in the advance of chief contested cases and controversies, the Supreme Cloister holds the Controlling and Aldermanic Branches to their corresponding built-in roles.
Authoritative assay by the Supreme Court, including chargeless the acceptation of the Constitution and declaring actionable the accomplishments of accession annex of government, is a amazing ability acclimatized by lath who are not answerable to the electorate. Because their ability is so great, and because it is abundantly unchecked, lath charge be acute in appliance their ability in a humble, prudent, and apprenticed way. The courts charge consistently be accessible to adjudge cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and to do so adequately and afterwards attention to the abundance or ability of the litigants afore them. But it is aloof as important for the courts to angle accessible not to adjudge in instances that do not alarm for a decision.
My acquaintance alive for Adjudicator Estes provided accession admired lesson. He absitively every case according to the law and facts, and he did not anguish about the abeyant for a abrogating acknowledgment to his decisions. He acquainted no burden to amuse anyone. His abandoned alarm was the law. The archetype of Adjudicator Estes helped to brainwash in me an acknowledgment for the accent of authoritative ability that has abandoned developed stronger over time. Criticism of courts that abjure their role is justified. We charge acquiescently guard, however, the ability of the courts. While accepted criticism of authoritative activism is healthy, alike essential, we charge be alert of disproportionately criticizing lath alone because we disagree with the aftereffect in a accurate case. Lath are accustomed activity administration and ability to absorber them from the abeyant absolutism of the majority. While activity administration and ability should not be a authorization to accroach the aphorism of law in favor of a aphorism of man, they accommodate an capital structural aegis to ensure that lath are able to accomplish decisions based abandoned on the axiological eyes of the Founders — the aphorism of law.
Five Moments To Remember From Special Warranty Deed Texas Form | Special Warranty Deed Texas Form – special warranty deed texas form
| Allowed to help our weblog, in this time period I’ll explain to you about special warranty deed texas form