The Collin County Observer™

David Cary

After a two week trial, a jury gave David Cary 14 years in the penitentiary, effective immediately.

Cary was charged with Organization of Criminal Activity, 6 counts of Bribery, and one charge of Money Laundering in the campaign of Suzanne Wooten.

The jury convicted him of all charges, and each with 14 years in Huntsville.

Suzanne Wooten was an elected 380th District Judge in Collin County in 2008. Two years ago, Wooten was convicted of Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity, 6 counts of Bribery, Money Laundering, and Tampering with a Government Record to Defraud.

Suzanne Wooten	Stephen Spencer	Stacy Cary	David Cary

All four defendants were named in the case: Suzanne Wooten, James Stephen Spencer, Stacy Cary, and David Cary. The State proved that the judge took $150,000 from the Cary's. Stacy Cary provided and sent the $150,000 to Stephen Spencer for the Wooten campaign.

David Cary has been involved in a million dollar divorce case that began in 2003 (and still is being litigated). Cary has been driven to remove Judge Charles Sandoval, who presided over his mega divorce saga in the 380th District Court.

In 2008, Suzanne Wooten defeated Sandoval in the Republican primary using mostly money that was given by the Carys' to Spencer.

Stephen Spencer was Suzanne Wootens consultant and the campaign manager. He pled guilty to Criminal Organization, one Bribery charge, and Money Laundering. He was given, in a plea bargain, 100 days in county jail, a $10,000 fine, and 10 years probation including $83,000 in court costs.

Stacy Cary was found guilty by a jury, and sentenced by the judge 30 days in the county jail, a $10,000 fine and 10 years of probation. Stacy is appealing her case.

Suzanne Wooten's portrait in the courthouse

David Cary was sentenced by a jury. Lawson Pedigo, Cary's attorney, asked the jury to give probation - Cary had never been convicted of any crime.

The State of Texas Assistant Attorney General, Harry White, asked the jury to sentence Cary to "11 years or more than you think". White told the jury that Cary would not be capable for meeting the requirements of probation. He told the jury that Cary had not paid his $415,000 assessment ordered by a court in his divorce case, and that Cary was hiding his income from the court. (Cary was getting his salary as cash, not a check.)

In less than an hour and a half, the jury returned with a sentence of 14 years in the penitentiary on each of the six charges, running concurrent.

The Dallas Visiting Judge John Nelms told Cary that since his sentence is more than 10 years, he was unable to gain an appeal bond. According to an article on the Dallas Morning News, Cary will have to serve at least 1/3 of his term before given parole.

Suzanne Wooten was found guilty on all charges by a jury. Wooten worked out a sentence deal with the Assistant Attorney General, Harry White. She was given only probation for 10 years, a $10,000 fine, and community service. Wooten also was removed from office and then suspended by the Texas Bar.

Last week, the County removed Suzanne Wooten's portrait at the courthouse.

Bill

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 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Ragland

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

....

By Lex In Limine
Attorney at Law
Guest Contributer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lex
Attorney at Law

By: Magna Carta
Attorney at Law

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

Kristy Littrell Duty

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

Deric Walpole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magna Carta
Attorney at Law

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

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

John M. Helms, Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patricia Crigger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca Lettrell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sherry Bell

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

THE JURY WAS EXCUSED AT THE REQUEST OF JOHN HARDIN

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

AND THE JURY IS BACK

Hannah Kunkle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lex In Limine
Attorney at Law

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

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

Judge John Nelms

Voir dire took all morning.

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

59 people lined up to talk to the judge.

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

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

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

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

I'll be there.

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cast:

Judge:

• Judge John Nelms, a retired judge from Dallas County

For the State:

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

Hannah Kunkle

For the Defense:

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

The Charges

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

The Trial - Day One:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The voir dire will continue late tomorrow.

I will be back there too.

Bill

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

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

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

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

TERRI GREEN

for

380TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

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

Your Support

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

So why should you vote for me?

Family

• Proud mother of two “grown” boys

Professional

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

Experienced

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

Honors and Awards

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

Involved/Community Leader

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

THE TEXAS LAWYER’S CREED

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

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

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

Terri Green
Candidate
380th Judicial District Court

Bill

Suzanne Wooten accepted a plea bargain on punishment.

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

Bill

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

UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plans:

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suzanne Wooten

Hannah Kunkle	Patricia Crigger	Rebecca Littrell	Sherry Bell

THE ACCUSED

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

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

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

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

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

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

The trials begin on Monday at 9:00 AM.

Bill

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

Innocence Lost
Posted on November 25, 2011 by Hunter Biederman

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

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

- Nationally there have been 280 DNA exonerations.

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

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

A Lack of Substantial Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Lack of Faith in the Prosecutors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Overtones

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

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

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

In The End . . .

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

Hunter Biederman

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

Suzanne Wooten

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

The jury found Suzanne Wooten guilty of:

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

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

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

Charge 9: guilty of fraudulent ethics reports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHARGE OF THE COURT

MEMBERS OF THE JURY:

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

The jury has the option of granting Suzanne Wooten probation.

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

UPDATE 9:00 PM

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

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

Bill

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

Bill

The Texas House Districts

The Federal Court Proposed Plan

The 2011 enacted plan

The current plan prior to 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Texas Legislature House Districts:

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

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

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

The maps to the right show:

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

The Texas Legislature Senate Districts:

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

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

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

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

The Texas Senate Districts

The Federal Court Proposed Plan

The 2011 enacted plan

The current plan prior to 2011

Bill

Suzanne Wooten

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

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

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

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

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

Stacy Cary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's up to the jury to decide.

Bill

Jerry Madden has posted his statement on his campaign website:

Message From State Representative Jerry Madden

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jerry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

James Steven Spencer

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

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

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

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

Stacy Cary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suzanne Wooten

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

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

The court will reconvene at 8:30 Monday morning.

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

Suzanne Wooten

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

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

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

James Steven Spencer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

Mr. Spencer had arrived.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

Note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 10 Constitutional Amendments proposed are:

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

Collin County:

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

Texas statewide:

• For: 82.86%
• Against: 17.13%

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

Collin County:

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

Texas statewide:

• For: 51.43%
• Against: 48.56%

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

Collin County:

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

Texas statewide:

• For: 54.45%
• Against: 45.54%

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

Collin County:

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

Texas statewide:

• For: 40.20%
• Against: 59.79%

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

Collin County:

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

Texas statewide:

• For: 57.93%
• Against: 42.06%

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

Collin County:

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

Texas statewide:

• For: 51.44%
• Against: 48.55%

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

Collin County:

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

Texas statewide:

• For: 48.24%
• Against: 51.75%

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

Collin County:

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

Texas statewide:

• For: 46.94%
• b>Against: 53.05%

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

Collin County:

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

Texas statewide:

• For: 57.18%
• Against: 42.81%

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

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

Texas statewide:

• For: 55.91%
• Against: 44.08%

Bill

The Observer is blogging outside the courtroom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

Updating the afternoon events:

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

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

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

That was a joke!

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

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

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

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

Bill

The Observer will be watching:

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

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

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

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

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

Readers, we will keep you informed.

Bill

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

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

The Map (maybe)

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

Jon Cole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff Leach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry Madden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was this incident the whole story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

The 10 Constitutional Amendments proposed are:

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

Some explanations and arguments for the amendments are:

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

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

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

Early voting days and hours:

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

Early voting polling places:

Temporary Early Voting Polling Locations

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, it is a pleasure serving you.

Best,

Joe

Bill

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

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

Ray Eckenrode

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

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

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

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

Chris Hill

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

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

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

Bill

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

The Map (maybe)

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

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

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

Scott Sanford

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

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

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

The Scott Sanford campaign web site

Bracy Wilson

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

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

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

The Bracy Wilson campaign web site

Bill

Judge Wooten's Curious Subpoena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

• Wooten's subpoena deuces tecum

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

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

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

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

A few eye-opening Collin County facts:

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

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

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

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

Speaker Panel:

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

Lewis wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

The vote was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

Judge Suzanne Wooten	DA Greg Willis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Russell then denied the Wooten motion.

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

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

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

John

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

Motions and papers about the Wooten case:

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

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

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

MOTION TO QUASH, Peter Schulte - September 15, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

The Commissioners Court appointed:

James McCarley

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

The Texas Local Government Code gives the Civil Service Commission:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

ANGELA TUCKER

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

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

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

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

SHARON RAMAGE

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

BOB DRY

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

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

www.dryforjudge.com

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

Link to the Frisco DWI blog.....

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

The Observer adds....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Candidates are actively campaigning for this bench:

BARNETT WALKER

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

SHARON RAMAGE

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

Collin County Courthouse Loses Power - Judge Blows a Fuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

Sen. Shapiro sent the following email to her constituents:

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

 

New Trial Date Set in Judge Suzanne Wooten case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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

The Collin County Jail is a non-smoking facility.

Bill

The Disingenuous Mr. Willis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the pre-trial hearing on the 29th of July, Judge Jill Willis’ attorney, Mr. Michael Pezzulli, brought a motion to quash the subpoena issued to Judge Willis by Harry White.

Judge Kerry Russell was unimpressed by Mr. Pezzulli’s arguments.

To reinforce his right to have Jill Willis’ testimony, Harry White filed the State’s Brief on Judge Willis’ Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena. If White’s citations to law hold up, his motion will require Jill Willis will to give testimony. A bright young man like Harry White isn’t likely to ask questions to which he does not already know the answers.

It seems the district attorney’s new motion is a direct response to Mr. White’s State’s Brief on Judge Willis’ Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena. The same day it was filed, it emptied his office of his senior assistant district attorneys. Mr.Waddill and Mr. Skinner resigned. Perhaps Waddill and Skinner fled because the Wooten case is a cancer that has metastasized to the Office of the District Attorney. It is equally possible this was a tactical move to ensure no qualified assistant district attorneys were available to take the case to trial if Judge Russell became testy about the appointment of yet another attorney pro tem. Of course, no one will ever know why Waddill and Skinner resigned simultaneously because in the insular world of the Collin County courts ordinary folks don’t have a “need to know.”

Team Wooten appears spooked by the Attorney General’s new indictment with its two new much easier prove charges and also by White and Chandler’s Notice of Intent to Introduce Extraneous Offenses, Unadjudicated Offenses, Bad Acts and Punishment Evidence. Mr. Willis may mistakenly believe this notice only refers to Wooten’s request for the FBI investigation into the actions of John Roach and his attorneys pro tem. This same notice could also apply to any of Wooten’s co-defendants and be used as leverage for what is nearly impossible to do in the Fifth Court of Appeals at Dallas, provide strict proof of a bi-lateral agreement among the parties when bribery of a public official is charged. This almost always requires that one party of the agreement become a witness for the prosecution.

Given the obvious conflict of interest, Mr. Willis’ actions could cause the citizens of Collin County to lose faith in the integrity of its district attorney.

John

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

Notes:

State's Brief on Judge Willis' Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena, Harry E. White, August 5, 2011

"This matter has been mired in politics, speculation, and allegations of conflicts of interest since its inception. Regardless of the existence of actual conflicts of interest, this prosecution is cloaked in the appearance of impropriety and should not continue on its present course."
District Attorney Greg Willis

The previous DA was recused, but Willis files a motion in Wooten case.

Judge Suzanne Wooten	DA Greg Willis

Today, District Attorney Greg Willis has filed a motion in Judge Suzanne Wooten’s bribery case. Willis is asking the judge to remove the special prosecutors, Assistant Texas Attorneys General Harry White and Brian Chandler.

Judge Suzanne Wooten has been indicted on nine charges, including bribery and money laundering. Former DA John Roach began the investigation in 2008 before she took the bench in the 380th District Court. For two years, Roach office’s and two Assistant Attorneys General presented the case to four different grand juries -- a grand jury indicted Wooten and 3 other defendants in October, 2010. Roach then recused himself and asked Judge Mark Rusch to appoint the Texas General Attorney to act as a special prosecutor.

Willis wrote, “The citizens of Collin County deserve to have an impartial and disinterested attorney appointed by this Court to assess and determine how this prosecution should move forward. To that end, the undersigned District Attorney, also requests permission to recuse himself and requests that this Court appoint an impartial and disinterested attorney pro tem…”

Willis argues that White and Chandler may find themselves defending themselves.

Willis wrote, “This matter has been mired in politics, speculation, and allegations of conflicts of interest since its inception. Regardless of the existence of actual conflicts of interest, this prosecution is cloaked in the appearance of impropriety and should not continue on its present course.”

Wooten’s attorney has charged that an FBI report refers to, “Defendant Wooten as ''the victim," named members of the Collin County District Attorney's Office as targets and subjects, and confirmed that the FBI questioned White and Chandler regarding their involvement in the investigation and prosecution of Defendant Wooten. Willis then admits that, “The undersigned District Attorney does not know the status of the FBI investigation.”

Since John Roach recused himself, Willis argues that he is the current elected County Criminal Attorney and he is not disqualified to prosecute the case. Willis has stated that, he too, will recuse himself, but he still believes that he can require the judge to terminate the special prosecutors, and re-appoint a new one. “A prosecutor should be independent, unbiased, without conflicts of interest, and not witnesses to any of the concerns presented to the grand jury.”

Willis states that, “In view of his decision to voluntarily recuse himself, the District Attorney further moves the court to appoint an impartial and disinterested attorney pro tem pursuant Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 2.07. Upon granting the recusal, the trial court may appoint any competent attorney" to perform the duties of the district attorney,”

Willis ends his arguments slamming the previous DA, “The citizens of Collin County must trust in the integrity of countywide elections, and also in the integrity of those who investigate and prosecute allegations of public corruption in the same manner. The proximity of the Texas Attorney General 's Office and that of the former Collin County Criminal District Attorney to the allegations which are at the heart of the indictment, and to the related federal investigations into the same, have placed that trust in jeopardy.”

Wooten’s attorney ask the Attorney General be removed from the case.

Last week Peter Schulte, Judge Suzanne Wooten’s attorney, has filed a motion to remove the Attorney General from the case.

Schulte charges:

“The Attorney General's Office must be disqualified in this matter due to the
fact that they have placed themselves in the dual role of ‘attorney-witness.’.” White has told the court he will, ''Notice of State's Intent to Introduce Extraneous Offenses, Unadjudicated Offenses, Bad Acts, and Punishment Evidence." White charges that Wooten tries to, “impede the grand jury’s investigation” that she requested, “the District Judges to refuse to sign grand jury subpoena requests issued by the grand jury investigating the Defendant.”

Schulte points out that White and other Assistant Attorneys General were the only witnesses to the charge of impeding the grand jury. They cannot serve as both witness and prosecutor.

“The Attorney General's Office must be disqualified due to the fact that actual conflict exists based on violations of due process. Schulte’s charges that White has willfully and intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense.” White, failed to promptly give the defense an FBI report. At the last hearing, White told the judge he ‘forgot’ to give the report to Schulte. Harry White then gave the defense a 47 page ‘redacted’ report. The judge then told White to provide the defense a complete and redacted FBI report, “On August 1,2011, it was discovered by Defendant's Counsel when he went to the FBI office that White and Chandler intentionally withheld from Defense counsel approximately 35 additional pages from the FBI Report the Attorney General's Office had received on July 6, 2011, when they provided to Defense Counsel the redacted 48-page report on July 28, 20ll. Most of the approximate 35 pages withheld were summaries of the investigation by the FBI and correspondence with the United States Attorney's Office. In these withheld documents, the Defendant, Judge Suzanne Wooten, was listed as the "victim" with the suspects listed as John R. Roach, former District Attorney of Collin County, Texas, Gregory Davis, former First Assistant District Attorney for the CCDAO and Christopher Milner, former special crimes chief for the CCDAO. Undoubtedly, this information was exculpatory and intentionally withheld from Defense Counsel.”

And third, Schulte writes, “The Attorney General's Office must be disqualified due to the fact that actual conflict exists based on violations of due process.

“In this proceeding, there is a prosecuting agency (Attorney General's Office), represented by the same attorneys (Harry E. White and Brian Chandler), that has served in two separate and distinct roles involving the same matter: 1) as "Special Prosecutor" - assistant prosecutors of and under the direction and authority of John R. Roach, the then District Attorney of Collin County, Texas, and now 2) as "Attorney Pro Tem" pursuant to Article 2.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure after the District Attorney was disqualified in this matter."

Judge Kerry Russell visiting judge from Tyler has not scheduled a hearing on Willis’ and Schulte’s motions.

District Attorney’s Office in furor

Coincidentally? On the same day that DA Greg Willis filed the motion on the case of Judge Suzanne Wooten, several of the top Assistant District Attorneys resigned.

The Collin County Observer has been unable to confirm the names and reasons at least two of the DA managers have given their notice.

Our knowledgeable sources have told us that David Waddill, the First Assistant District Attorney and Jim Skinner, the Chief of the Special Prosecution Division have resigned.

The Observer has tried to reach Willis, Waddill and Skinner; none have returned our messages

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

[Update] Valerie Wigglesworth at the Dallas Morning News has added more information on the resignations. Wigglesworth writes,

"The top two prosecutors in the Collin County district attorney’s office resigned Monday.

"David Waddill, the first assistant district attorney, and Jim Skinner, the second assistant district attorney and chief of the special prosecution division, are headed back to private practice.

"Both joined the prosecutors’ office when District Attorney Greg Willis took over in January. Willis said Monday he was grateful for their service, adding that the pair “had been very helpful getting things established here.”

"Skinner confirmed that he was returning to private practice but declined to discuss his reasons further. Waddill could not be reached for comment.

"Both Willis and Skinner said the resignations had nothing to do with the case involving state District Judge Suzanne Wooten."[subscription may be needed to read the article at The Dallas Morning News]

Bill

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

Notes:

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

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

Who You Gonna Call When The Courts Break The Law?

