The Collin County Observer™

I apologize for not updating the blog for some time. Sometimes life gets in the way - but,

I. Am. Back.

First, to put this in context - we cannot vote without a map. We can't set a date to vote without a map. Folks need to know where to go and when to show up. No map - no vote. So right now, we are waiting.

Texas is one of nine states that that is required, pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to have their Congressional District and Voting maps approved by the United States Justice Department due to a long history of racial discrimination against voters. (Yes, the sad history of Jim Crow laws continues to taint our state.)

The voting map proposed by the Texas legislature was rejected by a federal court in San Antonio because it was determined by that court to violate the Voting Rights Act by failing to protect the rights of minority voters. The San Antonio federal court drew another map. That map was challenged by the Texas Attorney General who appealed to the United States Supreme Court asserting that the map created by the Texas Legislature should be honored.

The United States Supreme Court determined that the map created by the Texas Legislature did, indeed, impede on the rights of minorities, but made no determination on whether it violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supremes did say that the San Antonio federal court overstepped its bounds and “create[d] a minority coalition district, rather than drawing a district that simply reflected population growth." Greater deference should have been given to the Legislature's map but it needs to be fixed up somehow to protect the rights of minorities.

So, did The Supremes tell us what to do? No - that would be too easy.

The Supremes instructed the federal court in San Antonio to create "interim voting districts" and the federal courts would continue to hear arguments from both sides. So, we continue to wait on a primary date and, of course, a map. I will advise you of any developments in this very important matter.

This is the first in a series of interviews of those candidates who are running for elected office in Collin County, Texas. The information in this article is based on materials and interviews provided by the candidate. If you would like to be interviewed by Bill Baumbach, please email your request to bill@baumbach.org.

Jody Johnson, 53, met with me so that I could learn more about her and her candidacy. She has been married over ten years, has four step-sons and is a resident of Plano, Texas. She attends Christ Church Plano.

She graduated in 1983, Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Minnesota with a Journalism degree. She earned her law degree from SMU in 1983 and has been a licensed attorney in the State of Texas for 28 years. She is Board Certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

Johnson has a reputation for representing clients from all walks of life, whether they are pro bono clients, regular citizens of Collin County, or professional athletes. She has handled complex civil litigation cases as well as criminal cases involving abduction of children, family violence, child sex abuse, failure to support children, and visitation with children.

She lists her strongest skills as the ability listen, giving litigants the opportunity to be heard, and looking for solutions within the boundaries of the law.

Johnson’s service to the community has been far reaching. She has represented many indigent clients pro bono. She has an adult sister who is mentally disabled which inspires her support of the Opportunity Partners Organization which helps the mentally challenged community obtain training and find jobs in the community. She is frequently appointed as an Amicus Attorney in family law cases to advise the court on what is in the best interests of the children involved in a family law conflict. She has been asked to serve as a visiting Associate Judge in Dallas County to hear and rule on Temporary Orders in Family law cases.

When asked about how she would run her court, Johnson states that over one-half of the cases filed in District Courts are family law cases. Family law cases touch the lives of mothers, fathers, and children. She has been committed to minimize damage to children, and will encourage the parties to work out agreements when that is possible. If an agreement cannot be arrived at, Jody will apply the laws fairly and consistently when making a decision.

She emphasizes that her role is not to legislate or prosecute from the bench. The legislature makes the laws. The District Attorney prosecutes the cases. The judges apply and enforce the laws. As a pioneer in the collaborative law movement in Texas (beginning in 1999), she strongly advocates using alternate dispute processes that give litigants more control over the outcomes of their cases and decreases the need for trials. Johnson is a frequent speaker regarding the collaborative law option and is a participant of a pro bono collaborative law project for those litigants who cannot afford this process.

When asked how her qualifications could restore integrity to the Collin County Courts, she cited her service on the State Bar of Texas District 6 Attorney Grievance board. She chaired the committee for 3 of her 6 years of service hearing evidence from litigants who filed lawyer complaints and attorneys and issuing rulings that determined whether a particular lawyer should be sanctioned or disbarred. In order to serve on this committee, she was required to demonstrate impeccable ethics and reputation and she will use these same qualities as a judge.

Moreover, she has the respect of her peers and the bench. As a Board Certified Attorney, she must have the recommendation of fellow attorneys and judges. She has been consistently selected, through peer recommendation, as a Texas Super Lawyer (including Top 100 attorneys in Dallas Fort Worth and Top 50 Women Attorneys in Texas) and many other accolades which are detailed in her biography at the link below.

Johnson is also the only attorney running for this bench who is "AV" rated by Martindale-Hubbell. This is an unsolicited peer review rating and is the highest rating issued. It means that Johnson has achieved a "Very High Ethical Standards rating" and the highest score for Legal Ability based on performance in the following 5 areas:

1. Legal Knowledge: Lawyer's familiarity with the laws governing his/her specific area of practice(s)
2. Analytical Capabilities: Lawyer's creativity in analyzing legal issues and applying technical knowledge
3. Judgment: lawyer's demonstration of the salient factors that drive the outcome of a given case or issue
4. Communication Ability: Lawyer's capability to communicate persuasively and credibly
5. Legal Experience: Lawyer's degree of experience in his/her specific area of practice(s).

If elected, Johnson hopes to be remembered as a fair and hardworking judge. She wants litigants and attorneys to know that she will apply the law as written and will be unbiased.

When asked why she is more qualified than the other candidates, she finds that although, other candidates do have some strengths, Johnson contends that she is the most qualified of all the candidates because
she:

- has been licensed to practice law longer than the other candidates;

- has the most relevant attorney experience required for this bench;

- is the only candidate who has a Board Certification by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization;

- has the most litigation and trial experience;

- has made judgments as an associate judge and attorney grievance committee member;

- and has the respect and support of the legal community by virtue of her being consistently listed as a Texas Super Lawyer

For more information, please see http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/jodyjohnsonforjudge or her biography http://www.baumbach.org/2012/JodyBio.pdf

The Collin County Observer will continue to cover the 2012 election. We will attempt to give our readers information and insight into the candidates, the issues and their campaigns.

The Collin County Observer does not recommend nor endorse any candidate.

Some notes from the Observer's notebook range from the humorous to the nasty:

Campaign Trucks

Barnett Walker is running for judge in the County Court at Law #2.

I got a hoot when I saw a picture Barnett Walker's truck. I did remind Barnett the story two years ago when Ralph De La Garza put a giant placard on his truck for his Collin County District Attorney race. Ralph's truck was stolen almost immediately.

A wonder if auto thieves are quicker to steal from a judicial candidate or from a District Attorney candidate.

What District am I in?

The Observer does try to know what districts I live in, who will represent me, and who I can vote for?

I, like many in Texas, I don't know who my congressman will be. Many in Collin County do not know who their congressman, state senator or state representative - no matter how hard they try to find out.

The US Supreme Court has put the Texas redistricting plans for Congress, Texas Senate, and the Texas House on hold.

The SCOTUS has ordered arguments in January, but the filing period ends on December.

Even the Texas Attorney General doesn't know what maps the candidates should file in their district.

Nice deal, eh?

The 380th Court getting crowded

The 380th District Court bench is vacant since Suzanne Wooten was convicted of bribery.

Five Republicans have filed for the position in the March primary.

Terri Green
Jody Johnson
Chip Jarvis
Piper McCraw
Ben Smith

At this date, no Democrats have filed for the bench.

None of the candidates have a campaign website yet. More information, on all five, to come.

District 12 SBOE race already ugly

All of Collin County (and North Dallas) is now in 12th district for the State Board of Education.

The incumbant is Republican George Clayton. He is a resident of Richardson and an educator at North Dallas High School. Last year Clayton defeated Tincy Miller, the long time member of the SBOE. She served on the SBOE from 1984 to 2010.

After Clayton first challenged Miller, he won, despite being the target of a whisper campaign charging him with being gay.

Earlier this, Susan Fletcher, the president of the Golden Corridor Republican Women’s Club was questioning Clayton's "living arrangements".

In response, Clayton sent an email to the media confirming that, “To avoid the tyranny of misinformation and innuendo in this political race, I wish to say that I, in fact, do have a male partner who lives with me in my home in Richardson, Texas”.

The right wing and Tea Party websites are already on the attack.

There are three Republican candidates:

George Clayton
Pam Little
Tincy Miller

So far, I have not heard of any SBOE candidates for the Democratic Party primary.

****

More news on the Observer's notebook will be posted as interesting stories develop. I hope you enjoy.

Bill

The Board of District Judges (BODJ, made up of the 8 Collin County District Court Judges) are tasked by the Texas Constitution to fill a vacant office of District Clerk.

The BODJ chose to meet and vote on their appointment in a closed door meeting.

In a unanimous vote today, the BODJ appointed Andrea Stroh. Stroh is an attorney who practices family law in Plano.

A Collin County press release states, "Ms. Stroh’s appointment came after the board interviewed multiple candidates in the wake of the post-conviction removal of Patricia Crigger last week during her first term as the county’s District Clerk. The judges wanted to proceed quickly and deliberately in order to restore public confidence in the District Clerk’s office."

The appointment will be effective until after the November 2012 election. The District Clerk’s position will be on the March primary ballot, and the winner of the November election will take over the remainder of official term, which expires in December 2014.

Candidates for the remainder of the term can file for either party before December 19, 2011.

Ms. Stroh earned a J.D. from South Texas College of Law in 1998. In 1997, she studied at Marmara University in Istanbul, Turkey, 1997 and in 1995, she earned her Bachelor of Science from Texas A&M University.

Ms Stroh has been a member of the Connor Harrington Republican Women's Club, has been active in several Plano schools, has served as a member of the Board of Directors for Hope’s Door, and has served as the Chair of Plano's Cultural Affairs Commission.

Ms. Stroh told The Collin County Observer that she did not seek the position of District Clerk. She accepted the appointment after she was asked by the BODJ.

Stroh hopes she can bring to the office a "fresh perspective", with no ties to any members in that office and courthouse.

Stroh wishes to, "elevate the office of District Clerk", by being dedicated, "through time to restore the citizens' faith in their department and the elections".

Stroh will file to be a candidate for the remainder of the term of office in the Republican Party Primary. She believes that the office needs some continuity by promising to commit to the job through 2014. She state that the department, "had so many changes this year, that more changes create more chaos".

Stroh will be shutting down her Law Practice next week. She said she will be a full-time District Clerk. Although she will run for the remainder of the term, she has no desire to hold a, "lifetime career in the office".

The BODJ appointed an 'interim' District Clerk immediately after Patricia Crigger's felony conviction on December the 6th. The district courts can not function without a sworn District Clerk. The clerks in the office have no authority unless acting as a deputy to a legal District Clerk.

The Board appointed Judy Blazier, a veteran of the District Clerk's Office until the BODJ could interview, deliberate, and appoint a District Clerk that could serve until the end of 2012.

Ms. Blazier had already made plans to retire at the end of this month. She told the Collin County Observer that she had absolutely no desire to be the District Clerk, but that she would keep the office operating until the judges chose a replacement.

Blazier's first actions were to fire the two District Deputy Clerks convicted of corruption - Rebecca Littrell and Sherry Bell.

Early the next morning, Blazier had sworn-in all the employees as her deputy district clerks.

Stroh will have to once again swear-in the employees as her deputy district clerks.

Bill

********************************************BREAKING********************************************

The Board of Collin County District Court Judges has appointed ANDREA STROH as the new DISTRICT CLERK OF COLLIN COUNTY. Stroh is an attorney with the Stroh Law Firm. The prior District Clerk, Patricia Crigger, was removed from office after she was convicted of conspiracy and misuse of county funds.

More from Bill in a later post.

LEX LAWYER

By: Lex Lawyer
Attorney at Law
Guest Contributor

We have a verdict and a sentence – but I have been asked to bring everyone up to date on what transpired before the verdict. I have studied and analyzed the Closing Arguments – So Get Ready!!!

The State rested on Friday, December 2, 2011 around 2:30 p.m.. The court recessed until the following Monday at 9:00 A.M.. So, everyone shows up in court Monday morning – all ready to hear this rest of this loooooong trial. Guess what? The Defense rests. Judge Nelms was surprised by this and determined that the attorneys would work on the Jury Charge on Monday and they would resume Tuesday morning to read the charge to the jury and to hear closing arguments.

Tuesday – today – Judge Nelms read the charge to the jury. This is a very aggravating time for attorneys and litigants. This reading of a very long charge is required by the law. The jurors get a Charge to read in the jury room but every word is read to them – even the judge sounded bored.

Mentioned in the charge are the legal requirements necessary to find a “conspiracy.” There must be corroboration of testimony to find that a conspiracy occurred. Moreover, an accomplice, (such as the testifying District Clerk employees who used the Blue Book Time), cannot corroborate each other. There must be proof independent of the testimony of the accomplices.

The Charge contained many lesser included offenses. For example, even if the jury finds that government funds in an amount less than $20 was somehow misappropriated, some sort of lesser conviction can occur.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

John Helms, Jr., Prosecutor Pro Tem

Helms describes this case as an “abuse of official capacity.” He states, “this is why we are here . . .” Aaaand, we are waiting for what I think is a dramatic video or something. Nothing happens and an assistant or some attorney is fiddling with some switches on a machine. This temporarily throws off the Mojo of Helms (I hate it when stuff like this happens to me – stupid equipment – that is why I stick to posters – nonetheless, not your fault , Helms! - LL) Well the AV equipment isn’t exactly working and finally, an audio recording booms through the courtroom. It is a recording of telephone conversation between Defendant Rebecca Littrell and Lara Roberge, a District Clerk employee. Littrell tells Roberge that she has used over 100 hours [on Crigger’s campaign] of her Personal Time Off (PTO) and will get it back on Blue Book – and she will do the same for Roberge.

Helms states, with steady eloquence, that this case is about “influencing an election.” He begins to review the charge with the jury. He asks one of his assistants to display the charge on the trusty ELMO projector. (For those of you who don’t know, Collin County is blessed with a Battlestar Galactica set up of technology that is the envy of many counties.) Guess what, the ELMO isn’t turned on. Assistants are flipping switches, Helms tries to get it to work. The attorneys mention that the bailiff knows how to work the projector. The Bailiff is in the anteroom “bailifing.” Yoon Kim, attorney for Defendant Sherry Bell, volunteers that he knows how to use the equipment. Judge Nelms is relieved and Kim gets to work. (Kim is a young attorney so he knows what he is doing! LL). Kim gets on the judge’s computer then assists Helms with his computer and, voila, ELMO is working.

NON- SEQUITOR – Kim is quite a gentleman to assist the Prosecution with this. He is a better man than me. I would have stared at the ceiling.-LL

Helms reviewed the charge with the jurors. The element of intent is required for these crimes and Helms said intent could be found because the Blue Book time program was a secret. Helms stated that the law does not require that the object of the conspiracy was accomplished – only that there was an agreement among the Defendants.

He reviewed the chronology of events. In the Fall of 2009, Hannah Kunkle announced her retirement. Patricia Crigger, Alma Hays, and Terrye Evans announced they were running for the office. Hays had a head start on fundraising and campaigning. At a Christmas party, Kunkle told everyone they should support Crigger. Kunkle wrote a letter of endorsement for Crigger.

Concerned that Crigger did not have enough volunteers, the Fuddrucker’s luncheon was held. Helms described the Defendants as the “Brain Trust” of this operation who took seats at the foot of the table. Littrell did most of the talking but all of the Defendants “strategized.”

Helms described various emails sent by Kunkle to friends where she lamented the election and did not want to turn over her office to someone who “didn’t have a clue” on running the place. He described other emails by other Defendants that were introduced in the trial. He casually mentioned that there were “complaints” about how the office was run without mentioning specific testimony or evidence.

Twenty District Clerk employees were involved in this activity, and he named each one. (Why weren’t they indicted? – LL) They were audited by HR. After the FOIA request (by The Observer), Ms. Jacobsen from the HR office asked Crigger about the request and Crigger assured Jacobsen that “nothing was going on.”

Littrell instructed her supervisors to remove the BB time from the computer and keep records on “scraps of paper” – a retreat of technology. The Defendants swiped badges for other employees.

The Blue Book program does not stop until June 2, 2010, the day of the raid by the Texas Rangers. During the raid, Littrell called Linda James, an employee and witness, and said, “the Texas Rangers are here – if you are asked, you don’t know anything.”

After all of this, no one was fired. Instead, they were promoted!!

Helms describes some of the various lesser included offenses in the charge. The misuse of a sum greater than $1500 is a State Jail Felony. The misuse of a sum greater than $20,000 is a Third Degree Felony. Oh yeah, and the misuse of less than $1500 is a Class A Misdemeanor.

Helms then used the spreadsheet prepared by the Texas Ranger to demonstrate how the amount of misused funds were calculated. It was determined that for each hour of time misused by the employees, the cost, INCLUDING BENEFITS – NOT JUST STRAIGHT TIME – was approximately $25. (I do not believe the Prosecution could have reached the Third Degree Felony level without this particular formula - LL)

He stated that the Defendants misused used approximately $26,000 of time poll sitting, block walking, and campaigning for Crigger on County time by this calculation.

Helms said regardless of whether all of the Blue Book time was actually exercised, a crime is still committed. He countered defense arguments that much of the Blue Book time was accrued before the campaign activities by showing the various calendars and ledgers that recorded the time spent on the campaign and said that more time was accrued during the campaign than before.

The Texas Ranger testified that, at the time of the raid, Littrell gave him the Blue Book time schedule when asked. He said the Defendants thought they could get away with this and described their behavior as “brazen.” Sometimes, Helms said, “if you are in an [elected] position too long, you get a feeling of entitlement.”

(I apologize for not having a summary of Robert Hinton’s (attorney for Crigger) argument – we were unable to cover that one. - LL)

Yoon Kim, attorney for Defendant Sherry Bell

Kim focused on the element of intent required by the Charge. Specific mental intent, mens rea, is required for guilt and it is not possessed by Bell. She thought she was doing the right thing. All of the witnesses were co-conspirators and therefore, could not, by law, corroborate the charges of a conspiracy.

He described the testimony of Lorri Robertson. She was indicted and signed a confession admitting guilt. Then the indictment was dismissed. Moreover, Robertson was never indicted of the same crime as the Defendants. He described Ranger Davidson’s Excel spreadsheet as not being trustworthy and much of the Blue Book time was accrued and used before the campaign.

He said, “you cannot trust the evidence to put these women in prison for their lives.”

Deric Walpole, Attorney for Rebecca Littrell

Walpole, sans the sunglasses (thank you - LL), finds the law to be on the side of the Defendants. He describes the Defendants as good people. He described his role as a defense attorney as a difficult one. Many of his clients are not good people and he has to “set fires” (literal not figurative) to divert attention from their misdeeds. But in this case, these Defendants are genuinely good people and he does not need to create any diversions for them.

He reiterated that all of these activities could have been stopped by a telephone call. And sometimes good people make mistakes. All of the PTO was done on the Defendants’ own time. The cost of this trial exceeds the alleged $26,000 in misused funds.

Walpole describes the prosecution as politically motivated and questioned why the prosecution waited until the election had ended to pursue their investigation. Because of the political situation, innuendo was used as evidence and innuendo is not evidence.

He said that Lorri Robertson confessed to nothing that the Defendants were prosecuted for.

John Hardin, Attorney for retired District Clerk, Hannah Kunkle

Kunkle was not indicted until recently – others were indicted many months before. He stated that he did not have sufficient time to prepare for trial.

Hardin related that John Roach, Sr., former Collin County District Attorney, never indicted Kunkle and Roach was a fierce prosecutor. And the fact that Roach did not prosecute Kunkle and Helms did, demonstrates the overzealousness of Helms, the prosecutor pro tem. Then, according to an observer in the court room, Hardin raised his hands above his head and started doing a “dance” toward Helms. While “dancing,” Hardin complained of the overzealous prosecution. He stopped and said “I’m so sorry, I just get upset.” No one objected to this (and I am not judging, in fact, I am impressed – Hardin’s client was acquitted, after all!)

He stated the evidence was insufficient for a conviction. He told the jurors that regardless of their verdict, he would like to get to know them and talk to them. Hardin concluded by stating, “when you leave the courthouse, on this cold day, during Christmas, you should feel good about what you did.”

John Helms, Jr., Prosecution - Rebuttal

Aaaaaaaand finally – we see the finish line. Helms stated that intent is not needed for a conviction. (huh?? – LL) He said a phone call would not have stopped the use of Blue Book time – the Defendants were fully engaged in these actions and were committed to it. There was never an internal investigation by the District Clerk’s office. The only investigation that was conducted was to find out who the whistle blowers are. Crigger’s reaction to the raid was to promote Bell and Littrell. He ended by stating that this is a third degree felony and the Defendants know it.

Hannah Kunkle was found NOT GUILTY
Patricia Crigger, Sherry Bell, and Rebecca Littrell were found GUILTY of all charges against them and accepted two years of probation each.

Lex Lawyer
Attorney at Law

*BREAKING NEWS*

Bill was in the courtroom when the jury annnounced their verdict.

Patricia Crigger - GUILTY on all charges
Rebecca Littrell - GUILTY on all charges
Sherry Bell - GUILTY on her one charge
Hannah Kunkle - NOT GUILTY - Kunkle is acquitted.

Judge Nelms immediately asked Crigger to stand. He said, "you are removed from your office effective immediately. Do you understand?" Crigger replied, "Yes sir."

Bill and I will have updates later this evening regarding evidence and testimony from Day 4 and the Closing Arguments.

Sentencing tomorrow at 9:00 A.M.

LEX LAWYER (In Limine)
Attorney at Law

*BREAKING NEWS*

Bill was in the courtroom when the jury annnounced their verdict.

Patricia Crigger - GUILTY on all charges
Rebecca Littrell - GUILTY on all charges
Sherry Bell - GUILTY on her one charge
Hannah Kunkle - NOT GUILTY - Kunkle is acquitted.

Judge Nelms immediately asked Crigger to stand. He said, "you are removed from your office effective immediately. Do you understand?" Crigger replied, "Yes sir."

Bill and I will have updates later this evening regarding evidence and testimony from Day 4 and the Closing Arguments.

Sentencing tomorrow at 9:00 A.M.

LEX LAWYER (In Limine)
Attorney at Law

In a surprising morning, all 4 defendants rested without any testimony.

The prosecution offered evidence for 3 days, the defense offered no evidence or witnesses. The court will convening at 9 AM for charges to the jury and for closing arguments.

For info to come....

Bill

Last weekend, columnist James Ragland was arrested for domestic assault.

The Dallas Morning News suspended Ragland's column, and reassigned him to the Collin County bureau to general reporting pending his criminal charges.

The Dallas Morning News does not think that a writer charged with wife hitting should publish a Dallas column. But the Dallas Morning News does believe that Ragland will fit in Collin County well. (perhaps he would fit it better in Afghanistan)

The editor of the DMN was quoted in an article, “'James is being reassigned until his case is resolved,' said Bob Mong, editor of The Dallas Morning News. 'He will be reporting outside of Dallas County to avoid inevitable conflicts that might arise. James agrees with this decision'."

Say what! The DMN sees Collin County as exile in Coventry.

Dallas Morning News loves the revenue from this county, but they simply under report Collin County.

For example, look at the DMN's community page for Collin:

• The page lists "Collin County Stories" - the latest story is a week old, and the last one is almost 1 month old.
• The page lists the "Allen Blog". The last post on it was written last June!
• The "McKinney Blog" was not been updates since last July.
• The DMN has not reported the District Clerk's trial since Monday.

Since the Dallas Morning News lay-off last summer, the DMN has deeply cut the Collin bureau to a skeleton crew.

DMN has several great reporters; Valerie Wigglesworth, Theodore Kim, and Jessica Meyers. They have tried, with a couple of younger of reporters, cover an area of 886 square miles with almost 800,000 residents.

James Ragland

Ragland is a graduate of Texas A & M, Commerce. He has been a reporter, including at, the Washington Post, the Washington Post Magazine and Emerge magazine. Ragland is now a columnist at the DMN.

The DMN reports, "Dallas police arrested Ragland on Sunday after his wife, Shannon Morley-Ragland, 42, accused him of pushing her to the floor and grabbing her by the hair during an argument at their Lake Highlands home. Ragland posted bond and was released from the Dallas County Jail later that day."

"On Tuesday, Ragland’s wife filed for divorce, according to public records. She cited “discord or conflict of personalities” between them. The couple has two children together.

A judge on Sunday granted Ragland's wife an emergency protection order which prohibits him from coming into contact with her."

"In a written statement Friday, Ragland denied the charge, a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine."

Bill

....

By Lex In Limine
Attorney at Law
Guest Contributer

Lorrie Robertson takes the stand. She is a supervisor at the District Clerk’s office. She was one of the Defendants who was originally arrested and indicted.

Through the direct examination of John Helms, Jr. for the prosecution, Robertson explained the various calendars and spreadsheets and how they were used to record Blue Book time. She testified that the Blue Book time was kept on the computer until Rebecca Littrell told her to remove it – sometime before the Runoff between Patricia Crigger and Alma Hayes in April 2010. She did so.

Robertson admitted that much of the Blue Book time was for leave not associated with the campaign. She testified that Littrell told her to encourage the staff that she supervised to work on the Crigger campaign. And she did, in fact encourage this.

At the time of the raid by the Texas Rangers, Robertson had another employees badge in her possession. That employee was not at the office but was exercising this Blue Book time. Robertson, as the supervisor of this employee had swiped the badge to make it appear that the employee was at work, when she was, in fact, not.
Yoon Kim, attorney for Sherry Bell, then cross examined Robertson. Robertson admitted that she was originally indicted. In July 2010, she entered into a plea agreement with then assistant District Attorney, (and instigator of most of these types of cases) Chris Milner.

NON SEQUITOR – Milner has a history of prosecuting defense attorneys for typos in their pleadings – alleging some type of government document tampering. Most of these cases have been dismissed and Milner has been mentioned in other publications regarding this over reaching and abusive tactic. He attempted to prosecute the current District Attorney, Greg Willis, for some crime – don’t know the exact charge – but basically Milner did not like how Wills ran his court (when he was a judge). The Grand Jury refused to indict Willis and took the unusual step of preparing a written statement explaining that Willis committed NO CRIME.

After Robertson entered into her plea of guilty to engaging in organized criminal activity, she kept her job and she wasn’t fined. (why don’t the other ladies get the same deal?) Later the indictments against the other defendants were dropped and re-indicted. She was afraid that her ex-husband would attempt to seek custody of her young children if she was prosecuted. So, she agreed to assist the prosecution.

She remained in the office during all of the alleged campaign activities. She reluctantly admitted that the business of the Disrict Clerk’s office never suffered during the campaign. She admitted that Kristy Duty, a prosecution witness and former employee of the Clerk’s office, was “in and out” of the office a lot because she was working with IT. She testified that not all Blue Book time was actually redeemed.

She was a former roommate with Crigger opponent, Alma Hayes, and this caused discomfort in the office. Robertson asserts that Hannah Kunkle excoriated her for supporting Hayes. Bur Crigger advised Robertson that it was not appropriate for Kunkle to do that and she could support whoever she wanted.

