The Collin County Observer™

This is part of 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 the Collin County Observer, please email your request to bill@baumbach.org.

Barnett Walker, 50, is a candidate for the bench of Collin County Court at Law #2. A seasoned criminal attorney, for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as a decorated military veteran, Walker believes he is the best candidate for judge.

Walker, a Texas native, and a Prosper resident. His wife Jackie, have two children, Barnett (27), and Nicole (26). He is a member of Prestonwood North Baptist Church, the VFW and American Legion. He is active and spends much of his time giving back to the community as a Volunteer for the Special Olympics, Feed the Homeless Shelter, Christian Children’s fund, and the Salvation Army.

A committed Republican, he is involved in many local Republican organizations including the Lincoln Society, Collin County Golden Corridor Republican Women, Collin County Conservative Republicans, and the Collin County Republican Men’s Club, and a delegate for the upcoming Republican convention.

Walker graduated from Carter High School in Dallas Texas. At the young age of 17, he enlisted in the United States Air Force. He ultimately earned the rank of Senior Master Sergeant, which Congress limits to the top 3% of the armed forces. He served in 12 different countries and is a Gulf War Veteran. He supervised 80 personnel and a $100 million nuclear detonation detection facility, led troops in the Gulf War, was named Senior Non-Commissioned Officer of the Year (selected from 5000), and was decorated 47 times upon his retirement.

During his service, Walker graduated Summa Cum Laude, from Columbia College. He obtained his law degree from Southern Methodist University. He was a member of the moot court team that won the national championship and Walker was named “Best Oral Advocate” which is given to the best Advocate among all of the participants.
After graduating from law school, Walker began his legal career as a prosecutor for the Collin County District Attorney’s Office. While there, he served as chief prosecutor for two courts. He obtained convictions on some of the most challenging and high-profile cases in the office, including Albert Sterling, the Allen resident who hired a hit-man to kill his eight-month pregnant wife and unborn child. He has also worked closely with victims, their families, and law enforcement to incarcerate dangerous sexual predators.

Walker is now in private practice and serves as a criminal defense attorney. As a defense attorney, he has earned a reputation for being a strident advocate to protect the rights of all who are before the court system He has waived his fee for some of his most indigent clients.

In addition to his legal practice, Walker serves as the Mental Health Hearing Judge

Walker has earned the trust of both prosecutors and the private bar. He has been the lead attorney in over 100 criminal cases in Collin County. This, asserts Walker,is a testament to his qualification for this bench. Collin County Courts at Law are over 90% devoted to criminal law. The County Courts of Law are where Walker has and continues to actively litigate criminal cases; and he is intimately familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of these courts. Of all of the candidates, he is the attorney of record on the most criminal cases filed in Collin County. He is familiar with the criminal justice system from top to bottom – from the police stations to the court rooms.

Walker plans to use his knowledge and expertise to provide exceptional service and bring cost savings to the Collin County citizens. Walker states that one way he can save the taxpayers of Collin County money by streamlining the process for admonishing non English speaking defendants.

Walker is proud to have earned the endorsements of many members of the private and defense attorneys as well as the Collin County Conservative Republicans, the Collin County Deputies Association, Frisco Police Association, Plano Police Association, Coalition for Better Government, and Tea Part Approved. The diversity of his endorsements demonstrate, according to Walker, the regard in which he is held and the confidence that citizens have in him as to his ability to be impartial and apply the law to all equally. Walker states that he will apply the law to the facts presented to him. He will not legislate from the bench and will thoughtfully consider and listen to all of the parties to arrive at a fair verdict.

Barnett Walker asks for your vote and believes that he is most qualified for the County Court at Law #2 because he:

• has the most experience practicing criminal law in Collin County;
• has continually practiced in the Collin County Courts at Law and is intimately familiar with criminal law and procedure;
• is currently a mental health judge in the Collin County Courts at Law.
• is a decorated USAF veteran with experience managing a $100 million operation;
• has the endorsements of the Collin County Deputies Association, the Plano Police Association, and the Collin County Conservative Republicans as well as defense attorneys; and
• has ideas and concrete plans to save the citizens of Collin County tax dollars by improving the efficiency of the courts.

For more information about Barnett Walker and his candidacy for CCL#2, please see his website at http://walkerforjudge.com/index.html .

This is part of 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 the Collin County Observer, please email your request to bill@baumbach.org.

Sharon Ramage, 51, met with me so that I could learn about her and her candidacy. She has been married to her husband, Todd for over twelve years and together they have twin daughters, Sarah and Rachel, who are ten years of age. A resident of Frisco, Texas, she and her family are parishioners at St. Jude’s Catholic Church where she is a Sunday School teacher.

Ramage graduated in 1988, from the University of Texas – Arlington with a Bachelor’s degree in Social Work. She earned her law degree from Baylor School of Law, was on the Law Review Editorial Board, and graduated with high honors in 1992. She has been a licensed attorney in the State of Texas for almost 20 years.