The courts of Texas are allowed a certain amount of discretion in making their judgments and in formulating their own local rules of the court. However, the courts have no discretion in choosing to obey or to not obey the law.

The Collin County State District Courthouse selectively provides the benefits of Texas Labor Code 207.007 to some, but not all of those who file lawsuits under Texas Labor Code 212. In doing so the District Courthouse violates the civil rights of some of the citizens of Collin County. The violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights of even a small group of people is of concern to everyone. Once this kind of judicial abuse is tolerated, no one is immune from its effect and there is no limit to its magnitude. [Add photo 1]

Texas Labor Code 207.007(a) states in pertinent part,

“An individual claiming (unemployment insurance) benefits under this subtitle may not be charged a fee in a proceeding under this subtitle by a court or an officer of a court. A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is punishable by:

1. a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $500;
2. imprisonment for not more than six months; or
3. both a fine and imprisonment.”

In passing this law [hyperlink to entire text of law] the State of Texas took the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right to seek the redress of grievances in the courts one step further by giving the unemployed the right to obtain access to the courts free of charge. When this law was passed in 1985, the Texas Legislature effectively declared the unemployed to be “poor” for the purposes of filing lawsuits to overturn a ruling by the Texas Workforce Commission denying an individual unemployment benefits.

The law not only makes it a criminal act to charge a fee for filing a petition, it is also a crime to charge a fee for transcriptions of a court hearing or a trial; or a fee for a court record prepared for appellate review. No person claiming benefits "shall be charged fees of any kind" by an officer of the court. [hyperlink appellate Court ruling]

Who pays and who doesn’t

In reviewing the public court records of twelve of the most recent cases involving the Texas Workforce Commission and the application of Texas Labor Code 207.007, a pattern of abuse emerges. Different groups of litigants get different results.

Attorneys, in their own cases against the Texas Workforce Commission to obtain benefits, either do not pay the fee or receive a refund. In case number 416-01007-2008, lawyer Grace Soo Way Liang, paid no fee. In case number 429-01477-2010, lawyer Scott Horner paid the fee and later requested and was granted a refund.

One attorney always obtains a wavier of fees. Attorney Raul Loya includes a copy of the law with his original petition and his clients pay no fees. Those cases are 416-03541-2009 and 199-01593-2009.

Texas Labor Code 207.007 has no “catch 22” requirement that a person must request the waiver before obtaining a waiver of fees. The elements of the crime are simple, first an eligible individual asks to file their case and second a court official charges a fee. Civil litigation cover sheets are required to file lawsuits and the clerks need only to look at the 107 boxes provided to see if any are marked “Employment.”

In five other cases, attorneys had their clients’ pay the fee. It is hard to imagine that lawyers taking labor and employment cases would not know the Texas Labor Code. This is especially true of an attorney who is board certified in labor and employment law. Other than ignorance, one possible explanation is these lawyers fear judicial retaliation for failing to “go along to get along.” These five cases are 401-03809-2010, 199-01657-07, 366-01383-2009, 199-01841-2011, and 401-03340-06. One attorney, who asked not to be named, stated because Texas Labor Code 212 cases must be filed within strict time limits, “it was easier to pay the fee” rather than risk having the case dismissed because of missing a deadline caused by the “hassle” of getting a waiver. The waiver should instantaneous and without any hassle at all.

Think of it as a form of judicial euthanasia

Pro se litigants, those representing themselves, are in the final group. These individuals are asked to pay a an unlawful fee that they cannot afford and then are forced to humiliate themselves by filing affidavits of indigence in order to present their case in court.

Ms. Camilla Thornton (429-01908-2010) jumped through all the hoops created by the administrative review process of the Texas Workforce Commission in order to preserve her right to seek a judicial review of the TWC’s denial of benefits. Ms. Thornton stated when she attempted to file her complaint she was unable to afford the fee and was turned away. The clerk offered no assistance or did she suggest Ms. Thornton file an affidavit of indigence. The clerks are forbidden from offering any legal advice, which begs the question, are they also forbidden from obeying the law?

In a chance conversation with a friend, Ms. Thornton was told she could file an affidavit of inability to pay. Her affidavit was approved and she was able to file her complaint in the 429th State District Court.

Other individuals were not so fortunate. In the review case number 296-00367-08, Mr. Jay Cooper was forced to file an affidavit of indigence that was challenged by the court reporter of the 296th State District Court. Ms. Jan Dugger filed a Contest of Affidavit of Indigence and Inability to Pay Costs. A hearing was held before Judge Chris Older in which Mr. Cooper was afforded yet another opportunity to humiliate himself in a public hearing by truly proving he really was too poor to pay the criminally requested fees. Mr. Cooper prevailed in the hearing.

Others are even less fortunate. Ms. Sandra Parker (401-01641-06) filed the unnecessary affidavit of indigence only to have it denied. Ms. Parker paid the filing fees.

And most unfortunate group is individuals who could not pay the fee and who just walked away. With his or her case never filed, there are no records or proof of the crime committed against them. These unknowns may number in the hundreds and the fact they were not allowed to file their cases without paying filing fees suggests a possible motive for the for the violation of Texas Labor Code 207.007(a).

The courts simply to not want to hear these cases and violating the law is an easy way to keep them out of the courthouse because they always lose. Think of it as a form of judicial euthanasia for lawsuits not likely to survive anyway, but do we really want the courts to have this kind of power?

Of the twelve cases reviewed, only one individual seeking benefits prevailed and this was a case that never went to trial. Attorney Scott Horner’s case was withdrawn by the Texas General’s Office and was remanded back to the Texas Workforce Commission were it was most likely decided in Mr. Horner’s favor.

Almost all cases brought by individuals (with or without legal representation) seeking to overturn a final decision made by the TWC are lost. The reasons vary. First of all the courts are required to provide the ruling of the TWC with a “presumption of validity.” Another reason is some judges possibly look at cases from the point of view of estimating who has the most resources to prevail on appeal.

Filing a lawsuit is a zero sum game and no matter how fair a judge may be, there is always a loser, usually a sore loser at that. Given the fact a judge is going to be criticized fifty percent of the time, the only meaningful benchmark to judicial performance is how many times is a judge overturned on appeal.

The Office of the Texas Attorney General, representing the Texas Workforce Commission, holds a blank check provided by the taxpayers and this gives the lazy judge a clue as to who has the most resources to prevail on appeal.

Ignorance of the law

The District Court may claim ignorance of the law, but the fact some individuals obtained waivers and others did not demonstrates a pattern of abuse. There is little doubt entry-level clerks charging and collecting filing fees don’t know the law. If they did, why would they risk a conviction and six months in jail or even risk the minimum $50 dollar fine? These clerks have little more than on the job training and know only what their superiors want them to know. In fact, the new clerks have large signs posted on their bulletproof windows, “In Training.”

The administrative leadership of the courthouse is legally obligated to properly train, supervise and control its employees to prevent the violation of the constitutional rights of those seeking access to the court.

In 1985 the Texas Legislature passed a law to give a small break to a small group of litigants. The Texas Legislature has a reasonable expectation that the courts will enforce the laws they pass.

So whom do you call when the courts break the law and criminally deny access to the courts based on judicial expedience?

John

The multiple count felony case against Suzanne Wooten, Judge of the 380th State District Court in Collin County, was first set to go to trial on the 20th of June and then moved to the 20th of August. Judge Wooten’s legal team filed a motion for a speedy trial and the trial date was moved to the 15th of August. Now the case has completely fallen off Collin County’s judicial radar. Judge Kerry Russell, the visiting judge from Tyler hearing the Wooten matter, speculated the trial might not begin until “perhaps 2012” due to the filing of a new indictment with two new charges and the surprise introduction of a Federal Bureau of Investigation report.

During Wooten’s pre-trial conference hearing held on the 29th of July, it was unclear if any of the many trial dates were ever more than tentative. However, one thing was made perfectly clear, Judge Wooten’s desire to obtain an acquittal on all charges before her 2012 re-election bid was crushed by the new indictment and by a last minute discovery release made by Harry White, the special prosecutor from the Office of the Texas Attorney General.

The day before July’s pre-trial conference, prosecutor Harry White provided Wooten’s defense team of Peter Schulte and Toby Shook with a 48-page FBI report he planned to use as potential evidence. This report was in Mr. White’s possession since the 6th of July. Mr. White denied the report was held back for the purpose of delaying the trial, but claimed he was too busy to send it to Wooten’s lawyers until the day before the pre-trial conference. The report was the result of a complaint made by Wooten and Schulte to the FBI in April 2010. The report most likely concerned the actions of former District Attorney John R. Roach and his nearly non-stop grand jury proceedings against Judge Wooten since her election in 2008.

The FBI report was heavily redacted and Mr. White volunteered some of the redactions were made by the Attorney General’s office. On hearing this, Judge Russell ordered the FBI report be given to Wooten’s lawyers just as the Attorney General received it. In discussing the report both sides speculated it might result in Mr. White and/ or Mr. Schulte being called to testify. Judge Russell stated he “hoped that would not happen.” Such an action could result in Schulte and White being removed from the case and cause further delay.

Wooten’s attorney, Peter Schulte, said he was “ready for trial on the original indictment” and wished to go to trial on the 15th of August, but would not be able to do so on the new indictment. Because the new indictment was timely filed, Judge Russell asked Schulte to provide a citation to law as to why the case shouldn’t go to trial under the new indictment. Schulte had nothing to cite. Judge Russell acknowledged Mr. Schulte’s frustration with the new indictment and discovery being made so late in the process and then dismissed the old indictment and ordered all records transferred into the new case number. Mr. Schulte said due the new developments in the case and also because of his own trial date conflicts, he would not be ready go forward until late October. Judge Russell ordered all attorneys to provide him with their trial schedules making it seem he would personally find a date that works for everyone. Judge Russell also ordered there be no new discovery “unless it was for a very good reason.”

The lengthy hearing was broken into morning and afternoon sessions and was sparsely attended by the public. Non-party observers included two Wooten supporters seated with her; a staff reporter from the Dallas Morning News who attended the morning session; Mr. David Waddill, Collin County’s First Assistant District Attorney, and seated in the back of the courtroom as was Mr. Michael P. Gibson. Dallas attorney Mike Gibson is one the top white-collar criminal defense attorneys in America and outside the courtroom during the lunch break he was surrounded like a rock star by the lawyers in the case. It is unknown if Mr. Gibson has or will have any connection with case against Wooten or her co-defendants David and Stacy Cary, and James Stephen Spencer.

Harry White stated he was “shocked to learn that the deliberations of the grand jury had been secretly recorded.” White’s comment was without context and seemingly came straight out of the blue. Judge Russell stated he “was not from around here, but back home in Smith County, grand jury deliberations were absolutely privileged.” From the back of the courtroom Mr. Waddill spoke to the practices of the Collin County District Attorney’s office back in 2008, stating he did not believe there were any audio recordings, but he was not in the DA’s office at the time of the several Wooten grand jury hearings. While there was a court reporter present during the hearings, the consensus of opinion was there were no audio recordings.

After establishing the non-existence of audio recordings, Mr. White’s faux ‘shock’ seamlessly set the stage for an extensive debate over grand jury witness summaries that had or had not been provided to Wooten’s lawyers.

Mr. Schulte asked if an auditor from the Office of the Attorney General, Kyle Swihart, had given grand jury testimony and if so why wasn’t he given a summary of his testimony. Harry White stated Swihart had testified, but it was the Attorney General’s policy to not give testimony summaries of their own employees to defense attorneys. White further stated no court reporter was present when Kyle Swihart testified. Not deterred by this information, Judge Russell ordered Mr. White to provide a summary of Swihart’s testimony to Wooten’s lawyers.

David and Stacy Cary’s attorney, Barry Keith Gore, filed a motion to withdraw representation. Stacy Cary’s new lawyer will be Heather Barbieri of Plano. However, David Cary had no new attorney and Judge Russell would not grant Gore’s motion to withdraw until Mr. Cary has representation and all of the case files were transferred to the new attorney.

Even if withdrawing from the case wasn’t Mr. Gore’s idea, it is no small wonder Mr. Gore would be happy walk away as he may be a little too close to the fire that underlies the case against Wooten and her co-defendants. Last year Keith Gore’s primary campaign for the right to hold the gavel in the 296th State District Court was in part funded by David Cary and Gore’s campaign consultant was none other than James Stephen Spencer.

Wooten’s numerous supporters claim the case is nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt. Wooten successfully ran and won the first ever-Republican primary challenge against a sitting State District Judge in Collin County. The defeat of District Attorney John Roach’s long time friend, Judge Charles Sandoval, is said to have motivated the six or more grand jury investigations against Judge Wooten.

If former District Attorney John Roach is as vengeful as detractors claim, then having the same cast of characters mount the second only Republican primary challenge against his own son, Judge John Roach, Jr., could only add fuel to his alleged fury over the defeat of Judge Sandoval. Roach’s son won the March primary contest by less than five points over Gore. Judge Wooten, the Cary’s and James Stephen Spencer were finally indicted six months later.

The most bizarre event of the hearing took place when an attorney for Judge Jill Willis, the wife of Collin County’s current District Attorney, requested a ruling on a motion to quash a subpoena issued to Judge Willis. The subpoena requested testimony from Willis regarding a closed door meeting with a dozen senior Collin County judges sometime before September 2009. When informed that no record of the meeting was made, Judge Russell stated the idea of a closed-door meeting between judges with no record being made of it was “foreign” to him. Other judges, Rusch and Roach, Jr., had cooperated with Mr. White, but Judge Willis has refused to speak with him. Judge Willis’ attorney, Mr. Michael Pezzulli is an expert on attorney-client privilege and has co-authored a book on the subject for the American Bar Association. Pezzulli argued the subpoena for Judge Willis’ testimony should be denied on the grounds that an attorney-client privilege existed during the meeting of the judges. Judge Russell seemed baffled by Mr. Pezzulli’s claim that attorney-client privilege would exist in a meeting with other judges. When he asked for some citation to statutes or case law in support of the motion to quash the subpoena, Mr. Pezzulli was stumped for an answer. Harry White opposed the motion to quash and stated, “We believe there is a personal relationship between Wooten and Willis.” Judge Russell took the motion to quash under review and made no ruling on it.

No speedy trial for Judge Suzanne Wooten means no speedy relief from the burden this case has created for the taxpayers. On October 18, 2010, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct suspended Wooten with pay and she has collected $12,000 dollars a month for the past ten months for staying home.

If denied the opportunity to clear her name prior to March 2012, it is unlikely any Collin County Republican would challenge Judge Wooten in a primary race for fear of looking like a vulture. However, she would likely draw a Democratic challenger on the chance she might be convicted and removed from the bench between the primary and general election resulting in the Democratic candidate being elected by default in November 2012.

John

I am thrilled to introduce our readers to John Pitchford. John will be joining the Collin County Observer as a writer.

John is a military retiree and a Plano small business owner. While John and I do not necessarily politicly agree on many issues, we do share a passion for good government. John has been very knowledgeable of Collin County justice, and has been a keen observer who is able to write with insight. I know John will add an intelligent perspective that we hope our readers will be informed and intrigued.

BIll

Yesterday, the Texas Eduction Agency (TEA) released it's 2011 Accountability Reports.

Last year, six ISDs were rated "Exemplary", but this year only Frisco ISD and Lovejoy ISD were able to maintain their top-ranked rating.

Allen ISD, Celina ISD, Melissa ISD and Prosper had their status lowered from Exemplary to "Recognized". Six other districts were rated Recognized two years in a row, including, Anna ISD, Blue Ridge ISD, Farmersville ISD, McKinney ISD, Plano ISD and Princeton ISD.

The Community ISD and Wylie ISD were lowered from Recognized to "Academically Acceptable".

(Data from The TEA and tax rates from the Collin County Appraisal District.)

Accountability

Every two years, the legislature plays a ping pong game of education with complaints from public critics and school districts.

Two years ago the school districts were upset with their low 2008 rankings. In the past several years, many school principles and administrators have lost their jobs over the state's published performance statistics. Cities and chambers of commerce are acutely aware of the effects of low school ratings and property values.

For the 2009 ratings, the TEA used a method called the "Texas Projection Measure" (TPM). Using this model, in many cases while the students failed the TAKS tests at a greater rate, the schools gained higher ratings. By giving less weight to the tests, the TPM used predictions that the students would do better in the future.

In April this year, TEA Commissioner Robert Scott ended the TPM and instituted the "Accountability" system, resulting in the 2011 ratings. The 2011 ratings on average were lower than the 2008 average, before TPM was used.

The criticism leveled against the TEA as a result of the 2009 ratings inspired the creation of the TPM to inflate the schools ratings. Critics then demanded that the TEA change the rating system so it grades the actual current performance of all schools.

Now many Texas school districts are complaining that they are being punished with lower ratings. They say the new system gives greater weight to improvement in the lowest groups that are performing the worst.

The Accountability System identifies groups, such as ethnic groups and economically-disadvantaged students. The report then gives a score on how each of the groups improved in performance in each subject.

The Dallas Morning News reported that Commissioner Robert Scott said, “There will no longer be any allegations that we are pumping up the numbers...the numbers are real this year.”

Wylie ISD in the pits

The Wylie ISD has the lowest rating of the Collin County school districts. The Grady Burnett Junior High School in the Wylie ISD was the only public school in Collin County rated as "Academically Unacceptable", the lowest given rank.

A close look at Grady Burnett Junior High School shows that minorities and poorer students are doing much worse than white, middle-class kids. But all students, including whites, had worse scores than last year. The school's student performance scores in all groups declined in Reading and Writing. All students improved in Social Studies.

But African Americans and economically disadvantage students dramatically declined in performance of Math and Science. Because of those declines in scores Grady Burnett was rated Academically Unacceptable.

The Wylie ISD had 9 schools rated Exemplary, 8 Recognized, and one rated Academically Acceptable in 2010.

