sunday night rocked at the blue ghost landing!
i met lots of people there to support "the army of juan" campaign
wish jaime powell would have been there
it would have been nice to put a name with the face
too bad jaime you missed out!
even the crushgirls.com (front page ccct) came out for "texas state rep democratic candidate for district 32"
that party flew on wings of gold
john hall treasurer and juan garcia along with band rocked the blue ghost!
we had 'the time of our life"
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Juan Garcia and supporters are GOOD PEOPLE!
Juan more voice.....
Posted on May 29, 2006 at 01:28:04 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
raised infinitely to the power of South Texas for the ascension of Juan Garcia III to the Office of District 32 State Representative.
We can put this man into office.
We can defeat the insurance big money.
Well South Texas, it is now up to us.
When I woke up this morning, I did not even know WATT Juan Garcia III looked like much less who his supporters were.
Good People!
That is all I will say for now, GOOD PEOPLE!
Hey South Texas Democrats get over the bickering and the envy.
We got an election to win!
Join the Army of Juan.
Who are you Juan Garcia III?
Let's make South Texas Rumble.
More on this race (against the INSURANCE industry) coming to your community soon!
Posted on May 29, 2006 at 01:28:04 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
raised infinitely to the power of South Texas for the ascension of Juan Garcia III to the Office of District 32 State Representative.
We can put this man into office.
We can defeat the insurance big money.
Well South Texas, it is now up to us.
When I woke up this morning, I did not even know WATT Juan Garcia III looked like much less who his supporters were.
Good People!
That is all I will say for now, GOOD PEOPLE!
Hey South Texas Democrats get over the bickering and the envy.
We got an election to win!
Join the Army of Juan.
Who are you Juan Garcia III?
Let's make South Texas Rumble.
More on this race (against the INSURANCE industry) coming to your community soon!
"Unless Juan Garcia can come up with about $300,000-$400,000 real quick ..
Jaime F Kenedeno
Posts: 11
"Unless Juan Garcia can come up with about $300,000-$400,000 real quick .. 5/30/2006 2:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
he'll go down as a poser". LW
I understand, District 32 would like to see a series of debates between these two statesmen.
Do ya think they would agree to debating the issues?
Of course, the incumbent has everything to lose and nothing to gain by agreeing to engage his opponent or his constituency; but it sure would be a good thing for District 32.
BTW, what exactly is going on in Aransas?
Who are the players?
Why are there disgruntled Republicans?
Posts: 11
"Unless Juan Garcia can come up with about $300,000-$400,000 real quick .. 5/30/2006 2:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
he'll go down as a poser". LW
I understand, District 32 would like to see a series of debates between these two statesmen.
Do ya think they would agree to debating the issues?
Of course, the incumbent has everything to lose and nothing to gain by agreeing to engage his opponent or his constituency; but it sure would be a good thing for District 32.
BTW, what exactly is going on in Aransas?
Who are the players?
Why are there disgruntled Republicans?
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
tana'>http://tanaoilandgas.blogspot.com/2006/05/trt-development-kc-kings-crossing.html#links">tana: TRT Development- KC (Kings Crossing) & the Modification of JOB opportunities... NUMBER 13-98-254-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________
TRT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY-KC,
SHORELINE OPERATING COMPANY,
AND WYNN CHAPMAN , Appellants,
v.
MARK MEYERS , Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 319th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________
O P I N I O N
Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Chavez
Opinion by Justice Dorsey
Appellants TRT Development Company-KC, Shoreline Operating Company, and Wynn Chapman appeal a judgment rendered on a jury verdict that they are liable to Mark Meyers for defamation. By four issues appellants challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Meyers raises four cross-issues for our consideration. We reverse and render.
Factual Background
On Sunday May 19, 1996 Valero Refining Company held its annual family day picnic and golf tournament at the Kings Crossing Golf and Country Club located in Corpus Christi. Mark Meyers, an employee of Valero, played in the tournament with a group of three other Valero employees. After the tournament Meyers went into the Kings Crossing pro shop and gave his score card to Chad Salerno and Mark McCarthy, both of whom worked in the pro shop. Meyers stayed in the pro shop to look at the merchandise, and Salerno went to the pool area. Salerno returned about twenty minutes later and saw that Meyers was still in the pro shop, standing behind a display rack. About five minutes later Salerno walked towards Meyers and noticed that he had bulges in the pockets of his shorts. When Meyers first entered the pro shop Salerno did not recall seeing anything in his pockets. As Salerno approached, Meyers turned, walked away, and left the pro shop. As Meyers was leaving Salerno heard hangers rattling where Meyers had been standing. After Salerno found some empty shirt hangers where Meyers had been standing he and McCarthy followed Meyers to his truck, which was parked in the parking lot. McCarthy testified that when he followed Meyers into the parking lot Meyers "had his hands kind of cupped around his shorts, holding them up, and they were bulging out." While Meyers was in his truck Salerno and McCarthy asked him if they could see what was in his pockets. Meyers ignored them and closed the door. He backed up without removing the sun screen from his windshield and drove away.
After Meyers' departure Salerno discovered his name by questioning the three persons who had played golf in the same group with Meyers that day. Shortly thereafter the pro shop employees reported Meyers' behavior to Wynn Chapman, the general manager of Kings Crossing. A short time later Chapman had a private meeting in his office with Robert Grimes. Grimes was at Kings Crossing for the event and worked as Valero's manager of employee relations and public affairs. Concerning this meeting Grimes testified that Chapman had told him that Valero
had one employee that was observed around the shirt rack for sometime; the employee left in a hurry; they observed two or three shirts were missing from the rack; they approached the employee out in the parking lot, and he drove off in a hurry without responding to their questions.
During trial Meyers' counsel asked Grimes, "Based on those statements that he made to you at that time, was your understanding that Mr. Chapman was telling you that there had been a theft by a Valero employee?" He replied, "Yes, basically." Grimes understood from Chapman that Meyers was the employee suspected of the theft.
The day after the incident Meyers told Grimes what had happened. Meyers admitted to being in the pro shop after the tournament, that he left the pro shop, and that one or two Kings Crossing employees approached him in the parking lot. Meyers said that an employee told him that he looked kind of fat. Meyers cussed at him and drove off. Meyers stated that he had brought "koozies" to the tournament and had stuffed them in his pockets, thus accounting for the bulges there. He denied taking anything from the pro shop.