Deric Walpole, attorney for Sherry Littrell, cross examined Robertson. Robertson testified that if a judge or anyone else had advised the office what they were doing was illegal, Kunkle would have stopped it immediately.

NON SEQUITOR – Deric – you are a top notch attorney – so please take those sunglasses off your neck!

During the Robert Hinton, attorney for Patricia Crigger, cross examination, Robertson denied ever hearing Crigger proclaim that the Blue Book system would cease upon her taking office. But she found the Blue Book system to be a good program which contributed to the success of the office.

Robertson testified that the day she was arrested was the most embarrassing day of her life. She was humiliated. No one from the District Clerk’s office told her what to do. She hired attorney George Milner (no relation to Chris Milner)

John Hardin, attorney for Hannah Kunkle, cross examined the witness next. Hardin reminded Robertson that they had known each other since she was a child, she played with his dog, etc. etc. ( a lot of folksy introductions going on here – so BORING) Hardin promised the witness that no matter what happened, they would remain friends.

Robertson, through tears, testified that Kunkle was a very special and awesome lady. At the Fuddrucker’s meeting, she only remembers Littrell speaking and alleges that Littrell , when encouraging the staff to work on the Crigger campaign, said “we will figure out a way to get your time back.”

She met with prosecutor pro tem, John Helms, Jr.. Through attorneys, he asked to speak with Robertson. When asked, through Hardin, whether she took her attorney with her to this meeting, she said no “because he is very expensive.” This statement drew laughs from the gallery and the hoards of attorney in the courtroom. Judge Nelms asked the court reporter to make a transcription of that statement and laughed. (Attorneys are, indeed expensive – and they deserve every penny, I say!)

She met Helms for dinner and discussed car racing, oh and, also the District Clerk’s office.

I had to leave at this point and Bill will be covering the rest of the day. I will continue to cover the trial if you find that my posts are helpful to your understanding of this case.

Lex
Attorney at Law

By: Magna Carta
Attorney at Law

On Day Three of the District Clerk trial, John Helms Jr. for the Prosecution called Ms. Kristy Duty who worked for the District Clerk's office and remains a county employee in another division.

Kristy Littrell Duty

Duty described the Blue Book system as being a system for recording extra hours that employees worked, redeemable as PTO (Paid Time Off). Initially, when a person redeemed PTO time from the Blue Book, their supervisor would manually enter a PeopleSoft record showing that employee had actually been at work. (PeopleSoft is the software system they use in the HR department and payroll department.) Eventually, HR came to audit the DC office because of the excessive number of manual PeopleSoft entries. (Normally, entries are automatically created when a person scans his or her badge.) Once the HR audit was completed, employees and supervisors adopted the practice of employees leaving their badges with their supervisor when redeeming Blue Book time so the supervisor could "swipe" the employee in and out. This created the PeopleSoft record needed to get the employee paid without requiring a manual entry. Duty described the Blue Book system as being secret in the sense that it was not to be disclosed outside of the District Clerk’s office.

Deric Walpole

Rebecca Littrell’s attorney, Deric Walpole, cross examined Duty. During Walpole's cross, Duty admitted that the DC employees described the Blue Book system to her during her initial job interview with the DC's office, his point being that if it was so secret, why were they telling a mere prospective employee? Her response was that because her cousin (Littrell) was involved in the hiring process and everyone knew she was going to get the job. [Implicating the “Good Ole’ Boy (Girl?)” network arrogance that is so endemic in Collin County.]

Duty admitted that she had been the beneficiary of the Blue Book system. When she was pregnant and on bed rest, she had to work one weekend to show Crigger and others how to change some accounting codes in the AS/400 system. She received 40 Blue Book hours for the weekend, which she redeemed. Defense attorneys pointed this out more than once. And each time she distinguished her use of the Blue Book as being related to work she did for the county vs. working on someone's election campaign. Initially, Duty testified that her only involvement in the Crigger campaign was that she and Melissa Smith held a garage sale to help raise funds to pay Crigger's filing fee. Later, under cross examination by Walpole, she remembered that she held a Saturday evening meet and greet, close to the Valentine's Day.

Duty described a meeting at Fuddruckers and recounted that Littrell encouraged the staff to campaign for Crigger and they would “get their time back.”

Hannah Kunkle’s attorney, John Harden, cross examined Duty. She admitted that Kunkle never said anything about anyone getting reimbursed for campaign time. Littrell sent a reminder email (using the county computers) regarding the Fuddrucker lunch. Walpole pointed out during his cross that if the Blue Book system was so secret, why did they talk about it openly and freely during lunch hour at a popular restaurant?

Duty testified that when Human Resources notified the District Clerk’s office that they would be conducting an audit, Littrell sent an email to the supervisors instructing them to delete their Blue Book spreadsheets prior to the audit. According to the Blue Book calendar, some employees would take several days off in a row to work on Crigger’s campaign. Sometimes so many people would be out of the office working on the campaign that there were not enough people for the office to function properly. Duty alleged that phones were not being answered, people couldn't take lunch breaks, parties couldn't get their file marked copies, etc. [I never understood what this meant, having lots of experience in getting things file marked. There has never been a delay, in my experience - MC]

On cross, Walpole asked her WHO complained about the service. She said "lots of people." He said "name one." She named two people and punctuated it with a sarcastic "how's that?" Walpole asked Duty to name a single customer who complained. Duty finally admitted she never actually heard any customer complaints--just heard people complaining about people complaining.

NON SEQUITUR: Duty never held a campaign sign for Judge Roach.

Duty testified that in February 2010, it snowed. Employees were told that they could take half a day off and record it in PeopleSoft as 4 hours of "Office Closed" time. If they wanted to take off the entire day, they needed to record an additional 4 hours of PTO time. She took the entire day off, but somehow her time was recorded in PeopleSoft? as 8 hours of PTO time. Initially Duty testified that she complained about this to Littrell who told her to call Human Resources. She called the payroll department and was told that if Littrell or Kunkle would send an email, payroll would correct the time entry. Littrell, according to Duty’s testimony, told her that Kunkle and Crigger wanted all of her PTO would go on the Blue Book, rather than a PeopleSoft correction. This upset Duty. LATER, during Hardin's cross, Duty admitted that Kunkle had never been involved in her timesheet and Kunkle's name never appeared on any of the emails comprising this transaction.

The next day, still upset about her PTO time AND all the campaign time she saw being logged into the Blue Book, she complained to Judge Roach. About two weeks later, Roach told Duty and a Lara Roberge, who made a separate complaint, that he took the issue to his father, John Roach, Sr., the District Attorney at the time, who, in turn, referred the issue to the Texas Rangers. Judge Roach told them that they should know that as supervisors in the department, they could face jail time for being part of the system they were complaining about.

[Yes, this blew up over 4 hours of PTO time for a person probably making $15/hour. $60 would have kept all this under wraps.]

Duty testified that she was contacted by Texas Ranger A.P. Davidson. She described the Blue Book system to him and thereafter kept him informed of what was occurring in the DC office. She quit her job in the DC office in November 2010 because she did not want to work under the Crigger/Littrell regime.

Duty described the falling out she had with Littrell. Twelve years ago, she and Littrell “got into it.” They were very close (cousins by marriage) when she first moved to Collin County. Littrell and Husband Adam asked her to babysit their child. She agreed. Later, she decided to spend time with her sister so she backed out. Littrell was hurt by this. She thinks this is where the relationship started to sour between her and Littrell. [There is a pungent waft of "pettiness" (this being a polite word) on all sides throughout this story. Little hurts and annoyances leading to big bangs.]

Kunkle discovered a Crigger campaign flyer in the office and was very upset about campaigning on county time. Kunkle said "they shouldn't do this." Hardin made her tell this story several times. Hardin was genteel but insistent and forced Duty to admit she had no personal knowledge of Kunkle’s involvement in anything.

Magna Carta
Attorney at Law

The District Clerk’s Trial – Day 3
By: Lex In Limine (LIL)
Attorney at Law
Guest Contributor

After some preliminary matters, the parties presented their Opening Arguments.

John M. Helms, Jr.

The Prosecution, lead by John Helms, Jr. , prosecutor pro tem, began. With a clear voice and methodical manner, he told the jury of four women and six men that this was a case that involved the abuse of taxpayer dollars and the interference with free and fair elections. Of the 63 employees at the District Clerk’s office, all but one are female. He referred to the office as a “Good Ole’ Girl Network.”

The Defendants, Hannah Kunkle, Patricia Crigger, Rebecca Litrell, and Sherry Bell were the four highest “ranking” employees of the office at the time of the alleged offense. The Clerk’s office set up a rewards and benefits system for the employees and this system was kept “secret” from the Collin County Commissioners’ Court. Helms was quick to emphasize that the Defendants were not being prosecuted for the “secret” reward and benefit system.Helms stated that the crime alleged to be committed by the Defendants is the misuse of labor to promote the campaign of Patricia Crigger. The reward system was “off book” paid leave time that was referred to as “Blue Book” time. Again, Helms repeated that there is no crime in having the secret Blue Book time, but, instead, the use of said time for campaign work is what offends.

Helms produced a poster with snap shots of the Defendants and explained their respective job titles. He described the defendants as “joined at the hip” and a close knit group. The proximity of their respective work spaces added to their camaraderie. Helms said the evidence will show that the absences of the workforce when using “Blue Book” time adversely affected the efficiency of the office.

Helms then described the “anxiousness” felt by the many employees when they learned of Kunkle’s retirement. Kunkle had been in office for many years and they were concerned they would lose their jobs with a new regime. A lunch meeting was held at Fudruckers in January 2010 – two meetings to permit proper coverage of the office. The meetings, allegedly headed by the Defendants, are where Litrell stated that those who worked for Crigger’s campaign would be rewarded with Blue Book time.

Helms stated that in April after the runoff election between Alma Hayes and Patricia Crigger (Crigger won the election handily), the Press (which is The Collin County Observer) made a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for the time records of the District Clerk Employees during the period of the campaign. Records were provided – but none of the Blue Book time was supplied.

The Human Resources Department noticed irregularities in time keeping. This was attributed to supervisors overriding the computer records and entering time arrival and departures in whole/exact numbers. If an employee swiped their card in the reader, the time would probably not be at the exact hour, for example.

The HR department audited the time records. The supervisors then collected the access cards of the employees and “swiped” various employees in or out of work to make it appear they were in the office, when they were, in fact, exercising paid leave pursuant to the Blue Book.

In June 2010, the Texas Rangers raided the District Clerk’s office and confiscated records and computer hard drives. Helms stated that despite the FOIA press request, the HR audit, and a raid by the Texas Rangers, the Defendants never conducted any type or form of internal investigation.

Helms concluded by stating that the Defendants had a “feeling of entitlement” and “undermined the integrity of an election.” Crigger had second thoughts about using the Blue Book time but did nothing to stop it and she benefitted from it.

Patricia Crigger

Defendant Patricia Crigger’s attorney, Robert Hinton delivered the second Opening Argument. Hinton specializes in representing legal professionals and elected officials. An experienced litigator with a folksy and easy manner, Hinton addressed the jury and agreed with much of the characterization of the prosecution. He agreed that the Defendants were “Good Ole’ Girls” – they are just good people. He described Kunkle’s office as the best District Clerk’s Office in the State. (Many an attorney, LIL included, can attest to this – regardless of the guilt or innocence of the Defendants, there is no clerk’s office that matches this one.)

He describes his client, Patricia Crigger, as a “God fearing woman” who worked at the office for 24 years in a career that she began as a secretary. The Blue Book system has been in existence since the “beginning of time” and is necessary because the county cannot offer cash or monetary rewards or incentives because of budgetary constraints.

Over the years, time clocks gave way to computers and swipe cards. Blue Book time was kept manually at first then it was kept on the computer. When the HR department asked the Clerk’s to discontinue manually overriding the time records, they adopted the system of swiping the ID cards of the employees. Every time the HR department asked the clerks to change the way they kept time, they complied. What occurred is not illegal. As an elected official, Hannah Kunkle could do what she wanted with her budget.

The employees at the Clerk’s office feared for their jobs because a Crigger opponent allegedly promised to ‘clean house” if elected. The employees had a garage sale to pay for Crigger’s filing fee (to seek election). Hinton stated that Crigger was the most qualified person in Collin County for the job.

The Fudruckers luncheons did occur and Kunkle promised Blue Book time to those who worked on Crigger’s campaign. But this, according to Hinton, was against the will of Crigger. After the election, Crigger told the supervisors to alert the employees to use their Blue Book time because this practice of Blue Book time would be discontinued in January 2011 when Crigger took office.

Hinton then describes what he learned about one of the Prosecution’s witnesses, Kristy Duty. Duty was a relatively high ranking employee at the Clerk’s office who was assigned to the 296th District Court, presided by Judge John Roach, Jr.. Allegedly, Roach, who was seeking re election at the time, asked that the clerks of his court display his signs, alongside those of Crigger at campaign sites. Crigger did not permit the display of Roach’s campaign signs by the clerks and this “infuriated Roach.” Then Duty made her complaint to Roach.

Hinton concluded by stating “mistakes were made,” and Crigger never agreed to this practice.

Rebecca Lettrell

Defendant Rebecca Littrell’s attorney, Deric Walpole, gave the third opening argument. (Yes attorneys and non attorneys alike – this is a LOOONG trial and there are many players – usually there are only two sides to a dispute).

Walpole is an experienced criminal attorney who recently defended Warren Jeffs at the YFZ child sexual assault trial, and is a self described victim of the former district attorney. He is an aggressive litigator and wastes no time with pretences. He began by stating that the prosecution of this case is “politically motivated.” He described what occurred as akin to someone waiting in the bushes, watching a fire start, and refusing to call for help until the house burned down. He said that the law is not a sword, it is a shield.

Walpole stated that Duty complained to Judge Roach and surmised the following scenario: “I’m going to Dad, Dad goes to the Texas Rangers, and you are getting arrested.” (Note – the past District Attorney, John Roach, Sr. is Judge John Roach, Jr.’s father)

Littrell has worked for the District Clerk’s office for 24 years and this is all she knows. He told the jurors that the original indictments against these Defendants were for keeping the Blue Book Hours – and nothing more. At this point the Prosecution objected to this but he was quickly overruled by the judge. Walpole continued, that since the District Attorney’s office, then lead by DA John Roach, Sr., had their own “Blue Book” system, the indictment was dropped and Littrell was re indicted with other charges.

He describes Duty as a disgruntled employee who is a cousin by marriage to Littrell. Duty and Littrell did not “get along.” The impetus for this investigation and subsequent trial is Kristy Duty’s chagrin over having to use paid leave for a snow day. Allegedly, Duty had previously arranged to have paid leave on that day. As it turns out, it snowed that day and all the employees were able to take leave pursuant to a snow day. Duty did not want to use her paid leave for that day and requested that HR change her timesheet to reflect this change. HR refused and Duty complained to Littrell. Littrell told her that she can use her accrued Blue Book Time instead. For whatever reason, this offended Duty. So, she then complained to Judge Roach.

Walpole stated that the Defendants are not in a position of power and have no influence over anybody. He stated that the legal standard for conviction in this case requires that the Littrell “intentionally or knowingly” misused government property. And she did not know. And she did nothing wrong. He said that the clerks used Blue Book time to work on the campaigns of County Commissioner Joe Jaynes and County Clerk, Stacy Kemp.

Walpole concluded stating “don’t throw their careers in the trash because someone didn’t hold up a freakin’ sign.”

Sherry Bell

Defemdant, Sherry Bell, represented by Yoon Kim delivered the 4th Opening Argument. Yoon, a young attorney and former prosecutor, spoke briefly about his clinet. He describes her as a 64 year old with a high school education who worked for the clerk’s office for 22 years. She was advised that she could help the campaign and she did not realize that she was doing anything wrong. There was no intent for a conspiracy.

THE JURY WAS EXCUSED AT THE REQUEST OF JOHN HARDIN

John Hardin then made a motion to sever Hannah Kunkle’s trial from the other Defendants. This motion was denied. Helms, for the Prosecution, requested that any testimony regarding the prior indictments and attempts to indict the Defendants be excluded. This was denied by the court also. Helms protested that he did not want it to appear that he was a party to the prior indictments. Hardin then stated, and this is not an exact quote, “when you step into someone’s shoes, you step into the mud too.”

AND THE JURY IS BACK

Hannah Kunkle

Defendant, Hannah Kunkle, represented by John Hardin delivered the 5th and FINAL Opening Argument. Hardin is a prominent, long time, and well known Collin County attorney. He has a folksy and casual manner with the jurors. His style is a conversational one which causes him to segue to various points of information – and the summary here reflects that style.

Hardin addressed each individual juror by name and reminded them that this is the second week of Advent. He described former Constable and husband, Jerry Kunkle’s various illnesses and hospitalizations, including a debilitating heart attack in Colorado, and stated that Kunkle retired to attend to the needs of her husband and family.

Hardin relates that After Kunkle announced her retirement, Kristy Duty and another Clerk’s office employee organized a garage sale to raise money to pay for Crigger’s filing fee. This prosecution “star witness” seemed to want Crigger to win and engaged in the same activities of which the Defendants are accused. Kristy created a flyer for the occasion. Hannah saw the flyer and promptly advised Kristy that “no one is to campaign in the office.”

He stated he did not know what happened at the Fudrucker’s meeting. He said that Judge Roach, an honorable man, was subpoenaed, and will testify at the trial. He mentioned to the jury that there is an article in the March edition of the Dallas Observer that describes the Collin County “Kangaroo Court.” He suggested the jury review the article and then he told them not to do their own research. (Not sure why the prosecution did not object to this one – LIL)

Hardin then segued to the actual election. He said that a Laura Roberge was campaigning at the Election office displaying signs for Crigger and Judge Roach. Sherry Bell called Roberge and told her to stop displaying Roach’s sign. Roberge called Roach and Roach allegedly went to the Election office.

Hardin then describes the raid by the Texas Rangers. The office was shut down during business hours. The Rangers confiscated records, computers, and even hand searched the purses of the employees. This raid was an absolute shock to all in the District Clerk’s office.

Hardin relates that the Defendants, with the exception of Kunkle, were indicted two times before and the indictments were dropped. Greg Davis, then the First Assistant to DA Roach, made a Brady Filing requesting recusal from the case because the DA’s office uses a system called “High Five” to permit exemplary employees to take leave from the office while time records falsely indicated they were actually working. This lead to the appointment of a prosecutor pro tem – John Helms, Jr.. Hardin relates that Helms and his team interviewed various employees. Pursuant to these interviews, Littrell asked Kunkle to write a letter vouching for her and the other defendants. Kunkle did so, and among the various documents that were presented to the subsequent Grand Jury, Kunkle’s letter was among them. This, asserts Hardin, is the reason that Kunkle was indicted in May 2011.

Hardin then describes his repeated requests for a continuance and his difficulty in obtaining discovery from the Prosecution. He stated that Kunkle, upon her announcement to retire, spent many days at the end of her term caring for her husband and was not involved in the minutiae of the office . He conclude by stating that Kunkle specifically forbid any campaigning in the office.

Lex In Limine
Attorney at Law

In my next post, I will describe the testimony of the Prosecutions first witness with information provided by another guest writer, Magna Carta.
LIL

The second day of the trial was entirely spent in choosing a jury

Judge John Nelms

Voir dire took all morning.

After lunch, the judge told the 200 folks on the jury panel, that if they want to ask for an excuse for serving on the jury, he and the counsel would meet with each of them individually, and the judge and attorneys would vote if they could be excused.

59 people lined up to talk to the judge.

That took most all afternoon - from my perspective the procedure had as much drama as watching paint dry.

After the excuses, there were 147 members left in the panel. Each defendant had 7 strikes against a potential juror, and the State had 28 strikes. The whole process was finished a little after 6 PM.

The judge sworn in 10 men and 2 women as the jury. (I wonder if a male jury is less forgiving to female defendants, then a jury made up of mostly female jurors. I don't know.)

The trial will begin again at 9:30 AM at the Ceremonial Courtroom. First up will be the State's opening arguments.

I'll be there.

Bill

The Case
In September, 2009 Hannah Kunkle, the long-time District Clerk announced she would retire and endorsed Patricia Crigger running for the job.

Patricia won the race after a run-off, but a few months later, the Texas Rangers raided the District Clerks office at the Collin County Court House.

The Texas Rangers seized computer hard drives, removable storage drives, calendars, binders, and 2 employee Access Cards. Ranger Davidson interviewed and took testimony from 5 District Clerk employees who charged that they were either pressured into working for the Crigger campaign or told they would be rewarded with "Blue Book" time for any PTO (paid personal time off) taken to campaign.

"Blue Book" time was paid time off that was not authorized by county policies, but instead kept by the supervisors on Excel spreadsheets, and later in binders. One informer told Davidson that the "Blue Books" began in the early 1990's after Hannah Kunkle was elected as District Clerk. When "Blue Book" time was taken by an employee, their supervisor would falsify county records to show that the employee was at work. Employees were reminded to leave their "Access Cards" with their supervisors when taking "Blue Book" time off, so that the supervisor could clock them in as 'present'.

Davidson charges that at least 29 employees (out of 63 in the District Clerk's Office) received "Blue Book" time off during the Crigger Campaign. In the 24 page Affidavit, Davidson lists several examples of employees being reported as present, but not having logged into their computers and of having 'out-of-office' messages on their phones. The DA's documents show over 220 work days in free day, with county money, were given to employees for working on the Crigger campaign.

After she was indicted, she was sworn in as the new elected District Clerk.

The cast:

Judge:

• Judge John Nelms, a retired judge from Dallas County

For the State:

• John Helms,Jr., prosecutor pro tem an attorney in Dallas
• Rebecca Gregory, 2nd prosecutor pro tem the former US Attorney of the Northern District of Texas

Hannah Kunkle

For the Defense:

• Hannah Kunkle, the former elected District Clerk. John Hardin is her attorney.
• Patricia Crigger, the current elected District Clerk. Robert Hinton is her attorney.
• Rebecca Littrell, the Chief Deputy District Clerk. Derek King Walpole is her attorney.
• Sherry Bell, a Deputy District Clerk. Yoon Kim is her attorney.

The Charges

• Kunkle, Crigger, and Littrell are charged with Abuse of Official Capacity, for more than $20,000 and less than $100,000. The charge is a 3rd degree felony, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary from 2 years to 10 years plus a $10,000 fine.
• Kunkle, Crigger, Littrell and Bell are charged with Conspiracy of Abuse of Official Capacity, for more than $20,000 and less than $100,000. The charge is a 'state jail felony', punishable by imprisonment in a State Jail from 6 months to 2 years plus a $10,000 fine.

The Trial - Day One:

Most of today's morning was spent corralling the 200 prospective jurors, organizing the court room and then listening to a couple of motion arguments.

I was surprised when I saw the defendants. At first I didn't recognize Hannah Kunkle. She looks some how smaller and older. Her hair was simple and completely grey. Kunkle was wearing a dress looking an older, conservative, dignified lady. The other three ladies' appearance looked in total contrast to Ms. Kunkle. Normally a defendant wants to give a jury's a good their first impression.

Patricia Crigger appeared to be very worn and distracted. She looked disheveled looking like she came in from a storm. Rebecca Littrell came to court in a dressy, casual pants suit. The most shocking was Sherry Bell. She appeared in court in slacks and a home decorated applique sweatshirt. She looked like a bag lady coming to court looking for a free lawyer.

The judge and bailiff spent the large part of organizing moving the trial from a court room to the Central Grand Jury Room. That room was the only one capable of seating over 200 people.

After the court settled down, John Hardin made two motions to continue the case, and to sever Kunkle's charges from the trial. The judge had ruled the same questions before, and again the judge denied the motions.

After lunch, voir dire began. The judge warned the panel that these trials may go on to December 15. Nelms promised them that the trial will not go into Christmas.

I do need to thank Judge Nelms and the prosecutor. He asked the panel did anyone know Bill Baumbach.... and then Helm's later asked them twice if anyone reads the Collin County Observer. While no one said they knew me or read the CCO, I think the court I owe the court for the free advertising of the Collin County Observer. The jury panel was a captive audience and he had their complete attention. That kind of advertising is priceless.

The voir dire will continue late tomorrow.

I will be back there too.

Bill

Terri Green ran for the County Court at Law #6 in 2010. She lost the Republican Primary run-off. She was defeated by Jay Bender, who won by 57%.

Today, Terri has announced for the 380th District Court. That bench is vacant after Suzanne Wooten was convicted of bribery.

It is unclear if the Governor will appoint a new judge until December 2012.

Terri is still setting up a new campaign web site. Terri sent me her announcement:

TERRI GREEN

for

380TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

My name is Terri Green and I am running for State District Judge--380th Judicial District Court, Collin County.

Your Support

Judges do not run on issues. They seek to be elected or appointed as Judge based on their extensive legal experience and knowledge of the law and to make rulings based on the law as found in the statutes and case law.

So why should you vote for me?

Family

• Proud mother of two “grown” boys

Professional

• 22 years legal experience in Family Law; Civil Trials and Litigation; Probate Litigation; Wills, Trust and Estate Planning; Criminal Defense Counsel (Misdemeanors); and Teen Court Judge

Experienced

• Licensed to practice before the United States Supreme Court – Washington D.C.
• Licensed to practice in Federal Courts – Eastern District of Texas and Southern District of Texas
• Licensed to Practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Honors and Awards

• One of “21 Leaders for Collin County in the 21st Century” by Inside Collin County Business
• Rotarian of the Year--Rotary Club of Frisco
• Chairman's Award Recipient--Frisco Chamber of Commerce
• 2011 D Magazine—Named one of Top Nine Trust & Estate Attorneys in Plano
  The George T. Barrow Award for 1989 given by the Dean for most outstanding prospective attorney from the graduating class of South Texas College of Law
• Oralist – National Administrative Law Varsity Moot Court Competition 7th Place Brief — Dayton, Ohio
• Best Oralist — Garland R. Walker, Dunn, Kacal, Adams, Livingston, Pappas & Law Mock Trial Competition
• Leroy Jeffers Moot Court Competition — 2nd Place Brief / 2nd Place Team
• Dean’s List for Scholastic Achievement — South Texas College of Law

Involved/Community Leader

• Former General Counsel—Collin County Republican Party
• President--Republican Women of North Collin County
• Board member--Child Protective Services ("CPS") appointed by County Commissioners
• Former Board member Frisco Chamber of Commerce
• Class Chair—Leadership Frisco, Class IX
• Leadership Plano graduate
• Delegate- Texas Federation of Republican Women—Two State Conventions
• Texas Federation of Republican Women member
• Junior League of Plano
• Rotary Club of Frisco
• Frisco Bar Association
• Collin County Bar Association
• Former Grand Jury Commissioner

THE TEXAS LAWYER’S CREED

I AM A LAWYER; I AM ENTRUSTED BY THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS TO PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. I AM LICENSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. I MUST THEREFORE ABIDE BY THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, BUT I KNOW THAT PROFESSIONALISM REQUIRES MORE THAN MERELY AVOIDING THE VIOLATION OF LAWS AND RULES. I AM COMMITTED TO THIS CREED FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN IT IS RIGHT.

I would be honored to serve you as the Judge of the 380th Judicial District Court and ask for your support and vote in the upcoming election!

