My mother was a great one for April Fools jokes. One year she packed a lunch for my brother on April 1 as he headed off to school. It wasn’t until he bit into his sandwich that he found that the only thing between the two slices of bread was a piece of paper that said APRIL FOOLS!
I suppose someone who did that these days might be reported for child abuse. But in my family, we had a sense of humor about these things. At least I did. Not sure how my brother felt.
Anyway, today is April Fools Day, which seems like a good day to report on the case of Crook v. Galaviz. Mr. Crook is a convicted felon and disbarred attorney. His conviction was based on 13 counts of barratry. Barratry, an offense usually involving a lawyer soliciting clients in an improper fashion, is prohibited by Texas Penal Code 38.12.
Mr. Crook cannot practice law anymore, but apparently, he would very much like to be a teacher. He wants it so much that he has sued two districts, seeking to override their policies about not hiring convicted felons. First it was El Paso, and now Canutillo.
You will not be surprised to hear that Mr. Crook lost his case. The federal district court found that the district did not violate the U.S. Constitution by refusing to hire someone with a felony conviction. The latest challenge alleged, among other things, that Canutillo’s policies subjected Mr. Crook to “double jeopardy” and “cruel and unusual punishment.” Nope. Those provisions only come into play in criminal prosecutions.
DAWG BONE: NOT HIRING A CONVICTED FELON IS USUALLY OK.