Texas Constitutional Convention Updates

Summary of 5 July 1997 Meeting

Rough Notes from same meeting

The Texas constitutional convention was reconvened and called to order at 9:16 am on July 5, 1997; let the record show that the Chair noted a quorum was present. Cindy Williams, a non-delegate, requested permission to state that she had been grossly misquoted by the local media in the previous day's paper, and that most of the information about her in the article was inaccurate. She apologized to the assembly for her lack of familiarity with the tactics of the media, whereupon several of the delegates assured her that we had all been naive about the establishment media at one time or another and that being misquoted by them was not an unusual experience for patriots. Mr. Burnett stated that the media is usually biased, and that is the reason we do not aggressively seek their presence at our conventions.

The Chair asked which of the delegates planned to stay through the weekend and through Monday; ten delegates so signified, which would not constitute a quorum. The Chair suggested that delegates consider the issue, as it would come up for discussion again. The Chair then suggested that during the previous day's meeting informal sessions for discussion and committee meetings would have been most helpful, rather than attempting to conduct all business in the regular session. Therefore, the Chair decided that the delegates will convene at 9:00 am every day, work in formal session until 12:30 PM, take a three-hour recess, and return to formal session at 3:30 PM, which could continue until 7:00 PM. No objections were raised to the recommendations of the Chair. The Chair then stated that since delegates need to be able to maintain frequent communications when not in session, contact information was needed from all delegates. Mr. Burnett passed a note pad around the room, and the Chair asked that each delegate please write his/her contact information on the pad. The Chair also stated reminded delegates that another session would be set up before adjournment for the weekend.

Mr. Duncan moved that the secretary be authorized to appoint a deputy secretary to assist her in recording the actions of the convention, which motion was seconded by Mr. Lowe. Mr. Wanjura asked whether we needed a vice secretary. Mr. Lowe said that many delegates made motions and participated in convention activities yesterday, but the secretary had no chance participate or to take breaks during the meeting, and had worked until after midnight last night on notes and records of the meeting. Mr. Burnett agreed that assistance should be provided for officers when needed. Mr. Duncan stated that the work was clearly too much for one person, and that rules were not set in cement, and he believed the secretary should be allowed to participate as a delegate to the convention, since she had been sent by citizens to represent them. Mr. Sanders proposed as a friendly amendment that the secretary be allowed to vote, which was accepted. Mr. Hamilton asked whether the convention had approved proxies for delegates. Point of order was brought by Mr. Wanjura that these constituted different circumstances, and that the delegates could become bogged down in motions, and it was unnecessary to move on this issue. The Chair reminded the delegates that a motion was currently on the floor and could cause problems with precedence if voted down. A delegate called the question. Mr. Erickson stated that all officers should be allowed to vote as delegates, as saw no need to discuss the issue. Mr. Sanders stated that rather than having too many motions, there was too much discussion on each. Mr. Barnett proposed a friendly amendment to allow the convention secretary to delegate the keeping of records any time she chose to participate as a delegate, which amendment was withdrawn after discussion. Motion as amended passed unanimously.

The Chair stated that there were two committees scheduled to report their suggestions to the convention. Several delegates suggested that the room be rearranged so everyone could hear, and request were made to some of the engineers in the room to come up with solution to the problem. Mr. Wanjura proposed that morning and afternoon sessions be rotated to avoid having full sun on the Chair and secretary. Suggestions were heard that copies of constitutional drafts be distributed to other delegates and time given for others to read and think about the various proposals. Mr. Angwin expressed concern that since there might not be a quorum available to meet Monday, the delegates would be fortunate to frame the preamble and declaration of rights during the session. The secretary agreed to make up a packet of documents and constitutional drafts to mail to all delegates, so that everyone will be ready to work when the convention reconvenes. The Chair suggested that delegates start at the beginning and review each proposal. Motion was brought by Mr. Wanjura to recess for a short time in order to rearrange the room, seconded by Mr. Childress, and passed unanimously. The session recessed, and was reconvened at 10:27 am.