Valero sent its security supervisor, Gwen Henzi, to Kings Crossing to investigate the theft allegations, and also conducted an in-house investigation. Henzi's investigation did not determine that Meyers had stolen anything from the pro shop. The in-house investigation showed that Meyers had been drinking alcoholic beverages during the tournament and that he was "kind of loud and rowdy" during the tournament. People who played golf on the course said that Meyers was intoxicated. For disciplinary reasons Valero suspended Meyers for ten days without pay. Valero also requested that he undergo substance-abuse evaluation. Grimes' testimony was that Meyers was not punished for being accused of a theft. In June 1997 Valero fired Meyers because he had filed a lawsuit(1) against Valero and because he had recorded telephone conversations with Valero employees.
Meyers sued TRT Development Company-KC,(2) Shoreline Operating Co.,(3) and Wynn Chapman (collectively appellants) for tortious interference with his employment contract with Valero and for defamation. Meyers claimed that Wynn Chapman and Chad Salerno had made defamatory statements about him. The case proceeded to jury trial and resulted in jury findings that only Chapman had made defamatory statements about Meyers, that Chapman's statements were not made with actual malice, and that appellants did not tortiously interfere with Meyers' contract. The jury awarded Meyers $54,239.50 in lost wages.
On February 18, 1998 the court signed the judgment awarding $54,239.50 to Meyers. Appellants appeal from this judgment.
Wynn Chapman's
Statements to Robert Grimes
By their second issue appellants assert that the evidence showed as a matter of law that Wynn Chapman's statements to Robert Grimes are qualifiedly privileged and therefore not actionable. In its answer to question one the jury found that Chapman's statements to Grimes in Chapman's office were defamatory.
Appellants filed a motion for judgment n.o.v., contending that they had established qualified privilege as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motion. A trial court should grant a motion for judgment n.o.v. when the evidence is conclusive and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. City of Dallas v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 980 S.W.2d 928, 938 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1998, writ denied). See Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1990).
Slander is a defamatory statement that is orally communicated to a third person without legal excuse. Randall's Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 646 (Tex. 1995); Hardwick v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 881 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1994, writ dism'd w.o.j.). Slanderous statements are conditionally or qualifiedly privileged and therefore not actionable when "made in good faith on any subject matter in which the author has an interest, or with reference to which he has a duty to perform to another person having a corresponding interest or duty." Rogers v. Cassidy, 946 S.W.2d 439, 447 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997, no writ); Associated Tel. Directory Publishers, Inc. v. Better Bus. Bureau of Austin, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 190, 192 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
An interest giving rise to a qualified privilege may be that of the publisher of the communication, the recipient of the communication, or a third person. Pioneer Concrete of Texas, Inc. v. Allen, 858 S.W.2d 47, 50 (Tex. App--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied); Kaplan v. Goodfreed, 497 S.W.2d 101, 105 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1973, no writ). Communications given voluntarily, as in this case, rather than in response to a request for information, are privileged "if the relationship between the parties is such that it is within generally accepted standards of decent conduct to furnish the information for the protection of the interest of the recipient." Allen, 858 S.W.2d at 50; Kaplan, 497 S.W.2d at 105-06.
The speaker abuses the privilege if he makes a statement with actual malice. Grant v. Stop-N-Go Market of Texas, Inc., 994 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no writ). Even a communication on a privileged occasion that would otherwise be slanderous per se is qualifiedly or conditionally privileged and not actionable, unless the defendant was actuated by malice. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Odem, 929 S.W.2d 513, 525 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, writ denied). In the defamation context a speaker makes a statement with actual malice if he makes the statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard about its truth. Randall's Food Markets, 891 S.W.2d at 646; Hagler v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 884 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam). Reckless disregard is defined as a high degree of awareness of probable falsity, for proof of which the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts about the truth of his publication. Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567, 571 (Tex. 1989). The privilege is also abused if the person claiming it does not act for the purpose of protecting the common interest. Grant, 994 S.W.2d 874; Hardwick, 881 S.W.2d at 199.
Privilege is an affirmative defense, and the defendant has the burden of proving that the communication is privileged. Denton Publishing Co. v. Boyd, 460 S.W.2d 880, 881, 884 (Tex. 1970). When the facts are undisputed and the language used in the publication is not ambiguous the question of privilege is ordinarily one of law for the court. Denton Publishing Co., 460 S.W.2d at 884. See Dixon v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 607 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Tex. 1980).
The evidence is undisputed that on May 19, 1996, Valero held its family day picnic and golf tournament at Kings Crossing. Valero had paid and contracted with Kings Crossing to use its facilities. Meyers was a Valero employee and played in the golf tournament. Chapman was Kings Crossing's general manager and was ultimately responsible for what happened in the pro shop. Shortly after the tournament Kings Crossing's employees reported to Chapman a suspected theft of golf shirts from the pro shop committed by Meyers. Chapman communicated the reported incident to Valero through Grimes. Chapman believed that the statements he made to Grimes were true.
Because Chapman was the general manager of Kings Crossing with ultimate responsibility for what happened in the pro shop, he had an interest in the subject matter of his communications to Grimes, that is, the report of a theft from the pro shop by a Valero employee. Grimes, as Valero's manager of human relations and public affairs, had a corresponding interest in knowing that a Valero employee was probably involved in a theft while participating in a company-sponsored event. Knowledge of these facts would allow Valero to investigate the theft, discipline Meyers if necessary, and pay(4)Kings Crossing for the missing shirts, so that Valero could promote and maintain its relationship with Kings Crossing. Grimes testified that "we were glad" that Chapman had informed Valero about the incident. Grimes also testified, "If something similar to . . . [this] incident happens when we're a guest at a facility like that, we want to know about it. . . ." Eugene Cotten, a vice-president for Valero, testified that "Valero is always concerned about the actions of our employees."
Appellants established that Chapman's statements to Grimes were qualifiedly privileged because the evidence conclusively showed that Chapman made the statements to Grimes on a subject in which they had a common interest. See Rogers, 946 S.W.2d at 447; Associated Tel. Directory Publishers, 710 S.W.2d at 190. Given the relationship between Kings Crossing and Valero, it was within generally accepted standards of decent conduct for Chapman to tell Grimes for the protection of Valero's interests. SeeAllen, 858 S.W.2d at 50; Kaplan, 497 S.W.2d at 105-06.
The jury found that Chapman did not act with malice when he made the statements to Grimes. The record is devoid of any evidence that Chapman knew the statements were false or that he made them with reckless disregard about their truth when he reported Meyer's actions to Grimes. The evidence showed as a matter of law that Chapman's statements were protected by qualified privilege that was not overcome by actual malice. Appellant's second issue is sustained.
As the resolution of this issue is dispositive of appellants' appeal we need not address their remaining issues. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
The Cross Appeal
By his first issue Meyers asserts that the jury's failure to find that Chad Salerno's statements were defamatory is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. In its answer to question one the jury found that Salerno's statements to the "Valero employees" were not defamatory.