In 2011, the Wylie ISD only had 2 schools rated Exemplary, 15 Recognized, 1 Academically Acceptable, and 1 rated Academically Unacceptable.

Taxes and performance

Schools throughout Texas have been impacted by lower revenues. In 2006, the legislature passed a major rollback of property taxes and limited a school districts' ability to raise higher taxes. Since then, the legislature has provided less and less state tax money for schools. All school districts are in a financial pinch, and they claim that the Accountability Method requires the districts to spend more on the most expensive student groups who need the most improvement.

Property in high valuation districts like Frisco and Lovejoy have been able to maintain an Exemplary rating while keeping property tax rates below the county's average.

However even most of Collin County's districts with more modest property values have been able to provide their citizens' a school rated recognized. For example, Farmersville, not a wealthy community, has been been able to keep a Recognized district and also keep the districts' tax rate ($1.31/$100 valuation) as the lowest in the county.

Plano ISD, which has the second lowest property tax rate in Collin County, has kept the Recognized rating the same as in the previous year. The Dallas Morning News' Plano Blog, reports that although the district is rated Recognized, it has lost from 28 to less than 10 campuses rated Exemplary to Recognized, and that 18 schools have been lower rated as Academically Acceptable from Recognized. "There doesn't appear to be any huge cause of concern," Jim Hirsch, Plano ISD's associate superintendent for academic and technology services said. "We're pleased in general our students continue to perform well."

But in districts with the highest tax rates, three of four have had their Accountability Rates lowered.

Even these highest tax rate districts seem to be giving their children less than the best educational performance. Blue Ridge ISD, which has the county's highest tax rates, has only been able to maintain a Recognized rating. Melissa, Prosper and Celina are high tax districts which have been lowered from Exemplary to Recognized. And Wylie ISD, with the second highest tax rate in Collin County, was reduced to Academically Acceptable, the lowest education rating in the county.

Bill

--------------------------------------
NOTES:
TEA 2011 report on Burnett JR, HS in Wylie

The TEA Accounting Manual, 2010

TEA 2011 Accountability Reports

Collin County Appraisal District table of Tax 2010 rates, and exemptions

Ratings for Texas schools plunge with elimination of controversial rule , The Dallas Morning News, July 29, 2011

Today, Patricia Crigger, Rebecca Littrell, Sherry Bell and Hannah Kunkle appeared at a hearing heard by visiting Judge Nelms to hear motions.

Attorney Robert Hinton John Hardin who is representing Hannah Kunkle, offered a motion to dismiss Kunkle's indictment, and challenged the Special Prosecutor, John Helms, to seek Kunkle's indictment and prosecution.

Robert Hinton John Hardin gave several spirited oral arguments. Hinton Hardin told the judge that this is a, "political case... who believes that in a perfect world, this case would go away". Nelms looked surprised and bemused at that comment. He said that his decision requires evidence and he's not hearing any "facts". HintonHardin said that this case has been tainted by John Roach's District Attorney's office. He described the DA's office as having "dirty laundry". Hinton Hardin implies that most of the decisions in this case are not in the file. The judge replied that, "you say you know what's been done [behind closed doors], you say they know, but I do not know it." Judge Nelms repeated that Robert Hinton John Hardin must provide evidence.

HintonHardin also argued that Special Prosecutor Helms only had a charter to investigate and seek prosecution for the original 6 district clerks employees. Hinton Hardin also asked the judge to rule that when the special prosecutor dismissed the previous indictments, he had no further authority. Judge Nelms ruled against Kunkle's motions.

HintonHardin asked the court for severance, requesting that Hannah Kunkle be given a separate trial, and not tried with the other three accused district clerk employee's.

However, Crigger, Littrell, and Bell's attorneys told the judge that they wanted to be tried together. Walker Barnett, Bell's attorney, told the judge that they understand Kunkle did want severance but that he would not oppose the motion to server the trial from Kunkle.

HintonHardin argued that combining Kunkle with the other three defendants could create a trial in which the other defendants could, "create an antagonistic situation". Hinton Hardin said that the trial could be, "a 'cluster'.... that we don't want to be in at the court, throwing rocks at each other". Hinton Hardin portrayed a situation where the three District Clerk defendants could claim that they only followed Kunkle's policies, and that he might show, that after her retirement, Kunkle was no longer in daily operations and delegated her office to the other defendants.

The judge stated that he was still inclined to consolidate the defendants for economy, and that the defense has the burden to provide evidence to support the motion. He told Hinton Hardin that he had not "seen any facts" for the severance, but he has giveRobert Hinton John Hardin until October to submit a motion.

Walker Barnett asked for more time to prepare for trial because he has only been hired by Bell. An associate of attorney Deric Walpole, representing Rebecca Littrell, told the court that Walpole is in San Angelo defending Warren Jeffs the Eldorado sect leader charged with bigamy and child sexual abuse. He told the judge that trial will likely go for many weeks.

Judge Nelms then re-set the trial for November 28, 2011.

(Patricia Crigger will likely remain in his office for more than two years after being both elected and indicted.)

Bill

-----------------------------------
Errata

I apologize to all concerned for the confusion between Robert Hinton and John Hardin.

Bill

NBC KXAS - Planned Parenthood Attacked With Molotov Cocktail
By Greg Janda, KXAS- NBC TV
Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011, Updated 5:25 PM CDT

McKinney fire officials say an overnight blaze at a Planned Parenthood clinic was started by a "Molotov cocktail."

The health center on Eldorado Parkway was attacked Tuesday night around 10 p.m. Firefighters arrived to extinguish the fire and discovered a wine bottle filled with diesel fuel and a rag for a lighter.

Officials say the fire did damage to the exterior of the building, but did not penetrate the building. Investigation into the attack is still ongoing.

The clinic opened in 2008 and has been the site of multiple protests. This is the first serious attack at the location.

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

CBS KRLD - Molotov Cocktail Hurled Through McKinney Planned Parenthood
By Matt Goodman, CBSDFW.COM
July 27, 2011 4:31 PM

MCKINNEY (CBSDFW.COM) – Someone hurled a glass bottle topped with a flaming rag and filled with diesel fuel through the front door of the McKinney Planned Parenthood offices just before 10 p.m. Tuesday, a spokeswoman said.

The attack left shards of glass littered in front of the office at 1720 Eldorado Parkway and charred the metal door, but Planned Parenthood staffers hurriedly cleaned the mess and still saw patients Wednesday.

“Since we’re seeing patients today and trying to do repair and cleanup as fast as possible, you may not get an idea of the damage done if you go by there today,” said Holly Morgan, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of North Texas.

The Molotov cocktail failed to make it into the actual clinic and no staffers or patients were there, Morgan said.

Though the McKinney location has been the center of controversy in the area since it opened in 2008, Morgan said the attack was unprecedented – none of the 28 north Texas locations have suffered something like this.

And though the McKinney Police Department still has not identified a motive, Morgan said the arson is even more upsetting because the targeted location does not offer abortion services.

“It’s really unfortunate because that site only provides preventative care,” she said. “But until we know from the police, until they figure out what happened, we can’t really say what the motivation was.”

The McKinney location offers preventive services such as breast and pelvic exams, as well as birth control, diabetes screenings, sexually transmitted infection tests, pregnancy testing and emergency contraception. News Radio KRLD reported picketers at the location earlier in the day.

McKinney police has not identified a suspect.

“Ninety-six to 97 percent of what we do –and that’s an audited number – every year for our patients is preventative health care. It’s breast and cervical cancer screening and well women visits,” Morgan said.

“We even give flu shots.”

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

Last night after I posted the previous post, the server crashed twice. My logs sure look like the Observer was attacked.

After the servers were repaired, the Observer still did not work properly. Later this morning, I was able to finally repair the blog's database.

Please, I ask you for your patience and my sorry that our readers had to deal with a frustrating site.

Please accept my apologies.

Bill

chutzpah, hutzpah [ˈxʊtspə] n Informal shameless audacity; impudence [from Yiddish]

Patricia Crigger has continued in office, trying to lead the District Clerk's Office, while under felony charges of corruption. Crigger not only refused to take a leave of absence, but instead has attempted to put on a show of there is "no problem."

CHUTZPUH
Crigger's reaction to the indictment was to promote the alleged two co-conspirators and give them a raise in pay. Crigger promoted[ed.: caution, large file]:

• Rebecca Littrell from Senior Administer making $52,766 to Chief Deputy District Clerk, now receiving a salary of $64,213.
• Sherry Bell from Lead Clerk making $49,190 to Senior Administer, now receiving a salary of $51,650.

Crigger herself was given a raise by the voters after her indictment from approximately $65,000 to $110,998.

By appointing the two other top managers in the department who are under indictments, Crigger has created a vacuum of leadership. If Patricia Crigger took a leave of absence, resigns, or is convicted, there will be no senior management able to temporarily take over the District Clerk's Office. Crigger has made it difficult so there will be no senior management in place to temporarily take over the District Clerk's Office. (If the Crigger resigns or convicted, the Board of Collin County District Judges will appoint a new District Clerk.)

And last week, Patricia Crigger, Rebecca Littrell, and Sherry Bell used county money to attend a convention together in Las Vegas. According to a Open Records request, the County Auditor confirmed that the three alleged co-conspirators traveled to Vegas from July 10 to July 15, 2011 to attend the National Association of Court Management Annual Conference.

The bills are all not in yet, but the conference will cost the Collin County taxpayers several thousand dollars.

Also in April, Crigger received a county check for $1,308, and $1,208 went to Rebecca Littrell for travel reimbursement. During the entire year to date, the rest of the un-indicted staff members of the District Clerk's office have spent less than $360 on travel total.

Yes, chutzpah is one way to make crime pay.

Patricia Crigger, District Clerk

THE CRIMES
Last June, The Texas Rangers targeting the District Clerk's Office raided the Collin County Courthouse. In July, a grand jury indicted 6 employees of the District Clerk's department, including Patricia Crigger, for conspiracy and theft of more than $20,000 in government money. At that time, Patricia Crigger was the Republican nominee for District Clerk. Facing no real oppositions, Crigger was the next "Elect District Clerk", who would be sworn in on January 1, 2011.

On January 1, Patricia Crigger was sworn in as the elected District Clerk although charged with "Abuse of Office" and "Conspiracy" for allegedly stealing over $20,000 of services for the benefit of her 2010 campaign. Also indicted were alleged co-conspirators including Rebecca Littrell and Sherry Bell.

Hannah Kunkle (no mug shot available)

On May 31, 2011 a Grand Jury also indicted Hannah Kunkle, the previous long-time District Clerk.

The Collin County District Attorney's Office (under John Roach, Sr.) bungled the original indictments of six District Clerk's employees. Twice the charges against the defendants were dropped, and they have been re-indicted three times now. The need to appoint a visiting Judge, and then the need to name an out-of-town special prosecutor, have created delay after delay, allowing the elected District Clerk to remain in office under a cloud for more than a year.

The visiting Judge Nelms (of Tyler) will hold a hearing on July 27 to hear motions.

The Texas Rangers investigation shows a credible case against these employees -- a case credible enough for three Grand Juries to indict these officials.

THE AUDITS
The Collin County Auditor has released two audits that are critical of the financial operations of the District Clerk's Office. The audits covered the 3rd quarter and 4th quarter of 2010 during the Hannah Kunkle administration. Both audits show that the District Clerk's Office has been unable to correct the table of fees and that the department has been unable to reconcile their funds with the new Odyssey program. The auditor has shown that convicted defendants in criminal cases were not charged all the fees the District Clerk's Office is responsible to collect, nor have the cases been corrected.

Crigger did appear before the commissioners' court on May 2[ed.:video], and said that the issues were inherited, but acknowledged that they are struggling with correcting the problems. Crigger asked if the Auditor would assign an accountant to help her with Odyssey. After five months, Commissioner Duncan Webb and the commissioners' court expressed impatience with the loss of criminal fees and concern with the lack of progress. Neither the Auditor nor Crigger can determine the amount of revenue criminal fees that incorrectly may cost the county revenue. [ed.:video]The commissioners' court has asked the County Auditor to prepare a "Full Audit" of the District Clerk's Office, and to report the amount of fees that have been lost as county revenue.

Later in June, Crigger submitted a request to promote a clerk to senior clerk. Cheryl Williams expressed frustration[ed.:video] that Crigger chose to promote a clerk without financial experience. The court unanimously voted to delay the promotion, once again asking Crigger for explanation, later two weeks later, the court approved the promotion.

CLOUD
The District Clerk's Office is responsible for the custodial care and management of the District Courts. The department has 58 employees with a budget of over $5 million, and holds in trust more than $3 million in public funds in 5 bank accounts.[ed.: caution large linked file]

Many, including members of the Commissioners' Court, have questioned the ability of the District Clerk's Department to function effectively.

The top 3 administrators of the department are facing charges of conspiracy and corruption, while some of their own employees were whistle blowers. The Texas Rangers used at least five employees who gave sworn affidavits that were used to gain a search warrant to raid the courthouse. The defendants immediately asked the court to give them the names of the whistle blowers.

The judge refused to release the names. An informer county source has told the Collin County Observer of three of the whistle blowers: two of those employees asked the county to and received a transfer to other departments where they do not fear retribution. A third person was laid off when the commissioners' court cut the 2011 staffing budget by three people. The whistle-blower brought an attorney to the courthouse to ask the District Clerk if she really wanted to be sued for laying off someone who is allowed protection as a whistle-blower. The whistle-blower got her job back.

Source have told The Observer of a department that has low morale and lack of leadership. The District Clerk's top leaders are working under the shadow of a real possibility of being sent to prison. Some employees in the department are supporters of Crigger, some support Kunkle, and some have antipathy to both of them.

The Observer spoke to several leading Republicans who told us that the party is not in agreement that Patricia Crigger should step down, but the majority of individual Republicans we spoke to expressed a desire for Crigger to resign for the good of the taxpayers and the party.

But Crigger, like the title character in the fable about the Emperor's New Clothes, she has been unable to see herself, while that our citizens can see through her arrogance.

Bill

--------------------------------
Notes:

The 2010, 3rd Quarter Audit of the District Clerk

The 2010, 4th Quarter Audit of the District Clerk

The Observer has learned that yesterday Judge John Roach, Jr jailed Sharon Easley on contempt. Sharon Easley lost the 2006 primary race against John Roach, Jr. for the 296th District Court.

Easley was attending a court hearing on behalf of a client over a child guardianship in a divorce suit that has been litigated since 2007.

Judge John Roach, Jr.	Sharon Easley

Sources at the courthouse told the Observer, that Attorney Sharon Easley was angry and some loud comments were exchanged between her and the judge. Ms. Easley left the courtroom, and then said something to the effect that, "Are you going to put me in jail?", in a manner that many perceived as challenging the judge. Judge Roach then ordered Easley to be placed under arrest and jailed.

Easley was released later that evening.

John Roach, Jr. won in the 2006 Republican by defeating Sharon Easley; He ran unopposed in the general election. Judge Roach was re-elected after defeating Keith Gore in the 2010 primary, and once again was unopposed in the November general election.

The Observer's has been unable to reach Ms. Easley for comment.

Bill

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

Comment from: Sharon Easley

Sure are a lot of strong feelings about this matter! I am not surprised. The situation is a very polarizing one.

Judge Roach and I are both adults, however, and we will find a way through this, even if I end up in jail. We are both human beings with frailties; we are also two very strong-willed individuals; we have both shown the propensity to let our emotions get the best of us. This was one of those occasions and it got out of control.

This has always been a great county in which to practice law and I don't want to do anything at this point to make this situation worse than it is.

When does innocence mean innocence?
 
A Frisco man has been unable to clear his name for over four years. An appeals court has decided he has no right to seek equitable justice. Though he has never been found guilty of any crime, he is shackled with a record he is unable to clear.
 
It is our country’s tradition that a person charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless found guilty by a judge or jury, and that a person can only be sentenced if convicted. But in this 21st century, a person never adjudicated guilty of a crime is still followed around by his record. An employer, a landlord, a banker, an insurance company and the police can easily access an applicant’s “criminal” background. Companies make decisions after looking up an applicant’s record. Now it is routine. A person cannot obtain a good job or a new apartment – merely for being charged with a crime, without a guilty conviction.
 
Nader Akhavan of Frisco told the appeals court that the charges against him have ruined his life. He was a highly paid professional, but since the 2007 charges, he has been unable to find employment in his field after any potential employer obtains a background check.
 
He was indicted in 2007 of two charges of aggravated child sexual assault after two young sisters alleged Akhavan had touched them in an indecent manner. Eleven months later, two jury trials were held in the 366th District Court.  The jury voted unanimously to acquit Akhavan on one charge, but were dead-locked on the second charge. Ten jurors voted ‘not guilty.’
 
In this case, the man was charged with the heinous crime of child sexual indecency. He was accused by a very young child, and he denied he committed any crime. There were no other witnesses and no physical evidence. After four years, the State admits it can not obtain a guilty plea. Because the DA does not want to lose a trial, the District Attorney has stated it will not demand a trial. So for the rest of his life this man will be followed around by an allegation, which can not be proven or disproved – nor allowed a trial to seek a verdict.
 
Two years later, the District Attorney dismissed the charges, telling the court that, “it has been determined that the State is unable to make a prima facia case.”
 
In 2009, Akhavan asked the 366th District Court to expunge his criminal record from all police, DA, and courts files. Akhavan told the court that he has always maintained he has never touched the children in a sexual manner, but that the District Attorney will not allow him an opportunity to have a fair trial. He had been able to earn over $345,000 a year, but now that he is ruined he is unable to find suitable employment.
 