Ramage launched her legal career as a Tarrant County Prosecutor for 5 years where she prosecuted and tried thousands of criminal cases including misdemeanor and felony crimes. For two of those years, Sharon worked in the Crimes Against Children Division where she prosecuted child homicides and sex crimes against minors.

She has been in private practice for 15 years where she practiced in the areas of criminal defense, civil law, and family law. Currently, she provides representation in criminal appellate matters and family law.

Sharon has served as lead counsel in over 100 jury trials and in countless bench trials, contested hearings, and appeals. Most importantly, states Ramage, is her position, which she has held since 2003, as a Special Education Hearing Officer for the State of Texas, presiding as a judge over complex, contested hearings involving public schools and the education of children with disabilities. She is a frequently requested speaker and author at the National Administrative Law Judge conferences on hearing management and evidence.

She has served as a mediator, and this, Ramage believes, is another qualification that contributed to her ability to be a good listener and permits her to be objective when rendering decisions as a judge.

As the owner of an office building, Ramage stated that she also has experience in running a business. She owns an office building and is the president of the association of owners of the office park where her building is located. She understands the day to day needs of effectively and efficiently maintaining the operation of a business. Sharon believes she can apply this experience in managing the day to day operations of the court.

She will follow the law as written and as set forth by the Texas Legislature and the Constitution. Ramage believes it is not the job of a judge to legislate from the bench. She wants each and every citizen to have the opportunity to be heard with respect and objectivity.

Ramage is proud of her endorsements from a range of supporters, including the Texas Home School Association PAC, local attorneys from the civil, family and criminal bar associations, and local business and community leaders.

When asked why she believes she is the best qualified among all the candidates for County Court at Law #2, Sharon finds that although all of the candidates bring some qualifications to the table, she is the best candidate because she:

- has the most experience practicing law as a licensed attorney than all of the other candidates combined;

- is an experienced judicial officer hearing and deciding cases with her 9 years of experience as an Administrative Law Judge;

- has experience in criminal and civil litigation;

- has practiced criminal law for 20 years, prosecuting and defending cases in trial, and prosecuting and defending criminal matters on appeal;

- has the greatest diversity of experience in all areas of the law that are within the jurisdiction of CCL#2; and

- has the ability to be a civil and objective listener to all sides of a controversy.

For more information about Sharon Ramage and her candidacy for CCL#2, please see her website at http://sharonramageforjudge.com/.

Sonja Hammer passed away last night after a long battle with illness.

Sonja was a "true citizen watch dog".

She fought Plano for years to open city records and meetings, and her efforts helped make the citizens better learn the issues in Plano.

Not too long ago, the Plano City "Special Recognition" was given to her by Mayor Dyer and the Plano City Council for being a "timeless champion of open and transparent municipal government".

While she was often an outspoken critic of the city council, she loved Plano. For many years, she volunteered for her city. She served on the Senior Citizens Advisory Board from 2005 - 2009, and she was a graduate of the City of Plano Citizens Academy.

She had been a long time member of the Mary Shirley McGuire Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Last year, the City Council and Mayor Dyer named her an "Outstanding Plano Citizen". In the proclamation:

PLANO
SPECIAL RECOGNITION

SONJA HAMMAR
OUTSTANDING PLANO CITIZEN

WHEREAS, Sonja Hammar has been an active member of the Pl&no community as
a volunteer, advocate, and Senior Citizens Advisory Board member, and

WHEREAS, Sonja is a champion of open and transparent municipal government, working
to improve the way information Is delivered to Plano residents, which has been an asset
in helping the City of Plano improve its communication with the citizens; and

WHEREAS, her interest in the city website has ensured the timely dispersing of City Council and Boards and Commissions agendas and minutes; and

WHEREAS, Sonja can be counted on to see the many sides of discussions involving city policies, particularly those affecting senior residents; and

WHEREAS, Sonja has been tirelessly active in supporting and promoting issues
concerning the city's senior residents; and

WHEREAS, she has worked diligently 10 insure that seniors who are not able to drive have some form of transportation to get their medical appointments end important
engagements; and

WHEREAS, Sonja's tireless work with all issues that impact Plano, especially the
elderly in our community is an inspiration t0 all who come in contact with her;

NOW, THEREFORE,I, PHIL DYER, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS, do hereby bestow Special Recognition upon Sonja Hammar for the outstanding efforts she puts forth on behalf of City of Plano issues involving our senior citizens, and I do thereby encourage all citizens t0 join me and the City Council in recognizing and honoring Sonja's work. You make City a better place

Office of the Mayor

Her ashes will be interned today (Friday) at the Restland Funeral Home in Dallas at 3:00 PM. There are no scheduled services.

She did "make the City a better place."

Bill

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