First Estate
We The People

Second Estate
Executive Branch

Third Estate
Judicial Branch

Fourth Estate
Legislative Branch

An Educational Resource for
"Sovereign Souls
On The Dry Land"
brought to you by the
Texian First Estate

The republic
State of Texas

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  - Benjamin Franklin

“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” – Winston Churchill - The Second World War

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House on August 1, 1776.

All Lesson are available on iTunes!

undamental Law(s) Of the Land
Forgetting the FLOL Loses One's Liberties

FLOL is the law that
BOTH the People and governments (BP&G) are subject to.

Thus we have FLOL over BP&G.

The founding fathers understood the fundamental Laws of the Land. At his 1801 inaugural Thomas Jefferson said, "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." And he wrote, "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." [Letter, September 28, 1820.]

The Goal:
The First Estate - Always Acting With An Informed Discretion.




Call To Convene - Texian Jural Assembly - May 9th, 2013, 8pm!

All welcome!

Open call, every Thursday at 8:00pm, for anyone interested in learning more about our governing body known as The First Estate (We the People), how to become a participant in the jural societies and information about our republic State of Texas.

Tonight's Topic:

The Assembly is to be at the regular Thursday time (tomorrow night the 9th) at 8:00 PM

Notice is also on (See Attachments Below)

Please send out Notice for the Assembly as soon as possible.

How to access the call:

  • To listen to the call:
    Phone: (712) 432-0900
    Access Code: 103326#
  • Free call using Skype - add "freeconferencing.7124320900" to your Skype contact list. Once connected, enter the access code 103326#.



The republic State of Texas (

Republic Keepers (


Call to Convene - Wright.pdf

Notice To Texas Officials- TJS-Draft.doc


A Recent Posting by Bob Hurt,

From: Bob Hurt Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:43 PM To: Subject: [Lawmen: 4987] Importance of Clear, Concise, Logical legal writing  

I liked the points the author made in the article below.  I paraphrase:

"Law schools treat writing professionals like red-headed stepchildren, underpaying, overworking, ignoring, and shirking us. Waaaaaah!"

So, QUIT, and at your next school get more money or don't take the job. I disagree that you have less value or importance than those who catalogue or analyze law. Proof? Just look at what the Supreme Court has written. HORRIBLE WRITING, generally, with unconscionably long, inscrutable, run-on sentences. Stab me in the eyes with a barbecue fork.

On top of that, law school writing teachers don't do that good a job because THEY never learned some critically important fundamentals. Examples? Okay:

  1. Omit passive voice.
  2. Omit to-be verbs except when expressing identity.
  3. Limit sentences to 20 words.
  4. Limit paragraphs to 5 sentences.
  5. Use clarifying headings liberally to set apart and identify text.
  6. Use enumeration for series of more than three items.
  7. Put subject, then verb at the beginning of the sentence.
  8. No amount of good writing style can compensate for bad or missing logic which critical thinking can help illuminate. The key: illuminate bad logic before an adversary or judge does. Review your own premises/beliefs, and purify them through the filter of case law. Play adversary and destroy your own arguments by shedding a different light on the facts. Realize that even good logic appears bad because of poor writing skills.

If you wouldn't wear beach attire to court, why insult the court with convoluted mangled written expressions? Look at a few legal briefs, law journal articles, and pleadings. There you see egregious violations of the above simple fundamentals. Clearly, lawyers don't write for readability.  They probably never learned how. Who bears the blame for that?

The real point here:  Why does their inability to write properly NOT interfere with their getting lawyer jobs? Maybe because nobody cares. Lawyers seem to like inflicting pain on their adversaries... such as by making them read bad writing.