I would also be honored if you would endorse me. Please respond to this e-mail to let me know I can add your name to my growing list of countywide endorsements!

Terri Green
Candidate
380th Judicial District Court

Bill

Suzanne Wooten accepted a plea bargain on punishment.

In return for giving up the right to appeal, Wooten was given 10 years imprisonment probated for 10 years. Suzanne Wooten was also fined $10,000.

Bill

--------------------

UPDATE

Suzanne Wooten signed an agreement that gave up her right to appeal her convictions. She also said that she will resign her bench immediately.

Then Judge Russell read each of the 9 charges, one at a time, then asked Suzanne Wooten if she admitted she was guilty to the charge. Each time, she responded, "Yes, I do".

The Judge than sentenced her on each charge to 10 years in the prison, probated for 10 years, and a $10,000 fine and 120 hours of community service. By law, the sentences served concurrently. Therefore she will serve the 10 years of probation, and a fine of $10,000. The community service, was ordered consecutively, therefore she must perform 1,080 hours of community service during her probation period.

Wooten's defense only would comment that they were "disappointed with the outcome of the trial, but Ms. Wooten needs to get on with her life."

Already a candidate has announced for the 380th District Court. Now that the bench is vacant, the Governor has the right to appoint a judge to serve out her term that ends on December 31, 2012.

Bill

A three panel of the San Antonio US District Court has approved, and ordered, the redistricting maps (on a 2-1 decision) for the Texas House, and Senate. The court has approved that Texas Legislative candidates will file on these new plans.

Filing for candidates begin today, on November 28. The filing period ends on December 15 at 6:00 PM.

The question is… Will the court ordered maps be the final ones for the election? On last Wednesday, the court announced his decision, but today, Greg Abbott, the Texas Attorney General petitioned the US Supreme Court to grant an Emergency Stay to hold the implementation of the court ordered restricting maps.

The AG has, “explained that a stay of the election process is needed because ‘elections should not proceed based on legally flawed maps that are likely to be overturned on further review.’”

If the Supreme Court grants the State’s stay, the primary dates will likely be moved out.

On Saturday, the court has issued and ordered their maps to be used for the congressional districts.

The maps can be downloaded and viewed at the below site at the Legislature GIS site:

The Plans:

• The Congressional ordered plan: Plan 220 [map]
• The Texas House of Representatives ordered plan: Plan 302 [map] [order,]
• The Texas Senate ordered plan: Plan 164 [map] [order]

The Primary:
These local races will be on the 2012 primary ballot:

• United States Representative – District 3 (Johnson)
• United States Representative – District 4 (Hall)
• United States Representative – District 32 (Sessions)
• Texas State Senator – District 8 (Shapiro, not seeking re-election)
• Texas State Senator – District 30 (Estes)
• Texas State Representative – District 3 (vacant, new district)
• Texas State Representative – District 66 (Taylor)
• Texas State Representative – District 67 (Madden, not seeking re-election)
• Texas State Representative – District 70 (Paxton, not seeking re-election)
• Texas State Representative – District 89 (Laubenburg)
• Texas State Board of Education - District 12 (Clayton)
• 199th District Court (Dry, not seeking re-election)
• 380th District Court (vacant)
• 401st District Court (Rusch)
• 416th District Court (Oldner)
• County Court at Law #2 (Lewis not seeking re-election)
• Sheriff (Box)
• Tax-Assessor Collector (Maun)
• County Commissioner Precinct 1 (Shaheen)
• County Commissioner Precinct 3 (Jaynes, not seeking re-election)
• Justice of the Peace – Precinct 3, Place 1 (Lewis, not seeking re-election)
• Constable Precinct 1 (Elkins not seeking re-election)
• Constable Precinct 2 (Barton)
• Constable Precinct 3 (Presley)
• Constable Precinct 4 (Todd, not seeking re-election)

Dallas attorney Michael Li has done an amazing job in reporting all to do with Texas Redistricting. His site “Texas Redistricting” is exhaustive. He keeps the news very current, and with intelligent, in-depth analysis. He’s unbelievable!

Bill

The new Collin County courthouse will need to find room for two large cases involving corruption of their own Collin County officials.

The county's largest courtroom is the Nathan E. White, Jr. Ceremonial courtroom. For the last 2 weeks, the Ceremonial courtroom has been used for the Suzanne Wooten trial.

On Tuesday afternoon, Wooten was convicted of 9 felonies. On January 5, 2009, Suzanne Wooten was sworn-in as a District Judge in that same courtroom.

The courthouse also holds two small auxiliary courtrooms and usually the other courtrooms are used for the judges.

On Monday morning, Suzanne Wooten trial's begins the jury punishment phase of her trial.

At the same time, the District Clerks' corruption trial is scheduled in that same Ceremonial Courtroom. The District Clerks' trial will need the biggest room the court can find. All four of the Clerks will be on court at in one trial. There will at least 2 members of the prosecution, the 4 defendants, and at least 4 to 6 defense attorneys in the courtroom. The judge will probably call a jury panel of at least 100 citizens.

Suzanne Wooten

Hannah Kunkle	Patricia Crigger	Rebecca Littrell	Sherry Bell

THE ACCUSED

The former elected District Clerk, Hannah Kunkle is charged with Abuse of Official Capacity, and Conspiracy to commit Abuse Of Official Capacity.

Patricia Crigger, the serving elected District Clerk is charged with Abuse of Official Capacity, and Conspiracy to commit Abuse Of Official Capacity.

Rebecca Littrell, is the current appointed Chief Deputy District Clerk and is also charged with Abuse of Official Capacity, and Conspiracy to commit Abuse Of Official Capacity.

And Sherry Bell a supervisor at the District Clerk's office is only charged with one count of Conspiracy to commit Abuse Of Official Capacity.

Kunkle, Crigger and Littrell are facing 3rd degree felonies, than can result in imprisonment in Huntsville for 2 to 10 years, and may also include a fine of $10,000 or less. All 4 defendants also face a conspiracy charge that is a State Jail Felony, that can result is jail time from 6 months to 2 years, and may also include a fine of $10,000 or less.

The county is presently building a new wing of the courthouse, but I'm sure the county never planned to hold two simultaneously trials of their own employees.

The trials begin on Monday at 9:00 AM.

Bill

[Note: With permission I am re-posting this article from Hunter Biederman's, Frisco DWI Lawyer and Attorney Blog]

Innocence Lost
Posted on November 25, 2011 by Hunter Biederman

It was a sad day in Collin County. Yet another innocent person was convicted of a crime based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of an admitted felon and child molester. On Friday, Judge Suzanne Wooten was convicted of 9 counts of bribery, money laundering. Judge Wooten allegedly took money in return for a promise to give favorable rulings.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. In a county and era notorious for overzealous prosecution, observers might already be hardened to the notion of innocent people being convicted of crimes.

- Nationally there have been 280 DNA exonerations.

- In Texas, 41 innocent lives have been exonerated from wrongful convictions due to DNA testing.

- In Collin County, even the Supreme Court says its OK to have the Judge and the prosecutor in a sexual relationship together during the prosecution of a capital murder.

A Lack of Substantial Evidence

Part of why I was surprised of this conviction is because I thought there was no way a guilty verdict would ever come from this case. I sat through parts of the trial and never saw any evidence that even remotely pointed towards guilt.

The theory of the case was an odd one to me. In a county where no incumbent judge had ever been defeated, supposedly someone was willing to “bribe” a lawyer to unseat a judge, and reverse rulings already made on their case. The theory was further removed from reality considering Judge Wooten removed herself from the case and never made any rulings that aided the briber.

The prosecutor’s theory (an Assistant Attorney General brought in “AG”) was quite close to the plot of John Grisham’s The Appeal, where a Mississippi Supreme Court justice is pushed to the court to hopefully overturn a big corporate jury verdict. In the book, however, the judge to be didn’t know of the reason he was being placed on the court.

But the fiction in this case became hard reality for Judge Wooten. She now faces up to 20 years in prison. Along with the possible prison sentence she is also subject to the convicted felony tag, the loss of her job as a judge, and probable loss of her law license.

The AG’s theory of the case is that it didn’t matter if the Judge made the favorable rulings or not – the bribe was committed on acceptance of the offer. I guess that is true in theory. I offer to pay an elected official for some favor, they are guilty when they take the money, not when they do the favor.

But a closer look at that idea would show that if the bribed person didn’t do the favor in return for the bribe, then it most likely wasn’t a bribe anyway. The briber in Wooten’s case certainly got screwed out of their $150,000 considering the bribed judge refused to even hear the case much less make favorable rulings.

A Lack of Faith in the Prosecutors

When I was a prosecutor in Collin County, nobody ever asked me how many innocent people I thought I convicted. As a defense attorney, I am constantly asked how many guilty people I get off. The general public perceives the greater “wrong” to be a guilty person getting away with a crime, not an innocent person getting convicted.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" ~William Blackstone, c.1760’s

Although not asked about convicting innocent people as a prosecutor, I thought about it during and after my prosecuting career ended. The stock answer in my mind was that I never convicted anyone. They either pled guilty, or a jury convicted them – never me.

My suspicion is that the AG in the Wooten case feels the same way. A jury convicted Wooten – not him. Furthermore, the jury’s verdict justified this prosecution.

Except this AG had even more to gain from a guilty verdict. This verdict cleared his name in an FBI investigation against him. The problem with this outcome is that this prosecution could have been pushed forward out of a hope to clear his name – not for a prosecutor’s stated duty of seeing that justice be done.

Art. 2.01. It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done.

At one point the current Collin County District Attorney tried to intervene and take the case back out of the hands of the AG. This was fought by the AG and eventually overruled by the visiting judge.

If a new, uninterested prosecutor were assigned to the case, the outcome might have become more reliable, and easier for me to believe.

Political Overtones

Much of the lack of faith in the conviction also comes from the political overtones in this case. An ousted republican incumbent judge, upset at a perceived Democratic challenger that smelled of “RINO.” (Republican In Name Only). She was referred by the ousted judge as “active in the Democratic party.”

So here we have it, an AG working for the Republican elected AG’s office, prosecuting a perceived Democrat. If the undertones weren’t enough, during the trial the prosecution politics a focal point of their case. Questions were asked of how many Republic events Judge Wooten attended before running. Not exactly subtle.

It had always been a joke that its illegal to be a Democrat in Collin County. Unfortunately this trial brings the joke into possible reality.

In The End . . .

In the end I am saddened by what seems on all accounts as yet another innocent person being convicted of a crime. If there was any chance at the public having faith in the jury’s verdict, it was lost a long time ago in the face of the overwhelming politics that plagued this case.

Hunter Biederman

Hunter Biederman is a DWI / Criminal Defense Attorney in Collin County. He publishes his blog (www.friscodwilawyer.com) which focuses on the Collin County and Texas legal system. He can be reached at friscolaw@gmail.com or (888) DWI-FRISCO.

Suzanne Wooten

At 4 PM today, the jury decided that District Judge Suzanne Wooten was guilty all 9 charges.

The jury found Suzanne Wooten guilty of:

Charge 1: guilty of a lesser included charge of felony conspiracy.

Charges 2-7: Guilty of all 6 charges of bribery

Charge 8: guilty of a lesser charge of felony money laundry

Charge 9: guilty of fraudulent ethics reports.

The punishment phase of the trial will begin Monday morning, and will be decided by the jury. Suzanne Wooten faces a range of punishments from probation to life 2 to 20 years at the penitentiary.

The charges #1-7 were 2nd degree felonies. Wooten's indictment was for a 1st degree felony (up to 99 years or life). The jury did lower that charge to a lesser included charge. The Texas Penal Code requires:

"Sec. 12.33. SECOND DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.

(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000."

Charge # 8 was reduced to a lesser included 3rd degree felony. Charge #9 was also a 3rd degree felony. The code requires a punishment as:

"Sec. 12.34. THIRD DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years.

(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

The judge gave the jury a 31 page "Charges to the Jury" that explained the charges to the jury to follow on deliberations in Wooten's trial, the description of the exact laws and their options -- Guilty, Guilty of a lesser charge, or Not Guilty.

CHARGE OF THE COURT

MEMBERS OF THE JURY:

The defendant, Suzanne H. Wooten, stands charged by indictment with the offenses of engaging in organized criminal activity (Count One), bribery (Counts Two through Seven), Money Laundering (Count Eight), and tampering with a government record (Count Nine) alleged to have been committed on or about and between September 19, 2007 and October 20, 2009 in Collin County, Texas. To these charges, the defendant has pleaded not guilty...

The jury has the option of granting Suzanne Wooten probation.

The Observer is already hearing rumors that the defense will try to accept the State to grant Wooten probation, in return for volunteering to relinquish her law license and give up her right to any appeal.

I would not be surprised to see David Cary and Stacy Cary are looking hard at facing their upcoming trial and now cutting a deal for a plea bargain.

Courthouse pundits are also wondering if Wooten's conviction will give Patricia Crigger, Hannah Kunkle and the other two District Clerk defendants shivers in their spines. Many think that they try to trying to negotiate for pleas. The ladies may want to avoid a trial at all costs, and find themselves in the same condition like Wooten.

The Observer's experts have told us that Suzanne Wooten 's felonies convictions automatically ended her term as a District Judge, so she will not receive any more salary.

Bill

After the closing arguments, the jury was given the case at about 12:30 PM.

At 8:30 this morning, the attorneys and the Judge Russell spent some time wrangling the final items for Russell giving the jury their instructions. The judge wrote and gave the jury a 31 page list of instructions. Because the case involved 9 charges, the instructions were often necessarily repetitive.

The judge did give the jury the option of convicting Wooten of the 6 bribery on a less included charges of bribery involving a less amount of money.

Assistant General Attorney Harry White then spent about 20 minutes speaking to the jury; laying out the accusations against Suzanne Wooten. Then he thanked them for staying attentive to a very complicated case of detailed evidence.

Toby Shook, the defense counsel, used almost one hour on his closing argument. He told the jury that this case, "was not very complicated". He went on to tell the jury that the State has not been able to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. He also told them that the State requires hard evidence, but the state has unable to show any. He then told the jury that the State should admit this case was simply a mistake.

Shook pointed out that the $150,000 Stacy Cary that was given to Spencer was never given to Wooten - she paid all the bills from the campaign (and from her own funds).

Spencer was the only person who profited from Stacy's $150,000 checks.

Shook also reminded the jury that Wooten had never spoken to Davis Cary or Stacy Cary before the election, and that she knew nothing about the Cary divorce case. When the Cary's cases did appear on his court, she recused herself, except for making a decision that required that depositions be given and for that, Stacy was awarded $1,200 for attorney fees. Shook asks the jury if they believe that Stacy gave $150,000 for a $1,200 decision. "do you believe, she really got her money?"

Again, he emphasized that there was no Quid pro Quo between Stacy's money and her decisions.
'
Shook repeated that the State's case was weak - with weak evidence. He then rhetorically wondered why the State did not put Judge Sandoval or the Cary's.

Shook then portrayed Wooten as a women who worked her own way all her life. That she worked her way through college and through law school with her own earnings. Shok then wanted the jury to see her as a hard worker, a caring mother, a husband, and a moral, ethical lawyer.

Harry White reserved 40 minutes of his closing arguments for rebuttal.

The jury now saw a completely different Harry White: one who was animated, persuasive and eloquent. White reviewed the evidence and the testimony.

He was derisive, dismissing the defense arguments calling them "incredible". The judge had to warned animated White to stop waggling his finger at the defendant.

White walked the jury back through the summary of the bank transaction, he insisted that Wooten had no campaign until Stacy Cary wrote the checks. He then asked the jury to convict her of using Stacy's money to run for the bench.

White told the jury that a price must be paid for the crimes committed by Suzanne Wooten and the other conspirators. He said that Spencer's immunity will not let him escape without a conviction. White went on to say that he will personally prosecute David and Stacy Cary for their acts.

The jury is now deliberating. If they to not have a verdict by tomorrow night, the judge will recessed the deliberations until Monday morning.

Bill

UPDATE 9:00 PM

A little after 6 PM, the judge dismissed the jury for the night. Judge Russell told the jury they will continue their deliberations at 8:30 AM in the morning.

The jury sent a note to the judge asking for a transcript of James Steven Spencer's testimony. (Spencer's was on the witness stand for almost 2 days). The judge will unlikely grant the jury's request, unless they more closely limit Spencer's testimony to a specific question he was asked. Judge Russell told the jury he will give them his decision in the morning.

Bill

Personal note: I apologize for the quick article I posted this afternoon. I am grateful for the commentator who wrote that my article was poorly written and with poor grammar. He was right. I apologize to my readers. I have edited the piece, and corrected the worst errors.

Bill

The Texas House Districts

The Federal Court Proposed Plan

The 2011 enacted plan

The current plan prior to 2011

The San Antonio Federal Court has released their proposed maps of the Texas House and the Senate District.

The Texas Democratic Party, the NAACP, the LULAC and several Democratic elected officials have sued Texas Legislature's 2011 redistricting maps. The federal courts in Washington, D.C. and in San Antonio have held that the Texas plan dilutes the vote of minorities.

Redistricting is in its nature a political operation. The Republican majority legislature drew several districts to elect more Republicans. That is perfectly legal.

The Democrats however have charged that the legislature gerrymandered the districts to fragmented minority communities to disfranchisement those ability minority elected offices. The federal courts have agreed that the Texas plans are illegal under the Civil Rights Law writing:

"the Court finds and concludes that the State of Texas used an improper standard or methodology to determine which districts afford minority voters the ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice and that there are material issues of fact in dispute that prevent this Court from entering declaratory judgment that the three redistricting plans meet the requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act."

The courts decision have left the Texas voters confused. They can not know who can and will be able to run for election in their own districts. The court have promised final maps in the following month.

The Texas Legislature House Districts:

The court has extended the filing period. Until the decision is final, the court has allowed candidates to file in their previous districts if the court does not act in time.

If the legislature fails to draw a legal map, then their failure gives the authority to the federal courts. And the courts do their decisions for their own logic. The Democratic issues were mostly involved gerrymandering in Austin, San Antonio and Fort Worth - not that involved Collin County. Nevertheless, the court offered substantial changes to the county's house districts.

The legislature made some significant changes to the Collin County house districts. The newly created District 33, was carved out of District 89 (Jodi Laubenberg) drawn from Rockwall to Frisco. The federal court is planning to also move of District 70 (Ken Paxton) into the District 33 (and renumbered to Dist. 3).

The maps to the right show:

• The proposed Texas House districts. (Plan 298)
• The 2011 legislature enacted districts.
• The previous districts prior to the last redistricting.

The Texas Legislature Senate Districts:

Collin County has two Texas Senate Districts. Senate District 8 encompasses the north-east quadrant of the county, including Plano and Allen. Three quarters of the lesser populated remainder are in Senate District 30.

The legislature was taken a substantial part of Dallas from District 8. The court did not make any major changes to the legislature plan.

Both the legislature and the court has changed the huge 30th District. District runs from Wylie along the Red River to Wichita Falls and south to Erath County. However the legislature and the court have made few changes within the District 30th within Collin County. But the Court has removed very little in Senate District 30 within Collin County. However, the court has made large changes in the remainder of the 30th Senate District by removing Erath County will added the Denton County voters could change the rural demographics adding the ratio to suburbanites in Collin County, and change the locus from Wichita Falls to Denton and Collin County.

(Click the maps to download a pdf larger map)The Texas legislature has maps that show all of the plans here.

The Texas Senate Districts

The Federal Court Proposed Plan

The 2011 enacted plan

The current plan prior to 2011

Bill

Suzanne Wooten

Early Friday afternoon, the defense rested after calling only five witnesses including Suzanne Wooten. When the judge told the jury they could leave early, they broke out in happy applause.

The State argued for more than five days of complex and repetitive testimony and the defense's only took less than two days.

The jury had to listen to nine days of confusing, dry evidence. The state relied on bank and phone records, trying to show that Wooten needed the campaign cash given to James Steven Spenser to Stacy Cary.

Prosecutor Harry White was also trying to prove that Stacy Cary's $150,000 given was in return for Wooten to help them on their nine-year contentious divorce.

Suzanne Wooten under oath testified that she did not know that the Cary's were involved in the divorce cases. She also told the jury that she did not scheme to take illegal campaign money. She testified that she was always willing to finance $100-$150 thousand from her own funds is needed. She believed she did not need a loan to pay for the campaign, but in August she did take out a loan to pay the $33,000 remainder of the Spen-Off [Spencer's consulting company] invoices for campaign costs.

Stacy Cary

The state argued that she was required to report all expenses at the time they were provided. But Spencer acted as an agent (and campaign manager) to incur and pay for the media, print and mailings. Spencer then did not invoice the campaign until after the primary when Wooten was able to raise more than $67,000 from contributors.

The state and the defense each offered their own expert witnesses to give a differing opinion on the legality of Wooten reporting the campaign expenses.

In an article in the Dallas Morning News reported on the State expert, "Attorney Amon Burton, whose expertise is in legal ethics, testified that because Spencer was working for Wooten’s campaign and because he wasn’t reimbursed within the campaign finance filing period, his expenses should have been reported as a loan."

The defense expert, "Attorney Ed Shack, an authority in campaign finance law, said Spencer was considered a consultant, so Wooten didn’t owe anything until Spencer sent her a bill. Shack added that it was the candidate’s job to determine what she owed."

Harry White called Jay Valentine, a former sales manager at TDi Technology, where David Cary was the Chief Operating Officer. Valentine testified that David Cary wanted him to hire Spencer, but Valentine refused after the election race was over. After he refused, David Cary hired Spencer directly.

Valentine wrote and sent a 50 page report to the company chairman and board of directors complaining that Spencer had preformed no useful work and that he was sexually harassing a young woman at the TDi office. Valentine also filed a complaint to the EEOC. After Valentine and Cary got into a boozy fight, that came close to blows after a liquid meeting, Valentine was fired.

Valentine testified that Spencer and Cary had bragged on several occasions that they "owned a judge".

James Steve Spencer (l) and David Cary(r)

The defense was able to get Valentine to admit that he sued TDi, and, in fact, he had sued his last four previous former employers. The defense also called several employees at TDi who called Valentine "unreliable". Bill Johnson, the founder and CEO at TDi testified that Valentine was dishonest and that he fired him for lack of sales.

The divorce between David and Jeniffer Cary had been litigated since 2003. Judge Charles Sandoval had written several decisions that were against David. Sandoval ordered that David had to give Jeniffer more than $400,000 in settlement. After David continued to fight, Sandoval sanctioned David and his attorney an additional $20,000 each. Spencer told the jury that David Cary was very interested in finding a candidate to challenge Judge Sandoval.

Wooten testified that she was totally unaware of the divorce cases, but had wanted to run against Sandoval for several years because she believed that, "Judge Sandoval had a reputation for being predictably the most unpredictable judge." So on the last day permitted to file, Wooten filed the paperwork to run against Sandoval.

Suzanne Wooten recused herself from the 2 of the divorce Cary cases that were in her court.

The prosecution insists that Wooten's campaign was financed with Stacy Cary's $150,000 given to Spencer. Spencer insists that Stacy's money was used for other consulting work he preformed. The state uses the bank records to show that Spencer did not have any other money - and that he used that money to pay for Wooten's media and print.

Wooten has testified that she and her campaign had paid all of Spencer's invoices. That all of the media, print and all of Spencer's expenses and fees were paid in full by the campaign.

Monday morning, Judge Russel will give the jury's instructions on the three charges against Suzanne Wooten. She is charged with, money laundering, bribery, and fraudulent government documents.

After he gives the jury charges, then the State and then the defense will give the jury their closing arguments. Judge Russell told the jury that we wants to limit both sides too much time, hoping that they will be able to begin their deliberations soon after lunch.

The judge also told the jury that both sides have not asked that the jury be sequestered.

Monday will be a very interesting session. The State must convince the jury that Wooten is guilty beyond an unreasonable doubt. Several observers have told us that the state given Wooten several bloody cuts, but not given her the fatal thrust.

It's up to the jury to decide.

Bill

Jerry Madden has posted his statement on his campaign website:

Message From State Representative Jerry Madden

Dear Friends,

It is with a heavy, but happy heart, that I have decided I will not seek re-election to Texas House of Representatives in Senate in District 67.

It has been my honor to serve the citizens of House District 67 for the past nineteen years. I believe that I have reached the pinnacle of achievement for a State Representative. This year I was chosen as the 2011 American Legislation Exchange Conference (ALEC) Legislator of year nationally for my work on Corrections, in 2010 I was honored by Governing Magazine as their Public Officials of the Year for my work on changing the Corrections system in Texas and was previously chosen one of the 10 Best Legislators in Texas in 2007.

These honors, and the national respect of my peers that lead to them, are the highlight of my career.

As the national spokesman for Texas I have had the honor of spreading our Conservative, Smart Texas response on Criminal Justice to the nation. We have become national experts on justice reinvestment and on Right on Crime. As Chairman of the Criminal Justice committee my efforts saved the taxpayers of Texas over $240 Million dollars in this session alone.

A few of the bills I am the most proud to have authored or sponsored in the House are the Judicial Campaign Finance Bill, the overhaul of Juvenile Justice in SB103 in 2007, the expansion of Drug Courts, the consolidation of the Juvenile Probation and Youth Commission, and the development of the Nurse Family Partnership.

I love Texas and together we have accomplished a great many things that make me proud to be a Texan. This would not have been possible without the help of so many people across our state. I could not have done it without a great staff, three whom have been with me since the beginning: Mark Hey, Karin Tucker and Denise Voss, and more recent additions Marsha McClain and Teri Avery.

It has been the opportunity of a lifetime to serve the citizens of Plano, Richardson, Dallas and most of Collin County for almost 20 years. It has been a privilege few have received and I thank all of the citizens of District 67 for the faith and trust they have placed in me. Having accomplished more than I imagined possible when I first took office, I now look forward to spending a lot more time with my wonderful wife Barbara and on working on what has become the passion of my life, the changes we have made in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems in Texas and being the spokesman nationally for programs in Criminal Justice.

While it is with a sense of nostalgia I close the door on my years of service in the Texas House, it is an exciting challenge to discover the many doors that have opened to me to continue my work on a national level.

My term in the Texas House does not end until January 2013. I will continue to serve you at my District and Austin Capitol offices until that time, so please do not hesitate to contact me.

I am grateful to the citizens of Collin County and other Texans, who chose to work with me to make the changes that have made Texas an even better place to live, raise a family and grow a business. I have been blessed with the opportunities that came my way, the work I have been able to accomplish and the friends I have made along the way.

Sincerely,

Jerry

With Jerry Madden and Florence Shapiro leaving the legislature in 2012, the Collin County delegation will have no effective veterans in the legislature.

Reporter Robert Garrett of Dallas Morning News Trail Blazer blog, has written, "Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Plano, said Monday he won't seek re-election to an 11th term in the Texas House. Madden, 68, said as the candidate-filing period approached, he toted up the pluses and minuses of going into the lists one more time and realized, lo and behold, "I've gotten just about everything done that I've ever wanted to get done."

"Madden was asked if the recent announcements by two much younger Republicans that they'd run against him in the March primary was a factor in his decision to quit."

"'No. I'm leaving on top,' he replied."

"The two challengers, lawyers Jon Cole and Jeff Leach, have courted the support of tea party adherents..."

