Grand Jury Hears Evidence Against Texas Attorney General

July 29, 2015
By David Lee
MCKINNEY, Texas (CN) – A Texas grand jury is hearing testimony accusing Attorney General Ken Paxton of breaking securities laws before he was elected last year, when he was a state senator.
Special prosecutors Brian Wice and Kent Schaffer appeared at the Collin County Courthouse on Tuesday with Texas Rangers investigators. Neither prosecutor commented on the investigation or on whether they have finished presenting evidence to the grand jury.
Schaffer said on July 1 he would ask the jury to indict Paxton on first-degree felony securities fraud charges, as the Texas Rangers had found new evidence of securities fraud of more than $100,000.
The state Securities Board fined Paxton $1,000 last year after he admitted that he had solicited clients for a friend’s investment firm while he was a state senator, without being registered as an investment adviser. Paxton paid the fine and was reprimanded by the Securities Board.
A first-degree felony is punishable by up to 99 years or life in state prison and a $10,000 fine.
“We have a sufficient amount of evidence,” Schaffer said on July 1. “Whether it leads to a criminal indictment or not is up to the grand jury.”
Schaffer said the new evidence goes beyond the admissions Paxton made to the Texas Securities Board last year. Texans for Public Justice, a government watchdog, then demanded a criminal investigation.
Travis County District Attorney Mary Lehmberg’s Public Integrity Unit referred the case to Dallas and Collin counties.
After Dallas County District Attorney Susan Hawk declined to pursue the case and Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis asked to be recused, Wice and Schaffer were appointed as special prosecutors. Both are from Houston.
‘”The Rangers went out to investigate one thing, and they came back with information on something else,” Schaffer said on July 1. “It’s turned into something different than when they started.”
The new allegations sparked a vicious and public war of words between the prosecutors and Paxton, who called Wice and Schaffer “inexperienced” and “politically motivated.” He also complained that they are from Houston, though there were plenty of attorneys closer to Austin.
“This appears to be a politically motivated effort to ruin the career of a longtime public servant,” Paxton spokesman Anthony Holm said on July 2. “These attacks on Ken Paxton appear to have become a political hit job in the media, perhaps having the effect of inappropriately influencing the grand jury.”
Holm said on Tuesday that the prosecutors had a “conflict of interest” because they defend clients from criminal charges. He said the Securities Board was “very clear” that Paxton had not committed a crime and that “we are only here because of liberal activists.”
“We have two special prosecutors with a direct conflict of interest, we shouldn’t be surprised that they’re jumping up, saying, ‘Hey, I’ll try to prosecute the attorney general of Texas,'” Holm told WFAA-TV. “Their backgrounds, entire careers are defense lawyers – defending child molesters and drug cartel leaders – the exact people the attorney general is duty-bound to try and put in prison.”
Asked about Holm’s comments as he was leaving the courthouse, Schaffer told WFAA that Holm gets “paid to say” such things.
“He needs to tone it down a little bit,” Wice said as he left with the Texas Rangers. “It’s business. It’s not personal.”

From Courthouse News.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rejects Last-Ditch Rescue of Ten Commandments Monument