The Chair reminded delegates that by general consensus the group had previously agreed to write out all motions. Mr. Angwin proposed a lengthy motion (written but not handed to the secretary for the record). Point of order from Mr. Lowe that there appeared to be three motions in this motion, and that each once should be considered separately. The motion failed for lack of second. Mr. Wanjura stated that Mr. Angwin's idea was sound but did not require a motion to be agreed upon by the delegates. Mr. Barnett reminded the delegates that they had agreed in the previous day's session to work on the preamble first in the present session. The Chair checked the record and agreed.

After discussion, the Chair passed the gavel to Mr. Wanjura as chair of the sub-committee on preamble. Mr. Wanjura then read the proposed preamble as follows: " We, the People of Texas, acknowledging the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property from our Creator, in order to form a lawful republic, establish justice under common law, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do, ordain and establish this constitution to form and limit the authority of our government to those powers exclusively delegated herein. All rights are inherent in the people." He requested that everyone comment.

Mrs. Lowe requested corrections in punctuation, and questioned the phrase 'to form' which implied that a republic had not already been formed. She also questioned the capitalization of 'People' in the proposed draft. Mr. Kesterson suggested that we strike everything between 'in order to' and 'secure the blessings of.' Mr. Lowe reminded the assembly that they should not cast in stone the form of the preamble, but should leave it dynamic and bring it back to be reviewed, like beans that require soaking time. He suggested that 'Creator God' be specified as more emphatic than Creator, and stated that delegates should take a stand about God and not be afraid to use His name and acknowledge His blessings. The Chair asked whether it was agreed by the body that the preamble not be concrete until voted on as part of the constitution, or until the people actually adopt it by popular vote. Mr. Henson felt that the proposal did not seem to flow. Mr. Duncan suggested that the word 'authority' had been changed to 'powers' in the first sentence, and that authority should be used twice. He also prefer the phrase 'to those authorities specifically and exclusively delegated herein,' and proposed changing the last sentence to read: 'All rights are inherent solely in the people.' Mr. Martinez proposed including a comment to the effect of limiting interpretation. Mr. Angwin felt that the preamble is a sales pitch, and should not be lengthy or wordy, but rather short and enticing. He recommended deleting everything after the word 'constitution' and changing 'form a lawful republic' to 'restore a republican form of government.' He also proposed changing 'establish justice under common law' by striking 'under common law,' and suggested adding 'to preserve equal rights for all' before 'to provide for the common defense.' Mr. Sudbury commented on the relevancy of the preamble. Mr. Dick Williams suggested that the phrase 'from our Creator' be changed to 'given by our Creator,' and that we add God to the phrase, since the reason for our involvement is a battle between good and evil and we must recognize God in our efforts. Mr. Erickson stated that all suggestions have been positive so far. Mr. Pool suggested that the phrase 'form a lawful republic' be changed to 'reform a lawful republic.' Mrs. Pool and Mrs. Childress had no comments. Mr. Childress reminded the delegates that the preamble would be their only chance to make a first impression. Mr. Holt also mentioned that correcting the placement of commas and semi-colons was important, and suggested that the phrase 'to ourselves' be changed to 'for ourselves'. He also suggested that the final sentence be removed from the preamble, or made into a separate paragraph. Mr. Burnett agreed to removing the last sentence, and felt that it should probably be a separate article. Mr. Gamble agreed with Mr. Holt about moving the last sentence, perhaps into another part of the preamble. Mr. Sudbury suggested that we keep the last sentence, perhaps elsewhere, but not strike it altogether. Mr. Benjiman Angwin felt that the preamble should be shorter and catchier with more emotion so that people pay attention. Mr. Falzitto read from Black's Law Dictionary about the meaning of the word preamble, as a statement or declaration of the reasons for a document's existence, and said that he saw nothing in the draft that accomplished that; he wrote his own draft, and noted that the committee's proposed draft said nothing about amending the constitution. Mr. Hamilton said that the word republican should be used, rather than republic, to define the form of government. He also felt that the preamble must include the method required to alter the constitution, namely a convention of the people. He stated that the preamble should be a paraphrase of the constitution, i.e., an overview or summary. Mr. Cloyce Williams agreed with Mr. Duncan concerning the word 'authorities.' He felt strongly that any mention of God or Creator should not be token, but should be a specific and serious appeal for His blessings, and would prefer that we use the words Jesus Christ. Mr. Scales said that a preamble should be short and emotional, used to construct a constitutional opinion, but not binding as law, as it will not limit government; only those ideas in the constitution itself are binding. He agreed with the phrase 'given by our Creator' and 'in order to reestablish a republican form of government' and also agreed with the proposed removal of the phrases 'under common law' and 'preserve equal rights for all.' He felt that the last sentence was necessary but lacked 'kick' and should be more dynamic. Mr. Doreck asked for clarification about whether the intention was reforming, restoring or recalling the original government of the Republic of Texas. Mr. Wanjura stated that the delegates are re-forming a republican form of government that existed over 100 years ago, a government that was removed from the people in 1865, which could not be restored but could be re-formed. Mr. Sanders suggested that we change 'we the People' to 'we the citizens' and restate the phrase previously mentioned to 'given by our Creator God.' He also suggested that the phrase 'form a lawful' could be changed to 'maintain a lawful,' and suggested making the last sentence a continuation of the previous sentence, replacing the period with a comma and adding 'to ensure that.' Mr. Barnett stated that the preamble should be short, not be a re-write of the constitution, but should just make a statement as an introduction to the body of the constitution.