"Madden declined to say if he'll endorse a successor. He noted the uncertainty over political boundaries of all legislative seats, including his 67th House District. Three federal judges sitting in San Antonio are likely to revise the redistricting plans for legislative and congressional seats that were passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature earlier this year."

"'Better wait and see who's running,' Madden said. He called himself 'the happiest camper in the world' to be picking his own time of departure, and to exit feeling he has accomplished something."

Bill

Judge Suzanne Wooten Trial: Day 5 and the start of the second week.

At 8;30 this morning the State called Alma Benavides. Benavides an attorney who worked with Suzanne Wooten and was Wooten's campaign treasurer.

The Prosecutor Adrienne McFarland? asked Benavides to explain her role on the campaign. As treasurer she was not responsible for sending in the ethics reports. The law makes candidate solely responsible for the financial ethics reports. Benavides said that she helped organize an open house function, and she helped the campaign by putting up signs and by doing any campaign chores that need to be done. Benavides was not involved with a finance campaign but she said that she knew the campaign had a large debt and that she assumes that Suzanne Wooten was holding a large debt. Benavides stated that she knew what the law limits contributions for judicial races.

Wooten was elected the and left the firm. Benavides thought that she would not take a case that might appear before Wooten’s court until a reasonable period of 9 months after she took the bench.

In 2009, Benavides accepted Jennifer Cary to represent her in a lawsuit between Stacy Cary versus Jennifer Cary. Benavides believed that Wooten had no interest in the case, and said that she had never spoken to Wooten about the case. Stacy Cary was demanding that Wooten recuse herself.

This suit began in December of 2007 before Judge Ray Wheless. In June of 2008 Judge Wheless transferred the case to the 380th (Judge Charles Sandoval). On January 2009, Wooten took over the bench on the 380th.

After she accepted Jennifer Cary, she received a couple of phone calls from James Steven Spencer and said that Spencer was evasive saying that he had confidential information that involves an active investigation and Austin that involves Judge Sandoval. Spencer told Benavides that she does not want to be involved in this case, “Those people were monitoring this case”. But she said that Spencer never mentioned Wooten at all.

Benavides told the court that she had a responsibility to represent her client and that Spencer never gave her sufficient reason to withdraw.

Suzanne Wooten was recused after the 1st Administration District appointed another judge to hear the case.

Benavides said that she knew Suzanne Wooten to be an honest and ethical attorney.

Benavides was on the witness box for 3 ½ hours. All but 1 hour was in direct questioning by the State. Once again, the witness was questioned in direct, cross examination, redirect and re-cross until she was discharged at twelve noon.

After lunch, the State called Kyle Basinger. Basinger and Wooten were partners in their firm before she was elected to the bench.

Basinger was involved with the same Stacy Cary v Jennifer Cary. Basinger said that he was somewhat surprised that Wooten did not choose to recuse herself from the case. Basinger also told the court that he had also received a phone call from Spencer telling him that he “was not a good case for him to be in.” Again he stated that Spencer would not give a good explanation why, except to say that he had confidential information about, “some sort of an investigation in Austin.”

Basinger also told the jury that he had respect for Wooten, that she was an ethical attorney and a hard working candidate.

The State has so far failed to prove that Spencer told Benavides or Basinger that Wooten could help Stacy Cary. Nor was he able to show (so far) that Wooten acted in favor of the Cary's. At this time, I suspect the state will have a hard time to prove a charge of bribery.

Next, the State called Curt Hays. Hays worked PR for the Texas Rangers and the Mavericks. He has also worked for KRLD. Hays worked with Suzanne Wooten to contract for a series of radio spots that would play about $10,000 of radio time.

During direct questioning, Hays said that he worked directly with Wooten and that she was involved in the costs, and that she signed the contracts that stated the costs.

During cross examination, It came out that the Suzanne may have been given a blank form for her to sign, and that the costs were filled a couple of days after she signed the contracts. The invoices were sent, not to Wooten, but to Spen-Off (Spencer), and that Spencer was listed as an agency and was given a commission from the radio company.

The actual checks to the radio station were not given by Wooten, but 2 checks (one for $4,000 and one for $6,000) was over-nighted from Austin.

Late in the afternoon, the State called Edward Valentine. Valentine is a political strategist who provides demographics data, including walk lists, call lists and direct mailing. There is still a controversy involving $24,000 in invoices for the Wooten campaign.

Valentine told the court that Hank Clements ordered the work on behalf of the Wooten Campaign. Hank Clements is a Dallas political consultant and lobbyist. Spencer hired Clements to handle the data and direct mailing for Wooten.

Valentine said that he invoiced Clements and a copy to Spencer. However he never sent any copies to Suzanne Wooten. Valentine had done business over the years with Clements and expected that he would be paid, but a little late. In fact, the invoices have never been paid that has caused a lawsuit, and possibly a criminal charge against Clements and Spencer.

Harry White has been showing the jury that Wooten never listed those expenses on his campaign ethics reports - a crime. At cross, when Schulte was questioning how the candidate would know when the exact costs could be known without an invoice.

Valentine told the court that candidates often ask him to delay the sending of an invoice until an ethics campaign filing deadline passed. Harry White asked Valentine to read the statutes that required a candidate to report expenses as the expense was incurred, not invoiced and received.

During the day, the State tried to show that Wooten failed to report over $34,000 of expenses during the campaign. But the defense is trying to show that Wooten could not report these costs until she had been given invoices or an accurate accounting. Therefore she did not (could not) report the costs until after the primary election.

Since a candidate running against an incumbent judge can not raise contributions. Kyle Basinger told the jury that local attorneys and legal firms are afraid that a judge can make a firm at a disadvantage by a vindictive judge. Basinger told the jury that he had ,”no doubt” that Judge Sandoval would do so.

It was only after she won the primary that Wooten was able to get enough contributions to pay off her campaign.

Bill

Thursday was the 4th day (there was no session on Friday) of the Judge Suzanne Wooten bribery trial.

James Steven Spencer

James Stephan Spencer spent most of the third day in the witness box. White came to the trial with about 15 large boxes full of documents as evidence. Using Spencer’s bank records, phone logs, and his campaign budgets White tried to link $150,000 from Stacy Cary to the Wooten's campaign.

Stacy and David Cary have also been indicted on bribery in order to gain an advantage and a long ongoing divorce case between David Cary and Jennifer Cary.

Before lunch, Prosecutor Harry White finished his direct examination of Spencer.

The defense attorney Peter Schulte went through the same evidence that Mr. White had tried to get Spencer to admit that Stacy Cary’s money was used to elect Suzanne Wooten. Schulte used the same data to show that there was no direct connection between Stacy Cary and the Wooten campaign.

Stacy Cary

On redirect, White also introduced Suzanne Wooten's campaign ethics filing reports. White showed that Spencer spent money to buy media and a direct mail campaign that did not documented in Suzanne Wooten's ethics reports. Mr. Schulte tried to show that Wooten did not have any invoices from Spencer at the time she filed the reports.

$24,000 that was spent by Spencer for the direct mail program was never spent and may result in a lawsuit and a criminal charge against Spencer. While the jury was out of the courtroom the attorneys agreed that they would not ask Spencer direct questions about the mail suit because this issue is not protected by Spencer's immunity. The judge mentioned that both attorneys had a hostile witness - Spencer. What Spencer did say that he, as the campaign manager for Wooten could incur costs, that he would pay and fully expecting that Wooten would repay him. He also stated this that if he could not pay the campaign bills, Wooten would be responsible.

Mr. White questioned Spencer about a $50,000 loan given to him by David Cary. White also showed that Spencer went to work for David Cary’s company.

When Spencer stepped down from the witness box, Mr. Schulte said he would not recall Spencer. Mr. White said he would unlikely recall Spencer but White's preserved his right to do so.

Neither attorney was able to gain a decisive advantage from Spencer’s testimony, nor did either side choose to impeach Spencer.

From my seat in the gallery it was almost impossible to read any of the documents that both attorneys projected on a large screen in the court room. At one point the judge said that he couldn't read the screen and my guess is that many of the jurors could not read the fine print projected on the screen. After spending almost 3 days of dry, detailed confused questioning about documents that neither side was capable of making a coup, they may have merely annoyed the jury.

The state called Robbie Douglas, a supervisor at the Texas Ethics Commission. Ms. Douglas described the forms a campaign needed to file the ethics reports and the Personal Financial Statements. Ms. Douglas also stated that the Texas Ethics Commission only accepted the reports without making any judgments of two the veracity of the data.

The state then called Brian Loughmiller, the mayor of McKinney. Mr. White asked if Spencer contacted him to interest him in running against Judge Charles Sandoval. Loughmiller vaguely remembered the conversation but did not remember Spencer's name and he did not have any conversation promising him money in order to run for judge.

Spencer had stated that he had looked at several judicial races statewide that might be an opportunity to unseat an incumbent who he thought was hostile to “family rights “. Spencer said that he had believed that Sandoval could be beaten if they qualified attorney was capable of raising between $100 and $150 thousand for the campaign. This White had previously asked the same questions to Michael Puhl, it's who replied that Spencer never promised him any funding money.

Suzanne Wooten

Mr. White seems to be trying to convict Wooten of felonious Democratic. He asked Dan Dodd, Spenser, Loughmiller and Puhl whether she frequently attended Republican Party functions before her campaign. He asked every witness if the believed she was a Democrat. White made a big deal that the Democratic Party Chairman talked to her about running on his party ticket. Spencer told the jury that Wooten toyed with the idea of running as an Independent, but he told her that her only chance in Collin County was to run as a Republican.

At the end of the day, Judge Russell asked the attorneys how much time they would need to finish the trial. If seems likely that the trial will go into a 3rd week. Russell was adamant that the trial needs to complete before Thanksgiving. He told the parties to plan on long days – as much that is necessary to keep the case ended before the holiday.

The court will reconvene at 8:30 Monday morning.

Bill

Major Chuck Ruckel is in charge of the Operations Division in the Collin County Sheriff's Department, has announced for a run for the Justice of the Peace in Precinct 3-1 in Plano.

Judge Johnny Lewis will not be running for re-election next year. His term will end on December 31, 2012.

Ruckel has posted a brief announcement on LinkedIn writing,"I wanted to let you know that I am a candidate for Collin County Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3-1. The incumbent, Judge Johnny Lewis, is retiring. This office is the people’s court and it is important to elect proven leaders who know the law. I believe that I am that person."

In 1971, Ruckel earned a degree in AeroSpace Engineering at The University of Texas in Austin, and is a Registered Professional Engineer. He has also earned a Master Degree in Management at UTD. He has also graduated from Leadership Plano and the Leadership Command College Sam Houston State University.

As the Department head of the Sheriff's Department of the Operations Division is responsible for Criminal Investigation, Patrol, Crime Prevention, DARE, Health and Safety, Narcotics and Weight & Licenses.

He is on the Board of Directors of the Children's Advocacy Center of Collin County. He is also a member of the North Texas Crime Commission, the North Texas Chiefs of Police Association, the Sheriff's Association of Texas, and of the National Sheriff's Association.

Major Ruckel has not yet set up a web site or a Facebook page. He can be reached by email at ruckel202@hotmail.com.

A map of the Justice of the Peace precinct map is at the Collin County website. (Good luck seeing the map. It loads very slow, if at all. The county can go better.)

The Collin County Observer is unaware of any other candidates running so far for JP, Precinct 3-1.

Bill

Most of the action today was the direct examination my Assistant Attorney General Harry White of James Steven Spencer.

Suzanne Wooten

Spencer was arraigned in the alleged bribery along with Judge Wooten and with David and Stacey Cary. On Monday, White gave Spencer immunity from the charges and compelled him to testify.

White explained Judge Russell that Spencer was not 'exactly' a hostile witness, telling the judge that he would expect that some tough questions will be asked. Peter Schulte (Wooten's attorney) argued several objections to limit some lines of questioning about others who have not testified. When both attorneys would argue the objections, Spencer's attorney, Kendall Drew, approached the rail and again ask the judge the extent of the immunity. Each time, Judge Russell would explain that Spencer had immunity unless he perjured himself. White then warned Mr. Drew saying that he hoped that he (Drew) only explained the immunity to Spencer, not what he can testify on.

White asked Spencer about him trying to recruit "conservative candidates" who would be supporting of 'family rights issues' that could unseat a few judges - including District Judge Charles Sandoval. Spencer testified that he did try to recruit Michael Puhl, a McKinney Lawyer and Brian Loughmiller (now the mayor of McKinney. Spencer said that he could promise the support of groups that were friendly to Home-Teaching, father's rights, and family rights. He told them that they should expect to spend about $150,000 to unseat an incumbant. Spencer said that he did not promise any of them money, nor did he tell then that he was expecting to be paid from their campaign.

James Steven Spencer

After Spencer successfully recruited Wooten, he made a $4,000 donation to the Home the Home School's PAC and then asked asked them to endorse Suzanne Wooten. Spencer wrote a letter that actually endorsed Wooten and the PAC approved it.

White introduced several volumes of documents into evidence and examination of Spencer was asking him to explain his detailed phone logs, bank accounts, invoices and work product.

White was trying to get Spencer to admit that he used money that was given to him by Stacey Cary to pay for Wooten's campaign expenses. During the campaign, the bank accounts showed that Spencer's account balance was only about $500 and then after Wooten filed for the race, he had only deposits that came from Stacey, and that the vast amount of money spent was to buy media, mailing and campaign signs for Suzanne Wooten's campaign. After he recieved the first payments of $50,000, Spencer paid KRLD and WBAP for radio ad spots.

Spencer insisted that Stacey's money was for consulting on 'family rights' issues research. White introduced a 2 page letter from Spencer to Stacey that included a short report that was mostly quoted from a congressman, and a power point that was mostly made up of cartoons. White tried to pressure Spenser to show any other work product to justify the $150,000 given to him by Stacey. He has done.

White is trying to convince the jury one item that contained the memo, report and power point was woefully insufficient to explain the $150,000 paid by Stacey. After the campaign, Spencer went to work for David Cary's company as a contract worker on marketing, and reported directly to Cary.

As the late afternoon, White started asking Spencer about his interest into a law suit between Stacey Cary vs Jeniffer Carey (David Cary's ex-wife). This case happened after Wooten took the bench on the 380th District Court. The case involved Jeniffer Cary trying to execute some judgments against David Cary for over $400,000 in his divorce. In a case full of twists, Jeniffer hired attorney Alma Benavides, who had been the campaign manager treasurer for Suzanne Wooten's campaign. Stacey demanded that Wooten be recused, but Wooten refused, but the judge at the 1st Administration forced Wooten to hear the case.

White tried to get Spencer to admit that he called Benavides and told her that she should withdraw from the case so that Wooten could help Stacey. Spencer never responded.

At 6:15 PM, Judge Russell adjourned the trial until 8:30 tomorrow morning.

Harry White shows no sign of running out of questions, so my guess is that Spencer will be on the stand all day Thursday... and maybe into Friday.

Bill

Wooten co-defendant James Spencer flips for immunity deal providing Judge Wooten and her remaining co-defendants a golden opportunity.

Set to begin at 9:00 am, the trial for Judge Suzanne Wooten got off to a slow start on Monday morning. By 09:30 all of the attorneys and defendants arrived with the exception of James Stephan Spencer. Mr. Kendall Drew apologized for Mr. Spencer's absence and explained that he was stuck in traffic on his drive from Austin. Mr. Drew asked if the judge would allow Mr. Spencer to appear in his driving clothes. Judge Russell stated he was less concerned with Spencer’s appearance than he was with his presence in court. He Judge Russell told Mr. Drew it would be unnecessary for Mr. Spencer to change clothes.

Mr. Spencer still had not arrived when all of the pretrial issues were finally settled. Judge Russell ordered the bailiff to bring in the jury panel so the process of voir dire could begin.

Claiming to need every seat in the spectator’s portion of the courtroom, the bailiff ousted the only four trial observers. Seated on benches outside the courtroom the observers watched as 102 members of the jury pool were led into the Judge Nathan White Ceremonial Courtroom. Less than 2 minutes after the courtroom doors closed, the same 102 people came pouring back out of the courtroom and were removed to a different part of the courthouse.

Mr. Spencer had arrived.

Dressed in a silver-gray and black driving outfit, he looked more like an Italian astronaut than a man facing 99 years in prison.

Upon reentering the courtroom the four spectators found the attorneys were in a discussion about giving Mr. Spencer immunity from prosecution in exchange for his full and truthful testimony concerning the events in Judge Wooten's campaign for the 380th State District Court bench.

Spencer's attorney, Kendall Drew of Waxahachie, busied himself working out the details of the immunity deal. Since Mr. Spencer testified before so many different grand juries Mr. Drew was concerned Spencer could face perjury charges should his testimony at trial not match up exactly with his testimony before one of the grand juries. The example he gave was "what if Mr. Spencer testified the color of a room was blue when it was really taupe?"

What Mr. Drew was really trying to determine was Judge Russell's standard for the truth. Judge Russell stated his standard was based on the statute for aggravated perjury. After Harry White read the immunity deal into the record, Judge Russell asked Spencer if he fully understood the terms of the immunity offer. Mr. Spencer stated he did and he swore to the arrangement. In less than 5 minutes Mr. Spencer went from being a co-defendant to being a witness for the prosecution

Judge Wooten seemed unsurprised and remained expressionless during the process. What was long rumored had just become a fact. The case against Judge Wooten her two remaining co-defendants changed dramatically.

If James Spencer’s past was ultimately a liability for his co-defendants, his past may be an even greater liability for the prosecution.

James Spencer is a convicted felon, a child molester and a con artist who managed to fool some very sophisticated people. Proof of the unsavory nature of Spencer's character comes directly from State’s Attorney Harry White. On 26 July 2011, White filed his Notice of State’s Intent to Introduce Extraneous Offenses, and Unadjudicated Offenses, Bad Acts and Punishment Evidence.

The State’s immunity offer to the linchpin of a conspiracy plot to bribe a public official exposes a serious weakness in the State' s case. Offering Mr. Spencer immunity rather than allowing him to plead guilty in exchange for leniency demonstrates the State’s case on the bribery counts is probably very weak.

Bribery of a public official in Texas is a deliberately difficult charge to prove. The 5th Court of Appeals at Dallas has a very high standard of proof for these cases. The standard demands the evidence provide “clear and convincing evidence of the existence of a bilateral agreement between the parties.”

It is doubtful the testimony of a convicted felon and con artist like Mr. Spencer, by itself, would reach the standards of proof demanded by the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas. Judge Russell knows this and his instructions to the jury will likely reflect his understanding of appellate case law.

It seems difficult to believe that a highly educated person like Suzanne Wooten could be conned by Mr. Spencer. It seems even more unlikely that Mr. David Cary, a man of great business acumen and wealth, could also be so easily fooled. When Wooten and Cary came under Spencer's influence he appeared to be accomplished, well connected and associated with people holding impeccable credentials.

David Cary and his wife Stacy did not seek out Mr. Spencer. It was Mr. Royce Pointsett who put them together. Mr. Pointsett was an assistant General Counsel for Gov. Rick Perry from 2001 to 2004. At the time he brought the Carys and Spencer together he was the General Counsel for former Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, Tom Craddick.

Proof of Spencer's abilities in the "art of the con" was provided by Mr. Pointsett’s testimony on Tuesday. When questioned by Mr. Peter Schulte, Mr. Pointsett stated, "he would grab lunch with Spencer every few months." When asked if he "had any concerns about Mr. Spencer's character", the answer was "no".

Peter Schulte and Toby Shook do not appear to be men who would give their client a less than vigorous defense by failing to question Mr. Spencer's conduct, criminal record and credibility.

John

-------------------------------------------------------

Note:

Valerie Wigglesworth, at the Dallas Morning News has written a great series of articles about Wooten's Trial:

• Jury selection begins in Collin County district judge’s bribery trial

• 
  Prosecutors begin presenting case in trial of state district judge in Collin County

The pretrial hearing in the Collin County District Clerk's case held on November 8, 2011 revolved around motions filed by former District Clerk Hannah Kunkle's attorney John Charles Hardin. Watching Mr. Hardin in action, it appears he is nothing if not flamboyant, perhaps a cross between Richard “Racehorse” Haynes and Colonel Harland Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame.

The hearing was held in the suffocatingly small Auxiliary Courtroom #3 and with so many grandmothers in attendance; it looked more like a gathering of the Collin County Garden Club.

All of Mr. Hardin’s minor motions were granted, but only after objections made by attorney pro tem John Helms resulted in the rewriting of many of them. However, a motion for continuance was denied, as was Hardin’s request to have former District Clerk Hannah Kunkle's trial severed from her co-defendants.

A major dispute erupted between Mr. Hardin and Mr. Helms concerning when discovery would be made available to Mr. Hardin for use in preparing Hannah Kunkle's defense. The dispute became so heated that Judge Nelms had to quiet the two. Mr. Hardin demanded a specific time and place for all discovery and a list of the state's expert witnesses to be provided to him. It was finally decided the exchange would take place November the 15th at 10 AM at the courthouse. Judge Nelms left it for Hardin and Helms to decide exactly where in the courthouse the exchange would take place.

Next up was Sherry Bell's attorney Mr. Yoon Kim. Based on the decisions made on Kunkle's motions, many of Mr. Kim's motions were withdrawn or were granted without objection by Mr. Helms. Helms objected to Kim's motion requiring disclosure of all information concerning the informers who brought the allegations against the four district clerks. Judge Nelms granted this motion.

Derek King Walpole representing Rebecca Littrell asked to adopt all orders to Littrell's case. Judge Nelms granted this motion.

Judge Nelms next considered motions filed by District Clerk Patricia Crigger’s attorney Robert Hinton. Judge Nelms stated, "I ruled on all of Kunkle's motions and therefore I have ruled on yours," to which Mr. Hinton said, "yes sir."

Next Judge Nelms busied himself with judicial housekeeping. In discussing voir dire Judge Nelms stated there would be 56 peremptory challenges. 28 for the state and 7 for each of the defendants. Mr. Walpole suggested they might need to call 250 members of the jury pool. Judge Nelms felt 150 would be sufficient and expressed concern that the selection of a jury should take no more than one day because of voir dire cost the county $6000 a day.

The affable Judge Nelms closed the hearing stating, "Thanks for being here, I'll see you on the 28th."

John

Collin County had a pathetic 3% voter turnout, but statewide it was 5%. It is interesting that the county which has a much higher educated and an affluent (and apathetic) population, but still voted about 40% lower rate than the rest of Texas.

The County did not vote to approve half of the Constitutional Amendments. Collin County voters refused to approve: Prop 3 (Bonds for college loans), Prop 4 (Bonds for blighted redevelopment), Prop 6 (To distribute for money from the permanent school land funds), Prop 7 (Bonds for conservation and parks), and Prop 8 (To appraise land for water-stewardship purposes).

But statewide, the voters approved all of the constitutional amendments except for, Prop 4 (Bonds for blighted redevelopment), Prop 7 (an El Paso County permission to form a reclamation district) and Prop 8 (To appraise land for water-stewardship purposes).

All the local propositions including Plano and McKinney were approved by the voters.

Collin County has all polling place results. The turnout was 3.1%

The State of Texas statewide results are not complete, but 96% of the precincts have reported. The statewide turnout 5%.

The 10 Constitutional Amendments proposed are:

1. "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran."

Collin County:

• For: 10,560 (80.65%)
• Against: 2,534 (19.35%)

Texas statewide:

• For: 82.86%
• Against: 17.13%

2. “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding.”

Collin County:

• For: 6,956 (53.55%)
• Against: 6,033 (46.45%)

Texas statewide:

• For: 51.43%
• Against: 48.56%

3. "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.”

Collin County:

• For: 5,899 (45.29%)
• Against: 7,126 (54.71%)

Texas statewide:

• For: 54.45%
• Against: 45.54%

4. "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area. The amendment does not provide authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates."

Collin County:

• For: 5,314 (41.01%)
• Against: 7,643 (58.99%)

Texas statewide:

• For: 40.20%
• Against: 59.79%

5. "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking fund."

Collin County:

• For: 8,023 (62.03%)
• Against: 4,912 (37.97%)

Texas statewide:

• For: 57.93%
• Against: 42.06%

6. "The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the permanent school fund, allowing the General Land Office to distribute revenue from permanent school fund land or other properties to the available school fund to provide additional funding for public education, and providing for an increase in the market value of the permanent school fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund."

Collin County:

• For: 5,750 (44.29%)
• Against: 7,233 (55.71%)

Texas statewide:

• For: 51.44%
• Against: 48.55%

7. "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities."

Collin County:

• For: 6,168 (48.41%)
• Against: 6,573 (51.59%)

Texas statewide:

• For: 48.24%
• Against: 51.75%

8. "The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity."

Collin County:

• For: 6,280 (48.81%)
• Against: 6,586 (51.19%)

Texas statewide:

• For: 46.94%
• b>Against: 53.05%

9. "The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision."

Collin County:

• For: 7,490 (57.77%)
• Against: 5,476 (42.23%)

Texas statewide:

• For: 57.18%
• Against: 42.81%

10. "The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office.
Collin County:

• For: 7,413 (57.40%)
• Against: 5,501 (42.60%)

Texas statewide:

• For: 55.91%
• Against: 44.08%

Bill

The Observer is blogging outside the courtroom.

The trial began at 9:00 AM in the Nathan E. White, Jr. Ceremonial Courtroom at the Collin County Courthouse.

Visiting Judge Kerry Russell from Smith County ruled on several motions. The most important was another motion by Peter Sculte, the Attorney for Suzanne Wooten, to quash the indictments. Again, the judge denied the motion.

The court than summoned 102 citizens (the number of chairs in the courtroom)from whom a jury will be chosen.

A few minutes later, the prospective jury members were removed so the judge could deal with an issue involving co-indictee Steven Spencer. In a startling tactic, Assistant AG Harry White gave Spencer immunity from all charges in the alleged conspiracy.

The prosecutors have described Spencer as the linch pin in the conspiracy. The state alleges that David and Stacey Cary gave $150 thousand to Spencer to finance Wooten's campaign. The state seems more interested in convicting a District Judge than a felon at the center of an plot.

At 11:30 AM the judge gave instructions to the prospective jury members until the court recessed for lunch.

Bill

====================================

Updating the afternoon events:

After lunch, the judge finished giving his instructions. At 2 PM Harry White began giving a presentation to the prospective jurors that described the charges against Judge Wooten, and what the requirements and definitions were needed to convict Wooten. As he gave his presentation he used each point to question the jury panel.

Judge Russell gave the State 2 1/2 hours for questioning. At 4:30 PM, allowed the defense the same amount of time. Judge Russell was determined to complete choosing the jury today - now matter how late. Russell did tell the participants that he had a hotel room across the highway, and he had nothing else to do so he will keep everyone as late as necessary to finish their job.

Judge Russell was concerned that the 12 jurors and 2 alternates could not be chosen from the 102 because of media coverage. Judge Russell has posted copies of his protection order to require all of the participants not to speak to the press. On two occasions, Russell warned all that any one who violated his muzzle, would face the consequences.

That was a joke!