July 28, 2015
By David Lee
OKLAHOMA CITY (CN) – The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Monday rejected the state’s last-ditch effort to keep a Ten Commandments monument at the state Capitol.
The state supreme court rejected the state’s request for a rehearing by 7-2 vote.
The court ruled on June 3 that the 6-foot-tall stone monument violates Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution, that “no public money or property” should be applied or donated for the use of any church, denomination, religious leader or sectarian institution.
Bruce Prescott sued the state in 2013, a year after the privately funded monument was installed, after state lawmakers authorized it in 2009.
In ordering the monument removed, the Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to apply recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent in which a Ten Commandments monument in neighboring Texas was found not to violate the federal Establishment Clause.
“The issue in the case at hand is whether the Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument violates the Oklahoma Constitution, not whether it violates the Establishment Clause,” the per curiam opinion states. “Our opinion rests solely on the Oklahoma Constitution with no regard for federal jurisprudence. As concerns the ‘historic purpose’ justification, the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths.”
In requesting a rehearing on July 14, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said the court’s ruling ignored the “profound historical impact of the Ten Commandments” and “contradicted previous decisions.”
Pruitt said it “appears entirely inconsistent” for the high court to rule that Article 2, Section 5 bans the use of public property “for any religious purpose” in this case, yet in a previous case allowed a large, lighted cross to be placed on public property “for an admittedly religious” purpose.
“Appellants argue that this Court’s opinion is consistent with the Court’s prior opinion in Meyer v. Oklahoma City,” Pruitt wrote. “But there is no rational reading ofMeyer that supports a 50-foot-tall, lighted cross as not serving ‘any religious purpose.’ In fact, this Court acknowledged the sectarian purposes of the persons who erected the cross.”
In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Reif wrote Monday that he would have granted a rehearing for the limited purpose of addressing Meyer, because it “provides helpful guidance in deciding whether a particular use of public property is for the benefit” of a religion.
Reif said the current case fails Meyer’s two-part test, of the monument being “in a distinctly secular environment in the midst of persons in pursuit of distinctly secular entertainment” and displaying “any ideas that are alleged to pertain to any of the sectarian institutions or systems named in Article 2.”
In dissent, Justice Doug Combs wrote that he would grant a rehearing because the court’s strict reading of Article 2 “ignores the context-based analysis” used in Meyer and fails to overrule that opinion.
“The appellee’s need for clarification is apparent,” Combs wrote. “I do not believe the intent or effect behind this Ten Commandments Monument was for the adoption of sectarian principles. My belief is based not only on our context-based analysis in Meyerbut also on the standard the district court and the parties agreed was proper to use in this analysis; one based on federal jurisprudence in Establishment Clause cases.”
Gov. Mary Fallin said on July 7 that the monument would not be removed until legal appeals and “potential legislative and constitutional changes are considered.”
“The monument was built and maintained with private dollars,” Fallin said at the time. “It is virtually identical to a monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol which the United States Supreme Court ruled to be permissible. It is a privately funded tribute to historical events, not a taxpayer funded endorsement of any religion, as some have alleged.”
Fallin said she was “deeply disturbed” by the court’s ruling. She could not be reached for comment Monday evening.

From Courthouse News.

