By Aaron Reiss
By Angelica Leicht
By Dianna Wray
By Aaron Reiss
By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
By Jeff Balke
By Angelica Leicht
What a Circus!
Regarding Richard Connelly's piece on the Chronicle's lame coverage of the inaugural protests downtown [News Hostage, February 1]: We're two of hundreds of clowns who showed up to protest the recent joke of an election. The Chron did have a photographer down there; he even made sure to get the correct spelling of our names.
Unfortunately, some editor must have decided the paper's job was to shield the public from outrage. Best of luck to that bozo. If John Ashcroft is any example of "compassionate conservatism," at least two very pissed off clowns are going to be taking to the streets!
Krusty and Bronco
(real names withheld by request)
INS ire: Thank you for your enlightening article about the INS antics ["Rejection Slips," by Melissa Hung, January 25]. I, too, am very upset about how the INS can destroy the lives of hardworking immigrants. But what really blows my mind is how we can justify deporting someone like Fernando when his children are natural American-born citizens.
Why is it that no one has brought it to the attention of the Supreme Court that the basic constitutional rights of Fernando's children -- their right to "the pursuit of happiness" -- are being seized by a government bureaucracy? How can the government justify that these children will be happy in a life deprived of two parents and a higher standard of living? This government agency is way out of control and needs to be placed in check.
How much longer can we stand for border crossings and laws that look and sound like those of a post-World War II Nazi combat movie?
On a similar note, you need to do a story on all of the crooked attorneys taking advantage of people trying to immigrate. These people are too afraid to complain because they are scared that blowing the whistle will get them deported by the crooks who stole their money and never delivered on papers. I teach ESL here in Houston, and I could tell you stories that would make your head spin.
Name withheld by request
I think she would have approved of the adopted style in your piece. Maxine Mesinger was a friend to us "little folk," too. When I was fired from KODA back in the '70s (the first time!), she wished me well as I left H-town for T-town, Tulsa, a move backward in market size. Didn't have to do that, but she did.
Why did people love Maxine? For the column, perhaps, but more than that, Maxine Mesinger had class. That's what Houstonians will miss most.
Dead issue: Lisa Gray should be ashamed of herself, and the Houston Press editors should be equally ashamed. If you want to criticize someone who is alive and able to defend themselves, that's fine. (In fact, often to be commended.) But to criticize someone newly dead who is no longer able to fight back is totally reprehensible!
RIPped up: Insightful piece about Maxine. I'm a lawyer now but used to work for the Associated Press and The Houston Post. I have long thought what a great time I could have doing Maxine's job, but doing it right. By that I mean writing about who in high society is getting sued, and who's not paying his taxes, and who's screwing around on whom. The Houston Chroniclewould never publish such a thing, of course, but as you hinted, even a fluff column about a more current cast of characters would be an improvement.
If ever there was a microcosm of what's wrong with the Chronicle, Maxine was it. For years the Chronicle paid someone representing herself as a journalist to look the other way. The Sarofim family mess eluded her attention, somehow, and for years. The paper tolerated someone who lived largely on the charity of her sources. How can a newspaper comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable if it is so deeply indebted to the comfortable?
Is anyone interested in getting up a pool on how many more times Maxine will be fondly mentioned in the Chronicle's pages throughout the rest of the year? I suspect the death of a U.S. president would not have generated as much ink as hers did.
Screwed by attorneys: Your article does a good job of describing the problems associated with a lawyer having sex with a client ["Lawyerly Liaisons," by Lauren Kern, February 1]. Theoretically, the conflict rules should prevent these problems, but they do not.
The possibility that adverse personal interests may include relationships just does not occur to many lawyers. In addition, clients can consent to representation where there is a conflict, in most cases. The client must be informed of the nature of the conflict and that perhaps the client should consult another attorney.
In many states the waiver does not need to be in writing. So you can imagine the difficulties of proof where consent is oral. Pardon the expression, but oral consent is likely in the matters of sex. For these reasons, Oregon prohibits a lawyer from having sex with the client unless the sexual relationship preceded the professional relationship.