The truth was that almost half of the panel wanted to be excused because the expected 2 week trial would cause them hardship. When Harry White asked how many had read about the Wooten case, only 22 people had never heard of it, and of he 22 only 2 said that they thought the news stories would make it hard for them to keep an open mind. Only 2 of the 102 prospective jurors has really read about the story. Only 2 of the panel knew Suzanne Wooten. And no one ever met Judge Sandoval or Spencer or the Cary's. After White asked the panel if they knew any of the witnesses (all of the Collin County District Judges, and many elected officials). Again, only a few knew any of them, and no one thought they would not listen with an open mind.

This writer was unable had to leave at 4:30PM. If the jury was empaneled, the prosecutor's opening statements will begin in the morning. The Observer will have someone to attend tomorrow's trial. (I will be an election judge all day that day)

The Observer will plan to bring reports every day on the trial. A Dallas Morning News reporter, Valerie Wigglesworth, is expected to attend the whole trial. Her today's report is here.

Unfortunately, I do find it a sad irony that an elected judge will face a trial of bribery, and on the same day, an elected District Clerk will be in court for a hearing for corruption - on Election Day.

Bill

The Observer will be watching:

• Today, the beginning of the bribery trial for District Judge Suzanne Wooten. I expect this trial to last for several days.

• On Tuesday, vising Judge Nelms will hold a hearing on Hannah Kunkle, Patricia Crigger and the other two indicted District Clerks for conspiracy and theft of more than $20,000 in government money. The hearing will be held on Election Day (ironic?).

  This hearing might have some interesting developments. We'll keep you informed. Rebecca Gregory has been appointed as 2nd Attorney pro tem. Gregory was the former appointed US Attorney in the Texas Eastern District. Gregory was appointed to the US Attorney by George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate. The trial is scheduled for November 28.

• Tuesday is also Election Day on the Constitutional Amendments, and several local propositions. Both the City of Plano and McKinney are asking the voters to increase the terms of the city councilmen.

  The decision of the state's voters on Proposition 10 will affect at least two Collin County primary races in 2012. (The Texas Legislature, District 70, and the Collin County Sheriff)

Readers, we will keep you informed.

Bill

Jerry Madden, the veteran state representative for the 67th district, is facing two young candidates seeking to unseat the 19 year veteran in the 2012 Republican primary. Jerry Madden was first elected to the Texas Legislature in 1992, and he now serves in the legislature as the chairman of the Corrections Committee.

Both of his opponents are under 30 years old. Jeffrey Leach and Jon Cole are both attorneys in Collin County. Four years ago Jon Cole gave Jerry Madden a spirited contest in which Madden won by less than 650 256 votes. The voters can expect a very interesting well-fought race.

The Map (maybe)

The 67th District is in central Plano, parts of Richardson, Allen and Dallas. The district is made of 27% of Plano (69,280 from Plano), 4% of the City of Dallas (46,883), 29% of Richardson (28,495) and also 424 in Allen and 266 in Garland. (The map to the right is of the 2011 redistricting plan.) This map is still being challenged in federal court in San Antonio. The complainants [the Democrats] are asking the court to redraw the map to eliminate excessive gerrymandering. An example is Collin County's new District 33 which runs from West Plano and Frisco and along the north part of the county to the eastern border including Royse City and all of Rockwall County. The Federal Court has put the Texas House plans for the Congress districts in jeopardy. Jerry Madden served on the Texas House Redistricting Committee.

Jon Cole

Jon Cole received his bachelor's degree from the University of Texas at Austin with a double major in history and government and graduated from the Institute of Comparative Political and Economic Systems at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. Cole graduated from the University of Texas Law School and was admitted to the bar in 2010.

On his campaign website, he describes himself, as “a proven conservative leader in the private sector and our community. A finance attorney and healthcare investor… A finance attorney and healthcare investor, …[and] a partner in a Dallas merchant banking firm and board member of a Dallas technology company.”

Jon has worked as a volunteer state coordinator for a Texas anti-drug organization. He touts that he “led conservative and law enforcement groups from around the state and nation to kill “The Drug Dealer Protection Act” that would have released thousands of drug dealers into our communities.” He also states that he “was part of a task force comprised of elected leaders, judges, and law enforcement officials, formed to eliminate new synthetic narcotics that were creeping into Plano and Allen public schools. This group’s efforts led to the passage of Senate Bill 331, which was signed into law by Governor Perry in 2011.”

He has served as a legislative aide in the Texas House of Representatives, has worked in the Governor's Criminal Justice Division analyzing Texas' drug court system and assisting the Texas Crime Stoppers program. He also assisted the Governor's Office of Homeland Security in producing the state's emergency communication network.

He writes that he also, “knows the issues facing job-creators as he interacts with entrepreneurs, CEOs, and financial institutions on a daily basis to help grow companies, create jobs, and assist struggling businesses to meet payroll.”

Jon said he is running for the Legislature because, “We’re coming together because ‘business as usual’ is no longer tolerable in Austin. We depend on our elected leaders to represent our values and beliefs. Instead, we get business as usual from our elected officials – saying one thing at home and doing another in Austin.”

And that he will, “work to earn your vote and be your honest conservative voice to Austin. With your help, I’ll work to bring back our economy, secure our borders, rein in out of control government spending, and restore accountability to Austin. Most importantly, I will take our shared values of faith, family, and freedom to Austin.”

Jon Cole's second attempt to unseat Jerry Madden ran a much criticized campaign which included "push polling", misleading flyers and mean-spirited attacks.

The Collin County Observer wrote of the 2008 campaign, "This is old-fashioned, shoot-em-up, nasty Texas politics." Cole's tactics almost worked; he garnered 48.27% of the votes in the March, 2008 GOP primary.

Jeff Leach

Jeff Leach graduated from Plano Senior High School, and Baylor University in 2005 with a degree in Political Science. He obtained his Law Degree at SMU in 2008, and was admitted to the Bar in 2009. He is an Associate at Griffith Nixon Davidson, P.C., and on the Governmental Affairs Committee of the North Texas Association of General Contractors (TEXO).

At Baylor, Leach was elected twice as the Student Body President in 2003-2005, and was a Texas State Society Scholar in 2004.

Leach is an active member of Prestonwood Baptist Church where he has served for several years in the Young Families Ministry.

On his campaign website, Leach writes that his “conservative convictions are deeply rooted. He is dedicated to reducing the size and scope of government and lowering taxes to create more economic freedom for individuals, families and businesses in Texas.”

He describes himself as, “an attorney with deep roots in the community, is committed to bringing strong conservative values back to the district.”

Leach writes that, “As the next true conservative State Representative in Collin County, I will aggressively work to eliminate wasteful spending, fight to lower taxes and will be committed to improving education by sending more dollars directly to the classroom where they do the most good instead of on ineffective and inefficient administrative bureaucracy.”

“A lifelong conservative, Leach is an advocate for tort reform and has worked over the past few years with Texans for Lawsuit Reform to further reduce the frivolous lawsuits that clog up the justice system in Texas. He is also strongly committed to traditional conservative values and will fight to preserve our Second Amendment freedoms, safeguard traditional marriage, and protect the sanctity of every human life.”

Leach states that he, “demonstrated his commitment to conservative values, serving President Bush in the White House Office of Political Affairs and at the Republican National Committee helping to elect Republicans across the country.”

He writes, “The days of politicians saying one thing to voters at home and doing another in Austin are over.”

Jerry Madden

Jerry Madden, graduated from West Point with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering. He then spent six years in the Army, including one year in Vietnam and two years in Germany, before bringing his family to Richardson, Texas, in 1971. In 1979, he obtained a Master of Science in Management and Administration Sciences from the University of Texas at Dallas.

Madden worked 11 years for Texas Instruments, 8 years for Teledyne Geotech, and in 2000 formed Jerry Madden Insurance to offer group health plan coverage options to small businesses out of his independent agency's Plano offices. In July of 2008, he sold his company and retired from the insurance business.

Madden on his campaign website, describes himself, “As a 38 year resident of Collin County, Jerry has been involved in numerous veterans' and community organizations, holding positions such as President of the Collin County School Board, and Chairman of the Collin County Hospital Board as well as serving on the Advisory Board of the Plano Chamber of Commerce.”

He also writes that he was,” Dedicated to the Republican philosophy, Jerry was elected Precinct Chairman in his local neighborhood in 1974, and Chairman of the Republican Party of Collin County in 1984.”

Madden was first elected to the Legislature in 1992, and has been re-elected 8 times.

Madden serves in the legislature as the chairman of the Corrections Committee, and is a member of the Judiciary and civil jurisprudence committee, the Redistricting committee, and on the Election Contest committee. Prior committee appointments have included Calendars, Public Education, House Select Committee on Public School Finance, State Affairs, Urban Affairs, Public Safety, Elections, State, Federal and International Relations, and Rules and Resolutions.

He states that in 2005, the Speaker of the house first appointed him to Chair the Corrections Committee with his marching orders, "Don't build new prisons. They cost too much”

Madden is one of the most influential and well-respected members in the legislature, and is considered one of the nation’s leading leaders in reforming the penal system. In 2007, Texas Monthly named him as one of the ’10 Best Legislators’.

Madden writes that he is, “especially proud to have been the first recipient in 2007 of the Carmen Miller Michael Mental Health Advocate Prism Award, being presented in March of 2009 with a University of Texas at Dallas Distinguished Alumnus Award, being named as a member of the Board of Directors of the Council of State Government’s Justice Center in April of 2009, and in July of 2009, being nominated to serve as Chairman of the Law and Criminal Justice Committee formed by the National Council of State Legislatures.”

Madden writes that, “[he] continues to exhibit the commitment and drive which he first brought to the Legislature. Always accessible to his constituents and sensitive to the changing needs of Texas and District 67, Representative Madden seeks to promote limited government, fiscal responsibility, safe and thriving communities and successful families and businesses.”

Bill

On the night of March 29, 2008, Mr. Philip Lee Reynolds was arrested by the Plano Police in the parking lot of Hendrick Middle School. Mr. Reynolds, a former assistant district attorney in Denton County, was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and with possession of a weapon in a prohibited place.

On October 24, 2011, Judge Ray Wheless of the 366th State District Court found Mr. Reynolds not guilty on the aggravated assault charge. Based on the results of this case one might believe the laws creating gun free school zones are toothless and worse than worthless for creating the false belief that individuals brandishing handguns on the premises of a public school will be punished. That Mr. Reynolds walked away a free man has less to do with the judicial discretion exercised by Judge Wheless and more to do with the incompetence of the former district attorney and his successor. The question is whether that incompetence was accidental or intentional?

Mr. Reynolds and his ex-wife Tera Hanley had been in a contentious long-term dispute over child custody and child support payments since their divorce. On March 29, 2008, Tera Hanley and her new husband, Shelley Stewart, arrived at Hendrick Middle School to watch her now 15-year-old daughter play in a basketball game. A short time later Mr. Reynolds arrived with his mother and grandmother to watch his daughter’s game.

A verbal dispute arose between Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Stewart in the parking lot of the school. Reynolds stated Stewart was not allowed to attend basketball game and ordered Mr. Stewart to leave. Mr. Reynolds had earlier obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against Mr. Stewart because Reynolds stated he was afraid of Shelley Stewart. Both Stewart and Hanley claim they knew nothing about the Temporary Restraining Order.

When Stewart refused to leave, Reynolds retrieved a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun from the console of his mother's car and pointed it at Mr. Stewart.

Stewart called 911 and multiple units of the Plano Police Department arrived immediately. Eight officers searched the area and discovered Mr. Reynolds’ handgun under his mother's car. The magazine had been removed and the pistol unloaded when the police found it. Reynolds admitted the gun was his and based on eyewitness accounts, the officers on the scene believed they had probable cause to arrest Mr. Reynolds.

Reynolds was indicted on a second-degree felony charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon - Statute 22.02 (a)(2) and on a third-degree felony charge possession of a prohibited weapon - Statute 46.05 (a)(1-4, 7-9).

Over the course of 3 1/2 years, three jury trial dates were set and then passed for various reasons. Mr. Reynolds filed a motion for a continuance on October 13, 2009 and on July 27, 2011, Reynolds claimed he was incompetent to stand trial and hearing was held in which Judge Wheless found Reynolds competent to stand trial.

Less than three months later, Mr. Reynolds was feeling much more competent and he waived his right to a jury trial. Prior to the bench trial before Judge Wheless held on October 24, 2011, the Collin County District Attorney's Office dropped the prohibited weapon charge against Mr. Reynolds.

After reviewing the evidence and listening to all of the witness testimony, Judge Ray Wheless found Mr. Reynolds not guilty on the aggravated assault charge. Being the finder of fact, Judge Wheless exercised his discretion in choosing to believe the evidence and witnesses provided by Reynolds’ attorneys and to disbelieve the evidence and witnesses of the Collin County District Attorney.

According to Tara Hanley after Judge Wheless acquitted her ex-husband, Judge Wheless told him to, "get your gun and go home."

When the former district attorney, John R Roach, charged Mr. Reynolds under the Prohibited Weapons Statute 46.05 (a) (1-4,7-9), he handed Reynolds a virtual “get out of jail free card.”

“Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
(1) an explosive weapon;
(2) a machine gun;
(3) a short-barrel firearm;
(4) a firearm silencer;
(5) a switchblade knife;
(6) knuckles;
(7) armor-piercing ammunition;
(8) a chemical dispensing device; or
(9) a zip gun.”

The semiautomatic handgun carried by Mr. Reynolds that evening falls into none of the nine categories listed.

It was never intended for Mr. Reynolds to be convicted on any gun charge. But three and half years ago not indicting Reynolds for some gun crime wouldn't pass the stink test and the media might notice. The next best thing to do was to charge Reynolds with the serious sounding Prohibited Weapons crime he didn't commit and then drop the charge on the morning of the trial.

In an interview with a member of the District Attorney’s staff, it was asked if anyone could start waving a gun around in the parking lot of a public school and expect to get the same result as Mr. Reynolds. The answer was, "probably not" because they would be charged under some other statute.

That other statute would be Texas Education Code Section 37.125 that states:

“EXHIBITION OF FIREARMS. (a) A person commits an offense if, in a manner intended to cause alarm or personal injury to another person or to damage school property, the person intentionally exhibits, uses, or threatens to exhibit or use a firearm
(1) in or on any property, including a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area, that is owned by a a private or public school; or
(2) on a school bus being used to transport children to or from school-sponsored activities of a private or public school.
(b) An offense under this section is third degree felony.”

Mr. Shelley Stewart was “alarmed” enough to call 911 and the police were “alarmed” enough to arrest Mr. Reynolds. However, the former district attorney and his successor were not alarmed enough to charge Mr. Reynolds with a crime for which he could be convicted.

Mr. Reynolds caught a break an ordinary person would never get.

John

John Gerard Quinn was charged with aggravated assault of a public official for pointing a gun at the police when the McKinney SWAT team raided his house in the middle of the night. His conviction could have resulted in a life sentence.

Yesterday, a jury in Judge Chris Oldner's 416th District Court found Quinn innocent after an eight-day trial.

In the early hours of August 5, 2006 a McKinney SWAT team crashed into and raided his house looking for narcotics. McKinney Officer Jesus Damain Guerrero said that when he saw Quinn standing with a gun in his hand Guerrero fired several shots with one bullet hitting Quinn in his right hand.

The officer explained that he shot Quinn in response to Quinn raising his gun at the him.

Quinn was taken to Parkland Hospital where he was treated and then booked into the Collin County jail. He was charged with two charges of aggravated assault on a public servant and possession of a controlled substance. Quinn posted a $150,000 bond on August 6th.

In February of 2007 the grand jury no-billed Officer Guerrero. And in April of 2007 a grand jury returned indictments against Quinn on a first degree felony charge of aggravated assault on a public servant and a felony indictment of possession of a controlled substance.

At the trial, Quinn charged that the police were covering up their actions. The jury did not believe the officer's story - finding Quinn innocent.

However, in the narcotics charge, the jury found Quinn guilty of less than 1 gram of drugs. Judge Oldner gave Quinn a sentence of 180 days, probated for two years, and including a fine of $500.

John Quinn is an executive who moved into McKinney several years ago. Quinn lives with his son, Brian, who is in his 20’s, and his girlfriend. After the raid, Brian was charged with manufacturing and delivery of a controlled substance (between 28 g and 200 g). Brian’s case has not yet come to trial.

Was this incident the whole story?

Some believe the police raid began with a divorce in 1991.

John Quinn sued for a divorce from Laurie Quinn Houston on charges that she was having an extra-marital affair. Quinn was given custody of his two children but several years later, their daughter moved in with her mother. Several times, the mother asked the court to amend the child support agreement. In a nasty prolonged fight Quinn charged that Houston and her daughter lived in a ‘questionable lifestyle’ that was a charged sexual environment.

This divorce became an ugly, sordid battle involving the children. In response to Quinn's allegations, Houston told the authorities that their daughter told her that Quinn molested her when she was about six or eight years old. Quinn alleged that the “troubled minds’ of his former wife and daughter "concocted a scheme to either get more money from him or divert attention from his daughter's troubles".

In 2004, Houston filed a complaint with Denton County Child Protective Services alleging that Quinn had raped his daughter. Denton CPS investigated, including taping interviews with the daughter. Child Protection told the authorities that they were "unable to determine" the rape allegations. In September, the Denton County legal authorities also dropped the investigation saying that they were unable to make a determination.

Unhappy with the progress of the Denton investigation, Houston also filed the same complaint at the McKinney police department. The Denton authorities did tell the McKinney Police that they believed there was no credible evidence, but the Collin County District Attorney went ahead issued an arrest warrant for Quinn four days after Denton dismissed the charges.

The Collin County charges languished. After a fifteen-month delay, the Collin County grand jury no-billed Quinn only after he had successfully been given a writ of habeas corpus by Collin County former Judge Betty Caton.

In March of 2006, Quinn filed a complaint in the Federal Court in the Eastern District of Texas suing DA John Roach, Sr., several individuals in the District Attorney’s Office and the McKinney Police Department (as individuals and in their official capacities). His suit claimed that the county and McKinney denied him his constitutional rights. In his complaint, Quinn wrote, “This case tells a story of deception, immorality, greed, incompetence, and pain that is difficult to believe could actually happen in 21th century America under the watchful eyes of supposedly-well-trained public servants. But it did.”

Five months after Quinn sued the police and DA, the McKinney police smashed his door down, shot him and charged him with 2 counts of assault that could lock him up for life.

The DA did ask federal court to dismiss the suit under his privilege under immunity from suits. On March 7, 2007 the court refused to dismiss the suit, but did give the DA immunity “in his individual capacity”, not in his “official capacity”. But after another motion by the DA a Federal Magistrate dismissed the suit on December 21, 2007, writing, “This is in essence a divorce and child custody case gone bad." The judge confirmed the dismissal, the 5th Circuit Court affirmed, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

In July of 2008, Quinn has filed another suit – this time in the 429th District Court. This suit is against the McKinney police for shooting him. But this case has also been moved to the federal court. In January of 2010, the court also put this case on ice until the criminal case is resolved.

The federal court gave notice that if Quinn was found guilty, his suit would be dismissed.

Since a jury has now vindicated John Quinn, he can now move forward with his life and his suit against the McKinney police.

Bill

The Constitutional Amendments election is on November 8th. The polling places are all center votes, so that any voter can vote at any polling place in the county. The list of sample ballots and polling places can by found at the Elections Department.

The 10 Constitutional Amendments proposed are:

1. "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran."
2. “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding.”
3. "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.”
4. "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area. The amendment does not provide authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates."
5. "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking fund."
6. "The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the permanent school fund, allowing the General Land Office to distribute revenue from permanent school fund land or other properties to the available school fund to provide additional funding for public education, and providing for an increase in the market value of the permanent school fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund."
7. "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities."
8. "The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity."
9. "The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision."
10. "The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office.

Some explanations and arguments for the amendments are:

• VoteTexas.org is run by the Texas Secretary of State
• League of Women Voters of Texas
• The Dallas Morning News, Editorial: Slate of state amendments deserves a ‘yes’ vote [may require subscription]
• Paul Burka the Senior Executive Editor of The Texas Monthly offers a curmudgeon's opinion of the 10 amendments.

The election will also include some local propositions (sample ballots are linked):

• The City of McKinney will seek approval of 3 propositions; one is Prop 3 which is to increase City Council members terms to 4 years.
• Lowery Crossing is asking to increase sales tax by 1/4 cents for maintenance and repairs of streets.
• The City of Plano is requesting the voters to approve 3 propositions. Prop 1 will change city council member terms will be 4 years.
• The City of Melissa is asking to adopt a Home Rule Charter.
• The City of Murphy is changing the use of 1/2 cent of sales tax to create The City of Murphy Municipal Development District.
• The Wylie Northeast Special Utility District is holding an election for a Director. The candidates are, Brenda Kellor, Joseph T. Sebring, Greg Lutz, and Sue Jones.
• The Collin County Water Control and Improvement District #3 is asking voters to confirming the creation of the District, the election of the directors (whose names are not listed?), and the issuance of $87 million, and a tax levy of $1.20 per $100 of valuation.

Early voting days and hours:

• Monday, Oct 24
  8 am - 5 pm
• Tuesday, Oct 25
  8 am - 5 pm
• Wednesday, Oct 26
  8 am - 5 pm
• Thursday, Oct 27
  8 am - 5 pm
• Friday, Oct 28
  8 am - 5 pm
• Saturday, Oct 29
  8 am - 5 pm
• Monday, Oct 31
  8 am - 5 pm
• Tuesday, Nov 1
  8 am - 5 pm
• Wednesday, Nov 2
  8 am - 5 pm
• Thursday, Nov 3
  7 am - 7 pm
• Friday, Nov 4
  7 am - 7 pm
• Election Day
  Tuesday, Nov 8
  7 am - 7 pm

Early voting polling places:

Temporary Early Voting Polling Locations

Melissa City Hall,3411 Barker Ave., Melissa
Oct 31 - Nov 2: 8am - 5pm &
Nov 3 - Nov 4: 7am - 7pm only

Texas Star Bank, 402 W. White, Anna
Oct 24 - Oct 29: 8am - 5pm only

Valliance Bank, 5900 Lake Forest Drive, McKinney
Oct 24 - Oct 28: 9am-4pm &
Oct 31 - Nov 4: 9am-4pm

Bill

The 15 year County Commissioner Joe Jaynes has "non-announced" that he might run for the 70th District in the Texas Legislature.

Under the Texas Constitution, if Jaynes announces that he is running for another position less than 1 year at the end of his term, is automatically resigned from his commissioner's court seat. Since the legislature has changed the dates for the deadline to file for a race would be 13 months before the end of his term. If he 'officially' runs, then his seat is declared vacant, and the County Judge, Keith Self can replace a new interim precinct 3 commissioner.

The special elections for the Constitutional Amendments' election is on November 8th. The 10th amendment on the ballot will allow an official to hold his position and run for a different office if his announcement is 1 year and 1 month from his term ending without resigning his seat.

Joe has sent a letter to his friends, by email and on his Facebook page. He writes:

Dear Friends,

Thanks to encouragement from so many of you, my family and I are strongly considering running for State Representative from District 70 which represents McKinney and most of northern Collin County.

I cannot make an official announcement at this time because throughout Texas, county office holders are restricted on formally announcing for a state position until December 2, depending on the passage of Proposition 10 in the upcoming November 8 constitutional amendment elections. (Complicated, isn't it?)

However, in the meantime, I am looking for your thoughts and input.

This position has had excellent representation from Ken Paxton. It would be my goal to carry on the conservative principles that Ken has established through his leadership.

My own record as county commissioner reflects these conservative values. For example:

• I have never voted for a tax increase;
• I authored the 5% county homestead exemption;
• Collin County was one of the first counties in the state to receive a AAA bond rating;
• We have approximately $2 billion worth of transportation projects underway;
• The commissioners' court placed our employees on a pay for performance system as opposed to the traditional step system that most government entities have in place;
• I led the effort in freezing taxes for senior citizens;
• We cut the county property tax to one of the lowest in the state.

Unfortunately the state of Texas is not as well off. For the upcoming legislative session in 2013, Texas could be facing another deficit. It is during these trying times that Collin County needs a state representative with the necessary experience to make the hard decisions necessary to keep this state great.

My pledge to you would be to approach the difficult issues with three core beliefs that I hear every day from constituents which are:

• People want less government intrusion in their lives
• Counties, cities and school districts should have more local control
• No new taxes

I would also make as my platform the following issues which I believe are so important to the future of Collin County:

• No new toll roads - Collin County does not need to be one big gated community;
• Water -- in this fast growing area it is essential that we develop long-term water resources;
• Local control for our school systems -- If Austin is going to cut funding for schools they should cut unnecessary regulations as well;
• Unfunded mandates - There should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting unfunded mandates for cities, school districts and counties;
• End diversions -- almost half of gas tax revenues meant for roads are diverted to other areas of the state budget.

I plan on using the time between now and December 2 to listen to you in order to find out what you want to see in your next state representative. Please send me your thoughts and ideas on these issues and others.

As always, it is a pleasure serving you.

Best,

Joe

Bill

Two candidates have begin campaigning for Precinct 3 on the Collin County Commissioner's Court. The Precinct 3 place has been held by Joe Jaynes for the last 15 years and has announced that he will not seek re-election.

In September, the Commissioner's Court redistricted the commissions precincts (districts) and the voting precincts. The precincts may change slightly if the Federal Court finds the legislatures districts illegal. The county is required to keep any voting precincts that cross the lines of congress, legislature, commissioner's etc. If the legislature and/or congress districts must be redrawn again, the voting precincts may need to be re-aligned.

Ray Eckenrode

Republican Eckenrode is the Founder and Managing Partner of Appian Commercial Realty in McKinney. He describes himself as, "a 22-year Collin County resident, is a fiscal conservative, proven businessman, and well-respected corporate citizen. He currently serves as a Commissioner of McKinney’s Planning and Zoning Board, sits on the Medical Center of McKinney’s Board of Trustees, the Board of Directors of the McKinney Chamber, and the McKinney Education Foundation’s Board of Directors. Past community involvements include Chairman of the McKinney Community Development Corporation, President of the McKinney A&M Club, and member of the Board of Directors for Avenues Counseling."

In his announcement, Eckenrode said, “Collin County and Precinct 3 have been well-represented by Commissioner Joe Jaynes for over a decade. His effective leadership and successful progress in the areas of transportation, expansion, infrastructure improvements, and creating beneficial partnerships between cities should be continued. Collin County is truly one of the best places to live and I am committed to sustaining and the quality of life our citizens enjoy. I believe my success as a business entrepreneur and a community leader uniquely qualify me for this position. I look forward to earning the opportunity to serve and represent Precinct 3.”

Eckenrode graduated with honors from Texas A&M with a degree in Finance in 2000. Prior to real estate, he was an Account Executive and Partner Manager for EMC, one of the world’s leading data storage and software companies, with a client list including J.C.Penney, ExxonMobil, and Bank of America. In 2003, he was one of the youngest brokers in the nation to receive the CCIM (Certified Commercial Investment Member) designation.

His campaign website is not up, but he has a Facebook campaign page.

Chris Hill

Republican Chris Hill is a Certified Public Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor and, a Certified Fraud Examiner. He is the Controller at North Texas Public Broadcasting (KERA TV 13 • KERA 90.1 FM • KXT 91.7 FM). He has been a Controller at A3D Technologies, Fellowship of Stonebridge and at Cornerstone Bible Fellowship.