Texas Lawmaker Still Fighting Gay Marriage

July 28, 2015
By David Lee
DALLAS (CN) – A Texas state lawmaker on Monday asked his attorney general to determine whether state agencies “raced” too quickly to recognize same-sex marriage benefits.
Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Canton, said the state need not issue same-sex licenses or grant such spouses benefits because the Legislature has not appropriated any money for it.
The Employees Retirement System of Texas granted state benefits to same-sex spouses after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26 struck down state bans on same-sex marriage.
The ruling invalidated a voter-approved amendment to the Texas Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and woman.
The Department of State Health Services then removed “man” and “woman” spaces from its marriage applications and inserted “applicant” spaces instead, Flynn said.
“Specifically, my question is what procedure a state agency should follow if the U.S. or Texas Supreme Court recognizes a new constitutional right and compliance with that ruling requires the expenditure of additional state funds,” Flynn’s July 27 letter states.
“I would submit that because only the Legislature may appropriate funds, an agency must follow the state law process for receiving additional funding needed to comply with a court order.”
Flynn claims that all gay marriage licenses issued by county clerks are void because the Legislature has not acted.
“Texas law remains silent as to marriage other than between one man and one woman,” he wrote. “Therefore pursuant to the non-delegation doctrine, Texas state agencies, including DSHS, cannot act without authorization from the legislature. Without state agency action to implement same-sex marriage, local county clerks lack authority to award same-sex marriage licenses.”
Flynn asked Attorney General Ken Paxton to issue a non-binding legal opinion to determine whether action by the Legislature is required to implement same-sex marriage in Texas.
“Without revision to Texas statute, are marriage licenses issued to same-sex individuals since June 26, 2015, valid?” Flynn asked. “Absent further action by the Texas Legislature, do state agencies have authority to adopt policies and procedures to grant other benefits, specifically including employment benefit programs and adoption, arising under Texas law to same-sex couples? In the event that the Texas legislature does not amend current law, what action could the federal government take to implement same-sex marriage?”
Flynn said the Texas Family Code could be “easily rewritten” to allow same-sex marriages, but that state lawmakers have not met or acted in response to Obergefell.
“Although the Texas Constitution vests legislative powers solely with the Texas Legislature, no action has been taken that would create same-sex marriage under Texas law,” Flynn wrote. “Absent legislative action, no Texas law defines or otherwise establishes marriage between homosexual couples. Can the state award what does not exist?”
Flynn said county clerks may not issue marriage licenses if applicants fail to meet the state definition of marriage being between one man and one woman.
“It does not, for example, provide for a marriage between two persons, whereas the federal court could have struck any specificity defining two persons as those of opposite sex,” Flynn wrote. “Yet, Texas county clerks have proceeded to issue marriage licenses despite the Texas state law provisions that remain even after the federal district court’s declaration as to the unconstitutionality of ‘law denying same-sex couples the right to marry.’ As all legislative powers are vested with the Texas legislature, state agencies and local government officials cannot issue same-sex marriage licenses without revision to Texas statutes by the Texas Legislature providing for the same.”
Paxton was criticized roundly for his first non-binding legal opinion on Obergefell. Two days after the Supreme Court ruling, he urged county clerks and judges not to issue same-sex marriage licenses or perform such marriages if doing so would violate their religious beliefs. He acknowledged that local officials would likely be sued if they followed his recommendation.
Paxton said the Supreme Court “again ignored the text and spirit” of the Constitution in legalizing same-sex marriage and “manufacture[d] a right” that does not exist.
“In so doing, the Court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live,” Paxton said at the time.
“Now hundreds of Texas public officials are seeking guidance on how to implement what amounts to a lawless decision by an activist Court while adhering both to their respective faiths and their responsibility to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.”
Former Rusk County Clerk Joyce Lewis-Kugle resigned on July 9 after refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Rusk County District Attorney Michael Jimerson said he told Lewis-Kugle she could follow Paxton’s recommendation but she would probably be sued.
“The Supreme Court is the law of the land ,” Jimerson said he told her. “You can either resign in protest or issue the licenses.”
Hood County Clerk Katie Lang was forced to issue a same-sex marriage license on July 6 after refusing to issue them, citing Paxton’s opinion. She invoked her personal religious objections in refusing, but changed her mind and said other employees of her office would issue same-sex marriage licenses. She was sued in Federal Court by a gay couple who said they were “humiliated” by Lang and her staff when they tried to apply for a marriage license and were told there would be a weeks-long delay in getting updated forms from state officials. The couple pointed out that the forms were already available on the Internet.
Flynn’s District 2 covers Rains, Hunt and Van Zandt counties, east of Dallas and just west of Tyler. Flynn, 72, is serving his seventh term in the Legislature. In 2008 he wrote a bill requiring that public documents be written only in English. He said it would encourage people to learn the language. He describes himself on his home Web page as a “noted conservative,” a businessman, banker and rancher.

From Courthouse News.