Thursday, July 28, 2011

Guest Post on Teaching Legal Writing by Professor Lisa McElroy

[Below is a guest post by Drexel Law Professor Lisa McElroy.]     Last week, Bryan Garner published an editorial in the New York Times about the importance of good legal writing pedagogy; his piece was part of a series on how and whether law school education should change for the better.   At first, when I read Mr. Garner’s editorial, I was pleased; after all, lawyers and judges have been saying for years that they look first to a young lawyer’s legal writing skills when deciding whether to hire her.  Echoing this sentiment, Educating Lawyers (better known as the “Carnegie Report”) and CLEA’s Best Practices for Legal Education, both published in 2007, called on the legal academy to improve and increase offerings in legal writing and other legal skills.  That’s because, as Garner notes, ”[C]lear writing equates with clear thinking.”  (And I’ll go even further to say that most budding lawyers don’t know exactly what they think until they try to write it down).   I should say that I am still glad that Garner brought national attention to the fact that law schools undervalue legal writing.  Some of my colleagues in the legal writing discipline, however, have commented to me that Garner missed an opportunity (thanks to word count restrictions, perhaps?) to point out that one easy way for law schools to improve their students’ legal writing skills is to place more value on the legal writing professors who teach them.   As Garner acknowledges in his piece (“of all law-school courses, legal writing is both the single most time-intensive subject and the least respected”), teaching legal writing is a very hard job.  It’s a different job from writing legal scholarship (although many legal writing professors do both, whether purely by choice or as part of a tenured or tenure-track job), but it is at least as rigorous.  Why?  Because legal writing professors must take on a number of job responsibilities that their podium colleagues need not.   For example, a typical legal writing professor has an average of 41 writing students a semester, and she (for, as the often-used moniker “pink ghetto” suggests, the vast majority of legal writing professors are women) meets with each of them one-on-one at least twice, for an average of 74 minutes with every student (even though, as Garner correctly states, “there is a built-in bias against one-on-one teacher-student time”).  The average legal writing professor  grades and comments extensively (usually to the tune of an hour per student per assignment) on more than 1550 pages of legal writing each semester, much of it by students who have no experience writing in the discipline and so need an enormous amount of guidance.  She bases these writing assignments on new hypotheticals most semesters, sometimes because of changes in the law, sometimes in an effort to prevent cheating, and so must teach herself the law, create new teaching materials, and prep entirely new lectures based on the new assignments.   She often writes more letters of recommendation than other members of the faculty (because students tell her that she’s the only professor who “knows them”) and spends more time in non-academic discussions with students (for the same student-reported reasons).  Of course, she is also involved in the typical law school service responsibilities, serving on committees and attending faculty meetings.   And all of these statistics are not speculation.  Every year, the Legal Writing Institute, a professional organization with over 2000 members (disclosure:  I am member of the LWI Board of Directors) and the Association of Legal Writing Directors (disclosure: I am a past member of this organization’s Board, as well) conducts a survey of legal writing programs across the country, a survey with a remarkably high response rate (this year’s was 94.5%, with programs from 188 law schools responding).   But here’s the rub:  As that same survey describes, legal writing professors are typically paid far less than their podium colleagues.  The average legal writing professor today earns $73,773, regardless of number of years teaching;  a third of legal writing directors earn (on average) $26,000 less than entry-level podium faculty members at their schools.  An average director has been teaching in law schools for 15 years.   And that’s not all.  Legal writing professors may occupy less desirable office space, they may be prohibited from participating in faculty governance (even on matters, like curriculum, that directly concern them), and they often carry titles like “instructor” or “lecturer” rather than “professor.”  As reflected by the fact that only 18 law schools primarily employ legal writing faculty as tenured or tenure-track professors , very few have the job security that their podium colleagues enjoy.  Again, as Garner notes, the job of teaching legal writing is the least respected in most law schools.  And what Garner does not say explicitly?  That lack of respect often trickles down:  from administration, to podium faculty, to students (one of my darkest days of teaching was when I conferenced with a first-year law student, encouraging her to put more effort into legal writing; she replied that she didn’t want to take time away from her “real courses.”)   How can we resolve this disconnect between effort, importance, respect, and reward? Because, without these, “you have serious educational pathologies.”  Different commentators have offered different answers.  I believe (as do many of my legal writing colleagues) that Garner’s editorial in a forum like the New York Times is a good start; certainly one path to beginning to solve the problem of a lack of emphasis on legal writing is to publicize the problem in a widely-circulated publication.  But we know that naming the problem is not enough on its own; after all, even in the wake of the two most-read reports on legal education, the ABA Council on Legal Education still discusses eliminating the sections of its accrediting requirements that protect legal writing faculty and their academic freedom.   Compensating legal writing professors fairly and equally (with salary, with job security, with voting rights, and with allotted course credits) would also go a long way towards engendering respect.  Certainly financial and curricular budgets will be strrained, but because compensation is a key factor in how any professional is perceived, administrators should be motivated to solve that problem (and will likely attract some of the very top teachers in the country as a result).   Finally, law schools could emphasize from day one that no legal education is complete – or even sufficient – unless everyone in the law school stresses that theory and practice go hand in hand.  As one commentator in the New York Times series commented, “Law school is not a trade school.”  Without a grounding in theory, our students will not know how to think like lawyers.  But without an equal grounding in practice and writing, it’s possible that they will not learn to think in a logical, systematic way at all.

  Bob Hurt         Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email; Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary



Notice approved by the People of Texas on November 1st 2012


Notice - A call to assembly to all Texans

This is a call to assemble as “we the people” living souls on the dry land of Texas.


Method of assembly: by way of teleconference both by Internet and telephone.

When: Thursday November 1, 2012 8:00 PM Central Time

Following are the contact numbers/instructions.

Telephone: dial (712) 432-0900 Pin #: 103326# use * 6 to mute & un-mute.

Internet use Skype: dial in (712) 432-0900 access code 103326#

Convener: James Wright

Purpose of the assembly:

Consider approval of a Notice by the People of Texas supporting the Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott in his warning to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, an arm of the United Nations, that they have no authority nor jurisdiction to interfere in Texas Elections. (See Attachments)


    Greg Abbott letter of October 23, 2012

        to Ambassador Daan Everts for the

        Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights

        Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe


    Greg Abbott letter of October 25, 2012 to

        Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

    Description of Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

    Proposed Notice to be Considered for editing and approval by the Assembly


Recent talk by Attorney General Chaplain Raymond