The District Attorney's Office under Judge Roach objected at the expunction hearing that there the defendant has no legal right to gain an expunction after being charged. The DA also argued that the complainant has never recanted her testimony, but that the child’s father has not been cooperative in bringing the child to the hearings. The DA’s believes that it is no longer in the best interest of the child to  require her to appear in a trial. But the DA’s office also states it is not interested in seeking a trial that will result in a not guilty verdict.
 
Assistant District Attorney Andrea Westerfield argued the case before Judge Ray Wheless saying, “…case law is very clear that expunction is not an equitable right, it is not a constitutional issue”, but nevertheless, Judge Ray Wheless granted Akhavan's request for expunction.
 
The District Attorney's Office insisted that he does not want the defendant found innocent, nor free of the charges. The DA’s office appealed Judge Wheless’s ruling to the Texas 5th Court of Appeals.
                                                                                                                     
Last week, the Texas 5th Court of Appeals overturned Judge Ray Wheless’ decision. The appeals court's decision reversed and rendered the trial court’s decision,  meaning that the defendant’s expunction was not only denied…but it was final ad infinitum – the accused cannot petition for this relief again. The Appeals Court refused to look at Constitutional issues or listen to arguments of equity (justice). The 5th Appeals Court Justice FitzGerald wrote, “We conclude that Akhavan's constitutional challenge... is not properly before us”, and also wrote, that, “Akhavan’s argument for equitable expunction is not properly before us”.
 
Can an appeals judge write that he is unwilling to seek, “justice”? Not likely. Instead Justice FitzGerald writes the court can not order, “Equity”. The court decided “fairness” is not “justice”.

In law, an expunction for one who has not been convicted is only allowed if the grand jury has made a mistake, or the statute of limits have run out. Akhavan had the burden to prove the error by the grand jury, and the statute of limits has no limit. The appeals court decided that the defendant did not prove a mistake and that there was no statute of limitations, therefore Judge Wheless was overturned.
 
Texas Appellate Courts rarely order justice.
 
This month, the Texas Legislature passed HB 2889.  It has been sent to the Governor, but it has not yet been signed. HB 2889 allows a defendant to seek an expunction when the state dismisses his charges, and if the DA agrees to that expunction. The House voted 141 yes, 1 nay, the Senate also agreed to the bill with a vote of 26 – 5.
 
It is unknown whether a citizen can seek another expunction after it had been earlier denied. Even if the Governor signs the bill, a citizen charged with a crime can not demand a trial nor demand an expunction. A Criminal District Attorney has all the power. Former DA John Roach defended his right to force a citizen to carry an arrest record for life, without a trial.
 
Is an indictment and an arrest record an impediment to a person’s “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”, even if he is never allowed to face his future before a jury of peers?
 
Bill

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

NOTES

• The transcript of the 366th hearing “in re Nader Akhavan”, February 5, 2010
• Brief for Appellee Nader Akhavan
• Amended Appellant’s Brief for the Collin County District Attorney’s Office
• Texas 5th Appeals Court opinion of, Collin County District Attorney’s Office V. Nader Akhavan, May 25, 2011
• Text of HB 2889

From an NTTA press release:

NTTA TOLL RATES SCHEDULED TO INCREASE EFFECTIVE JULY 1
Updated Rates Follow Biennial Schedule Announced in 2009

Plano, Texas – June 1, 2011 The North Texas Tollway Authority wants to
remind drivers that a regularly scheduled toll rate increase takes effect
July 1.

To deliver regional transportation projects to relieve congestion,
preserve a strong and financially viable system and maintain quality, safe
and reliable roadways, the NTTA will implement a regularly scheduled toll
rate increase of .8 cents (less than a cent per mile). The toll rate
policy provides for a 50 percent price difference between TollTag and
ZipCash rates.

“The Board understands this rate increases comes during a challenging
economic time,” said NTTA Chairman Victor Vandergriff. “However, raising
rates is a planned and necessary step the NTTA needs to take in order to
maintain a viable financial system and to deliver the many mobility
projects that bring growth to the North Texas region.”
The action increases rates from 14.5 cents per mile to 15.3 cents per
mile. NTTA rates are compatible with the toll rate structure recommended
by the Regional Transportation Council.

This increase follows a schedule that requires toll rates be increased
every other July at a compounded annual rate of 2.75 percent. This
incremental change is required to meet the financial needs of the NTTA
while ensuring drivers see only small increases to tolls.

“ZipCash customers, who pay 50 percent more than TollTag? customers, are
encouraged to get a TollTag?. It will save them money, and they won’t have
to worry about paying invoices,” said NTTA Executive Director Allen
Clemson.

NTTA Chief Financial Officer Janice Davis said the rate increase will help
protect NTTA’s credit rating, ultimately ensuring NTTA’s access to low
cost borrowing. “The rating agencies want to see proof that NTTA’s Board
is committed to the maintenance of the Authority’s financial strength and
integrity,” Davis said.

The NTTA intends to continue to deliver on its mission to provide mobility
solutions including the Eastern and Western extensions of the President
George Bush Turnpike, complete the Sam Rayburn Tollway and support future
projects like Chisholm Trail Parkway.

About the NTTA
The North Texas Tollway Authority, a political subdivision of the state of
Texas, is authorized to acquire, construct, maintain, repair and operate
turnpike projects in the north Texas region. The nine-member governing
board is comprised of Chairman Victor Vandergriff; Vice Chairman David
Denison; and Directors Kenneth Barr, Kent Cagle, Bob Day, Bill Moore,
Michael Nowels, Bob Shepard and Jane Willard.

The NTTA serves Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant counties and is
responsible for the NTTA System, consisting of the Dallas North Tollway,
President George Bush Turnpike, Sam Rayburn Tollway, Addison Airport Toll
Tunnel, Lewisville Lake Toll Bridge and the Mountain Creek Lake Bridge.
The NTTA is able to raise capital for construction projects through the
issuance of turnpike revenue bonds. NTTA toll projects are not a part of
the state highway system and receive no direct tax funding. Tolls are
collected to repay debt and to operate and maintain the roadways.

Customer Contact:
CustomerService@NTTA.org
www.NTTA.org

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

The Collin County Observer comments that tolls sure look like, smell like, and hurt just like taxes.

Bill

The district clerks’ indictments were announced yesterday at 5:00 PM. The Collin County Observer is linking the indictments and the details of the charges as follows:

Hannah Kunkle, the former District Clerk who retired last December after 33 years with the county. She has been indicted on two counts.

The first charge is of “Abuse of Office”. The grand jury has detailed the charge as:

“between on or about December 15, 2009 and/or about June 3, 2010… Hannah Kunkle, being a public servant, to wit, the elected District Clerk of Collin County, did then and there, with intent to obtain a benefit, namely services and labor in support of the campaign of the elected office of Collin County District Clerk of Patricia Crigger, and to defraud another, namely the public and the Collin County Commissioners Court, did intentionally and knowingly misuse government property, services and personnel, of an aggregate value of $20,000 or more, by engaging in an constituting an ongoing scheme and the course of contact in which employees of the Collin County District Clerk’s Office were awarded time off from their employment, known as quote “‘Blue Book’ Time”, in return for engaging in campaigning activities on behalf of Patricia Crigger's … in violation of section 39.02(a)(2) of the Penal Code.”

This charge is a 3rd degree felony, which can result in no less than 2 years and not more than 10 years in the Texas Prison and may also include a fine up to $10,000.

In the second count against Hannah Kunkle, the grand jury charged,

“between on or above December 15, 2009 and or about January, 2010, and before the presentation of this indictment, in the County of Collin, State of Texas, Hannah Kunkle, a public servant, named the elected District Clerk of Collin County, with the intent of a felony be committed, did enter into an agreement with one or more of Patricia Crigger, Rebecca “Becky” Littrell, and Sherry Bell, all of whom were public servants at the time… in violation of section 15.02(a) of the Texas Penal Code.”

This second count is of a “Criminal Conspiracy”. The second charge is a state jail felony which calls for a punishment in confinement in a state jail for no less than 180 days and no more than 2 years that could add a $10,000 fine.

The elected District Clerk Patricia Crigger and Chief Deputy District Clerk Rebecca Littrell were indicted on the same two charges with Hannah Kunkle.

Clerk Sherry Bell was also indicted, but only on an alleged conspiracy along with Kunkle, Crigger and Littrell.

The grand jury itemized specific alleged conspiracy acts caused by the four defendants:

• That Hannah Kunkle authorized the ‘Blue Book’ to grant paid time off used in return for engaging in campaigning activities for Crigger's campaign.
• That Patricia Crigger authorized Rebecca Littrell to grant time used by the ‘Blue Book’ for activities for Crigger's campaign.
• That Crigger and Littrell held campaign organization meetings during county hours.
• That Kunkle, Crigger, Littrell and Bell encouraged District Clerk’s employees to engage in campaigning on Crigger's campaign and were told to expect ‘Blue Book’ time in return for campaigning.
• Rebecca Littrell maintained records of Crigger's campaign activities of District Clerk employees.
• Littrell maintained the records of the ‘Blue Book’ time granted to employees in return for campaigning for Crigger.
• Sherry Bell maintained records of campaign activities for Crigger's election campaign by employees of the District Clerks office.
• Sherry Bell transmitted lists of polling employees to Littrell for the Crigger's campaign.
• Sherry Bell coordinated the schedules of District Clerk employees for facilitating the employees campaign activities.
• Littrell transmitted a “Crigger walk list” to Sherry Bell and that Littrell created the ‘precincts.xls’ document on her company computer for the campaign.

Arrest warrants for Kunkle, Crigger, Littrell and Bell were delivered today to the Sheriff’s Department. No court hearings have been posted on the county website. The Collin County Observer is posting the indictments of the District Clerk’s defendants below.

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

Dismissal, Patricia Crigger that dismissed older charges three weeks before the new indictments.
Indictment, Hannah Kunkle, former elected District Clerk
Indictment, Patricia Crigger, current elected District Clerk
Indictment, Rebecca "Becky" Littrell, appointed Chief Deputy District Clerk
Indictment, Sherry Bell, employee of the District Clerk's office

Bill

Corruption in the Collin County District Clerk’s Office – Officials indicted for Third Degree Felonies

District Clerk, Patricia Crigger, Former District Clerk, Hannah Kunkle, and Deputy Chief District Clerk, Rebecca Littrell were indicted this afternoon. A Collin County Grand Jury charged the three officials with 3rd degree felonies of Abuse of Official Capacity between the amounts of $20,000 and $100,000. They each face up to 2 to 10 years in the State Prison and or $10,000 fine if convicted.

Hannah Kunkle	Patricia Wysong Crigger

• Former elected District Clerk, Hannah Kunkle was charged with 2 counts of Abuse of Official Capacity.
• Patricia Crigger, the current elected District Clerk, and the previous Deputy Chief District Clerk was indicted for one charge of Abuse of Official Capacity.
• Rebecca Littrell, the appointed Deputy Chief District Clerk was also indicted for two charges of Abuse of Official Capacity.

The Texas Rangers raided the Collin County Courthouse in June 2010 pursuant to a subpoena seeking computers and documents after District Clerk employees were suspected of giving employees paid leave for helping Patricia Crigger campaign for District Clerk during the 2010 election.

Last year a Grand Jury indicted District Clerk Patricia Crigger and 5 District Clerks and supervisors. Last month a special prosecutor dismissed all charges, but stated there was still an investigation in the works, and that charges may still be made.

This is the first time that Hannah Kunkle has been formally charged in the corruption case.

The county website does not yet show the warrants or hearing dates.

Bill

The Collin County Observer is now open for business (again).

On a personal point:

I know there for almost eight months there were few posts during my illness - and that the Observer has lost many readers since there was nothing here to read. I am sorry that I was unable to report to you. Yet, I have been overwhelmed by so many of our readers who had called and written. I thank all who wished me well and told me they missed the Observer.

I am very grateful. It is now time to jump on the saddle. The Observer is alive and well... the "OPEN" sign is lit.

Bill

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/texas-legislature/headlines/20110202-texas-businesses-serving-frail-warn-cuts-would-close-their-doors.ece

By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News - Austin Bureau
February 2, 2011

read this story at DallasNews.com (registration may be required)

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

The needs of thousands of children and adults living with mental and physical disabilities are about to collide with the limitations of the Texas state budget.

Here in the wealthiest county in the state, where some folks would prefer to ignore the unpleasantness of mental or physical challenges, it will be interesting to see how this issue is prioritized by our legislators (including Senator Florence Shapiro who sits on the Finance Committee referenced below)and dealt with on the local level by our county leaders.

angellsmith

January 11, 2011
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

read this story at DallasNews.com (registration may be required)
read the rest of this article at DallasNews.com

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

Comment: Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night will stay our intrepid editor, Bill Baumbach, from the completion of his self-appointed rounds - including braving the traffic on 75 on the first snow day of the year to attend a Commissioners Court meeting with important issues on the agenda!

Unfortunately, some other key folks didn't make it to the meeting, so the much anticipated report on the "vote center" experiment wasn't formally presented at the January 10th meeting. It would be reasonable to assume it will be on the agenda for the January 24th meeting, but we won't know for sure until the agenda is posted online on Friday, 1/21 (Commissioners Court Agenda 1/24/11)

As reported by Ed Housewright of The Dallas Morning News in this article, two citizens appeared to express concerns about the implementation of vote centers to the Court. It's interesting to note that Republican precinct chair Chris Freeman rated the headline and the lead in the story, while Bill, a member of the site selection committee for the November 2010 election, was relegated to paragraph 6. You can watch both gentlemen's comments online at the County's website. Bill's comments begin at the counter reading 8:30, while Mr. Freeman's comments begin at 17:30.

Bill and The Collin County Observer have been closely following the efforts to implement the "vote center" concept since 2006. You'll find a list of our previous posts, including news clippings and several original articles, below.

If you have input on the subject of vote centers in general, or as implemented in recent elections - including the November 2010 general election, we suggest you make your thoughts known to your Commissioners, either in writing or in person. You can send an e-mail to the Court's general mailbox at commcourt@collincountytx.gov or call 972-424-1460 ext. 4631.

The 2012 presidential election isn't that far away.

angellsmith

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

Additional information on Vote Centers on The Collin County Observer:

11/3/2010 - DMN - Collin County judge says "vote center" system may have contributed to long lines on election day

11/2/2010 - The Texas Observer - Voting Problems in Collin County

11/2/2010 - Technology issues reported at Collin County vote centers

8/9/10 - Vote Centers: Expert's report and public hearing today (comprehensive analysis by Bill Baumbach and links to many other posts and resources)

9/9/2009 - Collin to take part in vote center experiment despite concerns

8/10/2009 - Does Collin County understand what a vote center is?

Link: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/01/paxton-not-backing-out-of-spea.html

January 10, 2011
by Robert T. Garrett/The Dallas Morning News - Trailblazers Blog

read this story at DallasNews.com (registration may be required)

Recent Collin County grand jury and former DA Roach criticize each other

By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News
Sunday, January 9, 2011

link to the article at The Dallas Morning News.....

Assistant DA indictment quashed

By Marthe Stinton, The Frisco Enterprise
Sunday, January 9, 2011

The indictment of former Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis, which left several county officials stunned, has now been quashed.

Judge David Brabham of Longview granted the motion to dismiss the indictment Friday. Brabham was assigned the case this week by Administrative Judge John Ovard after Judge Mark Rusch signed an order recusing himself from the case.

The dismissal of the indictment follows a motion to quash it that was filed Monday by Ted Steinke, Davis’ attorney.

The motion submitted by Steinke said the original indictment failed to state where Davis “intentionally and knowingly made, presented and used a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity…”

Steinke said Brabham agreed with his motion due to the requirement that an indictment filed for “tampering with a government record” must allege the nature of the falsity.

“[Davis] is relieved and happy with the decision and is now going to pursue a position in Waco,” Steinke said. “Unless another grand jury re-indicts him or Terry Hart appeals it, I think it’s over.”

Special prosecutor Terry Hart had just received the ruling when he was contacted.

“I just now got the ruling from Judge Brabham,” Hart said. “He is a very good jurist and we respect his opinion.”

Davis was indicted last week on a state jail felony charge of tampering with a governmental record. His indictment stems from the summer indictment of six district clerk’s office employees who allegedly tampered with time cards, making it look like the employees were at work when they were not.

Steinke said Davis filed the document when it came to his attention that the DA’s office was following a similar program as the clerk’s office through its “High 5” program. The program awarded employees with time off for meritorious conduct.

“He wanted to present that information to alert the defense attorneys and the general public, because it was a public filing,” Steinke said on Monday.

Steinke said neither he nor Davis suspected an indictment could follow the submission of information for the clerk case.

Steinke recently told Star Community News that “It takes a tremendously honest prosecutor to file a public document admitting that his office had done something wrong. He ought to be congratulated for doing that, certainly not indicted for it.”

link to article at The Frisco Enterprise.....

Assistant DA indictment quashed

By Marthe Stinton, The Frisco Enterprise
Sunday, January 9, 2011

The indictment of former Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis, which left several county officials stunned, has now been quashed.

Judge David Brabham of Longview granted the motion to dismiss the indictment Friday. Brabham was assigned the case this week by Administrative Judge John Ovard after Judge Mark Rusch signed an order recusing himself from the case.

The dismissal of the indictment follows a motion to quash it that was filed Monday by Ted Steinke, Davis’ attorney.

The motion submitted by Steinke said the original indictment failed to state where Davis “intentionally and knowingly made, presented and used a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity…”

Steinke said Brabham agreed with his motion due to the requirement that an indictment filed for “tampering with a government record” must allege the nature of the falsity.

“[Davis] is relieved and happy with the decision and is now going to pursue a position in Waco,” Steinke said. “Unless another grand jury re-indicts him or Terry Hart appeals it, I think it’s over.”

Special prosecutor Terry Hart had just received the ruling when he was contacted.

“I just now got the ruling from Judge Brabham,” Hart said. “He is a very good jurist and we respect his opinion.”