Boy Scouts Bow to Inevitable, Drop Ban on Gay Scoutmasters

July 28, 2015
By David Lee
DALLAS (CN) – The Boy Scouts of America voted Monday to end its decades-long ban on gay Scout leaders, to avoid “staggering” costs of litigation, despite religious groups’ protests against the policy change.
The Scouts’ Irving, Texas-based National Executive Board approved a resolution that removes the national ban on openly gay adult leaders and employees.
Approved by 79 percent of board members present, the resolution takes effect immediately.
The resolution carves out an exception for local scouting groups to continue rejecting gay Scout leader applicants if hiring them violates the unit’s religious beliefs.
“This change allows Scouting’s members and parents to select local units, chartered to organizations with similar beliefs, that best meet the needs of their families,” the BSA said in a statement Monday evening. “This change also respects the right of religious chartered organizations to choose adult volunteer leaders whose beliefs are consistent with their own.”
The lifting of the national ban comes two years after BSA voted to allow openly gay Scouts.
BSA president and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates made headlines in May when he warned the organization that the ban on gay leaders must be lifted. He said at the time that the “status quo in our movement’s membership standards cannot be sustained.”
Gates said the ban “was inevitably going to result in simultaneous legal battles” in several jurisdictions and “staggering” expense.
“For far too long this issue has divided and distracted us,” Gates said in a statement Monday evening. “Now it’s time to unite behind our shared belief in the extraordinary power of scouting to be a force for good in a community and in the lives of its youth members.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints quickly criticized the Boy Scouts, saying it is “deeply troubled” by the change. So troubled that church leaders told the Deseret News on Monday that they will consider setting up their own alternative program to Scouting.
“In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the Church’s governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet,” the church said in a statement. “When the leadership of the Church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined. The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation. However, the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America.”
The Boy Scouts have faced criticism for years that its policies discriminate against homosexuals. An advisory panel of the California Supreme Court recommended in February 2014 that California state judges be barred from Boy Scouts membershipbecause of the policies.
In June 2008, Philadelphia officials tried to evict the Boy Scouts from a rent-free property that had been a local group’s headquarters since 1928, citing the Scouts’ anti-gay policies.
A federal judge ruled in March 2012 that the Boy Scouts could recover nearly $900,000 in legal fees after it prevailed in the case. The BSA agreed to vacate the property in May 2013 under the terms of a settlement.

From Courthouse News.

Tony Romo’s Attorneys Fire Back at NFL Over Cancelled Expo

July 24, 2015
By David Lee
DALLAS (CN) – Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo treated ticketholders to his canceled fantasy football expo to free drinks and autographs as his company’s attorneys called the NFL a “corporate thug” for threatening players who attend.
Romo’s company, The Fan Expo LLC, sued the NFL in Dallas County Court on Tuesday, over The National Fantasy Football Convention at the Sands Expo and Convention Center in Las Vegas that was scheduled for this month.
The lawsuit claims the NFL supported the event at first, then told players and league employees they could not participate because the venue violates the league’s gambling policy, resulting in its cancellation.
To make it up to the fans, Romo hosted 200 ticketholders at Fizz Las Vegas Champagne Bar at Caesars Palace for free drinks and an autographed poster. Romo was not there, but chatted with fans through FaceTime.
Romo has not commented on the lawsuit, but his company’s attorneys blasted the league’s alleged concerns about gambling on Thursday.
“For the record: at no time was any part of the family-friendly National Fantasy Football Convention to be held on casino grounds, and the NFFC was not in any way involved nor endorsing adjacent gaming facilities in any capacity,” the attorneys said in a statement.
“The convention, originally scheduled July 10-12, 2015, was preparing to host over 100 current and former NFL players and personalities across three days of stage events, sessions, autograph and photo ops, exhibits, drafts, fan-led Q&As, and more.”
Attorney Julie Pettit, in Dallas, said the league’s “bullying tactics” against players amounts to tortious interference.
“The NFL knew the event was not in violation of the NFL gambling policy, yet after expressly supporting the NFFC, the NFL then threatened to suspend NFL players if they complied with their NFFC appearance contracts,” Pettit said. “After conducting a thorough investigation, we have determined that the NFL should held accountable for its hypocrisy and harassment.”
Michael K. Hurst, with Gruber Hurst in Dallas, said the league is acting “against the best interest of the fans” and tarnishing the NFL image.
“The NFL is once again acting like a corporate thug, initiating a campaign to intimidate players away from this event because of its potential for success and in order to kill or control any profits,” Hurst said.
More than 100 players were to attend the convention, including Romo, Odell Beckham Jr., Rob Gronkowski, Dez Bryant, Julio Jones, Le’Veon Bell, Jeremy Maclin, Jamaal Charles, DeMarco Murray, Alshon Jeffery, Eddie Lacy, Randall Cobb and Antonio Brown.
“This is nothing more than the latest in a long history of disreputable actions and behavior presented by the League,” the attorneys said. “From an iron-fisted approach to player conduct rarely reflective of the league’s own lack of self-discipline, to annual season ticket price hikes, the NFL continues to show little regard for the opinions and value of its players and fans.
“The NFFC intends to provide an unforgettable experience for fans and players alike, entirely independent of the NFL’s long shadow and dominating influence. While we’re extremely disappointed that their recent actions caused our postponement, we’re thrilled by the opportunities awaiting everyone next summer in Southern California, and we cannot wait to share more insights into the 2016 National Fantasy Football Convention with fans nationwide.”
In its lawsuit, Fan Expo accuses the league of hypocritical, selective enforcement of its gambling policy, which it “flagrantly and systematically” violates on occasions when it stands to “get a piece of the pie” financially.
Fan Expo pointed out that the Detroit Lions in May announced a partnership with the MGM Grand Detroit, a casino-hotel with slot machines, gaming tables and poker rooms. It also said New England Patriots free safety Devin McCourty has hosted a casino night and that his teammate tight end Gronkowski is hosting a party cruise in February on a cruise ship outfitted with a casino.
The Fan Expo seeks actual damages and punitive damages for tortious interference with contract (with the players), tortious interference with prospective business relationships, and costs.