Mr. Wanjura observed that the convention might consider the idea of removing this as a preamble and making it a declaration, which would be binding and implemented within the body of the constitution, since the preamble is not a requirement. Mr. Duncan asked for clarification of the declaration concept, which opened the floor for discussion. Mr. Lowe expressed his support for keeping the preamble short and emphatic, something not too specific, since exact wording and semantics is important, e.g., authorities vs. powers. He read the preamble to the 1876 constitution, change state to nation in each instance, and suggested that it be adopted, short and sweet. Mr. Wanjura reviewed all suggestions made by delegates concerning alteration of the committee's draft, and returned the gavel to the Chair. Mr. Burnett felt that the constitution should be written first, as it would be impossible to make the preamble a summary of the document until we have written the document. Mr. Falzitto read his proposed preamble, which is worded similar to a declaration of independence for the republic of Texas. Mr. Sudbury, Mr. Barnett, and Mr. Childress then each read his personal version of the preamble for the record.

Mr. Wanjura asked whether the convention was using a standard English dictionary or a law dictionary, as we needed to establish a basis for our definitions. Mr. Angwin preferred neither English nor American, but just Texas. Mr. Scales agreed that the document should be in the language of the people and not of lawyers. Mr. Erickson stated that we were working in three different directions, one short and open-ended, one a rehash of previous constitutions, and one a declaration of independence. Mr. Childress agreed that we should use common language and not legal language. Mr. Wanjura specified that he meant standard American English, the language used on this continent, and that we needed to establish one source for the words in the document, that since semantics are a big part of writing this constitution, we would be unable to argue using multiple sources. Mr. Sanders agreed that we should use the common language of the people, so the government could not change the meanings of the words later. Mr. Kesterson agreed. Mr. Hamilton stated that the Oxford dictionary was not the same as Webster's, and that changes had been made since Oxford, which is in use in England and was used to write the united States constitution. Mr. Holt expressed a desire to have Mr. Falzitto read his draft again. Mrs. Lowe reminded the delegates that there has already been a declaration of independence written and filed with the nations of the world in 1996 for the Republic of Texas, and it would be unnecessary to do another. Mr. Benjiman Angwin said that delegates should use simple language for the sake of future generations. Mr. Sanders felt that delegates should choose a dictionary and reference every word in the constitution from the same source. Mr. Childress suggested that we use the 1878 Webster's version, of which he had a copy. Mr. Scales stated that the ideas put forth in the declaration of independence for the united States have been lost, and it would be good to find a way to bind those precepts to the Texas constitution. Mr. Holt felt that delegates should explore the idea of a declaration like Mr. Falzitto's instead of a preamble.

Mr. Barnett moved to use the Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, published by Barnes and Noble Books, 1996 version, by arrangement with Random House Value Publishing, Inc., ISBN 0-7607-0288-8, for the definitions of the constitution. Motion was seconded by Mr. Kesterson. Mr. Wanjura proposed a friendly amendment that the convention designate which definition is being used for any word under contention, using the proposed dictionary, and in that way the source would be specified in the record of the proceedings, and not in the constitution. He said that if use of some word or phrase is questioned in the future, juries may need to check the meanings of words, and specifying which dictionary and which definition will assist with their deliberations and judgments.