He earned a BA at A & M, Commerce at Political Science in 1998. He has also earned a MA degree in Leadership at the Columbia International University, a MBA at Webster University, and a MS in Accounting & Information Management at The University in Texas at Dallas.

While Hill has been campaigning, he has not issued an announcement. His website is at www.votechrishill.com, but has no pages posted. We should expect to here more about him in the weeks to come.

Bill

The 2012 campaigns have started beginning. Two candidates have begun campaigning for the Texas House in District 70.

The Map (maybe)

The 70th District is in northern Collin County. The map to the right is of the 2011 redistricting plan. (This map has still challenged in federal court in San Antonio. The complainants [the Democrats] are asking the districts to redraw the map to eliminate excessive gerrymandering. An example is Collin County's new District 33 runs from West Plano and Frisco and along the north part of the county to then along the east including Royse City and all of Rockwall County. The Federal Court has put the Texas plans for Texas House on for the Congress districts in jeopardy.)

Ken Paxton has been the incumbant in Dist 70, but has decided to run for the State Senate race for District 8 when Florence Shapiro has announced to retire.

The two Republican candidates have begun campaigning so far for the 70th House District:

Scott Sanford

Republican Scott Sanford is a life-long Texan, and a Baylor Bear for about half of that time. He earned BBA and MTax degrees, and maintains a CPA license in the State of Texas. His career path includes positions at Ernst & Young, and ownership in two franchise endeavors. Scott has served Cottonwood Creek Baptist Church in Allen, TX (formerly First Baptist Church in Fairview) since 1997 and is currently the Executive Pastor.

On his website, Sanford wants to serve as a state representative because, "Our nation is at a perilous point in history. The danger is great and our demise as the world’s leading free country is plausible, if not likely. The uniqueness of today’s crisis as compared to past threats to America is that today’s most pressing issues were brought on ourselves by American governmental leadership at all levels—federal, state, and local. We have not been invaded nor are foreign armies amassing at the borders. Nevertheless, we find ourselves in a country of serious decline. Our decline is financial, governmental, cultural, structural, and moral."

He writes, "My background as a CPA, business owner, and Executive Pastor has provided me with the experience to serve effectively in a difficult time in our history. My experience has given me insight and practice with balancing budgets, creating jobs, and imploring people to live in such a way that they are blessed."

The Scott Sanford campaign web site

Bracy Wilson

Republican Bracy Wilson is the President of HelpCharters, whose is a Charter Service Company that provides charter school consulting and support services to people who want to make a difference in kids through the public charter school system.

In 1998 Wilson earned a BS degree in Pastoral Ministries at Southwestern Assemblies of God University. He is also the founder and president dba/Bracy Wilson Ministries, Inc. is a non-profit organization that serves "kids on the spectrum" (K.O.T.S.) of Autism. Who aims to launch the first Charter School for KOTS pending Texas legislation passage of law. He also worked at Life School of Dallas and he was the founder of the Stonebridge Church.

At his website, Wilson ,states that he was, "a job creator and conservative leader, knows how to get the job done. From his service in vocational ministry to his work with high performing public charter schools around the state, Bracy has spent his career helping change lives. We face a lot of serious challenges as a county, a state and a nation, and we need people in elected office who have done more than just talk about our shared conservative values."

The Bracy Wilson campaign web site

Bill

Judge Wooten's Curious Subpoena

Harry White and Brian Chandler, the attorneys pro tem prosecuting Judge Suzanne Wooten, have filed subpoenas for the production of documents and other evidence from dozens of individuals and businesses. In fact, Mr. White and Mr. Chandler have made so many subpoena requests that Judge Kerry Russell stated during the pre-trial hearing held on 6 October, "there must be some 15,000 to 20,000 pages of evidence".

Lost in the avalanche of subpoenas made by the State is one subpoena made by Suzanne Wooten filed on 28 September. Wooten filed an Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum for records held by the Dallas Morning News. The subpoena request all financial records concerning two political advertisements supporting Judge Charles Sandoval that appeared in the Dallas Morning News on March 1 and March 2, 2008. The advertisements contained the mandatory disclosure statement: “Political ad paid for by Charles Sandoval Campaign, Chris O’Reilly, Treasurer, 4020 Daden Oaks Dr., Plano, TX 75023."

Since the beginning of the case against Judge Wooten and her three co-defendants, Judge Wooten's friends and supporters have publicly stated the investigation was a "politically motivated witch-hunt".

During the 6 October pre-trial hearing before Judge Kerry Russell, speculation that the investigation was politically motivated was transformed into fact when FBI Special Agent Corey Ware testified the investigation into Wooten's campaign finances began in March of 2008, when Judge Charles Sandoval went to former District Attorney John R. Roach and complained, “There was no way she (Wooten) could have paid for these (radio) ads based on her (campaign) finances.”

It appears Suzanne Wooten has her own questions about Judge Charles Sandoval’s campaign finances. Wooten’s application for a subpoena duces tecum begs the question; how did Sandoval pay for the Dallas Morning News advertisements?

The Texas Ethics Commission' s Campaign Financial Guide for Judicial Candidates and Officeholders states campaign finance expenditure reports must provide the name of a person or business; their address; the amount paid; and the purpose of the expenditure.

A review of Judge Charles Sandoval’s reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) show he probably violated Texas Election Code by failing to provide detailed information on an campaign expenditure paid with an American Express Credit Card. His final campaign finance report filed on July 10, 2008, shows a credit card payment of $12,392.10 dated March 31, 2008. The description states the purpose of the payment was for "Payment for printing for two flyers advertising in newspapers. The report does not name the "newspapers" or amount paid to them, nor does the report provide the name of the company and amount of money paid for the production of the “flyers”.

Mr. Tim Sorrells, the Texas Ethics Commission’s senior attorney, confirmed that payments made to credit card companies for political expenditures "must disclose the name of the actual vendor." Simply providing the credit card company’s address and the total amount paid to the credit card company does not satisfy the requirements of the law to report the name of the actual vendor; the address; the amount of money paid and the purpose of campaign expenditures.

However, there are other problems with Sandoval’s political expenditure reports filed with the TEC. Judge Sandoval paid himself a total of $3777.96 as a reimbursement for campaign expenditures made from his personal funds.

The description for a $2500 reimbursement states only that it was for "newspaper advertising and for flyers." TEC rules require that when personal expenditures made and is intended for a subsequent refunded there must be a notation of that at the time expenditures are made. Sandoval made no such notations.

The Texas Ethics Commission's Candidate/Officeholder Campaign Finance Report Instruction Guide states:

If you intend to seek reimbursement in any amount from political contributions for a political expenditure made from personal funds, you must either report the expenditure as a loan to yourself on Schedule E or itemize the expenditure on Schedule G and check the box to indicate that you intend to seek reimbursement from political contributions. You may not correct a report to allow reimbursement.

None of the $3777.96 was reported on either Schedule E or Schedule G. By law Judge Sandoval was not entitled to any reimbursement of money from campaign funds. Given the magnitude of the charges made against Judge Wooten and her co-defendants, former District Attorney John R. Roach could have taken an hour or so to examine Judge Sandoval’s own campaign finance reports to see if he had come to him with unclean hands.

It is unknown how Judge Wooten intends to use the information obtained from her subpoena to the Dallas Morning News. Perhaps it is her way of saying, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".

John

=======================================
Notes:

• Wooten's subpoena deuces tecum

• Sandoval's 2008 "Final Report" JC/OH

• Sandoval's letter to District Attorney John Roach, Sr., July 30, 2008

• Sandoval's memo to Assistant DA Chris Milner, October 15, 2008

• Campaign Finance Guide for Judicial Candidates and Officeholders, Texas Ethics Commission

A few eye-opening Collin County facts:

• 63,370 people who are below the poverty level in the county. (0.81%), 2010 census
• 122,964 have no health insurance (15.6%), 2010 census
• 10.2% of our children under 18 live in poverty, 2010 census
• 7.7% are unemployed (August, 2011)

The Healthcare Committee Collin County will hold a educational forum Tuesday Oct. 18th.

HCCC Educational Forum - Poverty in Collin County and its Consequences.

Date: Tuesday October 18th, 2011
Time: 6:30 - 9:00 p.m.
Place: Collin College Conference Center - Spring Creek Campus
Room AA135 - Section DE, 2800 E. Spring Creek Pkwy, Plano, TX 75074

Speaker Panel:

• Rev. Janet Collinsworth – Director of Mission and Outreach, St. Andrews United Methodist Church and 7 Loaves Food Pantry. Under Rev. Janet’s leadership St. Andrew’s has reached out to provide many needed services in Plano including a Food Pantry, a Medical Clinic and School Programs. Through these efforts, the data they have collected shows Collin County and those in poverty in a very eye-opening way.

• Dr. Richard Adams – is a developmental-behavioral pediatrician and will speak on the topic of children in Texas and their health and well-being. Dr. Adams has researched and is published widely on issues related to children with special needs. Food insecurities can play an important role in childhood health and behavior issues.

• Cara Mendelsohn – Chairman of Collin County Homeless Coalition. The results of the most recent homeless point in time count and what it means for our community will be addressed along with upcoming awareness events planned for National Homeless and Hunger Awareness Week.

• Lynne Sipiora - Executive Director of the Samaritan Inn, McKinney. Lynne will give firsthand experience with homelessness in Collin County and where they see the need.

Bill

Judge Jerry Lewis, the judge of the Collin County Court at Law #2, has sent a resignation to the commissioners court. His resignation is effective on October 31, 2011.

Judge Lewis was first elected in 1986. Before his bench for 25 years, he was a prosecutor at the Collin County District Attorney's Office.

Lewis wrote:

"With appreciation to everyone in Collin County and regrets to you and other members of the Commissioners Court, I tender my resignation as full-time judge of the Collin County Court at Law No.2 effective October 31,2011."

"I am very thankful for those who helped me serve over the years. I have done my best to truly and impartially provide justice.

"The timing of my action is to allow you to declare a vacancy exists so the office can be placed on the ballot for the upcoming election and so the best qualified candidates can begin their campaigns.

"Regarding my successor, I encourage you to do what the Court has done before and let the people decide. If you delay the appointment until after the upcoming primary, the voters will provide your best choice."

The Commissioners Court has the right to fill a vacancy in the Courts at Law until a new judge is elected at the "next general election". Two years ago, the commissioners court decided not to make an appointment on the courts until the primary elections has decided the races (unopposed in the November election).

Bill

In the Allen school district, 4,373 voters have approved a 13 cent property tax rise (to $1.67 per $100 valuation) by 60.5% to 39.5%.

The 9.7% turnout was a large turnout for a school election proposition.

The vote was:

2,645 FOR
1,727 AGAINST
out of 45,141 registered voters

The school district board explained the tax raise was needed to, "offset $21 million in cuts to local funding by the Texas Legislature in 2011."

"The Texas Legislature reduced funding of over $4 billion to Texas public schools in June. Cuts to Allen ISD are approximately $9 million for 2011-2012. An additional $12 million will be cut from state funding to Allen ISD in 2012-2013.

"The school district reduced 80 positions this year saving approximately $3 million and made an additional $1.5 million in cuts to non-instructional areas such as administration, maintenance and energy expenses.

The local anti-taxes groups and the Tea Parties argue that there is no tax. The information by the Allen Patriots point out that, "AISD could curb non-essential spending and focus more on education"., and that the new tax would, "Move Allen ISD from 19th highest tax rate to the max rate of $1.67, joining 3 other Texas districts out of 1024 with the highest allowed."

The AISD argued that the taxes ($10 million) would be used to "help hire additional teachers to meet student growth and reduce class size[s]".

But the Allen Patriots complain that the district has used bonds more for "non-essential spending...than on education". They point to the $60 million HS stadium and the "$23 million for a Performing/Fine Arts Center, including a $70 thousand grand piano."

The AISD voters gave a 60-40 percent decision to give their money to their schools, and a loud setback for the anti-tax groups.

Bill

The Pre-Trial Hearing for Judge Suzanne Wooten was a three-hour-long marathon that started at 10:02 a.m.

The first order of business was an admonishment of Wooten’s attorneys and the State’s Attorneys, Mr. Harry White and Mr. Brian Chandler, for using motions as “press releases”.

Judge Russell stated, “You all know evidence is produced in the courtroom.” Judge Russell was mostly objecting to the release of information from the FBI Report. He said, “Bending the rules is as bad as breaking them.” The Judge took special notice of a release of information by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) Information Officer identified as Mr. Kelly. Mr. Harry White argued the release did not violate Judge Russell’s protective/restrictive order on speaking with media because information was produced in open court. Judge Russell warned Mr. White that he would be “the one in the pokey” if any information was released by any party at the OAG that was in violation of his order. Judge Russell’s point was well taken by Mr. White who stated he would immediately call OAG and tell them any calls requesting information about the Wooten case would be answered with “No Comment.”

Judge Suzanne Wooten	DA Greg Willis

Next, Assistant District Attorneys, John Shomburger and John Rolater fronted District Attorney Greg Willis’ Motion for the Appointment of a New, Impartial and Disinterested Attorney Pro Tem. There was discussion concerning the need for the presentation of evidence to support Mr. Willis’ motion to remove Mr. White and Mr. Chandler from the case. It was concluded that no evidence was necessary as the issue was simply a matter of law.

Judge Russell asked Mr. Shomburger if he granted the motion if there was any legal reason for him to not simply re-appoint Mr. White and Mr. Chandler. Mr. Shomburger knew of none.
Judge Russell asked Mr. White if the State wanted to remain on the case. Mr. White responded he did not know if the State wished to remain on in case. When Judge Russell asked if it was the intent of the District Attorney to take control of the case and then immediately disqualify himself and request the appointment of a new Attorney pro tem, Mr. Shomburger said, “Yes.”

Judge Russell stated Mr. Willis’s Motion,“a subterfuge to get rid of the OAG.” and he denied the motion.

Assistant Attorney General Adrienne McFarland?, the supervisor of Mr. White and Mr. Chandler, signed the State’s Response to the District Attorney’s Motion for the Appointment of a New, Impartial and Disinterested Attorney Pro Tem.

The issue was well researched by Judge Russell who seemed aware that his denial of Willis’ motion could result in a mandamus action by Mr. Willis. Had District Attorney Willis actually requested to take control of the case and left out his request to immediately disqualify himself, he would most likely be in control of the case, but he did not request control. A Mandamus Review would delay the Wooten trial well into 2012.

Appeals courts in every case have reversed the denial of a request to rescind the recusal of the former District Attorney when there was no conflict of interest. Only Mr. Willis’ cites to law support his position. In effect, Mr. Willis asked for relief that he never requested. A mandamus request will effectively work as a Motion for Continuance for Judge Wooten, but perhaps not for the other defendants.

When Mr. Willis’s motion was denied, Judge Russell invited Mr. Willis and his colleagues to stay if they wished. Immediately District Attorney Willis left the court with five Assistant District Attorneys in tow.

Judge Russell next considered Judge Wooten’s Defendant’s’ Motion to Disqualify The Texas attorney General’s Office as “District Attorney Pro Tem” presented by Judge Wooten’s attorney, Peter Schulte. During this discussion Mr. White leaned over and whispered to Mr. Chandler, “Go get him.” Mr. Chandler left and shortly returned, asked Mr. White for his cell phone and left again. Mr. Chandler returned with FBI Special Agent Corey Ware who took a seat in the gallery.

There was a lengthy discussion concerning a Brady Rule violation in the failure of the OAG to provide the full FBI report to Wooten’s defense team. Judge Russell stated his research showed no case of any pre-conviction violation of the Brady Rule. Every example he found was post conviction and that any exculpatory evidence needed to be in Judge Russell’s words, “a game changer.”

Mr. Schulte stated Special Agent Ware told him there was exculpatory evidence in the 38 pages Mr. White had originally failed to provide to Wooten’s lawyers. Mr. Schulte also stated that Mr. Ware said if he knew then what he knows now, he would have never closed the investigation.

Judge Russell spent five minutes silently reviewing the Wooten motion.
At 11:00 a.m. Special Agent Ware was called to the witness stand and sworn in. Ware testified the investigation of Judge Wooten began in March 2008 when Judge Charles Sandoval went to former District Attorney John Roach and complained, in Mr. Ware’s words, “There was no way she (Wooten) could have paid for these (radio) ads based on her (campaign) finances.”

Mr. Ware also testified why the case was turned over to the OAG. Ware stated he was told Jill Willis and Suzanne Wooten were “good friends” and if Willis was elected the case “may go away” if not transferred to the OAG. Mr. Ware answered, “Yes, I would have closed the case” even knowing then what he knows today.

Mr. White asked Mr. Ware, “Did you ever tell Mr. Schulte there was “exculpatory evidence” in the 38 pages not provided to Wooten’s attorneys. Mr. Ware responded, “No.” Ware was then dismissed from the witness stand.

Special Agent Ware directly contradicted Mr. Schulte’s major claims made in the motion.
Judge Russell speaks to Mr. Schulte, “I looked, and looked, and looked; I frankly think you are missing the boat on this issue.” Judge Russell restates that Brady violations are after a trial, “you and your client started the investigation. How could you not know about the FBI investigation?” When asked for a citation to law to support his position, Mr. Schulte stated, “There was no case exactly on point.”

Judge Russell asked, “what’s the harm? It’s not as if you were oblivious of the investigation, now you have all of those pages.” Judge Russell finds no actual harm or actual prejudice to Judge Wooten. He then asked if Mr. Schulte or Mr. White will be called to testify and both answered, “no.”

Judge Russell then denied the Wooten motion.

Another issue was Wooten’s Supplemental Objection of September 30th. Wooten wins this one as Judge Russell orders Mr. White to search through the now 20,000 pages of evidence, find and provide Wooten any witness statements or reports. Mr. White protested he other trial cases pending and would not be able to review the evidence until November
Judge Russell then says, “You have a large office and get someone to do it, co-counsel or you supervisor.”

David Cary’s new lawyers made their first appearance in the case and stated, “They were new on the case” and requested time to prepare to which Judge Russell stated, “No more pre-trail hearings between now and November 7th even if the Wooten trial doesn’t go first.
In closing Judge Russell stated, a trial is “still set for November the 7th at 9:00 a.m.”

The judge made it clear that someone is going to trial next month and Judge Russell doesn’t care who it is.

John

-------------------------------------------

Motions and papers about the Wooten case:

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO STATE'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PRE-TRIAL HEARING NOTICE AND SCHEDULING/PRE-TRIAL ORDER - September 16, 2011

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS "DISTRICT ATTORNEY PRO TEM", Peter Schulte - dated August 22, 2011

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW, IMPARTIAL AND DISINTERESTED ATTORNEY PRO TEM, Greg Willis - dated August 29, 2011

MOTION TO QUASH, Peter Schulte - September 15, 2011

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO ALLEGED "FACTUAL BACKGROUND" CONTAINED IN LATEST MOTIONS FILED BY THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE - September 21, 20

STATE'S RESPOND TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW, IMPARTIAL, AND DISINTEREST ATTORNEY PRO TEM - September 21, 2011

STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS "DISTRICT ATTORNEY PRO TEM" - September 21, 2011

INDEX OF FBI REPORTS AND MEMOS REFERENCED IN STATE'S RESPONSES TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENDANT - September 21, 2011

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S REPLY TO THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW, IMPARTIAL AND DISINTERESTED ATTORNEY PRO TEM - September 23, 2011

APPLICATIONS FOR SUBPOENAS (State's list of witnesses), September 26, 2011

The United States Supreme Court, without an opinion, has denied Charles Dean Hood's motion for a new trial. This is the third time (I believe) Hood has been denied before the Supreme Court.

In February of 2010, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Hood's execution, but not his conviction. The COA then ordered the 296th District Court to hold another trial on punishment because the Supreme Court has changed the rules of a capital punishment trial in the Penry case. Prior to the conviction of Hood, the Supreme Court and the Texas Legislature had made changes because of Penry. The appeals court decision was a sharply divided opinion.

Hood's attorneys then asked the US Supreme Court to overturn his conviction because they argued that Hood did not receive a fair trial because the judge and the DA had a secret adulterous affair.

The district attorney has not announced if the DA's office will seek another demand for Hood's execution before a jury.

Hood was convicted of capital murder in 1990 for killing his boss and his boss’s girlfriend. Hood has maintained his innocence in the murders. The state, however, has proven to a jury that Hood, "had carefully planned and executed the murders, stolen his boss’s credit cards, pawned his ring, and forged his name on stolen business checks to cash them.", and that Hood's fingerprints were found at the scene of the bloody double homicide.

Hood's attorneys' have fought the courts for over a decade, and the case has recieved national media attention. In 2008, they charged that former judge Verla Sue Holland and former prosecutor Thomas S. O’Connell, Jr. had a secret affair, but neither Holland or O'Connell would make any admission or denial. After a court hearing in front of former Judge Greg Brewer both Holland and O'Connell were forced to submit to sworn depositions. Finally after years, the two admitted the affair, but both also stated that the love affair was over before the Hood trail. Both the Texas Criminal Appeals and the US Supreme Court believe that there was insufficient reasons that proved the trial was unfair.

The 296th Court has not scheduled a new punishment trial.

Bill

Judge Kerry Russell, the visiting judge from Smith County has ruled against DA Greg Willis' attempt to remove the Texas Attorney General from prosecuting Suzanne Wooten. Judge Russell was not only impressed with Willis' motion, but called the actions of Greg Willis "subterfuge".

It is unclear whether the District Attorney will file for a writ of mandamus to ask the appeals court to overturn Kerry's decision.

Peter Schulte, Wooten's attorney had also filed a similar motion to Greg Willis' to remove the Attorney General. Judge Russell denied the motion.

Wooten's attorney was also unable to convince the judge to quash her indictments.

The judge also ruled on Wooten's complaints that the prosecution was delaying and withholding evidence that may favor the defense. Again, Kerry ruled against Wooten.

The Collin County Observer will post a full report on today's 3 1/2 hour hearing.

Bill

Today, the Commissioners court appointed the members of the Civil Service Commission.

The Sheriff's Department employees Civil Service Commission is made up of three commissioners.

The Commissioners Court nominates one commissioner, one by the Sheriff, and the District Attorney.

The Commissioners Court appointed:

James McCarley

Sheriff Terry Box has named James McCarley as the chairman of the Civil Service Commission. McCarley spent 23 years in law enforcement, including serving nearly 11 years as the Chief of Police for the City of Plano. Later, he was a former Assistant City Manager-Director of Public Safety for Plano. McCarley has served as the Chairman of ViewPoint Bank, and also as Executive Director of the Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition from 1996 until his retirement in 2007, including the interim Executive Director of the North Texas Tollway Authority.

The Commissioners Court named Pat Gallagher unanimously in a nomination by Cheryl Williams. Gallagher is a Plano city councilman and the former chairman of Plano's Civil Service Commission until 2011. For most of his career, Gallagher has been a business executive. After he retired, he joined the Addison Police Department, where he now serves as police officer/supervisor.

District Attorney Greg Willis named Joy Flavill to the commission. Flavill is an office manager at a doctor's office. Flavill is also Collin County GOP activist and a contributor to Willis's campaign.

The Civil Service Commission will be chaired by Chief McCarley, "and the members will draw lots to determine and serve two year terms on a staggered basis (Two members appointment will expire one year and the other member the following year)."

The previous post below details the duties and scope of the Civil Service Commission.

Bill

On September 20th, the employees of the Collin County Sheriff's Department voted to establish a Civil Service Commission. The vote was 296 for, and 35 against.

The Civil Service Commission will be made up three commissioners. The County Commissioners' Court will appoint three commissioners. County Administrator, Bill Bilyeu has send the county commissioners the details of the process: "The Commissioners Court will appoint the three members of the Commission with the District Attorney, Sheriff, and Commissioners Court each nominating one of the members. The Sheriff will select the Chair and the members will draw lots to determine and serve two year terms on a staggered basis (Two members appointment will expire one year and the other member the following year)."

2007, the Collin County Deputies Association was had a series of conflicts with County Judge, Keith Self. The budget hearing last year ignited a conflagration over Judge Self's proposal to cut the county employees' retirement benefits.

Three days before the deputies Civil Service election, Judge Self voted against the 2012 budget - he was opposed to the 2 tier salary approved; 3% for sworn officers, and 2% for the remainder of the county employees. In a large part of the Deputies Association pushed for the Civil Service system to try to protect themselves from Keith Self.

Sheriff Terry Box did not actively oppose the Civil Service system.

The Texas Local Government Code gives the Civil Service Commission:

"Sec. 158.035. POWERS OF COMMISSION. (a) The commission shall adopt, publish, and enforce rules regarding:

(1) selection and classification of employees;
(2) competitive examinations;
(3) promotions, seniority, and tenure;
(4) layoffs and dismissals;
(5) disciplinary actions;
(6) grievance procedures;
(7) the rights of employees during an internal investigation; and
(8) other matters relating to the selection of employees and the procedural and substantive rights, advancement, benefits, and working conditions of employees.

(b) The commission may adopt or use as a guide any civil service law or rule of the United States, this state, or a political subdivision in this state to the extent that the law or rule promotes the purposes of this subchapter and is consistent with the needs and circumstances of the department.

(c) In a county with a population of 2.8 million or more, a panel of three commissioners shall preside at the hearing and vote on the commission's final decision in any case involving termination, demotion, or recovery of back pay. A panel's decision is the final decision of the commission for purposes of Sections 158.0351 and 158.037. The commission shall adopt rules prescribing the commission's procedures for assigning members to a panel. A panel may not include more than one member who was appointed to the commission by the same individual appointing authority.

(d) In rendering a final decision regarding a disciplinary action by the department, the commission may only sustain, overturn, or reduce the disciplinary action. The commission may not enhance a disciplinary action by the department."

Bilyeu also explained that, "As a reminder, the Commission’s duties are only related to the direct employees of the Sheriff. Court officers, DA investigators, deputy constables, etc. are not covered by the Commission."

The Commissioners Court is expected to start the process of appointing Civil Service commissioners tomorrow, Monday, October 3.

Bill

Meet the Candidates for the 199th District Court, Collin County
Posted on October 1, 2011 by Hunter Biederman
The Frisco DWI Lawyer and Attorney Blog

ANGELA TUCKER

Angela Tucker has practiced civil, family, and criminal law. After spending four years as an Assistant District Attorney in Collin County, she opened her law office and currently is a solo practitioner at Angela M. Tucker, PC.

Mrs. Tucker has stated in the past she is, "committed to representing the people of Collin County by serving as the next [Judge]. To maintain high legal standards, it is imperative that we elect judges who have a strong work ethic, high moral standards, and diverse experience.”

Mrs. Tucker lives in McKinney? with her husband James and two children.

Mrs. Tucker's campaign website can be found at www.angelatuckerforjudge.com

SHARON RAMAGE

[ed. The Collin County Observer has learned that Sharon Ramage will likely to announce that she has chosen to run for the County Court at Law #2.]

BOB DRY

Son of retiring judge Robert Dry, Robert Dry, III (Bob) has also announced his intention to run for his father's bench through a facebook page.

