The Law Office of Samuel R. Terry, PC

04/24/2023

Job Title: AI Data Entry Specialist

****perfect position for a someone pursuing a bachelors in computer science or information systems technology****

Bachelors degree not required.

Job Summary:

We are looking for a detail-oriented and efficient AI Data Entry Specialist to join our team. The primary responsibility of this role is to code and enter data into an AI platform, ensuring that all information is accurate, organized, and up-to-date. The ideal candidate should be familiar with coding languages and have experience working with AI platforms.

Key Responsibilities:
* Enter and code data into an AI platform with accuracy and attention to detail.
* Ensure that all information entered is organized, up-to-date, and in compliance with company standards.
* Collaborate with other team members to identify data entry needs and improve data quality.
* Conduct regular quality checks on data entered to ensure accuracy.
* Keep up-to-date with changes and developments in AI platform(s) and related technologies.
* Provide support to other team members as needed.

REQUIREMENTS
* Strong understanding of coding languages such as Python, Java, or C++.
* Familiarity with AI platforms and related technologies.
* Excellent attention to detail and organizational skills.
* Ability to work independently and as part of a team.
* Strong communication skills.
* Ability to manage multiple tasks and prioritize work effectively.
* Strong problem-solving skills.

Preferred Qualifications:
* Experience working in a data entry role or related field.
* Experience with natural language processing (NLP) technologies.
* Familiarity with machine learning algorithms and techniques.

If you meet these requirements and are interested in this position, please submit your resume and a cover letter explaining why you are a good fit for the role to:

[email protected]
817-882-9977
www.SRTLAW.com

We look forward to hearing from you!

SRT LAW

Get the aggressive representation from the Ft. Worth criminal defense lawyer. Call for a free consultation.

04/24/2023

Whoa! Those guys definitely need a lawyer!

The fastest speeding ticket in Texas last year was 200+ MPH 🥵💨

02/26/2023

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JOSHUA WRIGHT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDER CHARGE IN JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS

Johnson County, Texas - February 10, 2023 - Joshua Wright was found not guilty of the criminal offense of murder in a highly emotional and contested trial in Johnson County, Texas. The jury found that Wright acted in self-defense and in defense of another, and that his actions were justified. As a result, Wright was acquitted of all charges.

The trial, which lasted for several days, was closely watched by the community and attracted media attention. Wright was represented by a team of experienced attorneys, Samuel R. Terry and Veronica Veyhl, who worked tirelessly to ensure that justice was served.

Speaking after the verdict, Wright expressed his relief and gratitude to the jury for their careful consideration of the evidence. He thanked his legal team for their hard work and dedication, and thanked his friends and family for their unwavering support throughout the trial.

The verdict is a testament to the fairness and impartiality of the American justice system, which allows for a fair trial and a just outcome. It is also a reminder that everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense and the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty.

We hope that this verdict will bring closure to Wright and his family, and that they can now move on with their lives. We also extend our condolences to the family of the deceased, whose loss is immeasurable.

We thank the members of the press for their coverage of this case and for their continued commitment to reporting on issues of public importance.

For further information, please contact:

Kristie Coomer,
Public Relations Manager
SRT LAW, PC
817-882-9977

02/19/2023

Looking for a trusted criminal defense law firm in Fort Worth, Texas? Look no further than our team at SRT LAW, P.C.!

At our firm, we understand that facing criminal charges can be one of the most stressful and overwhelming experiences of your life. That's why we're here to provide you with the support, guidance, and aggressive legal representation you need to fight for your rights and protect your freedom.

With years of experience defending clients in Fort Worth and throughout Texas, our team has the knowledge, skill, and dedication to help you navigate the criminal justice system and achieve the best possible outcome for your case. Whether you're facing charges for DWI, drug offenses, violent crimes, or any other criminal offense, we're here to stand by your side and fight for your rights.

So if you're looking for a criminal defense law firm in Fort Worth that you can trust, turn to the team at SRT LAW, P.C. Contact us today at 817-882-9977 to schedule a consultation and take the first step towards defending your freedom.