Mr. and Mrs. Pool left the convention to return home, but stated that they did plan to attend the next session, and wished to be notified of the date and place chosen for the next session. An unidentified delegate called the question. The secretary reread the motion as amended, and the motion passed by a vote of 14 for, 4 against.

Mr. Burnett announced that there would be a meeting of the Texas Constitutional Convention Coordinating Committee for the purpose of dissolving the committee. Mr. Lowe announced that during the three-hour break there would be a meeting of the General Council of the Republic of Texas, open to the public, and that several documents needed to be signed and other business conducted. Mr. Wanjura moved to recess, seconded by Mr. Duncan. The motion to recess passed with one no vote.

The delegates reconvened at 3:45 PM with continued discussion of the preamble. Mr. Wanjura read the committee's revised proposal for the preamble. "We, the People of Texas, invoking the blessings of our Creator, do ordain and establish this constitution." Mr. Wanjura stated that the word Creator is synonymous with Creator God, and is a universal term that he believes anyone can accept. He read the definitions from Webster's, and then read the definition of the word 'ordain' which covers all the concepts the delegates wanted in the preamble, and said that while the preamble as rewritten is not binding, that which follows is binding, and that the preamble is only an opening statement but still part of the document. He wished not to make this in the form of a motion, saying that he would prefer to discuss the issue openly first. Mr. Wanjura took a non-binding straw poll which showed 16 for the revised preamble. There was additional discussion on the term Creator, which seemed watered down and without meaning to several of the delegates, consensus being that the term God is appropriate. When asked whether there were any objections to the phrase 'Creator God,' 4 or 5 hands were raised. Mr. Wanjura reread the definitions of God and Creator. A third choice was proposed by Mr. Cloyce Williams to use the phrase 'Almighty God,' which had been used in a previous constitution. A straw poll was taken of those supporting the terms Creator, Creator God, or Almighty God, but several of the delegates felt that this appeared to be an effort to divide the delegation. After much Mr. Burnett brought a motion, which was not accepted, since the Chair did not have the floor. Various views of the delegates were presented concerning God, religion, and government, and the advisability or necessity of their interaction. A third non-binding straw poll was taken by raising of hands, with 12 voting for the term Creator, and 11 for the phrase Almighty God. Mr. Wanjura then returned the gavel to the Chair and moved that the convention adopt the shortened preamble as read, which motion was seconded by Mr. Sanders. There was further discussion to the effect that the the preamble was still a dynamic issue, and would probably change before the constitution was completed, also that the preamble is intended to be an opening statement, not an outline or summary. Mr. Erickson called the question, and the motion passed by voice vote, with several no votes.

Mr. Angwin moved that the constitution shall include a Declaration of Rights which shall be beneath the Preamble, but before the body of the constitution itself, seconded by Mr. Burnett. Mr. Duncan proposed a friendly amendment that our constitution shall include a Declaration of Rights which shall be the first part of the constitution, but that was not accepted. Mr. Wanjura stated that as a matter of literary accuracy, the preamble is part of the document by definition, whereas the Declaration of Rights is not part of the constitution unless specifically stated as such. Mr. Sanders proposed a friendly amendment to remove the Declaration of Rights and make it Article 1, Section 1, Rights of the People. Mr. Wanjura asked that the motion be rephrased to say that the rights of the people will be enumerated in the constitution. Mr. Angwin requested a consensus of opinion from the other delegates. Mr. Erickson expressed concern that the delegates were limiting themselves again, and that even though he was in agreement regarding the enumeration of rights, it was unnecessary to specify placement in the document yet. Mr. Angwin accept Mr. Sanders' friendly amendment. Mr. Holt stated that the purpose of the constitution is to limit government, and not to list the rights of the people, although he was not adverse to listing some of the people's inalienable rights. Mr. Falzitto said that it seemed the convention was trying to build without a blueprint, and must have some framework in mind, i.e., a guideline for how to proceed. Mr. Sanders called the question, refused by the Chair. Mr. Lowe reminded the delegates that the Declaration of Rights in 1836 had been added almost as an afterthought, and that in the previous day's meeting the delegates had an outline proposed, which in retrospect seemed like a good idea. He stated that Article 1 has some of the rights of the people included within it in the 1876 constitution, and that even though custom changes, we needed to enumerate the people's inalienable rights for posterity in Article 1 Section 1. Mr. Burnett asked for a rereading of the motion as amended, which after some discussion and correction was determined to be as follows: "The constitution shall include a Declaration of Rights which shall be Article 1 of the Constitution." Mr. Angwin and Mr. Sanders agreed to that reading. Mr. Wanjura protested that he felt strongly the motion was premature, and that the delegates had not even discussed the limits of government yet. He moved to table. Mr. Barnett seconded the motion, which allowed for no discussion. Motion to table failed with 14 against, 9 for.

