TTT Texas Channel

GOP Senators hold press conference on Bidens border crisis https://www.youtube.com/live/DFPqmk6PGX0

2. Happel v. Guilford County School Board of Education (Case No. 86PA25): This case involves several legal issues related to parental rights and children’s bodily autonomy. The plaintiffs, Tanner Smith and his mother, Emily Happel, are appealing the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society, Inc. The dismissal was based on various grounds, including statutory immunity under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (“PREP Act”). The plaintiffs allege three causes of action: battery, violations of constitutional liberty and parental rights, and violation of Tanner’s bodily autonomy rights under N.C. Const. art. I, § 35. I understand that the Maras case is outside the state of Texas, but I firmly believe that it is an important case to support. The issues raised in this case have broader implications for parental rights and children’s autonomy, transcending state boundaries. As the Attorney General of Texas, your office plays a crucial role in safeguarding the rights of our citizens. By filing an amicus brief in these cases, you can help protect the rights of parents and ensure that their voices are heard, regardless of jurisdiction. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate your commitment to upholding justice and protecting the rights of Texas residents. Sincerely, [your name]

Call to ACTION: Please adjust and edit this to your liking and so it is not exactly the same but wanted to show you what I am going to send to AG Paxton: Dear Attorney General Paxton, I am writing to respectfully request that your office consider filing an amicus brief in support of two important cases currently before the courts. These cases address critical issues related to parental rights and the bodily autonomy of children. 1. Terpsehore v. Mayfield City School District Board of Education (Case No. 22-3915, 6th Cir.): In this case, Terpsehore Maras alleges that the Mayfield City School District violated federal and state procedural due-process requirements by imposing a mask mandate for the 2021–2022 school year without providing an adequate “opportunity for public discussion”. As parents, we believe that our right to participate in decisions affecting our children’s well-being is fundamental. Supporting this case would affirm the importance of parental input in matters that directly impact our children’s health and autonomy. During the proceedings, one of the 6th Circuit judges raised a point about the potential inequality in access to legal representation. The judge questioned whether only rich children would be able to afford representation, implying that the ability to challenge school district decisions might be limited to those with financial resources. This point underscores the importance of ensuring that all parents, regardless of their financial status, have the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their children's well-being. In the context of this case, the issue of pro se representation is particularly relevant. Pro se, meaning "for oneself" or "on one's own behalf," refers to a situation where a party in a lawsuit represents themselves without the assistance of an attorney. This is a fundamental right recognized by the U.S. legal system, allowing individuals to represent themselves in court proceedings. However, this right is not automatically extended to parents wishing to represent their minor children. In the Terpsehore v. Mayfield City School District case, the issue of pro se representation could potentially play a significant role. If the case were to proceed to trial, the question of whether Terpsehore Maras can adequately represent her children without the assistance of an attorney could become a key issue. This case highlights the complexities and challenges of pro se representation in legal cases, particularly when it involves representing a minor. The judge's concern about the potential inequality in access to legal representation is a valid one. It underscores the importance of ensuring that all parents, regardless of their financial status, have the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their children's well-being. This is a crucial aspect of the broader conversation about access to justice and the rights of parents to make decisions about their children's health and education. In the case of Raskin v Dallas ISD (21-11180), the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court sided with a local mother, Allyson Raskin, allowing her to represent her children in a lawsuit against the Dallas Independent School District (DISD). Raskin sued DISD in response to the mandates requiring students to wear masks. The Fifth Circuit Court rejected DISD's claims and held that an absolute bar on pro se parent representation is inconsistent with federal law, which allows a pro se parent to proceed on behalf of her child in federal court when the child’s case is the parent’s ‘own’. This ruling means that Raskin can continue her lawsuit against DISD on behalf of her children regarding the mask mandates. The case will now return to the lower court to be heard on the actual merits of the case.

EXCLUSIVE: Biden admin offers 'mass amnesty' to migrants as it quietly terminates 350,000 asylum cases: sources https://nypost.com/2024/06/02/us-news/biden-admin-offers-mass-amnesty-to-migrants-as-it-quietly-terminates-350000-asylum-cases-sources/

Texas can’t allow this

There is also a hearing on Border Security in the Senate on Tuesday Jun 11 https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/schedules/html/C5172024061110001.HTM

Who will be joining me at this hearing on elections in the Texas House? https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/schedules/html/C2402024061210001.HTM The Committee on Elections will meet on Wednesday, June 12, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. to hear invited testimony only on the following interim charge: Monitor the agencies and programs under the Committee's jurisdiction and oversee the implementation of relevant legislation passed by the 88th Legislature. Conduct active oversight of all associated rulemaking and other governmental actions taken to ensure the intended legislative outcome of all legislation, including the following: SB 1070, relating to the interstate voter registration crosscheck program; and SB 1750, relating to abolishing the county elections administrator position in certain counties. The Committee will also be hearing invited testimony only regarding Texas election law relating to ballot secrecy and those tasked with administering and monitoring this process. Electronic Public Comments may be submitted for: Implementation of SB 1070 Implementation of SB 1750 Oversight of Ballot Secrecy Texas residents who wish to electronically submit comments related to agenda items on this notice without testifying in person can do so until the hearing is adjourned by visiting: https://comments.house.texas.gov/home?c=c240 For those persons who will be testifying, information for in-person witness registration, can be found here: https://mytxlegis.capitol.texas.gov/HWRSPublic/About.aspx A live video broadcast of this hearing will be available here: https://house.texas.gov/video-audio/ Instructions related to public access to the meeting location are available here: https://house.texas.gov/committees/public-access-house-committee-meetings/

Live now! … Praying for real Justice!!! 🙏⚖️ https://rumble.com/v4y1p2c-live-congress-hears-public-testimony-from-dr.-fauci-on-pandemic-response-63.html

They don’t have an upcoming meeting posted but it does appear they have conducted them annually in the past. Here’s the last agenda from 2023. And it is subject to the Open Meetings Act and public comment is heard https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/weather/agendas/wmagenda082123.htm Video from 2023 meeting https://www.youtube.com/live/wo4gypD5dSs?si=hbzdBbszN7rXTc-Z