In reviewing a factual sufficiency point an appellate court must weigh all of the evidence in the record. Ortiz v. Jones, 947 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam); Burnett v. Motyka, 610 S.W.2d 735, 736 (Tex. 1980). Findings may be overturned only if they are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that they are clearly wrong and unjust. Ortiz, 947 S.W.2d at 772; Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). In Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) the court stated that the appellate court must also "clearly state why the jury's finding is factually insufficient or is so against the great weight and preponderance as to be manifestly unjust." Pool, 715 S.W.2d at 635.
The evidence showed that after Meyers left the Kings Crossing parking lot Salerno discovered his name by questioning the Valero employees who had played golf in the same group with Meyers that day. Salerno described Meyers' truck to the employees and asked who it belonged to. One of the persons in the group asked Salerno why he was asking this. Salerno testified that "I told him that . . . items on the hangers were missing where Mr. Meyers was standing, and that we needed to ask him some questions."
The charge instructed the jury on the defense of truth as follows: "You are instructed that truth is a complete defense to defamation. If the statements made are literally true, they are not slanderous or defamatory."
Truth is an affirmative and absolute defense to slander. Randall's Food Markets, 891 S.W.2d at 646; Town of S. Padre Island v. Jacobs, 736 S.W.2d 134, 140 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1986, writ denied). In Randall's the court said that a "literally true" statement is a "complete defense" to slander. Randall's Food Markets, 891 S.W.2d at 646; Washington v. Naylor Indus. Servs., Inc., 893 S.W.2d 309, 311 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ). The implications of a true statement, however unfortunate, do not vitiate an affirmative defense of truth. Hardwick, 943 S.W.2d at 185. Because truth is an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden of establishing that the defamatory statements were true. Knox v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 40, 54 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no writ); Town of S. Padre Island, 736 S.W.2d at 140.
The evidence was that when Meyers entered the pro shop, Salerno did not recall seeing anything in his pockets. Meyers remained in the pro shop for twenty to thirty minutes. Salerno saw him standing behind a display rack. When Salerno approached Meyers he went in the opposite direction and left the pro shop. Salerno saw bulges in the pockets of Meyers' shorts and found empty shirt hangers in the area where he was standing. This evidence establishes the literal truth of Salerno's statement to the Valero employees. We hold that the jury's answer was not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it was clearly wrong and unjust. We overrule the first cross issue.
By his fourth cross issue Meyers asserts that appellants tortiously interfered with his employment contract with Valero. In its answer to question six the jury found that Shoreline Operating Company and Wynn Chapman did not intentionally interfere with Meyers' employment contract with Valero.
The elements of tortious interference with a contract are: (1) the existence of a contract subject to interference; (2) willful and intentional interference; (3) interference that proximately caused damage; and (4) actual damage or loss. Powell Indus., Inc. v. Allen, 985 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). See ACS Investors, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 943 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Tex. 1997). In the instant case the testimony was that Valero suspended Meyers for ten days without pay because he had consumed alcoholic beverages during the golf tournament and he was loud and rowdy on the golf course. Valero terminated Meyers in June 1997 because he had filed suit against Valero and because he had secretly tape recorded telephone conversations between himself and other Valero employees. Eugene Cotten was Meyers' supervisor at Valero. He testified that the possible theft of shirts from the pro shop was not a factor in Valero being upset with Meyers, and that the actions taken by Valero against Meyers were not due to the alleged theft of the shirts. The evidence does not establish that appellants' complaint about the missing shirts proximately caused any damages to Meyers. We hold that the jury's answer to question six was not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it was clearly wrong and unjust. We overrule the fourth cross-issue.
Due to our disposition of the above cross-issues we need not address Meyers' remaining cross-issues. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
We REVERSE the judgment of the trial court and RENDER judgment that Mark Meyers take nothing by his suit against appellants.
______________________________
J. BONNER DORSEY,
Justice
Publish .
Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).
Opinion delivered and filed
this 23rd day of March, 2000.
1. Meyers settled his suit against Valero for $3,000.
2. TRT Development Company owned the Kings Crossing facilities when the incident happened in May, 1996.
3. Shoreline Operating Company managed the Kings Crossing facilities at the time.
4. Valero paid for the missing shirts.
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________
TRT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY-KC,
SHORELINE OPERATING COMPANY,
AND WYNN CHAPMAN , Appellants,
v.
MARK MEYERS , Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 319th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________
O P I N I O N
Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Chavez
Opinion by Justice Dorsey
Appellants TRT Development Company-KC, Shoreline Operating Company, and Wynn Chapman appeal a judgment rendered on a jury verdict that they are liable to Mark Meyers for defamation. By four issues appellants challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Meyers raises four cross-issues for our consideration. We reverse and render.
Factual Background
On Sunday May 19, 1996 Valero Refining Company held its annual family day picnic and golf tournament at the Kings Crossing Golf and Country Club located in Corpus Christi. Mark Meyers, an employee of Valero, played in the tournament with a group of three other Valero employees. After the tournament Meyers went into the Kings Crossing pro shop and gave his score card to Chad Salerno and Mark McCarthy, both of whom worked in the pro shop. Meyers stayed in the pro shop to look at the merchandise, and Salerno went to the pool area. Salerno returned about twenty minutes later and saw that Meyers was still in the pro shop, standing behind a display rack. About five minutes later Salerno walked towards Meyers and noticed that he had bulges in the pockets of his shorts. When Meyers first entered the pro shop Salerno did not recall seeing anything in his pockets. As Salerno approached, Meyers turned, walked away, and left the pro shop. As Meyers was leaving Salerno heard hangers rattling where Meyers had been standing. After Salerno found some empty shirt hangers where Meyers had been standing he and McCarthy followed Meyers to his truck, which was parked in the parking lot. McCarthy testified that when he followed Meyers into the parking lot Meyers "had his hands kind of cupped around his shorts, holding them up, and they were bulging out." While Meyers was in his truck Salerno and McCarthy asked him if they could see what was in his pockets. Meyers ignored them and closed the door. He backed up without removing the sun screen from his windshield and drove away.
After Meyers' departure Salerno discovered his name by questioning the three persons who had played golf in the same group with Meyers that day. Shortly thereafter the pro shop employees reported Meyers' behavior to Wynn Chapman, the general manager of Kings Crossing. A short time later Chapman had a private meeting in his office with Robert Grimes. Grimes was at Kings Crossing for the event and worked as Valero's manager of employee relations and public affairs. Concerning this meeting Grimes testified that Chapman had told him that Valero
had one employee that was observed around the shirt rack for sometime; the employee left in a hurry; they observed two or three shirts were missing from the rack; they approached the employee out in the parking lot, and he drove off in a hurry without responding to their questions.