From Courthouse News.

Texas, Others Cave on Gay Marriage Benefits Lawsuit

July 22, 2015
By David Lee
WICHITA FALLS, Texas (CN) – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has quit his federal lawsuit against same-sex marriage benefits, four weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Paxton sued Uncle Sam in March over the Department of Labor’s extension of Family and Medical Leave Act benefits to same-sex couples married in other states. He claimed the new rule would violate the Texas Constitution. Texas voters banned gay marriage via constitutional amendment in November 2005, defining marriage as between a man and woman.
Paxton, a Republican, filed to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit Friday. He was joined by attorneys general from Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Nebraska, who had joined the lawsuit.
“On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 WL 2473451 (U.S. 2015) and thus resolving all substantive issues raised in this lawsuit,” the filing states. “As a result, plaintiffs will no longer prosecute their action against defendants, and file this notice voluntarily dismissing all claims against defendants without necessity of court order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). All costs, fees and expenses shall be borne by the party incurring same.”
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor had given Paxton two early victories in the lawsuit, imposing a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the rule on March 26 andrefusing the federal government’s request to lift it on April 10.
Paxton said in March that the rule change “places an enormous burden” on employers to decide on same-sex couple leave requests made without guidance from the Supreme Court or Fifth Circuit.
“It would essentially strong-arm employers to choose to either violate federal regulations or state law,” he said at the time.
Texas has spent more than $26,000 in legal costs on the case, according to the Texas Tribune.
Paxton spokeswoman Cynthia Meyer said Tuesday, “Our filing speaks for itself.”
Paxton faced heavy criticism for issuing a non-binding advisory opinion afterObergefell, urging county clerks and judges not to issue same-sex marriage licenses if it is against their religious beliefs. He acknowledged that such action would probably result in lawsuits.
Paxton said at the time the Supreme Court “again ignored the text and spirit” of the Constitution in legalizing same-sex marriage and “manufacture[d] a right” that does not exist.
“In so doing, the Court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live,” he said. “Now hundreds of Texas public officials are seeking guidance on how to implement what amounts to a lawless decision by an activist Court while adhering both to their respective faiths and their responsibility to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.”
In North Texas, Hood County Clerk Katie Lang, a Republican, cited Paxton’s opinion when she initially refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses in defiance of Obergefell.
She changed her mind, but cited a weeks-long delay in getting updated marriage license forms from the state. She was forced to issue a same-sex marriage license on existing forms after she was sued in Fort Worth Federal Court by a Hood County gay couple who said they were “humiliated” by Lang’s office’s rejections.
In East Texas, Rusk County Clerk Joyce Lewis-Kugle quit two weeks ago rather than issue same-sex marriage licenses. She was advised by Rusk County District Attorney Michael Jimerson to comply with the Supreme Court ruling or resign. Jimerson told her she could follow Paxton’s recommendation, but would likely be sued.
A Texas Democratic Party executive filed a professional conduct grievance with the State Bar of Texas on June 30 against Paxton, saying it is irresponsible and unethical for an attorney and elected official to tell other elected officials to break the law.