Davis was indicted last week on a state jail felony charge of tampering with a governmental record. His indictment stems from the summer indictment of six district clerk’s office employees who allegedly tampered with time cards, making it look like the employees were at work when they were not.

Steinke said Davis filed the document when it came to his attention that the DA’s office was following a similar program as the clerk’s office through its “High 5” program. The program awarded employees with time off for meritorious conduct.

“He wanted to present that information to alert the defense attorneys and the general public, because it was a public filing,” Steinke said on Monday.

Steinke said neither he nor Davis suspected an indictment could follow the submission of information for the clerk case.

Steinke recently told Star Community News that “It takes a tremendously honest prosecutor to file a public document admitting that his office had done something wrong. He ought to be congratulated for doing that, certainly not indicted for it.”

link to article at The Frisco Enterprise.....

Indictment of Collin County's First Assistant DA - An Analysis By Local Defense Attorney

Posted on January 6, 2011 by Hunter Biederman
Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog

The latest jab in what I like to call, "Indictment Fest 2010" is the indictment of Collin County's District Attorney First Assistant Gregory Davis. All of the back and forth is a bit too much for one article, so I'll work on the background for another article.

Gregory S. Davis

In addition to Gregory Davis' eight years at the Collin County DA, he was also a former prosecutor in Dallas. Mr. Davis obtained twelve death sentences in Dallas County, including the only two such sentences against women in that county’s history. He was involved with the Darlie Routier death penalty case, one that garnered a significant amount of controversy.

So what is the First Assistant and what do they do? In Collin County, the First Assistant could be compared to the president of operations for a company, along with the chief litigator.

In most larger counties, the elected District Attorney does not handle courtroom trials. This was true for the last 8 years in Collin County. Major trials are usually handled by the First Assistant (death penalty cases, higher profile cases). The First Assistant in Collin County also dealt with many of the day to day operations of the office, and also supervised the highest level attorneys at the office (the felony chiefs and chief of misdemeanor courts). These were the duties of First Assistant Gregory Davis.
Mr. Davis has been indicted for Tampering With A Government Record, which is a State Jail Felony. A State Jail Felony is punishable up to 2 years in a State Jail Facility, and up to a $10,000 fine.

A person commits TGR if they makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity. This is the "version" of TGR he has been charged with. Two other items must be included in the charge:

1. What was false; and
2. Who was defrauded.

The allegations in this case say that the false government document was the State's Disclosure of Evidence Favorable to the Defense. They also say it was "The State of Texas" that was defrauded. This State's Disclosure filing came 8 days after my article regarding the similarities between the DA's "High Five Program and the District Clerks accused behavior.

The indictment is odd for several reasons. Firstly, it is (ironic/strange/unheard of -- pick your own adjective here) that a prosecutor gets indicted for seemingly turning over evidence favorable to the Defense. One would think the indictments would fly for destroying evidence and not turning evidence over.

Additionally and arguably, Mr. Davis was admitting his office committed the same "crime" that he charged the District Clerks with. He stated, "[a]t least two timekeepers in the CCDA altered employees' time records to reflect that employees were at work when they were actually on 'High Five' leave." One would think that this "crime" would be prosecuted (probably not against him, but rather other officials in the DA's office), not the filing of the paperwork admitting to it.

Note: Other outlets have reported that he was indicted for falsifying time records -- those reports are incorrect.

Secondly, choosing the State of Texas as the party defrauded sounds odd as well. Since the Disclosure was meant to give the defense notice, it would seem that they would be the ones defrauded. Although I guess the argument could be held that when filing that paper, it is also a filing with the court, or the State of Texas.
So this leads us to the question, what is false, and what did Mr. Davis know was false in this filing? It would have to be a statement made within this document. Here are my best guesses at the possibilities:

1. [Employees were given paid time off]... "The undersigned found no evidence that any paid leave time was awarded for electioneering or political activity."
This could be the statement because it is such a clear statement, with no prefacing. (i.e. "I dont recall finding any information..."). It also could be the false statement because it is one that could easily be proved false through testimony of someone who told Mr. Davis otherwise, or an email showing he knew. However I doubt this is the false statement mainly because I suspect the statement is true. I don't think anyone was out campaigning during their days off.

2. An undetermined number of scheduling requests for investigators in the Collin County District Attorney's Office were destroyed without the knowledge of the Criminal District Attorney or the undersigned.

This is another "provable" statement. Either through testimony or an email. Someone saying Mr. Davis knew these records were destroyed would be a direct conflict with this statement.

Other statements are often prefaced with "at least." This leads me to believe they are not the false statements he is being charged with.
I don't know what statement is false, and neither does Mr. Davis' attorney. So what's a defense attorney to do? Mr. Davis' attorney has filed a "Motion to Quash" the indictment.

A Motion to Quash in this case (I haven't seen it, but was reported by the Dallas Morning News), is because the indictment didn't "allege which specific part or portion of that ... is false."

Generally speaking the indictment serves to put the defendant on notice of what the charges are against him. If it is too broad, it is subject to being quashed.

The ironic thing is that the Collin County District Attorney's Office has been famous for putting as little as possible in the indictments and being stingy with discovery. This often led to meetings where the DA would simply say, "she knows what she did" and she should resign to avoid them taking her "law license, her family, her home, her liberty, and her reputation" as alleged by Judge Wooten's attorney in regards to her indictment).

If the motion to quash is successful, the accused can simply be re-indicted and the charging document (indictment), can be changed to properly conform with the law. Usually quashing the indictment just delays the whole case. The same Grand Jury can re-indict, or it can be presented to another Grand Jury. But not necessarily in this case.

The accusation is that this particular Grand Jury had an ax to grind, and no other Grand Jury would indict on the same evidence. That means that if the motion is granted, this case could very well be over.

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

link at the article at the Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog......

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

On Tuesday, a Collin County grand jury indicted Gregory S..Davis on charges of the felony of "Tampering with a government record for defraud/harm". A Special Prosecutor had been requested by the Grand Jury, and it was the Special Prosecutor who investigated the office of the District Attorney. Based on the information of the independent Special Prosecutor, Davis was indicted. The charges accuse Davis of falsifying over 40 time records in order to reward DA office employees with paid time off, even though time records indicated the employees were working on certain days – when, in actuality, they were not.

Gregory S. Davis

Greg Davis was appointed by District Attorney, John Roach, as the First Assistant District Attorney in 2003. The First Assistant DA is the top manager at the DA's office. In three days, on January 1, 2011, DA John Roach will leave office and the new elected District Attorney Greg Willis, will assume the control and management of the office. Two weeks ago, Willis had informed Davis that he will no longer be employed in the DAs office. Willis will also replace about 13 prosecutors and investigators and DA staff.

For the last two years, DA John Roach initiated the investigation of two public officials. Using several grand juries, Roach conducted a two-year investigation against then, County Court at Law judge, Greg Willis and District Court judge, Suzanne Wooten. Earlier this year a grand jury refused to indict Greg Wills. The unanimous jurors wrote an unusual report that Willis had committed no crime. Later, the DA once appeared to shop around several grand juries until he could find one that would indict Judge Suzanne Wooten.

In the latter half of 2010 there were two grand juries sitting at the same time. One of the grand juries was supervised by Judge Mark Rusch (401st Court), and the second grand jury was supervised by Judge Suzanne Wooten (380th). This fall, the 401st grand jury indicted Judge Wooten, and also indicted six deputies in the District Clerk’s office for time sheet falsification – similar to the indictment against Mr. Davis.

A couple months ago the 380th grand jury requested a special prosecutor to help investigate possible crimes committed by the District Attorney's Office. It is from this independent investigation that the indictment brought.

After the appointment of the Special Prosecutor, DA Roach dismissed all true bills of indictment from the 380th grand jury, and then asked the 401st grand jury to re-indict all of the defendants indicted by the 380th district court. Roach announced he would no longer submit any cases for consideration to the 380th grand jury.

The DA issued media statements that one on the grand jurors was a former DA prosecutor he had fired this year, and one juror was the father of Wooten's attorney. That juror, John Schulte, was unable to attend the grand jury proceedings and was unable to weigh in on any grand jury decisions because he was battling terminal cancer. (Sadly, that juror, John Schulte, died on Christmas day.)

Earlier this year, six Collin County District Clerk employees, including incoming District Clerk, Patricia Crigger, were indicted for crimes that gave rise from time sheet discrepancies and possible “electioneering.” Indictment of District Clerk-elect. After the indictment, Davis, was the lead attorney in the prosecution of the six assistant District Clerks. Later, Davis filed a motion to recuse the DA’s office from the prosecution of the case because of allegations that the DA’s office had been falsifying time sheets.

The six charges accused of the district clerk the criminal investigation was led by an independent investigation led by a Texas Ranger. Many believe that the other cases investigated against Wooten and Willis were Roach's vendettas.

Many informed courthouse insiders charge that the good citizens of the two grand juries seem to have been used as power games by DA Roach and others, that attorneys and some judges have delayed trials for more than 80 accused criminals waiting in jail for John Roach to vacate his office on January 1. Many members of the defense bar believe that the new Willis administration will give the accused and the community a guarantee of actual justice and Due Process.

After the New Year's it would seem likely that the new DA Willis will recuse his office and ask for special prosecutors in all three cases of official malfeasance.

Bill

---------------------------------------------------
NOTES:

STATE of TEXAS Vs. Gregory S. Davis
Case Number: 401-82854-2010
Date Filed: 12/28/2010
Case Type: CR - Filed by Indictment
Status: Pending
Judicial Officer: Rusch, Mark

Description: TAMPER W/GOVERN RECORD DEFRAUD/HARM
Offense Date: 10/26/2010
Level: State Jail Felony
Statute: 37.10 (c)(1)

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

The Dallas Morning News penned an editorial, "Courthouse circus in Collin County".

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

DMN - Assistant DA Davis indicted in Collin County on record tampering charge

Wednesday, December 29, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

Collin County First Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis was indicted Tuesday on a state jail felony charge of tampering with a governmental record.

If convicted, he faces up to two years in a state jail and up to a $10,000 fine.

Davis could not be reached for comment. District Attorney John Roach defended him.

"Nothing has changed my mind about Greg Davis," Roach said. "He's been an outstanding first assistant and enjoys a reputation of integrity among all of his peers."

The indictment stems from an investigation by the district attorney's office into the district clerk's office.

Prosecutors gained felony indictments in July against incoming District Clerk Patricia Wysong Crigger, who takes office Saturday, and five other supervisors for allegedly falsifying county records.

The defendants are accused of altering time records to show district clerk employees were working when they were not. Prosecutors say some employees took time off to work on Crigger's Republican primary campaign in the spring.

In October, the district attorney's office filed a motion asking to be recused from prosecuting the district clerk employees.

That court filing, signed by Davis, said the district attorney's office also altered time records to indicate some employees were at work when they were not.

The document said about 40 district attorney employees were given paid time off since Jan. 1, 2003, when Roach took office. They received one to eight hours off as a reward for "meritorious conduct," the filing said.

"The undersigned has found no evidence that any paid leave time was awarded for electioneering or political activity," Davis wrote.

Davis will leave the district attorney's office at the end of the week. He is among more than a dozen staff members not being retained by incoming District Attorney Greg Willis, a Republican who takes office Saturday. Willis succeeds Roach, who did not seek re-election in the Republican primary.

The grand jury that indicted Davis was impaneled by state District Judge Suzanne Wooten, who was investigated by the district attorney's office.

Roach and Wooten have repeatedly sparred in recent months.

In October, a grand jury indicted Wooten and three other people on six counts of bribery and one count of engaging in organized criminal activity. Prosecutors allege Wooten accepted money to issue favorable rulings. She denies any wrongdoing.

A week earlier, Roach announced that he would no longer submit cases to the grand jury impaneled by Wooten.

The grand jury had requested a special prosecutor to investigate "possible criminal wrongdoing" in Roach's office.

The special prosecutor, Dallas lawyer Terence Hart, could not be reached for comment on Davis' indictment.

link at the Dallas Morning News....

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/plano/stories/DN-plgrants_20met.ART0.State.Edition1.4364ddb.html

December 20, 2010
By THEODORE KIM / The Dallas Morning News

read this story at DallasNews.com

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/stories/DN-housecol_19met.ART.East.Edition1.4375173.html

December 19, 2010
by ED HOUSEWRIGHT/The Dallas Morning News

read the article at DallasNews.com

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/plano/stories/121010dnmetpl75exit.3553196.html

December 9, 2010

By THEODORE KIM / The Dallas Morning News

read this article at DallasNews.com

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/120910dnmettheboyjp.3a8474e.html

December 9, 2010

By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

read this story at DallasNews.com

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/columnists/ehousewright/stories/DN-housecol_05met.ART.East.Edition1.28364fc.html

December 5, 2010

by ED HOUSEWRIGHT/ The Dallas Morning News

read this article at DallasNews.com

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-annexation_04met.ART0.State.Edition1.4b7a174.html

December 4, 2010
By RAY LESZCYNSKI / The Dallas Morning News

read the this article at Dallas News.com

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/120510dnmetlavonbridge.1a0611f.html

December 5, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

read this article at DallasNews.com

Texas earns a D for charter schools as Frisco group plans its first

Dallas Morning News, Frisco Blog
4:30 PM Tue, Nov 30, 2010
Jessica Meyers/Reporter, Dallas Morning News

Read more of the DMN's charter school coverage here, here and here.

link to this Frisco Blog post....

From a Collin County press release. Flu vaccination includes protection from both H1N1, and influenza A and B:

Collin County

HEALTH CARE ADVISORY: Nov. 30, 2010

Free flu vaccine for children available; adult doses for $10

(McKINNEY, Texas) - Collin County Health Care will be offering free flu vaccinations for children and discounted flu shots for adults during National Influenza Week, Dec. 5-11.

Flu shots will be administered at 825 N. McDonald Street, Suite 130, in McKinney, from 7:30 11 a.m. and 1 to 4 p.m. all week. Adult doses are $10 each, and cash or check is accepted.

The 2010–2011 flu vaccine will protect against an influenza A H3N2 virus, an influenza B virus and the 2009 H1N1 virus (swine flu) that caused so much illness last season.

If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.)

National Influenza Vaccination Week was established to highlight the importance of continuing influenza vaccination, as well as fostering greater use of flu vaccine after the holiday season into January and beyond. The flu is a serious contagious disease that can lead to hospitalization and even death.

Flu-like symptoms include fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some people may also have vomiting and diarrhea. People may be infected with the flu, and have respiratory symptoms without a fever.

People at high risk of serious flu complications include young children, pregnant women, people with chronic health conditions like asthma, diabetes or heart and lung disease and people 65 years and older. Vaccination of high risk persons is especially important to decrease their risk of severe flu illness.

Vaccination also is important for health care workers, and other people who live with or care for high risk people to keep from spreading flu to high risk people.

Children younger than 6 months are at high risk of serious flu illness, but are too young to be vaccinated. People who care for them should be vaccinated instead. For more information regarding the flu please visit http://www.cdc.gov/flu/NIVW/index.htm.

###

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-lucas_27met.ART0.State.Edition1.4b808c1.html

November 27, 2010

By IAN McCANN / The Dallas Morning News
imccann@dallasnews.com

read this article at DallasNew.com

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-speaker_17tex.ART.State.Edition1.b180a7.html

Collin County's contender in the race for Speaker of the Texas House, Rep. Ken Paxton, has repudiated e-mails circulated by his supporters which make an issue of current Speaker Joe Straus' religion, Judaism.

The e-mails have been sent by supporters of both Paxton and fellow Republican Warren Chisum, emphasizing the importance of electing a conservative Christian, and some specifically point out that Straus is Jewish. Conservative leaders have responded to charges of antisemitism by saying that critics are being overly sensitive and that their real concern with Straus is based on issues. Other observers suggest that the real problem is that Straus has been able to work with, and has support from, Democrats.

The story surfaced on Monday, as political stories in Texas often do, in The Quorum Report (www.quorumreport.com), an online newsletter published by Harvey Kronberg, a veteran political journalist in Austin. The story was picked up by major publications like the Dallas Morning News and The Texas Observer (see below) and since then there has been a flurry of statements issued on the subject.

E-mailed "whisper campaigns" of questionable veracity (and plenty of outright lies) have become commonplace in political campaigns in recent years. Of course, the beauty of the technique from the political operative's perspective is that, in addition to being free, the candidate and the campaign can deny responsibility and repudiate the statements, while the questionable allegations still plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of many recipients.

Kronberg reported Paxton's statement condemning the e-mails today.

CHISUM AND PAXTON CONDEMN OUTSIDE GROUPS' RELIGIOUS ATTACKS IN SPEAKER RACE

"There is absolutely no place for religious bigotry in the race for Texas Speaker"

Two Republicans seeking to unseat House Speaker Joe Straus in the new legislative session released statements this afternoon condemning language used by outside groups that some say imply that Straus isn’t fit to be Speaker because he is Jewish.

Here’s the statement from Rep. Ken Paxton (R-McKinney):

“There is absolutely no place for religious bigotry in the race for Texas Speaker, and I categorically condemn such action. Furthermore, it is just as shameful for anyone to imply that I would ever condone this type of behavior. My campaign is singularly focused on a message of providing proven, dependable conservative leadership to the Texas House.”

Read other posts on this topic at QuorumReport.com

Abby Rapoport of the Texas Observer has several blog posts on the topic, including this bit, edited from a longer post:

It's not easy to trace the allegations of mailers and robo-calls. While there's been increased activism around the Speaker's race, there has not been increased transparency. Because the race is not on an open ballot race none of these activists will actually cast a vote, non-profit groups can be active without filing to the Texas Ethics Commission. We can't follow the money or know who's backing whom…

…Anti-Straus activists chose to create a grassroots campaign around this political fight—as I've written before, the speaker's race was once an insiders-only affair. The anti-Straus movement has brought more people into the decision-making process, and activists have never before been mobilized on anything approximating this scale in this type of race. One web letter demanding a new speaker, ConservativeSpeakerMandate.com, brags it has over 4,000 signatures. Almost every representative I've talked to has mentioned calls and emails regarding the race.