Mr. Duncan stated that the constitution is not written about the people, but about their government and limiting its powers. He then asked what the blueprint for this constitution was to be, and said that the convention needed to decide what we did and did not specifically want to delegate to our government. Mr. Sanders stated that the government had intruded on his rights, and must be restricted, that the de facto government was much too busy trampling on our rights, and should be told first of all that they must not violate them. Mr. Dick Williams agreed, but argued that a structure was definitely needed for this constitution. He added that we were already in trouble by not giving Almighty God His proper place in our deliberations and in the preamble, and that it was very important to specify which rights the government would not be allowed to violate. Mr. Lowe suggested a compromise, in that Article 2 speaks of the powers or authorities of government and Article 1 speaks of the rights of the people, and that perhaps each delegate could list those we thought most important, or perhaps we could work through committees, and then present the results at some time in the future for voting. In this fashion the convention could proceed to other items for deliberation. The Chair yielded the gavel to the Vice Chair and took the floor. He stated that the body must stop, step back, and develop a plan before we go forward with this issues. Mr. Scales agreed that the convention needed an outline for the constitution, but that the delegates should be able to agree that Article 1 be a declaration of rights, and then other Articles could be decided. He thought it best to first specify what government is specifically forbidden from doing. Mr. Kesterson stated that the consensus appeared to be in favor of a declaration of rights, and that the convention should proceed with the idea of looking at the draft constitutions which might provide a framework for an outline. Mr. Barnett said that two committees had been proposed, one to consider Article 1, and the other to consider a framework for the rest of the constitution. Mr. Angwin agreed that the constitution should clearly state that all rights belong to the people, and from the tiny bit left over, the people could form a government. Mr. Duncan demanded to move the previous question, which occasioned much discussion and questions of the parliamentarian. The vote was called, and the motion passed.

The Chair ruled that all future motions will be written and submitted to the Chair with the name of the originator. The Chair will sequence the submitted motions, and they will be brought up in the order sequenced. The next order of business remaining from the previous day's session was the presentation of draft constitutions. Rules from the Chair were that they be presented in random order, with each presenter given five minutes to speak, and the sergeant of arms was to time the speakers, reminding them at regular intervals and stopping them when their time expired. A 15-minute recess was approved by consensus. After the body reconvened, the first delegate to present was Mr. Wanjura, with Mr. Erickson to time him.

Mr. Wanjura stated that he was willing to use any draft as a working model, would like the delegates to go through and pick out those ideas they liked and wanted to include in the final effort. His draft was only for use as a model. He felt that the convention should set up two committees, one to work on the declaration of rights, one to work on the limits and duties of government. He expressed his willingness to accept changes.

Mr. Burnett presented the South Plains committee's constitutional draft. He gave a short explanation of how the Lubbock group wrote their draft to limit the functions of government and to secure the rights of the people. He read the section on rights, and commented that theirs was not a finished product but an outline. The group had worked two hours every week for eight months, and he felt that we are repeating a process unnecessarily.

Mr. Angwin offered to submit his marked-up copy as an outline, as he had left his disk at home, and offered to mail it to the delegates. He agreed that we need to create two committees to perform those functions as previously mentioned by Mr. Wanjura. (The secretary agreed to forward his draft to delegates if he would make it available to her.)

Mr. Barnett presented a draft from the people in Abilene, which had used the 1836 constitution as a guideline, and suggested that the delegates should choose and use whatever they liked. Mr. Kesterson presented a draft which was not based on any previous constitution, but was an open-ended description of rights. He read the entire document, which was only two pages. He said that he preferred that the constitution be very simple and very plain, so that government could not trample on the rights of a free people. He agreed to make copies available at the meeting.