During trial Meyers' counsel asked Grimes, "Based on those statements that he made to you at that time, was your understanding that Mr. Chapman was telling you that there had been a theft by a Valero employee?" He replied, "Yes, basically." Grimes understood from Chapman that Meyers was the employee suspected of the theft.
The day after the incident Meyers told Grimes what had happened. Meyers admitted to being in the pro shop after the tournament, that he left the pro shop, and that one or two Kings Crossing employees approached him in the parking lot. Meyers said that an employee told him that he looked kind of fat. Meyers cussed at him and drove off. Meyers stated that he had brought "koozies" to the tournament and had stuffed them in his pockets, thus accounting for the bulges there. He denied taking anything from the pro shop.
Valero sent its security supervisor, Gwen Henzi, to Kings Crossing to investigate the theft allegations, and also conducted an in-house investigation. Henzi's investigation did not determine that Meyers had stolen anything from the pro shop. The in-house investigation showed that Meyers had been drinking alcoholic beverages during the tournament and that he was "kind of loud and rowdy" during the tournament. People who played golf on the course said that Meyers was intoxicated. For disciplinary reasons Valero suspended Meyers for ten days without pay. Valero also requested that he undergo substance-abuse evaluation. Grimes' testimony was that Meyers was not punished for being accused of a theft. In June 1997 Valero fired Meyers because he had filed a lawsuit(1) against Valero and because he had recorded telephone conversations with Valero employees.
Meyers sued TRT Development Company-KC,(2) Shoreline Operating Co.,(3) and Wynn Chapman (collectively appellants) for tortious interference with his employment contract with Valero and for defamation. Meyers claimed that Wynn Chapman and Chad Salerno had made defamatory statements about him. The case proceeded to jury trial and resulted in jury findings that only Chapman had made defamatory statements about Meyers, that Chapman's statements were not made with actual malice, and that appellants did not tortiously interfere with Meyers' contract. The jury awarded Meyers $54,239.50 in lost wages.
On February 18, 1998 the court signed the judgment awarding $54,239.50 to Meyers. Appellants appeal from this judgment.
Wynn Chapman's
Statements to Robert Grimes
By their second issue appellants assert that the evidence showed as a matter of law that Wynn Chapman's statements to Robert Grimes are qualifiedly privileged and therefore not actionable. In its answer to question one the jury found that Chapman's statements to Grimes in Chapman's office were defamatory.
Appellants filed a motion for judgment n.o.v., contending that they had established qualified privilege as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motion. A trial court should grant a motion for judgment n.o.v. when the evidence is conclusive and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. City of Dallas v. GTE Southwest, Inc., 980 S.W.2d 928, 938 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1998, writ denied). See Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1990).
Slander is a defamatory statement that is orally communicated to a third person without legal excuse. Randall's Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 646 (Tex. 1995); Hardwick v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 881 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1994, writ dism'd w.o.j.). Slanderous statements are conditionally or qualifiedly privileged and therefore not actionable when "made in good faith on any subject matter in which the author has an interest, or with reference to which he has a duty to perform to another person having a corresponding interest or duty." Rogers v. Cassidy, 946 S.W.2d 439, 447 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997, no writ); Associated Tel. Directory Publishers, Inc. v. Better Bus. Bureau of Austin, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 190, 192 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
An interest giving rise to a qualified privilege may be that of the publisher of the communication, the recipient of the communication, or a third person. Pioneer Concrete of Texas, Inc. v. Allen, 858 S.W.2d 47, 50 (Tex. App--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied); Kaplan v. Goodfreed, 497 S.W.2d 101, 105 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1973, no writ). Communications given voluntarily, as in this case, rather than in response to a request for information, are privileged "if the relationship between the parties is such that it is within generally accepted standards of decent conduct to furnish the information for the protection of the interest of the recipient." Allen, 858 S.W.2d at 50; Kaplan, 497 S.W.2d at 105-06.
The speaker abuses the privilege if he makes a statement with actual malice. Grant v. Stop-N-Go Market of Texas, Inc., 994 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no writ). Even a communication on a privileged occasion that would otherwise be slanderous per se is qualifiedly or conditionally privileged and not actionable, unless the defendant was actuated by malice. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Odem, 929 S.W.2d 513, 525 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, writ denied). In the defamation context a speaker makes a statement with actual malice if he makes the statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard about its truth. Randall's Food Markets, 891 S.W.2d at 646; Hagler v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 884 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam). Reckless disregard is defined as a high degree of awareness of probable falsity, for proof of which the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts about the truth of his publication. Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567, 571 (Tex. 1989). The privilege is also abused if the person claiming it does not act for the purpose of protecting the common interest. Grant, 994 S.W.2d 874; Hardwick, 881 S.W.2d at 199.
Privilege is an affirmative defense, and the defendant has the burden of proving that the communication is privileged. Denton Publishing Co. v. Boyd, 460 S.W.2d 880, 881, 884 (Tex. 1970). When the facts are undisputed and the language used in the publication is not ambiguous the question of privilege is ordinarily one of law for the court. Denton Publishing Co., 460 S.W.2d at 884. See Dixon v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 607 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Tex. 1980).
The evidence is undisputed that on May 19, 1996, Valero held its family day picnic and golf tournament at Kings Crossing. Valero had paid and contracted with Kings Crossing to use its facilities. Meyers was a Valero employee and played in the golf tournament. Chapman was Kings Crossing's general manager and was ultimately responsible for what happened in the pro shop. Shortly after the tournament Kings Crossing's employees reported to Chapman a suspected theft of golf shirts from the pro shop committed by Meyers. Chapman communicated the reported incident to Valero through Grimes. Chapman believed that the statements he made to Grimes were true.
Because Chapman was the general manager of Kings Crossing with ultimate responsibility for what happened in the pro shop, he had an interest in the subject matter of his communications to Grimes, that is, the report of a theft from the pro shop by a Valero employee. Grimes, as Valero's manager of human relations and public affairs, had a corresponding interest in knowing that a Valero employee was probably involved in a theft while participating in a company-sponsored event. Knowledge of these facts would allow Valero to investigate the theft, discipline Meyers if necessary, and pay(4)Kings Crossing for the missing shirts, so that Valero could promote and maintain its relationship with Kings Crossing. Grimes testified that "we were glad" that Chapman had informed Valero about the incident. Grimes also testified, "If something similar to . . . [this] incident happens when we're a guest at a facility like that, we want to know about it. . . ." Eugene Cotten, a vice-president for Valero, testified that "Valero is always concerned about the actions of our employees."