01/28/2022

Today in FAMILY LAW in regards to Termination of Parental Rights
Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. v. N.J., 613 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020), pet. granted, ___ Tex. Sup. Ct. J. ___ (January 28, 2022) [20-0940]

At issue in this parental rights termination case is whether the trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over the mother, N.J.
N.J. was a minor when she gave birth. The Department of Family & Protective Services opened an investigation after receiving a report of negligent supervision and that N.J. was engaging in illegal drug use. Shortly thereafter, N.J. was arrested for assaulting her father, with whom she was living at the time, and was placed in a juvenile detention center. The Department filed for conservatorship of the child and termination of N.J.’s parental rights. The child was removed from N.J.’s care after an emergency hearing. N.J. was not served with citation, but the Department requested the trial court appoint N.J. an attorney ad litem, which the trial court did.

At the ensuing adversarial hearing and subsequent hearings, N.J. and her attorney ad litem personally appeared and participated. N.J. and her attorney ad litem also personally appeared and participated in the three-day jury trial, and N.J. testified. N.J.’s parental rights were terminated. N.J. appealed, asserting that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over her because she was never personally served.

The court of appeals agreed. The court of appeals stated that although N.J. appeared, which would normally have waived personal service, she was a minor and therefore lacked capacity to consent to suit except as otherwise provided by law. The court further stated that N.J. could only have been joined to the suit by either personal service or through her legal guardian or next friend. Since N.J. did not appear with a guardian and was not personally served, the court of appeals held that trial court lacked jurisdiction. The court of appeals accordingly reversed and remanded for a new trial.

The Department argues on petition for review that N.J.’s attorney ad litem served the dual role of attorney and guardian ad litem, and therefore her appearance with N.J. at the hearings and trial before the trial court effectively waived personal service on N.J. The Department thus asserts N.J.’s interests were adequately protected and the trial court had personal jurisdiction. N.J. disagrees, arguing that the attorney ad litem was not appointed to a dual role as guardian ad litem and her appearance with the attorney ad litem was not enough to adequately protect her interests.

The Supreme Court granted the petition for review. Oral argument has been set for February 24, 2022.

09/01/2021



Permitless carry: House Bill 1927 allows Texans ages 21 and older to carry handguns without training or a license as long as they are not legally prevented from doing so.

Medical *****na expansion: People with any form of cancer or post-traumatic stress disorder now have access to low-THC cannabis for medical purposes. HB 1535 is an expansion of the Texas Compassionate Use Program, which allows people with conditions such as epilepsy and autism to access medical ma*****na.

“Star Spangled Banner Protection Act”: Professional sports teams with state funding are required to play the before games under SB 4.

Shielding companies from car crash liability: HB 19 requires drivers of commercial vehicles — including , and delivery trucks — to be found liable in court for causing a car crash resulting in injury or death before a case can be brought against their employer.

body cameras: HB 929 requires police officers to keep body cameras on during the entirety of active investigations.

Banning unnecessary police : Police officers are now prohibited from using chokeholds or excessive force during arrests unless necessary to prevent officer or bystander injury under SB 69. Officers who witness violations are required to report the incident.

Felony punishment for blocking emergency vehicles: HB 9 will make blocking access to a hospital or an emergency vehicle with its lights and sirens on a state jail felony.

Criminalizing camping: HB 1925 makes camping in unapproved public places a misdemeanor crime that carries a fine of up to $500. Cities cannot opt out of the ban.

09/01/2021

Permitless carry: House Bill 1927 allows Texans ages 21 and older to carry handguns without training or a license as long as they are not legally prevented from doing so.

So now you get to carry a firearm without a permit in Texas. There’s a lot to know about this new law and if you plan to carry a firearm without any formal training I encourage you to really research this issue.  This post is about the use of deadly force, which is not a new law, but I believe is the most important information that a person carrying a firearm needs to know.

What is self-defense and when are you justified in using deadly force in defense of person? The law is posted below. Take care and special note of when force/deadly force is NOT justified. This is not considered legal advice. Every case is different. If you have specific questions please call us at 817-882-9977. 

§ 9.31. Self-Defense
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05. (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

§ 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

§ 9.33. Defense of Third Person
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

§ 9.34. Protection of Life or Health
(a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing su***de or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

 

08/03/2021

Thank you.

03/13/2021

Thank you American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys for naming us one of the 10 Best in Texas in 2021.

03/11/2021

We are happy to announce that we now accept (BTC) and (ETH) forms of payment. Call us for the details! www.SRTLAW.com

Get the aggressive representation from the Ft. Worth criminal defense lawyer. Call for a free consultation.

10/06/2020

for 213th District Court

05/09/2020