From Courthouse News.

Tony Romo’s Fantasy Football Expo Fights Stiff-Arm From NFL

July 22, 2015
By David Lee
DALLAS (CN) – Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo’s company sued the National Football League, claiming it threatened to fine and suspend several players if they participate in a fantasy football fan expo.
The Fan Expo LLC sued the NFL in Dallas County Court on Tuesday, over The National Fantasy Football Convention at the Sands Expo and Convention Center in Las Vegas scheduled for this month.
Romo is not a party to the suit. His company claims the league supported the event at first, but then told players and league employees they could not participate because the venue violates the league’s gambling policy.
Fan Expo told the NFL that “the event was not taking place at a casino, that no gambling would take place at the event, and that children were allowed and encouraged to attend,” but to no avail.
“(J)ust weeks before the inaugural event, the NFL placed a series of intimidating phone calls to players, their families, their agents, and the NFL Players Association (‘NFLPA’), threatening that the players would be fined and potentially suspended from the NFL if they participated in the event,” the lawsuit states.
“Through these actions, the NFL tortiously interfered with the NFFC’s contracts with NFL players and NFL media personnel, as well as with the fans and participants who had planned and paid for tickets, travel, and hotel accommodations in order to attend the event. As a direct result of the malicious and groundless threats made by the NFL, numerous players and media personnel withdrew their participation from the convention, and it became impossible for the NFFC to execute the July 2015 event.”
Fan Expo attributed the NFL’s “abrupt change of heart” to the success of the convention.
“On June 3, 2015, less than five weeks before the event was to take place, the NFL began to threaten and harass players who had committed to appear at the event,” the complaint states. “By waiting until the last minute to take this position, the NFL ensured they could inflict the maximum negative impact on the NFFC.”
Fan Expo accuses the league of hypocritical, selective enforcement of its gambling policy, which it “flagrantly and systematically” violates when it stands to “get a piece of the pie” financially.
“On May 26, 2015, the Detroit Lions announced an official partnership with the MGM Grand Detroit,” the complaint states. “The MGM Grand Detroit is a casino-hotel with slot machines, gaming tables, and poker rooms. In fact, the MGM plans to build an ‘MGM Grand Detroit Tunnel Club’ on site at Ford Field. On October 28, 2014, on their official NFL website, the reigning Super Bowl Champions, The New England Patriots, proudly posted a video of their free safety, Devin McCourty, hosting a casino night. NFL player Rob Gronkowski is hosting a party cruise from Miami to the Bahamas on February 19-22, 2016. The four-day party takes place on Norwegian Cruise Line, where Gronkowski’s fans and attendees can take full advantage of Norwegian’s famed ‘Casinos at Sea.'”
Fan Expo’s attorney, Julie Pettit in Dallas, confirmed on Tuesday that Romo is a part-owner of Fan Expo. Romo will not comment on the lawsuit, she told The Dallas Morning News.
The Fan Expo rebuts the NFL’s reasoning, saying the facility is not licensed for gambling and is not part of a casino.
More than 100 players were to attend, including Romo, Odell Beckham Jr., Rob Gronkowski, Dez Bryant, Julio Jones, Le’Veon Bell, Jeremy Maclin, Jamaal Charles, DeMarco Murray, Alshon Jeffery, Eddie Lacy, Randall Cobb and Antonio Brown.
League officials said they are reviewing the lawsuit.
Romo expressed his frustration with the cancellation during a June appearance on ESPN’s “The Herd” with Colin Cowherd.
“It’s like when you’re in high school and you don’t get invited to the party; it makes you feel bad,” he said. “If they really wanted to just be a part of it, all they had to do was call and ask. It would have been a lot easier than going about the process the way they did.”
Romo said at the time that the NFL could have called him or the convention organizers instead of “almost scaring” the players who were to attend.
“That just seems silly to me. We could have been far more mature about this,” he said. “That makes you think it was just about money, and that’s disappointing.”

From Courthouse News.