Appellants established that Chapman's statements to Grimes were qualifiedly privileged because the evidence conclusively showed that Chapman made the statements to Grimes on a subject in which they had a common interest. See Rogers, 946 S.W.2d at 447; Associated Tel. Directory Publishers, 710 S.W.2d at 190. Given the relationship between Kings Crossing and Valero, it was within generally accepted standards of decent conduct for Chapman to tell Grimes for the protection of Valero's interests. SeeAllen, 858 S.W.2d at 50; Kaplan, 497 S.W.2d at 105-06.
The jury found that Chapman did not act with malice when he made the statements to Grimes. The record is devoid of any evidence that Chapman knew the statements were false or that he made them with reckless disregard about their truth when he reported Meyer's actions to Grimes. The evidence showed as a matter of law that Chapman's statements were protected by qualified privilege that was not overcome by actual malice. Appellant's second issue is sustained.
As the resolution of this issue is dispositive of appellants' appeal we need not address their remaining issues. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
The Cross Appeal
By his first issue Meyers asserts that the jury's failure to find that Chad Salerno's statements were defamatory is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. In its answer to question one the jury found that Salerno's statements to the "Valero employees" were not defamatory.
In reviewing a factual sufficiency point an appellate court must weigh all of the evidence in the record. Ortiz v. Jones, 947 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam); Burnett v. Motyka, 610 S.W.2d 735, 736 (Tex. 1980). Findings may be overturned only if they are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that they are clearly wrong and unjust. Ortiz, 947 S.W.2d at 772; Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). In Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) the court stated that the appellate court must also "clearly state why the jury's finding is factually insufficient or is so against the great weight and preponderance as to be manifestly unjust." Pool, 715 S.W.2d at 635.
The evidence showed that after Meyers left the Kings Crossing parking lot Salerno discovered his name by questioning the Valero employees who had played golf in the same group with Meyers that day. Salerno described Meyers' truck to the employees and asked who it belonged to. One of the persons in the group asked Salerno why he was asking this. Salerno testified that "I told him that . . . items on the hangers were missing where Mr. Meyers was standing, and that we needed to ask him some questions."
The charge instructed the jury on the defense of truth as follows: "You are instructed that truth is a complete defense to defamation. If the statements made are literally true, they are not slanderous or defamatory."
Truth is an affirmative and absolute defense to slander. Randall's Food Markets, 891 S.W.2d at 646; Town of S. Padre Island v. Jacobs, 736 S.W.2d 134, 140 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1986, writ denied). In Randall's the court said that a "literally true" statement is a "complete defense" to slander. Randall's Food Markets, 891 S.W.2d at 646; Washington v. Naylor Indus. Servs., Inc., 893 S.W.2d 309, 311 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ). The implications of a true statement, however unfortunate, do not vitiate an affirmative defense of truth. Hardwick, 943 S.W.2d at 185. Because truth is an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden of establishing that the defamatory statements were true. Knox v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 40, 54 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no writ); Town of S. Padre Island, 736 S.W.2d at 140.
The evidence was that when Meyers entered the pro shop, Salerno did not recall seeing anything in his pockets. Meyers remained in the pro shop for twenty to thirty minutes. Salerno saw him standing behind a display rack. When Salerno approached Meyers he went in the opposite direction and left the pro shop. Salerno saw bulges in the pockets of Meyers' shorts and found empty shirt hangers in the area where he was standing. This evidence establishes the literal truth of Salerno's statement to the Valero employees. We hold that the jury's answer was not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it was clearly wrong and unjust. We overrule the first cross issue.
By his fourth cross issue Meyers asserts that appellants tortiously interfered with his employment contract with Valero. In its answer to question six the jury found that Shoreline Operating Company and Wynn Chapman did not intentionally interfere with Meyers' employment contract with Valero.
The elements of tortious interference with a contract are: (1) the existence of a contract subject to interference; (2) willful and intentional interference; (3) interference that proximately caused damage; and (4) actual damage or loss. Powell Indus., Inc. v. Allen, 985 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). See ACS Investors, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 943 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Tex. 1997). In the instant case the testimony was that Valero suspended Meyers for ten days without pay because he had consumed alcoholic beverages during the golf tournament and he was loud and rowdy on the golf course. Valero terminated Meyers in June 1997 because he had filed suit against Valero and because he had secretly tape recorded telephone conversations between himself and other Valero employees. Eugene Cotten was Meyers' supervisor at Valero. He testified that the possible theft of shirts from the pro shop was not a factor in Valero being upset with Meyers, and that the actions taken by Valero against Meyers were not due to the alleged theft of the shirts. The evidence does not establish that appellants' complaint about the missing shirts proximately caused any damages to Meyers. We hold that the jury's answer to question six was not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it was clearly wrong and unjust. We overrule the fourth cross-issue.
Due to our disposition of the above cross-issues we need not address Meyers' remaining cross-issues. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
We REVERSE the judgment of the trial court and RENDER judgment that Mark Meyers take nothing by his suit against appellants.
______________________________
J. BONNER DORSEY,
Justice
Publish .
Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).
Opinion delivered and filed
this 23rd day of March, 2000.
1. Meyers settled his suit against Valero for $3,000.
2. TRT Development Company owned the Kings Crossing facilities when the incident happened in May, 1996.
3. Shoreline Operating Company managed the Kings Crossing facilities at the time.
4. Valero paid for the missing shirts.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Also, the King Ranch wants....
Posted on May 13, 2006 at 08:46:39 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
their land back in Cuba. Now Cuba, that is where the CIA made a big blunder leading to the Murder of our President JFK.
LBJ, the Hunts (who were on the grassy knoll and the Clebergs coupled with Brown & Root, Anne Armstrong, Nixon (and his "Bay of Pigs"). Well it is confirmed with the connections leading up to our modern day vice president and The Kenedy's "Chicago Ranch" from which the Artesian Aquifer of dinero flows.