And predictably, there has already been an allegation that the furor was REALLY started by Straus supporters. Here's Abby's reporting on this juicy tidbit:

The Texas Home School Coalition PAC has sent out an email accusing Straus supporters of manufacturing the scandal. Tim Lambert, who heads the coalition, was one of the 46 leaders who signed the letter asking members dump Straus. Here's an excerpt from the email:

Straus' supporters started pushing back against those who are highlighting his record by sending out fake e-mails accusing the Republican activists and TEA party groups of being bought and paid for and accusing Straus's opponents of being anti-Semitic. (Most didn't even know Straus was Jewish.) This is, of course, a tactic used by Democrats against conservatives in the recent election cycle. His supporters continue to say that Straus is being "attacked" personally.

read more from this and other posts on this topic at TexasObserver.org

Note the use of quotation marks around "attacked" and the allegation that the source of all of this nastiness is "of course" the Democrats.

For comprehensive overview of the controversy, read this article by Robert Garrett in the Dallas Morning News.

E-mails targeting Texas House Speaker Joe Straus cite his Judaism, rivals' Christianity

November 17, 2010

By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – Some conservative Republican activists working to unseat House Speaker Joe Straus are circulating e-mails that emphasize his Judaism.

Several e-mails have surfaced in recent days that mention Straus' rabbi and underscore the Christian faith of his leading critics in the House Republican Caucus.

"Straus is going down in Jesus' name," said one, whose origins were unclear.

Straus, R-San Antonio , "clearly lacks the moral compass to be speaker," said another, written by Southeast Texas conservative activist Peter Morrison.

"Both Rep. Warren Chisum and Rep. Ken Paxton, who are Christians and true conservatives, have risen to the occasion to challenge Joe Straus for leadership," Morrison wrote in his newsletter last Thursday, referring to two Republicans who are running against Straus for speaker.

Morrison, asked Tuesday if he intended to signal that Straus is unfit because he is Jewish, replied in an e-mail, "I was simply making factual statements about Rep. Chisum and Rep. Paxton."

Morrison said his opposition to Straus is driven by issues, not religion.

Straus, asked his reaction to the e-mails, said in a statement that religious freedom and "the Judeo-Christian values of the dignity and worth of every individual" are key American principles.

"At its core, America believes in the freedom of every individual to worship as his or her conscience dictates, and it would be most unfortunate for anyone to suggest someone is more or less qualified for public office based on his or her faith," Straus said.

As the speaker's race has heated up in recent weeks, Straus has said he's solidly conservative and happy to compare his decades-long service to the GOP with that of his rivals.

But his alliance two years ago with 10 other dissident Republicans and 64 House Democrats in a speaker's race has drawn sharp criticism from Chisum, R-Pampa, and Paxton, R-McKinney. Since both launched formal bids for speaker, support for Straus has slipped slightly.

The day after last week's election, Straus released a list of 126 House members who he said have pledged him support. By most public counts, the list now is down to about 120. He needs 76 votes to keep the speaker's post.

The Quorum Report, an online newsletter, reported extensively late Monday on e-mails that mentioned Straus' Judaism, his rabbi and the Christian faith of his House critics, who include Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola.

read the rest of this article at DallasNews.com

The Lucas Mayor, City Manager and a City Council member have offered their resignations following a furor between the Mayor and the City Council.

Today, the Dallas Morning News had an interesting article about the Lucas City turmoil. The post below includes the Newsletter written by the Mayor Bill Carmickle, and the DMN article written by Sam Hodges.

Bill

Lucas Newsletter, Volume V, Issue 12, December 2010

Lucas City Newsletter: STRAIGHT TALK FROM THE MAYOR

I just wanted to keep all the citizens informed as to what has transpired in the past few days.

Our City Manager, Robert Patrick, has tendered his resignation effective December 31, 2010. Please join the City Council, City Staff and the citizen’s of Lucas wishing Mr. Patrick and his family the best in his future endeavourers [sic]. Many great things have occurred during the time Mr. Patrick served as our City Manager.

City Councilmember Don Zriny, currently serving in Seat 3, also has tendered his resignation effective January 31, 2011. Councilmember Zriny has served the citizen’s of Lucas for the past five years and we the City Council, City Staff and citizens of Lucas wish to thank him for all his time and effort put forth on behalf of the citizens of Lucas. Thanks goes to Councilmember Zriny and his family for all the time spent serving the City of Lucas.

With the developments of the past few weeks, I have decided that now is the time for me to step down as Mayor of the City of Lucas. I have worked hard to ensure that the City has grown in the manner which the citizens desired. At this time, I wish the City and the citizens of Lucas the very best. I hope that the City continues move forward to preserve our quality of life we all have come to love. My resignation is effective December 3, 2010.

Thank you,

Mayor Bill Carmickle
City Councilmember Don Zriny
City Manager Robert Patrick

Lucas in political turmoil with mayor, city manager and city council member announcing resignations this week

Wednesday, November 17, 2010
By SAM HODGES / The Dallas Morning News

The Collin County community of Lucas is in political turmoil, with the mayor, city manager, and a city council member all announcing their resignations this week.

Allegations of elected officials interfering with Lucas city staffers have surfaced. A special city council meeting is set for Thursday at 6:15 p.m.

City Manager Robert Patrick resigned Monday, followed that day by council member Don Zriny, then on Tuesday by Mayor Bill Carmickle.

Carmickle could not be reached, but the latest Lucas newsletter announced the resignations, giving no explanation for his own other than “developments of the past few weeks.” His resignation is effective Dec. 3.

Patrick’s resignation letter says that not all elected officials in Lucas, with about 5,400 residents, have accepted the home rule charter giving staffers responsibility for day-to-day operations.

His letter also says, “I cannot stand by and see my staff disrespected by the constant allegations that either we are acting as minions to the mayor, or are pro-development.”

Patrick said in an interview that as city manager for Lucas, where residential lots must be at least one acre, he faced constant pressure over development.

“It’s just very difficult when there are the growth issues knocking on the door, trying to develop areas,” he said. “Then we have the want and need to keep Lucas’ quality of life as it is. Those forces sometimes meet. That’s where the elected and appointed officials are. That can be a difficult challenge -- to balance that need and appear and remain objective.

Patrick added that “staff does need to be allowed do to their job” but said he wasn’t accusing any particular elected official of interference.

Zriny, in his resignation letter, called Patrick “the best city manager this great city could have ever desired.”

In an interview, Zriny, said, “I felt I failed to protect the city manager from the rest of the council.” He said he would elaborate later.

Wayne Millsap, a former Lucas council member, said he hopes Patrick would reconsider resigning, given Carmickle's resignation.

Patrick said he is definitely leaving his Lucas post.

“I have been looking and feel confident that I’ll have employment shortly,” he said.

Patrick’s resignation is effective at the end of the year, and Zriny's is effective Jan. 31.

Another city council member, Philip Lawrence, said he had been assured that city services will not be greatly affected by the resignations.

“It’s never a good thing if you have one person leave, let alone three,” he said. “But the city is fine.”

The Thursday meeting deals only with Patrick’s resignation, said City Secretary Kathy Wingo.

link to the article on the Dallas Morning News....

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/frisco/stories/111610dnmetexide.2375dc7ae.html

November 16, 2010

By VALERIE WIGGLESWORTH and MATTHEW HAAG /The Dallas Morning News

read this article at DallasNews.com

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/columnists/ehousewright/stories/DN-housecol_14met.ART.Central.Edition1.4b7cd70.html

November 14, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

read this article at DallasNews.com

November 14, 2010 12:25 AM CST
By Marthe Stinton/ McKinney? Courier-Gazette

For the first time in United States history, the nation will have a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Republican House next year. The split has occurred before, though not in this composition.

Dr. Loran Miller is a professor of political science at Collin College and provided a few examples of the House-Senate split.

“During the Reagan years we had a Democratic House and a Republican Senate; during the first two years of the George H.W. Bush administration we also had a Democratic House and a Republican Senate; and early in the George W. Bush administration we had a Republican House and a Democratic Senate,” Miller said.

Though this will affect national politics, Miller said it will be hard to tell how it will impact the average citizen.

“Obviously, to get anything done you are now going to need bipartisanship,” he said. “Will the party leaders exhibit this or will gridlock ensue? The chance of bipartisanship is more likely during the first year than the second, as during the second year, politicians will be on reelection mode and less likely to bargain. When the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House - and a Democratic president, bipartisanship was not necessary.”

Miller said the addition of tea party Republicans, and whether they decide to stick with the ideas they had during the election cycle — of “cut, cut, cut” without adding new taxes — could create interesting results.

“Both political parties need to make progress on cutting the deficit and dealing with economic issues — since those seem to be the mandates from last Tuesday’s election,” Miller said. “How these issues are addressed and how much each side is willing to give are the key questions. When political leaders talk about spending cuts, they don’t get specific. They tend to talk about ‘cutting the fat’ — but one person’s fat is another person’s meat,” Miller said.

Obamacare was a lightning rod on Election Day, but Miller said completely eliminating it is unlikely.

“Insurance companies — one of the Republicans’ largest contributors — love parts of it,” he said. “While they want to eliminate the provisions that require the industry to cover kids with preexisting conditions and they want to set lifetime limits on medical care, they make billions on the requirement to purchase insurance.”

Shawn Stevens, chairman of the Democratic Party of Collin County, said now that the Republicans have a majority in the U.S. House, they have the responsibility to actually govern and work together with the Democratic majority of the U.S. Senate and President Obama. He said they now have the chance help more Americans get good-paying jobs, “not the minimum-wage jobs that have been most of what has been created in Texas recently.”

“That is what Americans care most about,” Stevens said. “Hopefully, the Republicans in the U.S. House under Speaker John Boehner will not waste all of their time doing their contributors’ bidding by relitigating the recent health insurance reform legislation and trying to make President Obama a one-term president — as Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? has said was his main focus, instead of focusing on helping the Democrats try to improve the economic mess that was underway when President Obama took office — and focus on helping get Americans back to work.”

Stevens said it is difficult to tell whether the split will have a profound effect on local and national government.

“It all depends on how the Republicans approach the situation,” he said. “If they continue to be obstructionists and seek to try to frame President Obama and the Democrats as not being able to get anything done, and shut down the federal government like Newt Gingrich did when he was speaker and battled President Clinton, then that will obviously have an effect on the national government.”

Though what happens in Washington affects the public’s perceptions of politics in general, Stevens said, how the two big political parties relate to each other has an effect on the atmosphere of state and local politics.

“The biggest political reality on the ground in Texas right now is that the state of Texas is facing an estimated $25 billion state budget shortfall,” he said. “The Republicans completely control Texas state government, which in many ways has more of an impact on Texans’ lives, both directly — with school and college funding, prisons, roads and bridges, Medicaid, and safety-net programs like food stamps, which many Texans are having to rely on just to eat in this difficult economic environment — and indirectly with how state funding affects local governments.”

Stevens said because Gov. Rick Perry won’t have $16 billion in federal stimulus money from Washington in the legislative session next spring, Texans will likely see public college tuition increases, more students crammed into public school classrooms, closing of a number of state prisons and a continuation of the underfunding of the construction and maintenance of roadways, leading to even more congestion.

“Local governments, including local school districts, will very much be affected by what happens with the state budget in Austin next spring,” Stevens said. “The state budget shortfall is likely to have a severe impact on local community-college funding, like that for Collin College, which may be forced to either raise local tax rates, or tuition, or both.

Fred Moses, chairman of the Collin County Republican Party, sees the Republican House as an opportunity.

“We have a more conservative House that can put restraint on government spending,” Moses said.

Moses said that when one party controlled both the Senate and the House, it was presented the opportunity to pass something like health care without bipartisan support.

“I don’t know that it was good for the country,” he said.

He said the split will have a profound effect on both national and local governments in that there will be a more “conservative agenda.”

“I think in terms of some of the mandates we get from the federal government, there will be less likelihood that we have these government mandates on local districts like Collin County, because one is more conservative and we are looking more strongly to represent local government interests,” he said.

Moses hopes that both parties will work together and have the country’s best issues at heart.

read the rest of this article at StarLocalNews.com

Link: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/collin-county-paxton-joins-the.html

November 11, 2010
By Erin Mulvaney/ The Dallas Morning News - Trailblazer Blog

Rep. Ken Paxton, R-McKinney, threw his hat in the ring to join the race for Speaker of the Texas House.

read other blog entries on this topic at DallasNews.com

The City of Frisco issued a press release also released from Exide: Exide will allow all Frisco residents free blood tests for lead.

********************************************

The following information is distributed from the City of Frisco's News and Information service.

********************************************

***The following information has been released by Exide Technologies, Inc.

Blood Lead Testing Now Available for Residents of Frisco, TX

Frisco, TX – (November 4, 2010) – Exide Technologies has announced that testing for blood lead concentration is now available for all residents of the City of Frisco, at no charge. Exide will be responsible for all expenses incurred for the blood draw and testing. Frisco residents interested in the testing must go to the office of Dr. Vicki B. Davis at 8680 East Main Street, Suite 1E, Frisco, TX, phone number: 972-377-2447. The blood testing can be done by appointment or on a walk-in basis. Please note that walk-ins may have to wait for staff availability. Citizens will be asked to confirm their residency prior to the testing. All blood samples will be sent by Dr. Davis to ACL Laboratories for a lead concentration analysis. Results obtained by ACL will be returned to Dr. Davis. She will contact residents to provide and discuss the results and answer any questions.

“We are offering this testing to all residents of the City of Frisco in order to provide peace of mind regarding blood lead levels,” said Don Barar, plant manager for Exide’s Frisco recycling facility. “I encourage any citizen who has a question about blood lead levels to take advantage of this testing.”

For questions regarding the testing, please contact either Dr. Davis or Susan Jaramillo at Exide, (203) 699-9133.

###

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/110410dnmetcollinglitch.1f3db7fba.html

November 3, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

read this story at DallasNews.com

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

Commentary: Just for the record, vote times in excess of an hour were reported as early as 3 pm at high traffic locations such as the Allen Municipal Courts building, Christ United Methodist Church and Harrington Library in Plano, Renner-Frankford Library in Dallas and the Murphy Municipal building -- while other locations had minimal wait times.

It was not just last-minute voters who experienced long lines, as many Collin County voters who waited hours to vote, some outside in the rain, can attest. Unknown is how many voters were discouraged and left polling locations due to the long lines.

The Wait Time indicators on the County Elections website seemed to be updated for some locations, but not for others. At one point in the late afternoon, the indicator for Ford Middle School in Allen showed no wait when exiting voters were reporting waits of 90 minutes. A few miles away, voters at Suncreek United Methodist Church also waited 90 minutes as the online system showed a 15 minute wait.

Other than the indicators on the county website, there did not appear to be any system in place to advise voters in long lines that other nearby locations had significantly shorter lines. For example, while voters waited in a 90 minute line at Renner-Frankford Library in Dallas, lines were negligible at Rose Haggar Elementary School, half a mile away.

As frustrating as this experience was for so many, it was positively inspiring to see the long lines of voters so determined to cast their vote that they were willing to wait for an hour or more, particularly those who did so standing in the rain. They should be commended for their dedication, and we can hope that those who didn't vote at all will be encouraged by their example.

angellsmith

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-collin_03met.ART.State.Edition1.2947d93.html

November 2, 2010

By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

link to the full article at DallasNews.com

Link: http://www.texasobserver.org/forrestforthetrees/voting-problems-in-collin-county

by Forrest Wilder/The Texas Observer

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

The Collin County Observer has a post up describing "multiple reports of voting issues in Collin County today." Collin County is trying out a new "vote center" concept in which voters can vote at any polling location rather than their neighborhood precinct. The system requires the use of electronic pollbooks linked together.

According to The Collin County Observer, technical glitches with these pollbooks is causing trouble at the polls.

Concerns brought to our attention so far include a corrupt file loaded on all of the county-issued electronic pollbooks, network and telephony issues.According to our information, voting in many locations was interrupted due to the issues with electronic pollbooks and networks, and the resulting phone calls into the Elections Office overwhelmed their capacity to receive and handle calls.



While some election judges and their crews capably kept processing voters, others were paralyzed by the technology failures and essentially stopped voting for periods of time. All polling locations are provided with paper ballots and instructed to process voters on paper in the event of technical failure.

Election judges are also responsible for reporting wait times to the Elections Office so that the Wait Time indicator on the county's website can be updated and indications are that this is not happening consistently.

The Texas Observer talked to the author of the post, Debra [sic] Angell Smith. "From my standpoint, [the vote center concept] is a great idea," Angell Smith said. "The problem is do they have adequate infrastructure? I would say today the answer is 'no'."

Angell Smith said she didn't know how widespread the problems are. When I called the office of the Collin County Voter Registrar I was put on hold for about 10 minutes before reaching an operator. I left a message with an elections official in an attempt to corroborate this information. I will update this post when I hear back from her.

Update: I spoke with Tim Wyatt, a spokesman for Collin County. He confirmed that there were problems today with the electronic pollbooks, which are essentially laptop computers that contain a database of voters. But Wyatt said the delays in voting were relatively short and the problem is now fixed.

Here's what happened: Some of the laptops became overloaded and had to be reset, temporarily delaying folks from voting. It took the county IT people about 30 minutes to identify the root cause – a "Windows glitch" (damn you Microsoft!) that brought down the computers.

"It caused some delays," said Wyatt. "It slowed things down." He didn't know how many polling places were affected in all but said 47 technicians were deployed to fix the glitch. The longest reported wait was 90 minutes, Wyatt said. The voting machines themselves were not compromised and poll workers were able to verify voters over the phone.

