George Koury Speaks
An anonymous heckler sent my daughters and me a copy of your recent article about the plight of Samual Templeton [News, "Sam's Farewell," by Brian Wallstin, March 9].

Journalism should require that the story is well researched and the facts are correct. Both this and the previous article you printed are completely erroneous and slanted towards building sympathy for Samual Templeton.

You portray my son and me as the villains who are causing Templeton his many problems. That it the farthest from the truth. Templeton's problems are caused by his own actions. Samual Templeton is cunning, crafty and his testimony is often changed and contradictory. Templeton met me at the airport the evening after my son's death and proceeded to inform me about his relationship with my son. He also questioned me several times about "his inheritance" and made threats that if he did not receive what he calculated was his he would expose his relationship with Frank to the world and embarrass Frank's firm, his peers, Frank's sisters and me.

My last meeting with my son in Dallas resulted in him charging me with his requests if anything happened to him. He asked me to help fund the education of his nieces and nephews to whom he was very attached. He requested that I help his sisters should they need additional financial assistance and he insisted that I would be reimbursed for the large gifts I had made to him over the years, the assets I had given him and the cost of his education since he knew that the debts I had incurred for it were still not completely paid. Nowhere was any mention of Samual Templeton.

After the funeral in Houston we were still too grief stricken to address the Templeton problem but realized it had to be done since we wished to block any effort to expose the relationship by Templeton. We made him a very large and generous offer from what we thought was a high value probate estate with the provision that it would have no adverse effect on my own personal estate. There would be no execution of the agreement if it had this adverse effect. I was advised by competent attorneys, a retired federal judge and the IRS that this agreement, if exercised, would seriously affect my own estate. Since this was the case, we informed Templeton that the offer could not be implemented and ceased to be executable.

Templeton hired an attorney and filed suit. Still dedicated to my son's privacy, we made Templeton many large and generous offers which he rejected even after recognizing that the probate estate was burdened with heavy debt, much of which was incurred by Templeton, and would probably have a negative value. He proceeded with the trial and pierced my son's privacy, encouraging publicity to show the dirty linen. Your paper provided him with the vehicle to do so.

My son's probate estate has a negative value. It is under court jurisdiction. The only reason I accepted the administrator's position was that I saw it my moral duty as his father. I am not paid for this function and in fact will probably lose out of pocket expenses to perform this function. All the assets of the estate must be liquidated and the funds distributed to the creditors. In this process the contents of the townhouse and the townhouse itself -- where we had allowed Templeton to reside rent free -- must be sold. In an effort to smooth the activity I offered Templeton that I would pay for two years' rent at another location. He rejected this offer and demanded a very large cashier's check.

All items that were scheduled for sale were removed and sold. I personally gave Templeton a check to permit him to replace some of the items taken.

Throughout our association with Samual Templeton he has continuously threatened us with litigation and, prior to the trial, exposure of my son's relationship with him. He has violated all my son's wishes for privacy. He has tarnished his memory. By his actions both the estate and I have been faced with very, very large legal bills. Frank's family continually suffer emotional pressures. Every time we make a kind gesture to help this person he takes it as evidence of weakness and makes further demands and threats.

We wish our son's image restored and his memory repaired so that we may grieve in peace.

George F. Koury
Escondido, California

Editor's note: Houston Press staff writer Brian Wallstin gave George Koury ample opportunity to give his side of the story prior to publication of Wallstin's article on Koury's son, "The Private Life and Public Death of Frank Koury" [August 11, 1994]. George Koury spoke at length with Wallstin on one occasion and in a follow-up interview but requested that those conversations be off-the-record. Wallstin honored that request.

Deeper into Wrecker Hell
Kudos to D.J. Wilson for his reporting job on the recent cover story about CRS and "Wrecker Hell" [March 9]. I represented David Person as counsel in one of the recounted incidents, and it was an enlightening experience for all.

I suggest that your readers will also benefit from an investigative story on the underworld of wrecked and stolen cars, reconditioned car titles, fraudulently swapped VIN numbers and the subsequent resale to the unlucky consumer at auto salvages and car auctions. Frequently the "new" car owner finds a constable at his or her door to repossess the vehicle as a previously reported stolen car, and a bank note still due every month -- with nothing to show for it. Thank you again your consistent articles of interest.

Kiri Martin
Attorney at Law

It's Edith Brady To You
Edith Sorenson [Film, "The Brady Bomb," February 23] is no Marcia Brady. If she was, her review of The Brady Bunch Movie would have read quite simply: "I didn't like it very much. It was stupid." Instead, we have to wade through almost an entire page to find out that Edith thinks the movie was "stupid, ugly and mean."

Stupid? Duh!
Ugly? Well, I wouldn't do Alice in that Madonna getup either, but then Sam I am, NOT!

Mean? Edith lambastes poor, innocent, Brady-loving geeks and calls this stupid movie mean?

No, Edith must be a Jan. Complete with voices egging her on to ridiculous conclusions and strange behaviors. Why else would anyone stay up all night, leafing through a thesaurus, to write a wannabe-scathing, pseudo intellectual review of an innocent little piece of fluff like The Brady Bunch Movie?

Maybe Ms. Sorenson is a bit insecure of her intellect. On this point I concede that it may be just me, but I resent having to dust off my high school dictionary to look up a bunch of words for a review. Auteur? Erudite jape? Arch nod? Huh? Although I must admit I did learn that I seek succor from the likes of writers like Edith Sorenson. And now I have a few words for her to look up: pompous, facsimile, satire and parody.

Finally, I must stoop to the "worst aspects of geekiness and desperation" and point out the one word Edith won't find in her article or her dictionary, that sums up, in my opinion, her problem with anything even remotely Brady: Marcia! Marcia!! Marcia!!! Denial much Jan, er, um, I mean Edith?

Clayton J. Meyers

Ballet Beef
As a former Houstonian, a frequent visitor and a long-term reader of your paper, I feel compelled to respond to the inept ballet review offered by Mitchell J. Shields [Dance, "Mixed Results," March 16].

I was also in attendance on the Saturday night that Mr. Shields speaks of in his critique. I am largely incensed by the ineptitude with which he so casually lambastes Miss Beard and Mr. Kelly. As a frequent patron of the ballet, I have seen Miss Beard perform this particular piece for some time, and have been continually impressed by her ability to distinguish herself in the role. She was well complemented by Mr. Kelly, who gracefully partners Miss Beard in the work. The two dance Three Preludes beautifully.

I find it ludicrous that Mr. Shields takes it upon himself to judge the "spirit" of the piece, especially in light of the fact that the choreographer of Three Preludes -- Ben Stevenson -- has been present and has directed the technique and nuances of these two highly accomplished dancers. I have not considered the possibility that Mr. Shields has a karmic telepathic (pathetic) sixth sense, and may understand the "intentions" of the piece (perhaps better than Mr. Stevenson himself). If this is the case, than his audacity in denigrating the piece with his poorly contrived, narrow and limited perspective may be justified (or maybe he just had really bad seats).

H. Ker Thomson

Editor's note: Mitchell J. Shields does indeed possess a karmic telepathic sixth sense, which he employs only when he has bad seats at the ballet. On this occasion, though, his seats were fine.

Remarks attributed to Houston Industries chairman and chief officer Don Jordan in the March 23 Houston Press were contained in a draft copy of a speech prepared for Jordan's appearances at a January conference of management personnel of Houston Industries, the parent company of Houston Lighting & Power. Jordan did not make the remarks during his two speeches at the conference.

Sponsor Content


All-access pass to top stories, events and offers around town.

Sign Up >

No Thanks!

Remind Me Later >