=====================================================================================
Monday, February 13, 2006
the Kings, Klebergs, Armstrongs, Kenedys and others
From a Family Business to a Corporate Environment. The last quarter of the 20th Century has brought further changes to King Ranch. Since 1977, all overseas ranching operations except for that in Brazil was sold. The King Ranch''s Corporate History statement credits James H. Clement and his successor John B. Armstrong with guiding the Company to eliminate debt and ""...through the difficult Texas business environment of the 1980s and (they) oversaw the painful, and sometimes stormy, transition from a family business enterprise to the present corporate structure with outside directorship and professional management."" Since 1988, the King Ranch Chief Executive Officer has not been a King family member, although the corporate board of directors still includes some descendants. By the early 1970''s, King Ranch holdings totaled, worldwide, approximately 11.5 million acres. In 1974, with the death of Bob Kleberg and Dick, Jr., in poor health, the Family selected James H. Clement, Sr., the husband of King''s great granddaughter Ida Larkin, as President and CEO. Together with successor John B. Armstrong (husband to King''s great granddaughter, Henrietta Larkin), Clement steered the Ranch though the difficult Texas business environment of the 1980''s. They also oversaw the transition from a Family business to a modern corporate structure -- based primarily on the lines of business established in the early years. Eventually, many of the foreign operations were liquidated as the focus shifted back to the traditional domestic lines of business. See: http://www.king-ranch.com/legend.htm See: http://archives.tamuk.edu/database/House.htm (Wedding Announcement - Henrietta Kleberg Larkin to Thomas Reeves Armstrong) Armstrongs mix gentility, old-fashioned Texas ranching Cowboys and candidates, princes and presidents have visited over the years By Mary Lee Grant © July 13, 1999 Caller-Times http://www.caller.com/1999/july/13/today/local_ne/3122.html ARMSTRONG - In the brush country south of Sarita, a few miles east of U.S. Highway 77, sophistication and political power have mixed with the independence of Texas pioneers. Here, 6-foot-4-inch Tobin Armstrong, the descendant of a Texas Ranger and a Yale scholar, and the petite brunette, Anne Armstrong, former U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, hold court. Guests at the 50,000-acre ranch have included former president George Bush; his son and presidential candidate Gov. George W. Bush, the Rockefellers and Prince Charles. Armstrong Ranch still is an old-fashioned Texas ranch, run by Tobin Armstrong, who oversees it by Suburban and mobile telephone. A colony of cowboys who live in houses surrounding the big house work the 2,500 Santa Gertrudis cattle while riding thoroughbred horses, the Armstrong version of cow ponies. ""One of the best things about this ranch is that it is a grandchild magnet,"" said Tobin Armstrong, who has five children and 12 grandchildren, who visit the ranch frequently. The Armstrong Ranch was purchased in 1852 and settled in 1882 by John Armstrong III, a Texas Ranger from Tennessee. He had come to South Texas to clean up the border and became famous for capturing the notorious outlaw John Wesley Hardin. His sons combined the sophistication of an East Coast education with the ruggedness of a ranch upbringing. Charlie Armstrong, Tobin Armstrong''s father, graduated from Yale in 1908 and returned to South Texas to manage the ranch. Charlie''s brother, Tom Armstrong, graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School before going to work as an executive for Standard Oil Co. The Armstrongs were instrumental in bringing polo to South Texas, and when Prince Charles came to visit, Tobin arranged a match for him on the ranch''s polo field. ""I never rode a bought horse,"" Armstrong said. ""I raised and trained my own thoroughbreds."" Tobin Armstrong was tutored at home until he was 9, when he was sent to private school in San Antonio. He attended the University of Texas and Texas A&M University. Ties between the Armstrong Ranch and the King Ranch always have been close. Tobin''s older brother, John Armstrong, married the King Ranch''s Henrietta Kleberg, and his uncle, Tom, married her mother, Henrietta Kleberg Larkin. John Armstrong was the last family member to serve as president of the King Ranch. Despite the international circles in which they move, the Armstrongs are still ranchers to the core, talking of weather and rainfall as readily as business and politics. ""Look how green the grass is,'''' Anne Armstrong said on a recent hot day. ""We haven''t had it like this for several years. It will be good for the cattle."" Staff writer Mary Lee Grant can be reached at 886-3752 or by e-mail at grantm@caller.com ANNE LEGENDRE ARMSTRONG Armstrong, Anne Legendre (1927-...), was the first woman to serve as United States ambassador to Britain. President Gerald R. Ford appointed her to the office, which she held in 1976 and 1977. She had previously been the first woman to hold the Cabinet-level post of counselor to the president. She was named to that position by President Richard M. Nixon in 1972 and served under both Nixon and Ford. Anne Legendre was born in New Orleans and graduated from Vassar College. She married Tobin Armstrong, a Texas cattle rancher, in 1950. She served as vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party from 1966 to 1968. In 1971 and 1972, she was cochairman of the Republican National Committee. As counselor to the President, Armstrong was a member of the president''s Domestic Council, the Council on Wage and Price Stability, and the Commission on the Organization of Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy. Source: http://school.discovery.com/homeworkhelp/worldbook/atozhistory/a/723253.html CURRENT SEC FILINGS RE: ANNE L. ARMSTRONG: http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Name.asp?X=anne+l%2E+armstrong ""Anne L. Armstrong"" Latest Filing: 3/29/0 as Signatory As: Signatory (Director, Officer, Attorney, Accountant, Banker, Agent, etc.) List All Filings as Signatory Search Recent Filings (as Signatory) for ""Anne L. Armstrong"" ""Anne L. Armstrong"" has been a Signatory for the following 11 Registrants: American Express Co American Express Co Capital Trust I American Express Co Capital Trust II Boise Cascade Corp Boise Cascade Trust I Boise Cascade Trust II Boise Cascade Trust III General Motors Capital Trust D General Motors Capital Trust G General Motors Corp Halliburton Co ANNE L. ARMSTRONG, 71, Regent, Texas A&M University System; Member, Board of Trustees, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Member, National Security Advisory Board, Department of Defense; former Chairman of the President''s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, 1981-1990; former Ambassador to Great Britain; joined Halliburton Company Board in 1977; Chairman of the Health, Safety and Environment Committee and member of the Management Oversight and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees; Director of American Express Company and Boise Cascade Corporation. Source: http://www.secinfo.com/dScRa.6Mx.htm 1931. Following his election to the House of Representatives in November 1931, Congressman Richard Kleberg asked Johnson to come to Washington to work as his secretary. Johnson held the job for over three years and learned how the Congress worked. See: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp LBJ was a sleeper put in power by the King Ranch, which as was shown in part I of this series, is closely tied to Anne Armstrong, is a director of Halliburton. In 1942 until he left public office, LBJ was financed completely by Brown and Root, now part of Halliburton. In 1960 LBJ was thrust upon Kennedy as his vice president so LBJ could carry Texas for Kenney. LBJ had proved in 