Mr. Scales presented his draft in the form of an outline, with the declaration of rights first, limits on government second. He stated that this was a concept document only, with 20 copies available. He mentioned that the section on rights provided that no laws be enacted which would result in a restriction of any right one could name. There was also a section on basic law, similar to those God enumerated in the Ten Commandments, which he thought should probably be in the constitution. He had also included the boundaries of Texas which were removed from the state constitution.

Mr. Duncan proposed that since most of those presented were based on some constitution, usually the united States constitution, and that even if flawed, it would be good to use as a reference or check to ensure that no critical items were left out.

Mr. Henson presented a draft that had been created by the Internet discussion list over a period of several months, called the Texas Foundation Document, as there were originally going to be levels of documents written. He felt that it was probably too detailed and too long, but could be used as a repository of ideas. He said that the material toward the end was not in as good shape, and that the best ideas were at the beginning. He also felt that the convention should not select any of the drafts presented as they existed, but that committees should consider them all. He agreed to give delegates the website address if requested.

Mr. Burnett announced that a clean-up crew was needed to police the grounds before recessing for the afternoon. The Chair stated that a committee should be formed to work on the declaration of rights, and another on the structure of the constitution. Mr. Wanjura suggested the formation of a third committee to work on the limits and duties of government. The Chair chose Mr. Wanjura to chair the last committee, Mr. Angwin the committee on structure, and Mr. Scales the committee on rights. Volunteers accepted by Mr. Angwin were Alonzo Martinez, Sam Hamilton, Larry Falzitto, and Don Henson. Volunteers accepted by Mr. Wanjura were Charles Duncan, Monty Barnett, Dick Williams, Roger Erickson, Dan Childress, Randall Holt, and Charles Doreck. Volunteers accepted by Mr. Scales were Wesley Burnett (appointed vice- chairman by acclamation), Cloyce Williams, David Sanders, Robert Sudbury, James Gamble, and Benjiman Angwin. The Chair asked for further old business. There being none, the Chair opened the floor for new business. A motion brought by Mr. Angwin was withdrawn. The Chair asked if delegate contact information could be public information, and whether any delegates would object; Mr. Scales and Mr. Barnett objected. The Chair asked if anyone objected to this information being shared among the delegates, and the secretary reminded him that it had already been shared among the delegates. Mr. Sanders suggested another sheet be passed around the convention hall for public information, which was agreed to by consensus. Mr. Sudbury said that if contact information became public, the media would call delegates and not the chair of the public relations committee, Mr. Kesterson. He felt that the media would want to interview all the delegates, particularly the youngest delegates. Mr. Burnett strongly recommended that each delegate make themselves available to hometown media, and be friendly, open, honest, avoiding personal attacks on other delegates and on the media.

The Chair read a motion from Mr. Erickson that those having submitted a delegates form, but unable to make this meeting, have the opportunity to be seated at the next session. Further, the secretary of the convention shall contact those mentioned above as to their intent. The motion was seconded by Mr. Barnett. Mr. Lowe agreed, saying that since we first seated delegates who had filed affidavits and chose to allow them three missed meetings before contacting them as to their intent, the convention should extend the same courtesy to those who had filed affidavits but were missing the session for reasons unknown. Mrs. Lowe stated that since those missing delegates represented others who had hoped to be represented at the convention, they should be given the opportunity to attend future sessions. Mr. Childress reminded the body that they had agreed to seat delegates up to July 6th, only. Point of order was brought by Mr. Wanjura that the quorum was to be fixed on that basis. The Chair ruled to proceed with the motion as presented. Mr. Duncan stated that Mr. Lowe's arguments had convinced him that this motion was in the best interests of the people, and the convention should determine their intent and try to include them in the convention. The motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Lowe announced that there would be a meeting for prayer and invocation at 8:45 Sunday morning in the grand jury room. Mr. Barnett moved to form the three committees that were previously established, to create a rough draft from each committee to be used as guidelines for a time-saving flow starting with rights, to be presented in the next day's opening session. Mr. Wanjura brought a point of order, but the motion failed for lack of second. Mr. Duncan moved that the delegates recess until 9 AM on July 6th, which was seconded by Mr. Burnett. With no discussion allowed, the motion passed with 10 voting for, 9 against. Committees proceeded to meet.

Convention Update Index

Copyright at Common Law, West El Paso Information Network, 1997