Mr. Dry Robert T. Dry, III joined the firm Gay, McCall, Issacks, Gordon & Roberts, PC, in 2005 upon graduation from South Texas College of Law. He practices Civil Litigation with the firm. He was born and reared in Plano and is a graduate of Plano Senior High School and SMU.

www.dryforjudge.com

Hunter Biederman is a DWI / Criminal Defense Attorney in Collin County. He publishes his blog (www.friscodwilawyer.com)which focuses on the Collin County and Texas legal system. He can be reached at friscolaw@gmail.com or (888) DWI-FRISCO.

Link to the Frisco DWI blog.....

========================================================

The Observer adds....

Judge Jerry Lewis of County Court at Law #2 has decided to retire later this year although him term would normally end on December 31, 2012.

The Commissioners Court has the right to fill a vacancy in the Courts at Law until a new judge is elected at the "next general election". The next general election more than would be 74 days before the judge leaves the office will be November 2012.

The Government Code
Sec. 25.0009. VACANCY. (a) The commissioners court of each county shall appoint a person to fill a vacancy in the office of judge of a statutory county court.

(b) The appointee holds office until the next general election and until the successor is elected and has qualified.

(c) This section applies to a vacancy existing on creation of the office of judge.

The Election Code
Sec. 202.002. VACANCY FILLED AT GENERAL ELECTION. (a) If a vacancy occurs on or before the 74th day before the general election for state and county officers held in the next-to-last even-numbered year of a term of office, the remainder of the unexpired term shall be filled at the next general election for state and county officers, as provided by this chapter.

(b) If a vacancy occurs after the 74th day before a general election day, an election for the unexpired term may not be held at that general election. The appointment to fill the vacancy continues until the next succeeding general election and until a successor has been elected and has qualified for the office.

Two years ago, after two County Courts at Law left office vacant before their terms, the County Commissioners did not choose to appoint new judges until the primary election. Since Judge Ripple and Judge Bender both unopposed in the November election, the commissioners court appointed both after the primaries.

Sharon Ramage will announce tomorrow to run for this court rather than her earlier statements for running for the 199th District Court

Two Candidates are actively campaigning for this bench:

BARNETT WALKER

Barnett Walker came to the practice of law after a 22 year career in the US Air Force. He is a Gulf War veteran who retired as one of the most decorated Senior Master Sergeants in the Air Force. He then attended SMU Law School, graduating in 2004. While attending law school he was twice chosen to participate in the National Criminal Moot Court Championship, which pits the brightest law students in the nation to present legal arguments in front of Justices of the California Supreme Court. Walker then went to work as a prosecutor in the Collin County District Attorney's office, where he served as chief prosecutor for 2 of the Courts at Law. He is now a solo criminal defense practitioner in Prosper.

SHARON RAMAGE

Sharon Ramage has been licensed to practice law since 1992. As a former social worker, Ms. Ramage has practiced law in many areas specific to protecting children since that time. From 1992-1997, Sharon served as an Assistant Criminal District Attorney in Tarrant County, and was assigned to the Crimes Against Children Division from 1995-1997.

After resigning from the District Attorney’s Office, Ms. Ramage opened a private practice in Tarrant County, where she practiced special education law and family law. Since 2000, Ms. Ramage has worked in private practice in Collin County, primarily in the area of family law and adoption. Since 2003, she has also served as a Special Education Hearing Officer and Mediator for the Texas Education Agency, conducing special education due process hearings and mediating disputes between schools and parents.

“The totality of my experience -- criminal prosecutor, defense attorney, appellate attorney, family law attorney, mediator and hearing officer -- has prepared me for this position,” Ramage said. “I welcome this challenge and recognize the hard work that lies before me in seeking this position, as well as in the hard work and diligence required of the Bench.”

Sharon is married and the mother of two children adopted from China.

More information about Sharon can be found on her facebook page, Sharon Ramage for Judge.

Bill

Collin County Courthouse Loses Power - Judge Blows a Fuse

At approximately 7:30 a.m. yesterday, the Collin County State District Courthouse went off the electrical grid. The courthouse backup power system came on to provide emergency lighting, but that was it.

Everything else in the courthouse shut down including Odyssey, the expensive software system Collin County uses to manage its court records.

Starting at 8:00 a.m., courteous clerks advised individuals wishing to file documents that they would not be able to do so because of the power failure. Apparently inconvenienced by the inability of the clerks to magically produce the electricity needed to run the Odyssey software, someone must have complained to Judge John R. Roach of the 296th State District Court.

At approximately 8:45, Judge Roach stormed into the Civil Court Clerk’s Office with his bailiff in tow.

Roach exclaimed, “Your customers are my customers!” He angrily proceeded to demand to know why the clerks weren’t accepting any filings. One of the four clerks present calmly explained to the judge the power was off.

Judge Roach wanted to know why a filing couldn’t be accepted and a hand written paper receipt be given to the filer. The judge was informed they didn’t have any paper receipts to give out. Providing a different example of a crisis that would challenge the clerks’ ability to do their jobs, Judge Roach said, “What if the building blew up?” A clerk with nerves of steel responded, “We’d all be dead, wouldn’t we?”

After further discussion concerning the failure of the clerks to perform in the face of a crisis, Roach turned on his heels and left.

The new fortress-like Collin County State District Courthouse gets an “F” in emergency preparedness. In the most common of emergencies, the loss of power, the courthouse could not perform its most basic function.

Contrary to what Judge Roach may believe, the job of fundamental emergency preparedness shouldn’t fall on shoulders of the clerks. Judge Roach was yelling at the wrong people and should apologize to the clerks he publicly berated.

John

Senator Florence Shapiro has announced she will not seek re-election for her seat on Texas Senate District 8.

Sen. Shapiro sent the following email to her constituents:

I will be making an official announcement today that I will not seek re-election to Texas Senate in District 8. I want you to hear the news first.
 
It has been my honor to serve the citizens of Senate District 8 for almost two decades. The time has come for me to pursue new opportunities. I am excited about the future and will continue with my passion for our great state.
 
None of this would have been possible without your support. I offer you a heartfelt "thank you" for standing and working with me during my time in the Senate.
 
Together, we have accomplished much including major pieces of legislation, such as Ashley's Laws, the Texas Mobility Fund, and numerous education reform initiatives including the first-ever incentive pay program, educational reforms promoting college and career readiness, ending the TAKS test, instituting End of Course Exams, and providing more meaningful accountability for schools.  
 
My parent's came to the United States in search of the American dream, and I lived it. I entered public service as a Plano City Council member, then Mayor. I then entered the Texas Senate, with a desire to promote opportunity and to make a difference in the lives of people. I am proud to have served the State of Texas and I am pleased to leave public service after having accomplished what I set out to do. This has been the most rewarding work an individual can do.
 
I am optimistic about the future for our community.   Senate District 8 is my home and also the home of my children and grandchildren, so I will remain committed to supporting leaders who want excellence for our community.    
 
My term in the Senate does not end until January 2013.   I will continue to serve you at my District and Austin Capitol offices until that time, so please do not hesitate to contact me.
 
Thank you again for your friendship and your support. I look forward to our paths crossing in the near future.

 

New Trial Date Set in Judge Suzanne Wooten case

Judge Kerry Russell, the visiting Judge from Smith County hearing the Wooten matter, has set a new trial date for the 7th of November. It remains to be seen if the case will actually go to trial on that date as three other tentative trial dates have come and gone. However, Judge Russell is determined to start a trial on the 7th of November.

In an Orders Letter dated the 25th of August, Judge Russell stated the following:

“The Defendants agreed trial order of: (1) Wooten; (2) Stacy Cary; (3) Spencer; (4) David Cary pursuant to Article 36.10 shall remain. As stated in the prior cases, the Court granted the Wooten Motion for Speedy Trial and it will continue to be the first trial. If for any reason the No.1 case does not go to trial on November 7, then we would immediately move to No. 2 as the trail case and so forth-following the Defendant’s proposed trial order but same shall not delay the trial."

The only thing that would prevent one of the defendants from going to trial on that date would be if Judge Russell grants either Judge Wooten’s Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Texas Attorney General’s Office as “District Attorney Pro Tem” or grants District Attorney Greg Willis’ Motion for the Appointment of a New, Impartial and Disinterested Attorney Pro Tem. If attorneys pro tem, Harry White and Brian Chandler are ousted from the case that would only allow forty-five days for the new attorneys for the State to prepare for trial and it seems likely a motion for a continuance for the State would not be unreasonable.

However, Judge Russell might feel he has been reasonable and perhaps even generous toward the State that as already forced one delay by not timely providing the defendants with a 48-page FBI report.

Judge Russell has another problem with the State and he stated in his letter:

“Counsel are reminded that the Court’s Restrictive and Protective Orders in the four original cases are still in full force and effect as was discussed at the end of the hearings on July 28, 2011. I have been advised that the State has violated same and the Court plans to address such violations at the next hearings in these cases.”

In one last issue Judge Russell points out that Mr. Cary and his current attorney, Keith Gore, have failed to keep a promise:

“The Court has still not received any notice from new counsel for Defendant David Cary as was promised at the July 29 hearing. Mr. Gore continues to be the attorney for David Cary in the original indicted cause.”

Judge Russell said he would not allow any additional motions to be filed less than one week before the September 23rd hearing.

John

Yesterday Judge Mark Rusch ordered Jacqueline Elissa Wages to the county jail until she pays $8,942.68 for child support of her 4 children. Jacqueline Elissa Wages, 27 is also known as Jacqueline Elissa Campean and Jacqueline Elissa Jones. She and Jeremy were divorced in 2006, but by 2007, the Texas Attorney General had to begin enforcement because Jacqueline would not pay child support.

Her ex-husband told the court that Jacqueline would not visit her children, nor pay any child support. Jeremy told the court that he was struggling trying to support and care for their 3 girls and one boy. The 401st District Court files show that the state has issued citations to Jacqueline for non-support on 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Jeremy told the court that Jacqueline refuse to allow her employers to garnish her pay checks, and would change jobs to stay one step ahead of the Attorney General. Jeremy pointed out that Jacqueline anyways seemed to be able to by cigarettes, but nothing for her children. Judge Mark Rusch asked Jacqueline how much money she spent on cigarettes. She responded on about $5/day.

Rusch listened to both sides and then ordered Jacqueline confined to the county jail until she paid the entire $8,942.68 in appears. The judge told her that she allowed to pay for her own minimal essential needs, but her child support is required to be paid before she spends for non-essentials. Judge Rusch told her that she should have given what ever she could pay her support every month, even if all she had give her kids, the $5/day.

Judge Rusch allows Jacqueline Wages' work release time during week days.

The Collin County Jail is a non-smoking facility.

Bill

The Disingenuous Mr. Willis

Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis didn’t recuse himself from nor did he ever take control of the Wooten trial. Mr. Willis now wishes to take “control” just long enough to have Judge Kerry Russell remove from the case the pesky Assistant Attorneys General Harry White and Brian Chandler who are bothering his wife, Judge Jill Willis.

With his Motion for the Appointment of a New, Impartial and Disinterested Attorney Pro Tem, Collin County’s District Attorney Greg Willis attempts to obtain a ruling on what would be better captioned as a Motion to Rescind the Recusal of the Former District Attorney. The case law he cites clearly supports the position that he should be given control over the case if he is not otherwise disqualified, but in the body of the motion he doesn’t request Judge Russell to give him control over the case so that he can subsequently recuse himself and request the appointment of new attorneys pro tem. Instead, he asks Judge Russell to roll a three-step process into one. Mr. Willis expects Judge Russell to take the full responsibility for removing White and Chandler and then see to the appointment of new attorneys pro tem without Willis first actually taking control of the case.

Mr. Willis’ lengthy dissertation concerning alleged impropriety of White and Chandler is totally unnecessary if, in fact, his motion could be read as a Motion to Rescind the Recusal of the Former District Attorney. The law is straight up and down. The former district attorney, John Roach, recused himself. He then appointed the Office of the Attorney General to provide the attorneys pro tem who arrived in the form of Mr. White and Mr. Chandler. As the new district attorney Willis can request to remove the attorneys pro tem from the case with no questions asked. Mr. Willis needs to prove nothing to take control of the case, but in his prayer for relief he doesn’t ask for the one thing all of his citations to statutes and case law allow.

Willis’ citation to Coleman v. State, 246 S.W.3d 76, 85 (Tex. Crim.App.2008) has a fact pattern that supports his position. In Coleman, a former district attorney recused himself from prosecuting a case and attorneys pro tem were appointed. Nine days before trial, a new district attorney took office, but the new district attorney didn’t file a Motion to Rescind the Recusal of the Former District Attorney. He instead allowed the attorneys pro tem to finish the case. It was the defendant who filed a motion arguing that the new district attorney was qualified to handle the trial, and therefore the attorneys pro tem had no legal authority to continue their representation of the State. The defendant lost and this case memorializes the right of an incoming district attorney to remove the attorneys pro tem and take over a case so long as he is not otherwise disqualified.

In this case, Greg Willis has waited seven full months to make a less than exact effort to exercise his right to control of the Wooten matter. And he also waited until a huge personal conflict of interest grew into a public spectacle; specifically the repeated requests by Harry White to interview Jill Willis and her refusal to allow it.

This conflict of interest could easily disqualify Mr. Willis, but the law doesn’t allow Judge Russell to make that call except very narrow circumstances. It’s up to Greg Willis to recuse himself from the case, but the law first requires he make himself a party to it.

Mr. Willis hopes Judge Russell will ignore the fact the White and Chandler, who he seeks to remove, had subpoenaed his wife to testify concerning her “special relationship” with Judge Suzanne Wooten.

During the pre-trial hearing on the 29th of July, Judge Jill Willis’ attorney, Mr. Michael Pezzulli, brought a motion to quash the subpoena issued to Judge Willis by Harry White.

Judge Kerry Russell was unimpressed by Mr. Pezzulli’s arguments.

To reinforce his right to have Jill Willis’ testimony, Harry White filed the State’s Brief on Judge Willis’ Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena. If White’s citations to law hold up, his motion will require Jill Willis will to give testimony. A bright young man like Harry White isn’t likely to ask questions to which he does not already know the answers.

It seems the district attorney’s new motion is a direct response to Mr. White’s State’s Brief on Judge Willis’ Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena. The same day it was filed, it emptied his office of his senior assistant district attorneys. Mr.Waddill and Mr. Skinner resigned. Perhaps Waddill and Skinner fled because the Wooten case is a cancer that has metastasized to the Office of the District Attorney. It is equally possible this was a tactical move to ensure no qualified assistant district attorneys were available to take the case to trial if Judge Russell became testy about the appointment of yet another attorney pro tem. Of course, no one will ever know why Waddill and Skinner resigned simultaneously because in the insular world of the Collin County courts ordinary folks don’t have a “need to know.”

Team Wooten appears spooked by the Attorney General’s new indictment with its two new much easier prove charges and also by White and Chandler’s Notice of Intent to Introduce Extraneous Offenses, Unadjudicated Offenses, Bad Acts and Punishment Evidence. Mr. Willis may mistakenly believe this notice only refers to Wooten’s request for the FBI investigation into the actions of John Roach and his attorneys pro tem. This same notice could also apply to any of Wooten’s co-defendants and be used as leverage for what is nearly impossible to do in the Fifth Court of Appeals at Dallas, provide strict proof of a bi-lateral agreement among the parties when bribery of a public official is charged. This almost always requires that one party of the agreement become a witness for the prosecution.

Given the obvious conflict of interest, Mr. Willis’ actions could cause the citizens of Collin County to lose faith in the integrity of its district attorney.

John

=================================

Notes:

State's Brief on Judge Willis' Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena, Harry E. White, August 5, 2011

"This matter has been mired in politics, speculation, and allegations of conflicts of interest since its inception. Regardless of the existence of actual conflicts of interest, this prosecution is cloaked in the appearance of impropriety and should not continue on its present course."
District Attorney Greg Willis

The previous DA was recused, but Willis files a motion in Wooten case.

Judge Suzanne Wooten	DA Greg Willis

Today, District Attorney Greg Willis has filed a motion in Judge Suzanne Wooten’s bribery case. Willis is asking the judge to remove the special prosecutors, Assistant Texas Attorneys General Harry White and Brian Chandler.

Judge Suzanne Wooten has been indicted on nine charges, including bribery and money laundering. Former DA John Roach began the investigation in 2008 before she took the bench in the 380th District Court. For two years, Roach office’s and two Assistant Attorneys General presented the case to four different grand juries -- a grand jury indicted Wooten and 3 other defendants in October, 2010. Roach then recused himself and asked Judge Mark Rusch to appoint the Texas General Attorney to act as a special prosecutor.

Willis wrote, “The citizens of Collin County deserve to have an impartial and disinterested attorney appointed by this Court to assess and determine how this prosecution should move forward. To that end, the undersigned District Attorney, also requests permission to recuse himself and requests that this Court appoint an impartial and disinterested attorney pro tem…”

Willis argues that White and Chandler may find themselves defending themselves.

Willis wrote, “This matter has been mired in politics, speculation, and allegations of conflicts of interest since its inception. Regardless of the existence of actual conflicts of interest, this prosecution is cloaked in the appearance of impropriety and should not continue on its present course.”

Wooten’s attorney has charged that an FBI report refers to, “Defendant Wooten as ''the victim," named members of the Collin County District Attorney's Office as targets and subjects, and confirmed that the FBI questioned White and Chandler regarding their involvement in the investigation and prosecution of Defendant Wooten. Willis then admits that, “The undersigned District Attorney does not know the status of the FBI investigation.”

Since John Roach recused himself, Willis argues that he is the current elected County Criminal Attorney and he is not disqualified to prosecute the case. Willis has stated that, he too, will recuse himself, but he still believes that he can require the judge to terminate the special prosecutors, and re-appoint a new one. “A prosecutor should be independent, unbiased, without conflicts of interest, and not witnesses to any of the concerns presented to the grand jury.”

Willis states that, “In view of his decision to voluntarily recuse himself, the District Attorney further moves the court to appoint an impartial and disinterested attorney pro tem pursuant Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 2.07. Upon granting the recusal, the trial court may appoint any competent attorney" to perform the duties of the district attorney,”

Willis ends his arguments slamming the previous DA, “The citizens of Collin County must trust in the integrity of countywide elections, and also in the integrity of those who investigate and prosecute allegations of public corruption in the same manner. The proximity of the Texas Attorney General 's Office and that of the former Collin County Criminal District Attorney to the allegations which are at the heart of the indictment, and to the related federal investigations into the same, have placed that trust in jeopardy.”

Wooten’s attorney ask the Attorney General be removed from the case.

Last week Peter Schulte, Judge Suzanne Wooten’s attorney, has filed a motion to remove the Attorney General from the case.

Schulte charges:

“The Attorney General's Office must be disqualified in this matter due to the
fact that they have placed themselves in the dual role of ‘attorney-witness.’.” White has told the court he will, ''Notice of State's Intent to Introduce Extraneous Offenses, Unadjudicated Offenses, Bad Acts, and Punishment Evidence." White charges that Wooten tries to, “impede the grand jury’s investigation” that she requested, “the District Judges to refuse to sign grand jury subpoena requests issued by the grand jury investigating the Defendant.”

Schulte points out that White and other Assistant Attorneys General were the only witnesses to the charge of impeding the grand jury. They cannot serve as both witness and prosecutor.

“The Attorney General's Office must be disqualified due to the fact that actual conflict exists based on violations of due process. Schulte’s charges that White has willfully and intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense.” White, failed to promptly give the defense an FBI report. At the last hearing, White told the judge he ‘forgot’ to give the report to Schulte. Harry White then gave the defense a 47 page ‘redacted’ report. The judge then told White to provide the defense a complete and redacted FBI report, “On August 1,2011, it was discovered by Defendant's Counsel when he went to the FBI office that White and Chandler intentionally withheld from Defense counsel approximately 35 additional pages from the FBI Report the Attorney General's Office had received on July 6, 2011, when they provided to Defense Counsel the redacted 48-page report on July 28, 20ll. Most of the approximate 35 pages withheld were summaries of the investigation by the FBI and correspondence with the United States Attorney's Office. In these withheld documents, the Defendant, Judge Suzanne Wooten, was listed as the "victim" with the suspects listed as John R. Roach, former District Attorney of Collin County, Texas, Gregory Davis, former First Assistant District Attorney for the CCDAO and Christopher Milner, former special crimes chief for the CCDAO. Undoubtedly, this information was exculpatory and intentionally withheld from Defense Counsel.”

And third, Schulte writes, “The Attorney General's Office must be disqualified due to the fact that actual conflict exists based on violations of due process.

“In this proceeding, there is a prosecuting agency (Attorney General's Office), represented by the same attorneys (Harry E. White and Brian Chandler), that has served in two separate and distinct roles involving the same matter: 1) as "Special Prosecutor" - assistant prosecutors of and under the direction and authority of John R. Roach, the then District Attorney of Collin County, Texas, and now 2) as "Attorney Pro Tem" pursuant to Article 2.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure after the District Attorney was disqualified in this matter."

Judge Kerry Russell visiting judge from Tyler has not scheduled a hearing on Willis’ and Schulte’s motions.

District Attorney’s Office in furor

Coincidentally? On the same day that DA Greg Willis filed the motion on the case of Judge Suzanne Wooten, several of the top Assistant District Attorneys resigned.

The Collin County Observer has been unable to confirm the names and reasons at least two of the DA managers have given their notice.

Our knowledgeable sources have told us that David Waddill, the First Assistant District Attorney and Jim Skinner, the Chief of the Special Prosecution Division have resigned.

The Observer has tried to reach Willis, Waddill and Skinner; none have returned our messages

---------------------------------------------

[Update] Valerie Wigglesworth at the Dallas Morning News has added more information on the resignations. Wigglesworth writes,

"The top two prosecutors in the Collin County district attorney’s office resigned Monday.

"David Waddill, the first assistant district attorney, and Jim Skinner, the second assistant district attorney and chief of the special prosecution division, are headed back to private practice.

"Both joined the prosecutors’ office when District Attorney Greg Willis took over in January. Willis said Monday he was grateful for their service, adding that the pair “had been very helpful getting things established here.”

"Skinner confirmed that he was returning to private practice but declined to discuss his reasons further. Waddill could not be reached for comment.

"Both Willis and Skinner said the resignations had nothing to do with the case involving state District Judge Suzanne Wooten."[subscription may be needed to read the article at The Dallas Morning News]

Bill

==================================================

Notes:

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW, IMPARTIAL AND DISINTERESTED ATTORNEY PRO TEM, Greg Willis - dated August 29, 2011

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS "DISTRICT ATTORNEY PRO TEM", Peter Schulte - dated August 22, 2011

Who You Gonna Call When The Courts Break The Law?

The courts of Texas are allowed a certain amount of discretion in making their judgments and in formulating their own local rules of the court. However, the courts have no discretion in choosing to obey or to not obey the law.

The Collin County State District Courthouse selectively provides the benefits of Texas Labor Code 207.007 to some, but not all of those who file lawsuits under Texas Labor Code 212. In doing so the District Courthouse violates the civil rights of some of the citizens of Collin County. The violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights of even a small group of people is of concern to everyone. Once this kind of judicial abuse is tolerated, no one is immune from its effect and there is no limit to its magnitude. [Add photo 1]

Texas Labor Code 207.007(a) states in pertinent part,

“An individual claiming (unemployment insurance) benefits under this subtitle may not be charged a fee in a proceeding under this subtitle by a court or an officer of a court. A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is punishable by:

1. a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $500;
2. imprisonment for not more than six months; or
3. both a fine and imprisonment.”

In passing this law [hyperlink to entire text of law] the State of Texas took the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right to seek the redress of grievances in the courts one step further by giving the unemployed the right to obtain access to the courts free of charge. When this law was passed in 1985, the Texas Legislature effectively declared the unemployed to be “poor” for the purposes of filing lawsuits to overturn a ruling by the Texas Workforce Commission denying an individual unemployment benefits.

The law not only makes it a criminal act to charge a fee for filing a petition, it is also a crime to charge a fee for transcriptions of a court hearing or a trial; or a fee for a court record prepared for appellate review. No person claiming benefits "shall be charged fees of any kind" by an officer of the court. [hyperlink appellate Court ruling]

Who pays and who doesn’t

In reviewing the public court records of twelve of the most recent cases involving the Texas Workforce Commission and the application of Texas Labor Code 207.007, a pattern of abuse emerges. Different groups of litigants get different results.

Attorneys, in their own cases against the Texas Workforce Commission to obtain benefits, either do not pay the fee or receive a refund. In case number 416-01007-2008, lawyer Grace Soo Way Liang, paid no fee. In case number 429-01477-2010, lawyer Scott Horner paid the fee and later requested and was granted a refund.

One attorney always obtains a wavier of fees. Attorney Raul Loya includes a copy of the law with his original petition and his clients pay no fees. Those cases are 416-03541-2009 and 199-01593-2009.

Texas Labor Code 207.007 has no “catch 22” requirement that a person must request the waiver before obtaining a waiver of fees. The elements of the crime are simple, first an eligible individual asks to file their case and second a court official charges a fee. Civil litigation cover sheets are required to file lawsuits and the clerks need only to look at the 107 boxes provided to see if any are marked “Employment.”

In five other cases, attorneys had their clients’ pay the fee. It is hard to imagine that lawyers taking labor and employment cases would not know the Texas Labor Code. This is especially true of an attorney who is board certified in labor and employment law. Other than ignorance, one possible explanation is these lawyers fear judicial retaliation for failing to “go along to get along.” These five cases are 401-03809-2010, 199-01657-07, 366-01383-2009, 199-01841-2011, and 401-03340-06. One attorney, who asked not to be named, stated because Texas Labor Code 212 cases must be filed within strict time limits, “it was easier to pay the fee” rather than risk having the case dismissed because of missing a deadline caused by the “hassle” of getting a waiver. The waiver should instantaneous and without any hassle at all.

Think of it as a form of judicial euthanasia

Pro se litigants, those representing themselves, are in the final group. These individuals are asked to pay a an unlawful fee that they cannot afford and then are forced to humiliate themselves by filing affidavits of indigence in order to present their case in court.

Ms. Camilla Thornton (429-01908-2010) jumped through all the hoops created by the administrative review process of the Texas Workforce Commission in order to preserve her right to seek a judicial review of the TWC’s denial of benefits. Ms. Thornton stated when she attempted to file her complaint she was unable to afford the fee and was turned away. The clerk offered no assistance or did she suggest Ms. Thornton file an affidavit of indigence. The clerks are forbidden from offering any legal advice, which begs the question, are they also forbidden from obeying the law?

In a chance conversation with a friend, Ms. Thornton was told she could file an affidavit of inability to pay. Her affidavit was approved and she was able to file her complaint in the 429th State District Court.

Other individuals were not so fortunate. In the review case number 296-00367-08, Mr. Jay Cooper was forced to file an affidavit of indigence that was challenged by the court reporter of the 296th State District Court. Ms. Jan Dugger filed a Contest of Affidavit of Indigence and Inability to Pay Costs. A hearing was held before Judge Chris Older in which Mr. Cooper was afforded yet another opportunity to humiliate himself in a public hearing by truly proving he really was too poor to pay the criminally requested fees. Mr. Cooper prevailed in the hearing.