1948 that he and his team could guarantee winning the Texas vote. In 1963 Kennedy was killed most likely by an assassination network operated by the King Ranch group and Clint Murchison in Mexico. Murchison was, of course, very close to Rockefeller. As soon as LBJ became president, he escalated the war in Vietnam, which primarily benefited Brown and Root. If this year''s election fraud is allowed to stand, what does Halliburton, headed by Dick Cheney, have planned for us? Although individual men die a generation at a time, networks of families live on. That is what Cheney represents. Thus it comes as no surprise to see what is happening in the presidential election is focused at the moment on Broward and Palm Beach Counties, Florida. A network such as Cheney represents is always prepared for any exigency. This same network was prepared to carry the vote in 1948 when Lyndon Johnson ran for the United States Senate. But Johnson was a Democrat, you say! Not so. He was an egotist and a pragmatist-- he did whatever he had to do to promote Lyndon. His opportunity to broaden his horizons came during the Depression, when he was offered a job in Congress working for a man, seemingly not unlike George W. Bush, a scion of a wealthy ranching family in South Texas with no real abilities or interests, who was elected to Congress on his name and needed someone to do the work for him--Congressman Kleborg. Part One of this series showed the history of Congressman Kleberg, and the King Ranch which his family owned--a ranch which was acquired with profits made from the shipping of contraband munitions during the Mexican War--a war orchestrated by persons who used Barbara Bush''s ancestor, Franklin Pierce, to take the land south of the Nueces River from Mexico after Texas was annexed as a state. The ranches in this territory, owned by Richard King, Mifflin Kenedy and their partner Charles Stillman, operated as a buffer between the U.S. and Mexico. Resentful Mexicans, who felt their land had been stolen from them, engaged in continual raids across the new Rio Grande border. To counteract these raids, the Texas ranchers used the Texas Rangers, commanded by William G. Tobin to chase away the raiding parties. Tobin''s family has continued its ties with the King Ranch family ever since. The Tobin family is intermarried with the King-Kleberg family and with the Armstrongs of San Antonio, Texas. From the present generation springs Anne Armstrong, who is a director of Halliburton alongside Dick Cheney. She has also served on the board of American Express with Henry Kissinger and Vernon Jordan--not to mention having been in London as Ambassador to the Court of St. James. British banking interests have been interested in the King Ranch since as early as 1882 when Mifflin Kenedy sold his adjoining ranch to a syndicate of Dundee, Scotland, called the Texas Land & Cattle Co., Ltd. (See The King Ranch Tom Lea). Within a year of that sale, King considered selling to the syndicate, but the deal was never closed. Another syndicate of unnamed eastern capitalists attempted to buy the ranch in 1907, the same year that Bostonian F.S. Pearson was involved in building railroads from Mexico through west and north Texas to connect to St. Louis. In 1902 the ranchers turned to B.F. Yoakum, friend of Uriah Lott, the creator of the Tex-Mex Railroad. As a result, a corporation was formed with shareholders including the Kings, Klebergs, Armstrongs, Kenedys and others--with Uriah Lott as president. The railroad became the St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexican Railway--which like so many other railroads built by Lott was financed by G.H. Walker & Co. of St. Louis.
posted by Jaime Kenedeño @ 9:23 PM
Posted on May 13, 2006 at 08:46:39 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
their land back in Cuba. Now Cuba, that is where the CIA made a big blunder leading to the Murder of our President JFK.
LBJ, the Hunts (who were on the grassy knoll and the Clebergs coupled with Brown & Root, Anne Armstrong, Nixon (and his "Bay of Pigs"). Well it is confirmed with the connections leading up to our modern day vice president and The Kenedy's "Chicago Ranch" from which the Artesian Aquifer of dinero flows.
=====================================================================================
Monday, February 13, 2006
the Kings, Klebergs, Armstrongs, Kenedys and others
From a Family Business to a Corporate Environment. The last quarter of the 20th Century has brought further changes to King Ranch. Since 1977, all overseas ranching operations except for that in Brazil was sold. The King Ranch''s Corporate History statement credits James H. Clement and his successor John B. Armstrong with guiding the Company to eliminate debt and ""...through the difficult Texas business environment of the 1980s and (they) oversaw the painful, and sometimes stormy, transition from a family business enterprise to the present corporate structure with outside directorship and professional management."" Since 1988, the King Ranch Chief Executive Officer has not been a King family member, although the corporate board of directors still includes some descendants. By the early 1970''s, King Ranch holdings totaled, worldwide, approximately 11.5 million acres. In 1974, with the death of Bob Kleberg and Dick, Jr., in poor health, the Family selected James H. Clement, Sr., the husband of King''s great granddaughter Ida Larkin, as President and CEO. Together with successor John B. Armstrong (husband to King''s great granddaughter, Henrietta Larkin), Clement steered the Ranch though the difficult Texas business environment of the 1980''s. They also oversaw the transition from a Family business to a modern corporate structure -- based primarily on the lines of business established in the early years. Eventually, many of the foreign operations were liquidated as the focus shifted back to the traditional domestic lines of business. See: http://www.king-ranch.com/legend.htm See: http://archives.tamuk.edu/database/House.htm (Wedding Announcement - Henrietta Kleberg Larkin to Thomas Reeves Armstrong) Armstrongs mix gentility, old-fashioned Texas ranching Cowboys and candidates, princes and presidents have visited over the years By Mary Lee Grant © July 13, 1999 Caller-Times http://www.caller.com/1999/july/13/today/local_ne/3122.html ARMSTRONG - In the brush country south of Sarita, a few miles east of U.S. Highway 77, sophistication and political power have mixed with the independence of Texas pioneers. Here, 6-foot-4-inch Tobin Armstrong, the descendant of a Texas Ranger and a Yale scholar, and the petite brunette, Anne Armstrong, former U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, hold court. Guests at the 50,000-acre ranch have included former president George Bush; his son and presidential candidate Gov. George W. Bush, the Rockefellers and Prince Charles. Armstrong Ranch still is an old-fashioned Texas ranch, run by Tobin Armstrong, who oversees it by Suburban and mobile telephone. A colony of cowboys who live in houses surrounding the big house work the 2,500 Santa Gertrudis cattle while riding thoroughbred horses, the Armstrong version of cow ponies. ""One of the best things about this ranch is that it is a grandchild magnet,"" said Tobin Armstrong, who has five children and 12 grandchildren, who visit the ranch frequently. The Armstrong Ranch was purchased in 1852 and settled in 1882 by John Armstrong III, a Texas Ranger from Tennessee. He had come to South Texas to clean up the border and became famous for capturing the notorious outlaw John Wesley Hardin. His sons combined the sophistication of an East Coast education with the ruggedness of a ranch upbringing. Charlie Armstrong, Tobin Armstrong''s father, graduated from Yale in 1908 and returned to South Texas to manage the ranch. Charlie''s brother, Tom Armstrong, graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School before going to work as an executive for Standard Oil Co. The