Law from article on how 93 year old Texas woman is being held against her will in Silverado nursing home

Here is the law cited (so others can use in your cases)

State and Federal Law pertaining to advocating for the needs of the disabled under Title II or III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the Elder Justice Act, the Older Americans Act, the Elder Bill of Rights as stated in Section 102.003 of the Texas Human Resources Code, Patient rights’ violations in Texas Administrative Code Sections 19.401-19.418, et seq, the First, Fifth, Fourteenth, Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Articles I and V of the Texas Constitution, 18 U.S.C. 241 (Felony violation of Constitutional Rights), 18 U.S.C. 242 (Conspiracy to violate Constitutional Rights), 18 U.S.C. 247 (Conspiracy to deprive Americans of Free Exercise of Religion), the Texas Penal Code Sections 22.04 and more mandating reporting of any suspicion of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of the elderly and/or disabled. Attorneys are mandated reporters and the attorneys in this case prefer the ostrich approach, while shooting the messenger that would tell you of the abuse–no secret in countless social media and traditional journalist’s articles Nationwide.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution has stated since its ratification in 1791: “Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The First Amendment’s free speech clause, includes written expression as well as spoken. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991) 501 U.S. 560, 576 [111 S. Ct. 2456, 2465-2466, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504] (conc. opn. of Scalia, J.); see, e.g., Dallas v. Stanglin (1989) 490 U.S. 19, 25 [109 S. Ct. 1591, 1595, 104 L. Ed. 2d 18].) In Polk v. State Bar of Texas, Polk successfully enjoined the Texas State Bar from chilling his speech, even though he was critical of a District Attorney and Judge—suggesting corruption. 374 F. Supp. 784 (N.D. Tex. 1974).October 9, 2014 is the situs of the conspirators’ Motions for Sanctions and for Contempt and in the absence of the Judge barring the press and other concerned citizens, I invite you to come and testify as to why you believe the Courts should be open to the public in accordance with Article I, Section 13 (open courts provision) of the Texas Constitution. Our Texas Attorney General has promised to operate in the sunshine as it concerns our government–implying transparency of our government. Gag orders operate in darkness……

In Davenport v. Garcia, the Supreme Court of Texas stated, “We are fully aware that a prior restraint will withstand scrutiny under this test only under the most extraordinary circumstances. That result is consistent with the mandate of our constitution recognizing our broad right to freedom of expression in Texas. An individual’s rights under the state constitution do not end at the courthouse door; rather, the courthouse is properly the fortress of those rights. The first requirement of our standard advances from the prior holdings of Texas courts that only an imminent, severe harm can justify prior restraint, and in the context of gag orders, that harm must be to the judicial process. Ex Parte McCormick, 129 Tex. Crim. 457, 88 S.W.2d 104; Ex Parte Foster, 71 S.W. at 595.

Gag orders are almost without exception unconstitutional in civil cases unless the matter is sealed in accordance with strict constitutional mandates of Article I Section 13 and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a. Sealing has historically been limited to sensitive cases involving juveniles and adoptions.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). “All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance — unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion” — fall within the full protection of the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957). Legislation or Rules that aim at penalizing the publication of truthful information can seldom satisfy constitutional standards, Smith v. Butterworth, 866 F.2d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. granted, 493 U.S. 807, 110 S. Ct. 46, 107 L. Ed. 2d 16 (1989), and is generally presumed unconstitutional.

…the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that political speech about government issues or officials is “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618, 2626, 168 L. Ed. 2d 290 (U.S. 2007)(citation omitted). There is universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S. Ct. 1434, 16 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1966). The Supreme Court has long held that regulations enacted for the purpose of restraining speech on the basis of content are presumptively violative of the First Amendment, Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 46-47, 106 S. Ct. 925, 89 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1986)

Also follow the cases on our websites, Let Ruby Go and! These are, of course, our opinions, and you are free to disagree with us. That is what democracy is all about……

I believe this was written by Candice Schwager, a tireless activist for senior/disabled rights down in Texas.



One thought on “Law from article on how 93 year old Texas woman is being held against her will in Silverado nursing home

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s