Others are even less fortunate. Ms. Sandra Parker (401-01641-06) filed the unnecessary affidavit of indigence only to have it denied. Ms. Parker paid the filing fees.

And most unfortunate group is individuals who could not pay the fee and who just walked away. With his or her case never filed, there are no records or proof of the crime committed against them. These unknowns may number in the hundreds and the fact they were not allowed to file their cases without paying filing fees suggests a possible motive for the for the violation of Texas Labor Code 207.007(a).

The courts simply to not want to hear these cases and violating the law is an easy way to keep them out of the courthouse because they always lose. Think of it as a form of judicial euthanasia for lawsuits not likely to survive anyway, but do we really want the courts to have this kind of power?

Of the twelve cases reviewed, only one individual seeking benefits prevailed and this was a case that never went to trial. Attorney Scott Horner’s case was withdrawn by the Texas General’s Office and was remanded back to the Texas Workforce Commission were it was most likely decided in Mr. Horner’s favor.

Almost all cases brought by individuals (with or without legal representation) seeking to overturn a final decision made by the TWC are lost. The reasons vary. First of all the courts are required to provide the ruling of the TWC with a “presumption of validity.” Another reason is some judges possibly look at cases from the point of view of estimating who has the most resources to prevail on appeal.

Filing a lawsuit is a zero sum game and no matter how fair a judge may be, there is always a loser, usually a sore loser at that. Given the fact a judge is going to be criticized fifty percent of the time, the only meaningful benchmark to judicial performance is how many times is a judge overturned on appeal.

The Office of the Texas Attorney General, representing the Texas Workforce Commission, holds a blank check provided by the taxpayers and this gives the lazy judge a clue as to who has the most resources to prevail on appeal.

Ignorance of the law

The District Court may claim ignorance of the law, but the fact some individuals obtained waivers and others did not demonstrates a pattern of abuse. There is little doubt entry-level clerks charging and collecting filing fees don’t know the law. If they did, why would they risk a conviction and six months in jail or even risk the minimum $50 dollar fine? These clerks have little more than on the job training and know only what their superiors want them to know. In fact, the new clerks have large signs posted on their bulletproof windows, “In Training.”

The administrative leadership of the courthouse is legally obligated to properly train, supervise and control its employees to prevent the violation of the constitutional rights of those seeking access to the court.

In 1985 the Texas Legislature passed a law to give a small break to a small group of litigants. The Texas Legislature has a reasonable expectation that the courts will enforce the laws they pass.

So whom do you call when the courts break the law and criminally deny access to the courts based on judicial expedience?

John

The multiple count felony case against Suzanne Wooten, Judge of the 380th State District Court in Collin County, was first set to go to trial on the 20th of June and then moved to the 20th of August. Judge Wooten’s legal team filed a motion for a speedy trial and the trial date was moved to the 15th of August. Now the case has completely fallen off Collin County’s judicial radar. Judge Kerry Russell, the visiting judge from Tyler hearing the Wooten matter, speculated the trial might not begin until “perhaps 2012” due to the filing of a new indictment with two new charges and the surprise introduction of a Federal Bureau of Investigation report.

During Wooten’s pre-trial conference hearing held on the 29th of July, it was unclear if any of the many trial dates were ever more than tentative. However, one thing was made perfectly clear, Judge Wooten’s desire to obtain an acquittal on all charges before her 2012 re-election bid was crushed by the new indictment and by a last minute discovery release made by Harry White, the special prosecutor from the Office of the Texas Attorney General.

The day before July’s pre-trial conference, prosecutor Harry White provided Wooten’s defense team of Peter Schulte and Toby Shook with a 48-page FBI report he planned to use as potential evidence. This report was in Mr. White’s possession since the 6th of July. Mr. White denied the report was held back for the purpose of delaying the trial, but claimed he was too busy to send it to Wooten’s lawyers until the day before the pre-trial conference. The report was the result of a complaint made by Wooten and Schulte to the FBI in April 2010. The report most likely concerned the actions of former District Attorney John R. Roach and his nearly non-stop grand jury proceedings against Judge Wooten since her election in 2008.

The FBI report was heavily redacted and Mr. White volunteered some of the redactions were made by the Attorney General’s office. On hearing this, Judge Russell ordered the FBI report be given to Wooten’s lawyers just as the Attorney General received it. In discussing the report both sides speculated it might result in Mr. White and/ or Mr. Schulte being called to testify. Judge Russell stated he “hoped that would not happen.” Such an action could result in Schulte and White being removed from the case and cause further delay.

Wooten’s attorney, Peter Schulte, said he was “ready for trial on the original indictment” and wished to go to trial on the 15th of August, but would not be able to do so on the new indictment. Because the new indictment was timely filed, Judge Russell asked Schulte to provide a citation to law as to why the case shouldn’t go to trial under the new indictment. Schulte had nothing to cite. Judge Russell acknowledged Mr. Schulte’s frustration with the new indictment and discovery being made so late in the process and then dismissed the old indictment and ordered all records transferred into the new case number. Mr. Schulte said due the new developments in the case and also because of his own trial date conflicts, he would not be ready go forward until late October. Judge Russell ordered all attorneys to provide him with their trial schedules making it seem he would personally find a date that works for everyone. Judge Russell also ordered there be no new discovery “unless it was for a very good reason.”

The lengthy hearing was broken into morning and afternoon sessions and was sparsely attended by the public. Non-party observers included two Wooten supporters seated with her; a staff reporter from the Dallas Morning News who attended the morning session; Mr. David Waddill, Collin County’s First Assistant District Attorney, and seated in the back of the courtroom as was Mr. Michael P. Gibson. Dallas attorney Mike Gibson is one the top white-collar criminal defense attorneys in America and outside the courtroom during the lunch break he was surrounded like a rock star by the lawyers in the case. It is unknown if Mr. Gibson has or will have any connection with case against Wooten or her co-defendants David and Stacy Cary, and James Stephen Spencer.

Harry White stated he was “shocked to learn that the deliberations of the grand jury had been secretly recorded.” White’s comment was without context and seemingly came straight out of the blue. Judge Russell stated he “was not from around here, but back home in Smith County, grand jury deliberations were absolutely privileged.” From the back of the courtroom Mr. Waddill spoke to the practices of the Collin County District Attorney’s office back in 2008, stating he did not believe there were any audio recordings, but he was not in the DA’s office at the time of the several Wooten grand jury hearings. While there was a court reporter present during the hearings, the consensus of opinion was there were no audio recordings.

After establishing the non-existence of audio recordings, Mr. White’s faux ‘shock’ seamlessly set the stage for an extensive debate over grand jury witness summaries that had or had not been provided to Wooten’s lawyers.

Mr. Schulte asked if an auditor from the Office of the Attorney General, Kyle Swihart, had given grand jury testimony and if so why wasn’t he given a summary of his testimony. Harry White stated Swihart had testified, but it was the Attorney General’s policy to not give testimony summaries of their own employees to defense attorneys. White further stated no court reporter was present when Kyle Swihart testified. Not deterred by this information, Judge Russell ordered Mr. White to provide a summary of Swihart’s testimony to Wooten’s lawyers.

David and Stacy Cary’s attorney, Barry Keith Gore, filed a motion to withdraw representation. Stacy Cary’s new lawyer will be Heather Barbieri of Plano. However, David Cary had no new attorney and Judge Russell would not grant Gore’s motion to withdraw until Mr. Cary has representation and all of the case files were transferred to the new attorney.

Even if withdrawing from the case wasn’t Mr. Gore’s idea, it is no small wonder Mr. Gore would be happy walk away as he may be a little too close to the fire that underlies the case against Wooten and her co-defendants. Last year Keith Gore’s primary campaign for the right to hold the gavel in the 296th State District Court was in part funded by David Cary and Gore’s campaign consultant was none other than James Stephen Spencer.

Wooten’s numerous supporters claim the case is nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt. Wooten successfully ran and won the first ever-Republican primary challenge against a sitting State District Judge in Collin County. The defeat of District Attorney John Roach’s long time friend, Judge Charles Sandoval, is said to have motivated the six or more grand jury investigations against Judge Wooten.

If former District Attorney John Roach is as vengeful as detractors claim, then having the same cast of characters mount the second only Republican primary challenge against his own son, Judge John Roach, Jr., could only add fuel to his alleged fury over the defeat of Judge Sandoval. Roach’s son won the March primary contest by less than five points over Gore. Judge Wooten, the Cary’s and James Stephen Spencer were finally indicted six months later.

The most bizarre event of the hearing took place when an attorney for Judge Jill Willis, the wife of Collin County’s current District Attorney, requested a ruling on a motion to quash a subpoena issued to Judge Willis. The subpoena requested testimony from Willis regarding a closed door meeting with a dozen senior Collin County judges sometime before September 2009. When informed that no record of the meeting was made, Judge Russell stated the idea of a closed-door meeting between judges with no record being made of it was “foreign” to him. Other judges, Rusch and Roach, Jr., had cooperated with Mr. White, but Judge Willis has refused to speak with him. Judge Willis’ attorney, Mr. Michael Pezzulli is an expert on attorney-client privilege and has co-authored a book on the subject for the American Bar Association. Pezzulli argued the subpoena for Judge Willis’ testimony should be denied on the grounds that an attorney-client privilege existed during the meeting of the judges. Judge Russell seemed baffled by Mr. Pezzulli’s claim that attorney-client privilege would exist in a meeting with other judges. When he asked for some citation to statutes or case law in support of the motion to quash the subpoena, Mr. Pezzulli was stumped for an answer. Harry White opposed the motion to quash and stated, “We believe there is a personal relationship between Wooten and Willis.” Judge Russell took the motion to quash under review and made no ruling on it.

No speedy trial for Judge Suzanne Wooten means no speedy relief from the burden this case has created for the taxpayers. On October 18, 2010, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct suspended Wooten with pay and she has collected $12,000 dollars a month for the past ten months for staying home.

If denied the opportunity to clear her name prior to March 2012, it is unlikely any Collin County Republican would challenge Judge Wooten in a primary race for fear of looking like a vulture. However, she would likely draw a Democratic challenger on the chance she might be convicted and removed from the bench between the primary and general election resulting in the Democratic candidate being elected by default in November 2012.

John

I am thrilled to introduce our readers to John Pitchford. John will be joining the Collin County Observer as a writer.

John is a military retiree and a Plano small business owner. While John and I do not necessarily politicly agree on many issues, we do share a passion for good government. John has been very knowledgeable of Collin County justice, and has been a keen observer who is able to write with insight. I know John will add an intelligent perspective that we hope our readers will be informed and intrigued.

BIll

Yesterday, the Texas Eduction Agency (TEA) released it's 2011 Accountability Reports.

Last year, six ISDs were rated "Exemplary", but this year only Frisco ISD and Lovejoy ISD were able to maintain their top-ranked rating.

Allen ISD, Celina ISD, Melissa ISD and Prosper had their status lowered from Exemplary to "Recognized". Six other districts were rated Recognized two years in a row, including, Anna ISD, Blue Ridge ISD, Farmersville ISD, McKinney ISD, Plano ISD and Princeton ISD.

The Community ISD and Wylie ISD were lowered from Recognized to "Academically Acceptable".

(Data from The TEA and tax rates from the Collin County Appraisal District.)

Accountability

Every two years, the legislature plays a ping pong game of education with complaints from public critics and school districts.

Two years ago the school districts were upset with their low 2008 rankings. In the past several years, many school principles and administrators have lost their jobs over the state's published performance statistics. Cities and chambers of commerce are acutely aware of the effects of low school ratings and property values.

For the 2009 ratings, the TEA used a method called the "Texas Projection Measure" (TPM). Using this model, in many cases while the students failed the TAKS tests at a greater rate, the schools gained higher ratings. By giving less weight to the tests, the TPM used predictions that the students would do better in the future.

In April this year, TEA Commissioner Robert Scott ended the TPM and instituted the "Accountability" system, resulting in the 2011 ratings. The 2011 ratings on average were lower than the 2008 average, before TPM was used.

The criticism leveled against the TEA as a result of the 2009 ratings inspired the creation of the TPM to inflate the schools ratings. Critics then demanded that the TEA change the rating system so it grades the actual current performance of all schools.

Now many Texas school districts are complaining that they are being punished with lower ratings. They say the new system gives greater weight to improvement in the lowest groups that are performing the worst.

The Accountability System identifies groups, such as ethnic groups and economically-disadvantaged students. The report then gives a score on how each of the groups improved in performance in each subject.

The Dallas Morning News reported that Commissioner Robert Scott said, “There will no longer be any allegations that we are pumping up the numbers...the numbers are real this year.”

Wylie ISD in the pits

The Wylie ISD has the lowest rating of the Collin County school districts. The Grady Burnett Junior High School in the Wylie ISD was the only public school in Collin County rated as "Academically Unacceptable", the lowest given rank.

A close look at Grady Burnett Junior High School shows that minorities and poorer students are doing much worse than white, middle-class kids. But all students, including whites, had worse scores than last year. The school's student performance scores in all groups declined in Reading and Writing. All students improved in Social Studies.

But African Americans and economically disadvantage students dramatically declined in performance of Math and Science. Because of those declines in scores Grady Burnett was rated Academically Unacceptable.

The Wylie ISD had 9 schools rated Exemplary, 8 Recognized, and one rated Academically Acceptable in 2010.

In 2011, the Wylie ISD only had 2 schools rated Exemplary, 15 Recognized, 1 Academically Acceptable, and 1 rated Academically Unacceptable.

Taxes and performance

Schools throughout Texas have been impacted by lower revenues. In 2006, the legislature passed a major rollback of property taxes and limited a school districts' ability to raise higher taxes. Since then, the legislature has provided less and less state tax money for schools. All school districts are in a financial pinch, and they claim that the Accountability Method requires the districts to spend more on the most expensive student groups who need the most improvement.

Property in high valuation districts like Frisco and Lovejoy have been able to maintain an Exemplary rating while keeping property tax rates below the county's average.

However even most of Collin County's districts with more modest property values have been able to provide their citizens' a school rated recognized. For example, Farmersville, not a wealthy community, has been been able to keep a Recognized district and also keep the districts' tax rate ($1.31/$100 valuation) as the lowest in the county.

Plano ISD, which has the second lowest property tax rate in Collin County, has kept the Recognized rating the same as in the previous year. The Dallas Morning News' Plano Blog, reports that although the district is rated Recognized, it has lost from 28 to less than 10 campuses rated Exemplary to Recognized, and that 18 schools have been lower rated as Academically Acceptable from Recognized. "There doesn't appear to be any huge cause of concern," Jim Hirsch, Plano ISD's associate superintendent for academic and technology services said. "We're pleased in general our students continue to perform well."

But in districts with the highest tax rates, three of four have had their Accountability Rates lowered.

Even these highest tax rate districts seem to be giving their children less than the best educational performance. Blue Ridge ISD, which has the county's highest tax rates, has only been able to maintain a Recognized rating. Melissa, Prosper and Celina are high tax districts which have been lowered from Exemplary to Recognized. And Wylie ISD, with the second highest tax rate in Collin County, was reduced to Academically Acceptable, the lowest education rating in the county.

Bill

--------------------------------------
NOTES:
TEA 2011 report on Burnett JR, HS in Wylie

The TEA Accounting Manual, 2010

TEA 2011 Accountability Reports

Collin County Appraisal District table of Tax 2010 rates, and exemptions

Ratings for Texas schools plunge with elimination of controversial rule , The Dallas Morning News, July 29, 2011

Today, Patricia Crigger, Rebecca Littrell, Sherry Bell and Hannah Kunkle appeared at a hearing heard by visiting Judge Nelms to hear motions.

Attorney Robert Hinton John Hardin who is representing Hannah Kunkle, offered a motion to dismiss Kunkle's indictment, and challenged the Special Prosecutor, John Helms, to seek Kunkle's indictment and prosecution.

Robert Hinton John Hardin gave several spirited oral arguments. Hinton Hardin told the judge that this is a, "political case... who believes that in a perfect world, this case would go away". Nelms looked surprised and bemused at that comment. He said that his decision requires evidence and he's not hearing any "facts". HintonHardin said that this case has been tainted by John Roach's District Attorney's office. He described the DA's office as having "dirty laundry". Hinton Hardin implies that most of the decisions in this case are not in the file. The judge replied that, "you say you know what's been done [behind closed doors], you say they know, but I do not know it." Judge Nelms repeated that Robert Hinton John Hardin must provide evidence.

HintonHardin also argued that Special Prosecutor Helms only had a charter to investigate and seek prosecution for the original 6 district clerks employees. Hinton Hardin also asked the judge to rule that when the special prosecutor dismissed the previous indictments, he had no further authority. Judge Nelms ruled against Kunkle's motions.

HintonHardin asked the court for severance, requesting that Hannah Kunkle be given a separate trial, and not tried with the other three accused district clerk employee's.

However, Crigger, Littrell, and Bell's attorneys told the judge that they wanted to be tried together. Walker Barnett, Bell's attorney, told the judge that they understand Kunkle did want severance but that he would not oppose the motion to server the trial from Kunkle.

HintonHardin argued that combining Kunkle with the other three defendants could create a trial in which the other defendants could, "create an antagonistic situation". Hinton Hardin said that the trial could be, "a 'cluster'.... that we don't want to be in at the court, throwing rocks at each other". Hinton Hardin portrayed a situation where the three District Clerk defendants could claim that they only followed Kunkle's policies, and that he might show, that after her retirement, Kunkle was no longer in daily operations and delegated her office to the other defendants.

The judge stated that he was still inclined to consolidate the defendants for economy, and that the defense has the burden to provide evidence to support the motion. He told Hinton Hardin that he had not "seen any facts" for the severance, but he has giveRobert Hinton John Hardin until October to submit a motion.

Walker Barnett asked for more time to prepare for trial because he has only been hired by Bell. An associate of attorney Deric Walpole, representing Rebecca Littrell, told the court that Walpole is in San Angelo defending Warren Jeffs the Eldorado sect leader charged with bigamy and child sexual abuse. He told the judge that trial will likely go for many weeks.

Judge Nelms then re-set the trial for November 28, 2011.

(Patricia Crigger will likely remain in his office for more than two years after being both elected and indicted.)

Bill

-----------------------------------
Errata

I apologize to all concerned for the confusion between Robert Hinton and John Hardin.

Bill

NBC KXAS - Planned Parenthood Attacked With Molotov Cocktail
By Greg Janda, KXAS- NBC TV
Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011, Updated 5:25 PM CDT

McKinney fire officials say an overnight blaze at a Planned Parenthood clinic was started by a "Molotov cocktail."

The health center on Eldorado Parkway was attacked Tuesday night around 10 p.m. Firefighters arrived to extinguish the fire and discovered a wine bottle filled with diesel fuel and a rag for a lighter.

Officials say the fire did damage to the exterior of the building, but did not penetrate the building. Investigation into the attack is still ongoing.

The clinic opened in 2008 and has been the site of multiple protests. This is the first serious attack at the location.

==============

CBS KRLD - Molotov Cocktail Hurled Through McKinney Planned Parenthood
By Matt Goodman, CBSDFW.COM
July 27, 2011 4:31 PM

MCKINNEY (CBSDFW.COM) – Someone hurled a glass bottle topped with a flaming rag and filled with diesel fuel through the front door of the McKinney Planned Parenthood offices just before 10 p.m. Tuesday, a spokeswoman said.

The attack left shards of glass littered in front of the office at 1720 Eldorado Parkway and charred the metal door, but Planned Parenthood staffers hurriedly cleaned the mess and still saw patients Wednesday.

“Since we’re seeing patients today and trying to do repair and cleanup as fast as possible, you may not get an idea of the damage done if you go by there today,” said Holly Morgan, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of North Texas.

The Molotov cocktail failed to make it into the actual clinic and no staffers or patients were there, Morgan said.

Though the McKinney location has been the center of controversy in the area since it opened in 2008, Morgan said the attack was unprecedented – none of the 28 north Texas locations have suffered something like this.

And though the McKinney Police Department still has not identified a motive, Morgan said the arson is even more upsetting because the targeted location does not offer abortion services.

“It’s really unfortunate because that site only provides preventative care,” she said. “But until we know from the police, until they figure out what happened, we can’t really say what the motivation was.”

The McKinney location offers preventive services such as breast and pelvic exams, as well as birth control, diabetes screenings, sexually transmitted infection tests, pregnancy testing and emergency contraception. News Radio KRLD reported picketers at the location earlier in the day.

McKinney police has not identified a suspect.

“Ninety-six to 97 percent of what we do –and that’s an audited number – every year for our patients is preventative health care. It’s breast and cervical cancer screening and well women visits,” Morgan said.

“We even give flu shots.”

=================

Last night after I posted the previous post, the server crashed twice. My logs sure look like the Observer was attacked.

After the servers were repaired, the Observer still did not work properly. Later this morning, I was able to finally repair the blog's database.

Please, I ask you for your patience and my sorry that our readers had to deal with a frustrating site.

Please accept my apologies.

Bill

chutzpah, hutzpah [ˈxʊtspə] n Informal shameless audacity; impudence [from Yiddish]

Patricia Crigger has continued in office, trying to lead the District Clerk's Office, while under felony charges of corruption. Crigger not only refused to take a leave of absence, but instead has attempted to put on a show of there is "no problem."

CHUTZPUH
Crigger's reaction to the indictment was to promote the alleged two co-conspirators and give them a raise in pay. Crigger promoted[ed.: caution, large file]:

• Rebecca Littrell from Senior Administer making $52,766 to Chief Deputy District Clerk, now receiving a salary of $64,213.
• Sherry Bell from Lead Clerk making $49,190 to Senior Administer, now receiving a salary of $51,650.

Crigger herself was given a raise by the voters after her indictment from approximately $65,000 to $110,998.

By appointing the two other top managers in the department who are under indictments, Crigger has created a vacuum of leadership. If Patricia Crigger took a leave of absence, resigns, or is convicted, there will be no senior management able to temporarily take over the District Clerk's Office. Crigger has made it difficult so there will be no senior management in place to temporarily take over the District Clerk's Office. (If the Crigger resigns or convicted, the Board of Collin County District Judges will appoint a new District Clerk.)

And last week, Patricia Crigger, Rebecca Littrell, and Sherry Bell used county money to attend a convention together in Las Vegas. According to a Open Records request, the County Auditor confirmed that the three alleged co-conspirators traveled to Vegas from July 10 to July 15, 2011 to attend the National Association of Court Management Annual Conference.

The bills are all not in yet, but the conference will cost the Collin County taxpayers several thousand dollars.

Also in April, Crigger received a county check for $1,308, and $1,208 went to Rebecca Littrell for travel reimbursement. During the entire year to date, the rest of the un-indicted staff members of the District Clerk's office have spent less than $360 on travel total.

Yes, chutzpah is one way to make crime pay.

Patricia Crigger, District Clerk

THE CRIMES
Last June, The Texas Rangers targeting the District Clerk's Office raided the Collin County Courthouse. In July, a grand jury indicted 6 employees of the District Clerk's department, including Patricia Crigger, for conspiracy and theft of more than $20,000 in government money. At that time, Patricia Crigger was the Republican nominee for District Clerk. Facing no real oppositions, Crigger was the next "Elect District Clerk", who would be sworn in on January 1, 2011.

On January 1, Patricia Crigger was sworn in as the elected District Clerk although charged with "Abuse of Office" and "Conspiracy" for allegedly stealing over $20,000 of services for the benefit of her 2010 campaign. Also indicted were alleged co-conspirators including Rebecca Littrell and Sherry Bell.

Hannah Kunkle (no mug shot available)

On May 31, 2011 a Grand Jury also indicted Hannah Kunkle, the previous long-time District Clerk.

The Collin County District Attorney's Office (under John Roach, Sr.) bungled the original indictments of six District Clerk's employees. Twice the charges against the defendants were dropped, and they have been re-indicted three times now. The need to appoint a visiting Judge, and then the need to name an out-of-town special prosecutor, have created delay after delay, allowing the elected District Clerk to remain in office under a cloud for more than a year.

The visiting Judge Nelms (of Tyler) will hold a hearing on July 27 to hear motions.

The Texas Rangers investigation shows a credible case against these employees -- a case credible enough for three Grand Juries to indict these officials.

THE AUDITS
The Collin County Auditor has released two audits that are critical of the financial operations of the District Clerk's Office. The audits covered the 3rd quarter and 4th quarter of 2010 during the Hannah Kunkle administration. Both audits show that the District Clerk's Office has been unable to correct the table of fees and that the department has been unable to reconcile their funds with the new Odyssey program. The auditor has shown that convicted defendants in criminal cases were not charged all the fees the District Clerk's Office is responsible to collect, nor have the cases been corrected.

Crigger did appear before the commissioners' court on May 2[ed.:video], and said that the issues were inherited, but acknowledged that they are struggling with correcting the problems. Crigger asked if the Auditor would assign an accountant to help her with Odyssey. After five months, Commissioner Duncan Webb and the commissioners' court expressed impatience with the loss of criminal fees and concern with the lack of progress. Neither the Auditor nor Crigger can determine the amount of revenue criminal fees that incorrectly may cost the county revenue. [ed.:video]The commissioners' court has asked the County Auditor to prepare a "Full Audit" of the District Clerk's Office, and to report the amount of fees that have been lost as county revenue.

Later in June, Crigger submitted a request to promote a clerk to senior clerk. Cheryl Williams expressed frustration[ed.:video] that Crigger chose to promote a clerk without financial experience. The court unanimously voted to delay the promotion, once again asking Crigger for explanation, later two weeks later, the court approved the promotion.

CLOUD
The District Clerk's Office is responsible for the custodial care and management of the District Courts. The department has 58 employees with a budget of over $5 million, and holds in trust more than $3 million in public funds in 5 bank accounts.[ed.: caution large linked file]

Many, including members of the Commissioners' Court, have questioned the ability of the District Clerk's Department to function effectively.

The top 3 administrators of the department are facing charges of conspiracy and corruption, while some of their own employees were whistle blowers. The Texas Rangers used at least five employees who gave sworn affidavits that were used to gain a search warrant to raid the courthouse. The defendants immediately asked the court to give them the names of the whistle blowers.

The judge refused to release the names. An informer county source has told the Collin County Observer of three of the whistle blowers: two of those employees asked the county to and received a transfer to other departments where they do not fear retribution. A third person was laid off when the commissioners' court cut the 2011 staffing budget by three people. The whistle-blower brought an attorney to the courthouse to ask the District Clerk if she really wanted to be sued for laying off someone who is allowed protection as a whistle-blower. The whistle-blower got her job back.

Source have told The Observer of a department that has low morale and lack of leadership. The District Clerk's top leaders are working under the shadow of a real possibility of being sent to prison. Some employees in the department are supporters of Crigger, some support Kunkle, and some have antipathy to both of them.

The Observer spoke to several leading Republicans who told us that the party is not in agreement that Patricia Crigger should step down, but the majority of individual Republicans we spoke to expressed a desire for Crigger to resign for the good of the taxpayers and the party.

But Crigger, like the title character in the fable about the Emperor's New Clothes, she has been unable to see herself, while that our citizens can see through her arrogance.

Bill

--------------------------------
Notes:

The 2010, 3rd Quarter Audit of the District Clerk

The 2010, 4th Quarter Audit of the District Clerk