Armstrongs were instrumental in bringing polo to South Texas, and when Prince Charles came to visit, Tobin arranged a match for him on the ranch''s polo field. ""I never rode a bought horse,"" Armstrong said. ""I raised and trained my own thoroughbreds."" Tobin Armstrong was tutored at home until he was 9, when he was sent to private school in San Antonio. He attended the University of Texas and Texas A&M University. Ties between the Armstrong Ranch and the King Ranch always have been close. Tobin''s older brother, John Armstrong, married the King Ranch''s Henrietta Kleberg, and his uncle, Tom, married her mother, Henrietta Kleberg Larkin. John Armstrong was the last family member to serve as president of the King Ranch. Despite the international circles in which they move, the Armstrongs are still ranchers to the core, talking of weather and rainfall as readily as business and politics. ""Look how green the grass is,'''' Anne Armstrong said on a recent hot day. ""We haven''t had it like this for several years. It will be good for the cattle."" Staff writer Mary Lee Grant can be reached at 886-3752 or by e-mail at grantm@caller.com ANNE LEGENDRE ARMSTRONG Armstrong, Anne Legendre (1927-...), was the first woman to serve as United States ambassador to Britain. President Gerald R. Ford appointed her to the office, which she held in 1976 and 1977. She had previously been the first woman to hold the Cabinet-level post of counselor to the president. She was named to that position by President Richard M. Nixon in 1972 and served under both Nixon and Ford. Anne Legendre was born in New Orleans and graduated from Vassar College. She married Tobin Armstrong, a Texas cattle rancher, in 1950. She served as vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party from 1966 to 1968. In 1971 and 1972, she was cochairman of the Republican National Committee. As counselor to the President, Armstrong was a member of the president''s Domestic Council, the Council on Wage and Price Stability, and the Commission on the Organization of Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy. Source: http://school.discovery.com/homeworkhelp/worldbook/atozhistory/a/723253.html CURRENT SEC FILINGS RE: ANNE L. ARMSTRONG: http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Name.asp?X=anne+l%2E+armstrong ""Anne L. Armstrong"" Latest Filing: 3/29/0 as Signatory As: Signatory (Director, Officer, Attorney, Accountant, Banker, Agent, etc.) List All Filings as Signatory Search Recent Filings (as Signatory) for ""Anne L. Armstrong"" ""Anne L. Armstrong"" has been a Signatory for the following 11 Registrants: American Express Co American Express Co Capital Trust I American Express Co Capital Trust II Boise Cascade Corp Boise Cascade Trust I Boise Cascade Trust II Boise Cascade Trust III General Motors Capital Trust D General Motors Capital Trust G General Motors Corp Halliburton Co ANNE L. ARMSTRONG, 71, Regent, Texas A&M University System; Member, Board of Trustees, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Member, National Security Advisory Board, Department of Defense; former Chairman of the President''s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, 1981-1990; former Ambassador to Great Britain; joined Halliburton Company Board in 1977; Chairman of the Health, Safety and Environment Committee and member of the Management Oversight and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees; Director of American Express Company and Boise Cascade Corporation. Source: http://www.secinfo.com/dScRa.6Mx.htm 1931. Following his election to the House of Representatives in November 1931, Congressman Richard Kleberg asked Johnson to come to Washington to work as his secretary. Johnson held the job for over three years and learned how the Congress worked. See: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp LBJ was a sleeper put in power by the King Ranch, which as was shown in part I of this series, is closely tied to Anne Armstrong, is a director of Halliburton. In 1942 until he left public office, LBJ was financed completely by Brown and Root, now part of Halliburton. In 1960 LBJ was thrust upon Kennedy as his vice president so LBJ could carry Texas for Kenney. LBJ had proved in 1948 that he and his team could guarantee winning the Texas vote. In 1963 Kennedy was killed most likely by an assassination network operated by the King Ranch group and Clint Murchison in Mexico. Murchison was, of course, very close to Rockefeller. As soon as LBJ became president, he escalated the war in Vietnam, which primarily benefited Brown and Root. If this year''s election fraud is allowed to stand, what does Halliburton, headed by Dick Cheney, have planned for us? Although individual men die a generation at a time, networks of families live on. That is what Cheney represents. Thus it comes as no surprise to see what is happening in the presidential election is focused at the moment on Broward and Palm Beach Counties, Florida. A network such as Cheney represents is always prepared for any exigency. This same network was prepared to carry the vote in 1948 when Lyndon Johnson ran for the United States Senate. But Johnson was a Democrat, you say! Not so. He was an egotist and a pragmatist-- he did whatever he had to do to promote Lyndon. His opportunity to broaden his horizons came during the Depression, when he was offered a job in Congress working for a man, seemingly not unlike George W. Bush, a scion of a wealthy ranching family in South Texas with no real abilities or interests, who was elected to Congress on his name and needed someone to do the work for him--Congressman Kleborg. Part One of this series showed the history of Congressman Kleberg, and the King Ranch which his family owned--a ranch which was acquired with profits made from the shipping of contraband munitions during the Mexican War--a war orchestrated by persons who used Barbara Bush''s ancestor, Franklin Pierce, to take the land south of the Nueces River from Mexico after Texas was annexed as a state. The ranches in this territory, owned by Richard King, Mifflin Kenedy and their partner Charles Stillman, operated as a buffer between the U.S. and Mexico. Resentful Mexicans, who felt their land had been stolen from them, engaged in continual raids across the new Rio Grande border. To counteract these raids, the Texas ranchers used the Texas Rangers, commanded by William G. Tobin to chase away the raiding parties. Tobin''s family has continued its ties with the King Ranch family ever since. The Tobin family is intermarried with the King-Kleberg family and with the Armstrongs of San Antonio, Texas. From the present generation springs Anne Armstrong, who is a director of Halliburton alongside Dick Cheney. She has also served on the board of American Express with Henry Kissinger and Vernon Jordan--not to mention having been in London as Ambassador to the Court of St. James. British banking interests have been interested in the King Ranch since as early as 1882 when Mifflin Kenedy sold his adjoining ranch to a syndicate of Dundee, Scotland, called the Texas Land & Cattle Co., Ltd. (See The King Ranch Tom Lea). Within a year of that sale, King considered selling to the syndicate, but the deal was never closed. Another syndicate of unnamed eastern capitalists attempted to buy the ranch in 1907, the same year that Bostonian F.S. Pearson was involved in building railroads from Mexico through west and north Texas to connect to St. Louis. In 1902 the ranchers turned to B.F. Yoakum, friend of Uriah Lott, the creator of the Tex-Mex Railroad. As a result, a corporation was formed with shareholders including the Kings, Klebergs, Armstrongs, Kenedys and others--with Uriah Lott as president. The railroad became the St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexican Railway--which like so many other railroads built by Lott was financed by G.H. Walker & Co. of St. Louis.
posted by Jaime Kenedeño @ 9:23 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)