The glitch wasn't caught during pre-election simulations because the system wasn't tested with the type of loads (number of voters) seen on Election Day.

As noted in the original post, the "vote center" model is relatively untested. Collin County is one of a handful of counties trying it out this election. The primary advantage of "voter centers" is convenience. On Election Day, voters can vote at any polling place of their choosing and can move to a different location if the lines are long. However, the system necessitates new layers of technology, i.e. more stuff that can go awry.

read the full post at TexasObserver.org

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/topstories/stories/110310dnmetcollinglitches.1ee30e742.html

November 2, 2010

By THEODORE KIM and ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

link to the complete story at DallasNews.com

From volunteer staff reports

There are multiple reports of voting issues in Collin County today, primarily due to avoidable infrastructure failures. Concerns brought to our attention so far include a corrupt file loaded on all of the county-issued electronic pollbooks, network and telephony issues.

According to our information, voting in many locations was interrupted due to the issues with electronic pollbooks and networks, and the resulting phone calls into the Elections Office overwhelmed their capacity to receive and handle calls.

While some election judges and their crews capably kept processing voters, others were paralyzed by the technology failures and essentially stopped voting for periods of time. All polling locations are provided with paper ballots and instructed to process voters on paper in the event of technical failure. Election judges are also responsible for reporting wait times to the Elections Office so that the Wait Time indicator on the county's website can be updated and indications are that this is not happening consistently.

There is no way to know if the voters who left troubled polling locations went to other locations to vote, but it's extremely unfortunate that any voters were turned away or left on their own due to lengthy delays.

Technicians in the field are working to correct the IT issues, but making changes to the software while voting is in process raises multiple security concerns. All software loaded onto election equipment is required to have been approved by the Texas Secretary of State's Elections Division.

We hate to say "I told you so…" but the Observer has been sounding the alarm on this issue for years. The "vote center" concept can be a good one if implemented with appropriate IT and telephony infrastructure and adequate communication to voters, but unfortunately this has not been the case in Collin County.

If you haven't voted, please do, and if you encounter problems at one polling location, try another. Hopefully most of the systemic issues have been addressed and we won't have further interruptions due to technical problems, but if necessary be prepared to ask for a paper ballot.


link to Collin County Elections - Election Day Polling Locations & Sample Ballots

Other coverage of vote centers by the Collin County Observer:

Vote Centers: Expert's report ad public hearing today

Collin to take part in vote center pilot despite concerns

November 1st's commissioner's court agenda included an "Executive Session," using the "legal" exception to discuss "legislative actions involving County relationship with NTTA, County Judge."

Commissioner Joe Jaynes objected to the secret meeting and elected to not attend the meeting.

The county's strategy is to lobby the Texas Legislature for statutes protecting the Collin County Toll Road Authority. Instead, it is very possible that the legislature will strengthen the NTTA.

The Texas Open Meetings Act is intended to make the actions and communications of elected and appointed officials transparent to their constituents, but does allows for private meetings in a few very specific circumstances. On several occasions Judge Self has used the "Legal" exception as an excuse to go into Executive Session and meet behind closed doors. Self simply adds a lawyer to the meeting, and then claims that the purpose for the secret meeting was to consult with the lawyer.

Judge Self stated that the county's attorney, Greg Hudson, would confirm that the discussion was "absolutely" legal, which Hudson later did.

Judge Self and Commissioners Shaheen and Ward attended the Executive Session and the three members constituted a quorum. Commissioner Hoagland was out-of-town.

After the court's secret meeting, Self passed around notes "about the main points." Self said that subsequent discussions about the County's relationship with the NTTA will be held in "open meetings."

The video is linked to the November 1st Commission's Court meeting. The issue of the executive session is at the time stamp of 13:30.

Bill

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

From the "County Line" newsletter emailed by Commissioner Jaynes:

The County Line
Joe's Blog

The commissioners court met last night and chose to go into executive session under the following agenda item:

"Discuss potential legislative actions involving County relationship with NTTA, County Judge."

The major flaw with this item is that the only time you can legally go into executive session (behind closed doors) is if there are possible litigation, real estate or personnel issues.

Discussing legislative issues does not legally apply to executive sessions. In the interest of transparent government I chose not to participate. I am committed to keep our issues out in the open with full transparency.

To see the court's violation of the Open Meetings Act click on this link and forward to 13.38.

Government behind closed doors does not serve our citizens in an honest way.

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

Executive session causes strife for Commissioners’ Court

November 4, 2010
By Marthe Stinton/ McKinney Courier-Gazette

In recent weeks, the Collin County Commissioners’ Court has been preparing for the upcoming legislative session by working with the North Texas Tollway Authority to form a united front regarding primacy on the Outer Loop.

This week, County Judge Keith Self called an executive session to discuss the matter, an action that left one commissioner questioning the decision.

“We are going in to executive session in accordance with Chapter 551, Section 551.071, which is the legal paragraph to discuss the potential legislative actions involving the county relationship with the NTTA,” Self said at the meeting.

Commissioner Kathy Ward asked for clarity regarding the call for an executive session, asking, “I am just curious; since this has to do with the NTTA, how does this fall under legal?”

Self said he spoke with attorney Greg Hudson about the matter and Hudson agreed that it does fall into the legal category.

But Commissioner Joe Jaynes still wasn’t satisfied with the response.

“I am curious as well,” Jaynes said. “We have had this on the agenda for six months now, and we have this particular legislative item under legal. I am not very uncomfortable with going into executive session. I just don’t see how legislative action involving our relationship with the NTTA should go into executive session. I think in the spirit of transparent government, this should be brought up out front.”

Jaynes did not accompany the commissioners into the executive session, citing the lack of transparency.

“That’s not an appropriate topic for executive session,” he said. “I believe that should be discussed in open court. I am a huge believer in transparent, open government. You should only go in exec session legally when you have to, not just when you want to.”

Jaynes said unless it involved legal issues, real estate or personnel, should the court go into executive session.

“You will see a letter from the attorney saying the reason they went back there was appropriate,” Jaynes said. “But the original reason was not. I think it is a manipulation of the rules.”

Jaynes is planning to formally request that the court suspend attorney-client privileges in order to openly discuss what was discussed in the executive session.

He said he now has concerns regarding how the NTTA feels toward the county.

“If the NTTA went into executive session to discuss us, we would be going ballistic,” he said. “I’m not sure what the NTTA is thinking. They are probably pretty well fed up with Collin County after the last legislative session. I am just hoping we can build a working relationship with them.”

When asked about the session, Self said, “We had our discussion and then I passed [notes] on the main points.”

However, he added a post to his Facebook page addressing the session.

“Friends, I assure you, I am committed to transparency, and am delighted that so many now embrace government transparency,” Self wrote. “Concerning last evening's executive session, I'll let the attorney who was on the phone with the three members of the court present (Commissioner Hoagland was out of town) speak for himself.”

Greg Hudson wrote a letter to Self, who then posted it on his website.

“Although I cannot divulge the content of the executive session from [Monday’s] meeting, I am comfortable stating that the executive session consisted of questions posed to me in my role as outside legal counsel for the commissioners’ court and my response to those questions,” Hudson wrote. “The questions asked of me were of a legal nature.”

Regarding the notes Self handed out, Hudson had this to say:

“Lastly, Judge Self had prepared some materials he intends to share with the commissioners regarding the subject matter of the executive session. However, those materials were not shared or discussed in executive session. Rather, it is my understanding from statements made in open session (after the executive session) that such materials will be shared and discussed at a future meeting of the commissioners’ court.”

Self also posted a list of reasons for executive sessions for consultations with an attorney but perhaps the most fitting regarding proposed contracts.

“A governing body may consult with its attorney in executive session to receive advice on legal issues raised by a proposed contract. However, the body may not discuss the merits of a proposed contract, financial considerations, or other non-legal matters related to the contract simply because its attorney is present. General discussions of policy unrelated to legal matters are not permitted in executive session under the Act merely because an attorney is present.”

Commissioner Hoagland was not at commissioners’ court and both he and Jaynes will be emailed the information discussed in executive session.

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/columnists/ehousewright/stories/DN-housecol_31met.ART.East.Edition1.33702a0.html

October 31, 2010
Ed Housewright/The Dallas Morning News

Read this column at DallasNews.com

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/prosper/stories/DN-taxgoof_29met.ART0.State.Edition1.3367c8d.html

October 29, 2010
By MATTHEW HAAG / The Dallas Morning News

read this story at DallasNews.com.

Editorial: Courthouse circus in Collin County

The Dallas Morning News / Editorial board
Thursday, October 28, 2010

.... link to the editorial at The Dallas Monday News

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/102610dnmetcollinclerk.1ca65e396.html

October 27, 2010

By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

read this story at DallasNews.com

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102810dnmetcollinclerkda.1cfb09484.html

October 27, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

read this story at DallasNews.com

The District Clerk, Harrah Kunkle, and six indicted clerks are using a duplicate set of books for employee time -- commonly known as "the Blue Books." This is the source of the charge against them for "falsifying official documents."

The District Attorney, John Roach, is using exactly the same type of duplicate books as Kunkle's, instead calling it "High-Five." The same allegation - falsifying official documents - could potentially be applied to this program as well.

Now the DA is now having to tell the court that the District Attorney's office used a similar scenario as the District Clerk.

The District Attorney's Office has recused itself, and will ask for a special prosecutor. The call for a special prosecutor will cause the case many months delay.

It's now likely that Crigger will take office as any trial will take at least six months.

The DA screwed up their six cases. Idiots!

__

Hunter Biederman at the Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog did a great pair of articles on the DA stories:

Collin County DA Recuses Self From District Clerk Case, Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog, October 26, 2010

District Clerks Case - Brady Material Filing, Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog, October 26, 2010

"State's Disclosure of Evidence Favorable to the Defendant.", Texas vs Crigger , 401-81993-10

"State's Joinder to Defendant Motions to Recuse District Attorney's Office", Texas vs Littrell's, 401-81995-10

Trial for 6 Collin County clerk's office employees postponed until 2011, Dallas Morning News, Ed Housewright, October 26, 2010

Bill

_______________________________________

District Clerks Case - Brady Material Filing

Posted on October 26, 2010 by Hunter Biederman
Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog

Today, Gregory Davis, Collin County's First Assistant District Attorney filed a "State's Disclosure of Evidence Favorable to the Defendant." This is commonly known as a "Brady Material." Brady material, in short, refers evidence favorable to the defense that is known by the State. The State is required to turn this evidence over. Brady material is often the source of heated debates including what is, and is not, Brady material. Brady material requirements stem from the US Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland.

Today's filing goes on to detail some specifics regarding the State's High-Five program. I previously reported on this program and detailed the shocking similarities to behavior alleged in the District Clerk's case. This stemmed from the District Attorney requesting a new way to code this time off which was denied by the County Commissioners.

The filing states:

1. Approximately 40 employees of the Collin County District ~
   Attorney's Office were awarded paid leave in the form of "High Five" leave since January 1, 2003. The Criminal District Attorney awarded the leave in amounts ranging from one to eight hours. The supporting documents show that the paid leave time was awarded for meritorious conduct. The undersigned has found no evidence that any paid leave time was awarded for electioneering or political activity.
2. A timekeeper in the Collin County District Attorney's Office allegedly had an "off-the-record agreement" with a person in the Collin County Human Resources Department to alter employees' time records.
3. At least two timekeepers in the Collin County District Attorney's Office altered employees' time records to reflect that employees were at work when they were actually on "High Five" leave.
4. A timekeeper in the Collin County District Attorney's Office believes that "everyone" in the county was altering employees' time records, including persons in the Collin County Human Resources Department.
5. Per a department spokesperson, the Collin County Human Resources Department had no knowledge of the "High Five" leave program prior to June 2, 2010.
6. Per a department spokesperson, the Collin County Human Resources Department instructed all timekeepers to accurately report county employees' times.
7. An undetermined number of scheduling requests for investigators in the Collin County District Attorney's Office were destroyed without the knowledge of the Criminal District Attorney or the undersigned.

Mr. Davis further states, "While the undersigned believes that much of this newly discovered evidence will be held to be inadmissible at trial, he believes disclosure of this evidence should be made to ensure full compliance with Brady v. Maryland."

Analysis:

This certainly seems to lend credibility to my previous article of the similarities in the High-Five program and what the District Clerks were doing.
So this begs the heated question, "What is the question?" What must the state prove? Not just the behavior, but that behavior must actually be a crime.
Mr. Davis' filing seems to suggest the reason for the time off is what is in question. (I think if this question was posed months ago, that wouldn't be the issue).
It would seem that the State is planning on arguing it IS ok for an elected official to give time off on their own made up program. It IS ALSO OK to lie about that to human resources and say those workers were there when they were not. But apparently it is a Felony if during their time off they decide to campaign.

Hunter Biederman

______________________________________

Collin County DA Recuses Self From District Clerk Case

Posted on October 26, 2010 by Hunter Biederman
Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog

Immediately after filing Brady Material - Favorable Evidence to the Defense, the Collin County District Attorney's office joined in the Defense's prior motion to recuse the District Attorney.

In the filing today, Gregory Davis, the First Assistant District Attorney explains that "[a]s a result of newly discovered evidence set forth in the State's Disclosure of Evidence Favorable to Defendant, the State of Texas now agrees that the Criminal District Attorney of Collin County and the Collin County's District Attorney's Office is disqualified in this case."

Both of these filings follow my past article, "How To Gut Your Own Case: Collin County District Clerks Case." which outlined the similarities in the District Attorney's High-Five paid time off program, and the District Clerk's "Blue Book" time.

It would seem that the District Attorney's Office employees, and or their policies have the potential to come into play in the District Clerk's case.

After originally refusing to move the case, the case was subsequently moved to Dallas County and postponed until 2011. But it was originally planned to still be prosecuted by the Collin County District Attorney's office. Instead, an "Attorney Pro Tem" must be substituted to act as the prosecuting attorney.

The judge has not ruled on the motion to recuse, but generally when both sides agree to a motion, it is granted.

Oh yes, and let's not forget what our friends at the Collin County Observer discovered... an AG opinion discussing elected officials roles in setting schedules.

The Texas General Attorney Opinion : Opinion No. GA-0778
Re: Whether a commissioners court may amend the county budget to reduce salaries for the county clerk's office because the clerk closed her office temporarily for a weather-related emergency (RQ-0834-GA)

In the resulting opinion, the AG states: "Elected county officers have a 'sphere of authority' within which they may manage their offices without interference.

Hunter Biederman

Link: http://www.co.collin.tx.us/animal_services/index.jsp

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Eric Nishimoto, Collin County Public Information Officer

October 25, 2010

(McKINNEY, Texas) According to a decision handed down by Judge Terry Douglas (Justice of the Peace Precinct 2) on October 21, 2010, twenty-five quarter horses were placed in the custody of Collin County Animal Services pending an auction to find new homes for the animals.

The horses were seized on October 12th after Sheriff’s deputies and Animal Services staff found the horses in a state of neglect and starvation on a property in the unincorporated area near Wylie. The animals were suffering from significant muscle tone loss, parasites and hoof problems stemming from inadequate feeding and watering, along with acute negligence of their living environment.

The owners of the quarter horses received prior warnings and inspections by county officials for the state of their animals. At the end of March of this year they were told to remedy the conditions of the horses’ stalls, which had the animals forced to stand on several feet of hay and manure in their stalls, with some found standing on 6-7 feet of material. An April 1st inspection found the horses’ living situation satisfactorily remedied, but an October 1st contact once again found the stalls and animals in serious neglect.

An auction of the quarter horses will be scheduled at a later date to be announced. The horses are currently under veterinarian care and rehabilitation and housed at a county facility pending the auction.

===================================================================
Additional note:

The SPCA of Texas website (www.spca.org) indicates that seizures of large groups of livestock also occurred recently in Hunt and Grayson Counties. Some of these animals are or will be available for adoption through the SPCA's McKinney location.

It was interesting to note on the Collin County Animal Services website that unclaimed pets are transferred to the SPCA for adoption, but livestock animals are sold at auction. Let's hope they all end up with good "forever homes."

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/1024dnmetcollinjudge.24b1c01.html

October 23, 2010
By VALERIE WIGGLESWORTH, ED HOUSEWRIGHT and MATTHEW HAAG / The Dallas Morning News

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/1024dnmetcollinjudge.24b1c01.html

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/1023dnmetgopburbs.2343248.html

October 22, 2010
By THEODORE KIM / The Dallas Morning News

link to this story at The Dallas Morning News

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/prosper/stories/DN-collin_17met.ART.Central.Edition1.334eeac.html

Sunday, October 17, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News website

CBS 11TV: Collin County Judge Suspended Following Indictment

Collin County Judge Suzanne H. Wooten has been suspended by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct following her indictment on criminal charges last week.

Wooten and three others are accused of funneling money to her 2008 political campaign in exchange for favorable rulings in her court. There are seven counts of bribery, including Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity.

In a written response to the Commission, Wooten's attorney, Peter Schulte says "Judge Wooten accepts the Commission's decision and has immediately ceased acting in the capacity of Judge of the 380th Judicial District Court."

But supporters of Judge Wooten gathered in a courtroom this morning before the judge arrived. Upon her arrival she as given a standing ovation. Wooten's supporters say the investigation is a political vendetta by the Collin County District Attorney's office that began in the days after her successful campaign for the bench.

"They have their favorites. She's not one of their favorites" says Sharon Curtis, the President of the Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, who organized today's show of support for the judge. "From reading the indictment, it sounds like it has lots of holes" says Curtis.

"And so we're letting her know, and the community know, that people who are kind-of in-the-know, in her court every day, believe in her and don't believe this (the allegations) happened" says Curtis.

Collin County District Attorney John Roach says he forwarded the investigation to the Texas Attorney General's office on July 22, 2010, and he would not comment on the case or the show of support for the judge.

Wooten also would not comment. She has been suspended with pay. Visiting judges will hear cases in the 380th Judicial District Court until the criminal case is resolved.

link to CBS TV 11 an video and article.....

How To Gut Your Own Case: Collin County Clerks Case
Posted on October 18, 2010 by Hunter Biederman

The Short Answer? Admit to doing the exact same thing the people charged did.

I have never had a case where a prosecutor has stood in front of a large group and admitted to driving while intoxicated -- or any other crime for that matter.

But that seems to be exactly what the elected District Attorney in Collin County recently did. No, he did not admit driving while intoxicated, but instead stood in front of the county commissioners and asked for assistance on properly "coding" his Hi-Five Paid Time Off program. A program that on its face seems to be doing the same thing he accuses Six Collin County Clerks of doing. Taking time off from work with the permission of their supervisors, but putting in with the county that they were actually present so they can be paid.

From the Commissioners Agenda below:

The request started off innocently enough. DA John Roach was asking for was a way to change the computer coding of employees time off. Apparently he had already asked HR to do this, but they refused to make the change.

DA Roach explained the program: A supervisor or manager recommends an employee for a certificate that allows some time off. The recommendation is reviewed by manager, division chief and ultimately by me personally (John Roach). The employee "might get an hour off or two hours off "and they must take it within a certain amount of time, usually 30 days. They must get their managers approval, then fill out a scheduling request. That lets us (The DA) know when they’ll take the time off.

Cynthia Jacobson (HR's appointed official) told the Court Commissioners that they only make the change with these programs are approved by the Court. And this program has not been approved by the court.
The meeting then took on a much different tone. The commissioners seemed very disturbed by the elected DA coming up with his own time off compensation program.

One Commissioner asked, "The application should reflect our policies. Do we have policy where people get time off for rewards?" The question seemed rhetorical, because from the way the meeting went, it was clear that no such program exists within the county. There are policies in place that dictate time off, and this isn't one of them.

The commissioners not only refused to change the computer coding, but refused to accept that it was OK for the elected DA to start his own paid time off program.

In response to the District Attorney's statement, "if I have someone doing a really good job, I should have the discretion to reward them for it," the commissioner responded with a resounding, "I disagree."
So if the elected District Attorney feels it is OK to come up with his own paid time off program, why is it not OK for the clerks office to do the same? He charged six clerks with felonies for doing just that.

Here is the major problem I see with the State's case against the clerks. Even if they did exactly what the District Attorney alleges (and they might very well have), do those actions constitute a crime? The clerks supposedly padded their time in the office when they were not actually in the office.
According to the District Attorney paying someone for time off when they are not in the office is legal. But apparently only if they are his employees, not employees of the Clerk's office. Perhaps it is because the clerks didn't first come up with a name as cool as the "High Five" program.

If you would like to view the video, click on the video picture above. You can click on the agenda item below the video to jump to that portion of the commissioner's meeting.

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

link to the blog at the Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog....

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

Bill's note: There is a Texas Attorney General's opinion that may not allow the commissioners to overrule an elected officials' right to manage their offices.

The Texas General Attorney Opinion : Opinion No. GA-0778
Re: Whether a commissioners court may amend the county budget to reduce salaries for the county clerk's office because the clerk closed her office temporarily for a weather-related emergency (RQ-0834-GA)

The Grayson County Clerk had dismissed her employees for a short period of time due to a severe thunderstorm and power outage in the building. The Grayson commissioners would not authorize the country clerk to pay the employees for the time, which could be considered a reduction in the payroll budget. An AG's opinion was requested to resolve the dispute.

In the resulting opinion, the AG states: "Elected county officers have a 'sphere of authority' within which they may manage their offices without interference from the commissioners court." On the other hand, the opinion also notes that, "The commissioners court's budgetary power over the expenses of elected county officers does, however, create some tension with an elected county officer's sphere of authority."

In summary, the AG concluded, "Based on the information provided to us, we believe that a court would likely conclude that the Grayson County Commissioners Court may not transfer funds to reduce the salary line item to deprive the clerk's employees of payment for the time period that the clerk dismissed them due to a thunderstorm and power outage in the county courthouse, because such a reduction would intrude upon the elected county clerk's sphere of authority."

In a similar situation recently, the Collin County Commissioners Court did not approve a request by the District Attorney to pay employee salaries for time off during an emergency situation. The DA let his employees go early - and had his offices locked - during the shooting incident at the nearby McKinney police station, although other county offices remained open.

Based on this AG's opinion, it would seem that he has the authority to make that decision, and calls into question whether or not he and the District Clerk have the authority to authorize time off for other purposes?

Bill

As you may have heard, I suffered a stroke Sunday, October 3rd. The stroke originated from a clogged vein in the temporal lobe of my brain.

Doctors have diagnosed my condition as Wernicke's aphasia.

Aphasia is a language disorder that affects the way the brain deals with words, including writing, reading and speaking. According to the National Aphasia Association, it is "an acquired communication disorder that impairs a person's ability to process language, but does not affect intelligence."

After several days in the hospital and a few more in a rehabilitation facility I'm finally at home. I will be doing therapy to "re-train my brain" at an outpatient facility until I can return to work and my regular activities. It may take a few weeks or more, but I am determined to get back up to speed as soon as possible.

I work on the Observer every day, and although I need help with writing, I am able to post articles, do some HTML coding and read and approve your comments. My doctors and therapists seem to think it's good for me, and I agree.

Thank you to so many readers for the many messages, phone calls, visits and offers of assistance. We do appreciate it.

Bill

Link: http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/10/could-spanish-g.html

October 15, 2010
by RODGER JONES/The Dallas Morning News

A

link to this post on The Dallas Morning News Opinion Blog

State District Judge Suzanne Wooten, others, indicted on bribery charges related to 2008 campaign

October 15, 2010
By VALERIE WIGGLESWORTH / The Dallas Morning News

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News

Compiled from volunteer staff reports
October 15, 2010

All twelve candidates for six contested county-level races from the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as one independent candidate, participated in a forum held Wednesday evening at the Spring Creek Campus of Collin College. The event, hosted by the League of Women Voters of Plano/Collin County and VOICE, a student organization at Collin College, also drew a large crowd of approximately 100 students and community members.

Forums planned by several other organizations, including the Plano Chamber of Commerce and the Healthcare Committee of Collin County, have been canceled recently, reportedly because nominees from the Republican Party, including several current office-holders, declined invitations. Other groups, such as the Plano Homeowner's Council, have held forums despite a lack of participation by Republican candidates. A similar event for state and national offices hosted by the League of Women Voters of Plano on Saturday, October 9th drew only Republican judicial candidates, as well as the Democratic, Libertarian and Green Party candidates.

Appearing at Wednesday evening's event were candidates for Collin County Judge, incumbent Keith Self (R) and former Plano City Council member David M. Smith (D); for district attorney, Greg Willis (R) and Rafael De La Garza (D); for Commissioner, Precinct 2, Cheryl Williams (R) and Rick Koster (D); for County Court at Law 3, Lance Baxter (R) and Sajeel Khaleel (D); for Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, Place 2, incumbent John Payton (R) and Rey Flores (D) and for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, incumbent W.M. "Mike" Yarbrough(R) and Andy Woolard (I).

In the County Judge race, incumbent Keith Self emphasized his dedication to cutting taxes and reducing the size of county government, while asserting that Democrats would raise taxes. Democratic challenger David Smith countered by pointing to his record of cutting taxes and working cooperatively with other elected officials as a member of the Plano City Council from 1993 – 1999, as well as his endorsement by The Dallas Morning News.

Cheryl Williams, who also served on the Plano City Council from 1995 – 1999, repeated many of the same themes as Self, and reinforced her experience as a small business owner. Rick Koster noted that his opponent and Self seem to be trying to focus on ideology and national issues, while he and other Democrats are trying to discuss substantive local issues, such as the divisions that have developed between county management and employees.

Both Self and Williams are supported by local “Tea Party” groups. Together with Commissioner Matt Shaheen, who shares their conservative views, they could form a majority on the Commissioner’s Court if elected.

The two District Attorney candidates, Greg Willis and Rafael De La Garza, both agreed that jail diversion can offer an opportunity to reduce recidivism in the county jail system, and concurred that it should be available only to individuals convicted of non-violent crimes, with appropriate precautions. Willis differentiated himself from his opponent by emphasizing his broad courtroom experience, as well as endorsements from a number of law enforcement groups. De La Garza responded with a review of his extensive trial experience.

The candidates for Judge of County Court at Law 3 offered a contrast between experience and new ideas. Lance Baxter stressed his wide-ranging background and his work with the mental health community. Sajeel Khaleel promoted the importance of bringing new technology, such as paperless systems, to the courtroom for improved efficiency, and proposed holding court sessions outside of typical office hours to provide more flexibility for citizens involved in court cases.

Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, Place 2, incumbent John Payton shared an overview of some of the programs he has developed during his long tenure in the position, including the Teen Court and Food Bank outreach youth programs. Rey Flores described his experience as a probation officer, mediator and counselor, as well as his educational background, and asserted that it was time for a change in this position as Payton has been in office for twenty years.

Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4 incumbent Mike Yarbrough noted that he relies on his background as a Marine for his “no-nonsense” approach to running his court. Andy Woolard questioned the hours Yarbrough spends on the job as well as his demeanor in the courtroom, and commended John Payton for handling the truancy cases that he asserts should be the work of the Precinct 4 court.

Early voting starts Monday, October 18th, and voters can cast their vote early at any polling location in the county through October 29th, or on Election Day, November 2nd. Election Day voting will use the "vote center" concept, allowing voters to choose any location county-wide instead of being required to vote in their neighborhood polling location.

link to Early Voting locations and schedule for the Nov. 2nd election
link to Election Day locations, hours and sample ballots

The grand jury today indicted Judge Suzanne Wooten.

Judge Wooten was changed with seven counts of "Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity - Bribery."

The grand jury also named three co-defendants "with intent to establish, maintain, and participate in a combination and in the profit of a combination of three or more persons, namely herself, David Cary, Stacy Stine Cary, and James Stephen Spencer, did commit and conspire to commit the felony offense of BRIBERY..."

I am attaching a copy of the Grand Jury Indictment. Co-defendants David and Stacy Cary are alleged to have given $150,000 to a company owned by James Stephen Spencer, who was Wooten' campaign manager.

The Judge and the three co-defendants were changed with a First Class Degree Felony, with Judge Ray Wheless setting a $50,000 personal recognizance bond.

The special prosecutor named by The Texas Attorney General's office in this case, Harry White, was also working with the Collin County DA, John Roach, in grand jury forum shopping for over 2 years.

This author has written more on this grand jury in the forum:

Judge Wooten subpoenas Roach and staff (Updated twice),CCO, September 23,2010

IN RE: Attorney Pro Tem appointment: Judge Wooten fires another salvo, CCO, September 21, 2010

Collin Judge and DA battle it out with dueling special prosecutors, CCO, Sept. 17, 2010

"The DA vs. the Judge" or "In re: Grand Jury Proceedings" (UPDATED), CCO, June 29, 2010

Court releases Willis Grand Jury report, CCO, Jan. 26, 2010

Attorney General objects to Observer's request for Willis Grand Jury Report, CCO, Jan. 25, 2010

Two local judges targets of grand jury investigations, CCO, Nov. 19, 2009

Bill

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

The Grand Jury Indictment, October 15, 2010
Judge Suzanne Wooten Indicted, Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog, Oct. 15, 2010

Frisco's Exide plant to make upgrades in effort to cut lead emissions

12:35 AM CDT on Thursday, October 14, 2010
By VALERIE WIGGLESWORTH and MATTHEW HAAG / The Dallas Morning News

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News

Collin County kills Lake Lavon bridge project

October 12, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News

This lawsuit filed in Travis County references e-voting machines manufactured by Hart Intercivic, but there are similar concerns about e-voting machines sold by all manufacturers, including Diebold, the source of Collin County's voting equipment. This is a re-print of Bill's comments about e-voting here in Collin County from a post in December '09, still relevant today:

Collin County has used Diebold's electronic voting machines for several years now, and not without incident. In the 2004 presidential election, a Diebold machine "locked-up" at one polling place, and election officials were unable to get the vote counts from the memory card. The votes were finally counted a week later, but only after the memory card was secretly sent to a Canadian lab for analysis.

Recently, ars technica reported, "Diebold machines have been responsible for dropping votes and derailing elections in several states, including Ohio and Alaska. These high-profile failures and repeated findings of low reliability and poor security during tests have compelled several states to ban Diebold voting machine products. The company has also been sued for a wide range of misconduct associated with its voting machine business, including fraud and even GPL infringement."

Nevertheless, in 2008 Collin County bought 410 more Diebold machines for use in future elections. The county now owns over 1,400 of these "AccuVote" machines.

A couple of years ago, Diebold, concerned about the unlimited legal liability that could ensue from machine errors in contested elections spun off the elections division after it was unable to find a buyer. Renamed Premier Elections Solutions, the old election division was then sold this year to rival Elections Systems and Software, Inc.

Bill
(from post "Reuters - Diebold sale challenged" - 12/20/09)

Group of Travis voters takes e-voting case to Supreme Court
NAACP, others want paper ballot backups.

By Chuck Lindell/ AMERICAN-STATESMAN

October 13, 2010

Alleging that Travis County's electronic voting machines are not secure or reliable, a group of voters Tuesday asked the Texas Supreme Court to let their lawsuit demanding changes go to trial.

The lawsuit, filed in 2006 but held up on procedural questions, seeks to force Travis County to provide voters with a paper copy of their just-cast ballot to review for accuracy. That ballot would then be submitted to create a record that can be checked in event of a recount or problem with a machine.

The current system, which tabulates all votes cast on a machine but does not provide individual printed ballots, cannot ensure accuracy or provide a backstop to a voting system that has had problems in the past, the voters say.

But on Tuesday, a lawyer for Secretary of State Hope Andrade urged the state's highest civil court to throw out the lawsuit, arguing that the voters cannot show they have been harmed by the voting machines and therefore have no standing to sue.

Alleging hypothetical scenarios in which votes might be lost because of tampering or malfunctions is not the solid proof of harm that the law requires, Kristofer Monson , an appellate lawyer with the attorney general's office, told the court during oral arguments.

"This is not a case about the right to vote," Monson said. "This is a case about the relative policy merits for two alternative mechanisms for performing recounts after someone has voted" — ballots printed on paper versus the computer tabulation of votes compiled by each machine.

In addition, Monson argued, the secretary of state properly followed the law in certifying in 1999 that the voting machines meet state standards for accuracy.

Travis County purchased its machines, made by Hart Intercivic Inc., in 2001.

Similar arguments failed to sway the District Court in Travis County or the 3rd Court of Appeals, which ruled 2-1 that the lawsuit could proceed to trial.

The state has asked the nine-member Supreme Court to reverse those rulings and dismiss the suit.

Timothy Herman, lawyer for the voters — who include 2006 Democratic attorney general candidate David Van Os and the Austin chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on behalf of its members — said a history of voting machine problems raises valid questions about the reliability of the ballot system in Travis County and elsewhere in Texas.

A paper record, he said, is necessary to protect voting rights guaranteed by state law and the Texas Constitution.

"The right to vote is meaningless unless you are also assured that the vote you cast is going to be counted properly," Herman said.

In briefs to the court, Herman recounted several past failures with electronic voting machines, including the loss of voting records in Collin County in 2004 and the inclusion of 100,000 uncast votes in Tarrant County in 2006.

"If a voter could demonstrate, as these voters have, that they are forced to use a machine which does not comply with the Election Code (requirement for accuracy), then they are in danger of being harmed," Herman said.

"We have right to plead it. All we want is to go back to the trial court and sort it out," he said.

Thirty-two states now require voter-verified paper ballots, according to the Verified Voting Foundation , a nonpartisan nonprofit reform group.

The Supreme Court has no deadline to rule but typically issues an opinion about 13 months after oral arguments. The case is Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 09-0420.

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

link to this article in The Austin America Statesman

Additional coverage on electronic voting on the Collin County Observer:

Reuters - Diebold sale challenged

Wired - Diebold admits systemic audit log failure

DMN - Anyone want to buy a white elephant?

Notice of Public Hearing
Lavon Lake Bridge Route Study (FM 1378 to SH 78)

Public Hearing Agenda

• Project Overview
• Project Need and Purpose
• Route Study Process
• Development and Analysis of DRAFT
  Technically Feasible Alignment
• Public Comments
• Commissioners’ Court Action

Draft Technically Feasible Alignment

Please come voice your concerns!

Citizens from areas all around the lake have joined with others in Collin County to oppose this route’s approval:

• The $400 to $470 million cost makes this project 7 times more expensive, per mile, than other currently planned Collin County projects.
• The US Army Corps of Engineers own the lake. At this time, the Corps reject this and all proposed routes because they do not meet Federal criteria.
• TxDot’s 2035 Plan mandates cost effective planning, focusing on improvements to existing infrastructure and targeting congestion where it is the worst. This route fails to meet this criteria.

This route should not be placed on the Collin County Mobility Plan 2007 Update, because it distracts from reasonable, cost-effective options:

• Upgrade the currently proposed plans for improvements to Hwy 380, SH78 and other lake area roadways.
• Work within existing ROW as much as possible and target the traffic congestion where it is the greatest.
• Add main lanes, enhanced turn lanes, overpasses, underpasses, and better emergency access lanes.
• Improve intersections with innovative designs such as the Michigan Left Turn recently added in Plano at Preston and Legacy ($2.4 million)

These viable alternatives will increase traffic flow and capacity, lessen the burden on tax payers, and preserve the lake as an asset for all of Collin County.

For more information please visit:

• Lavon Lake Route Study
• Collin County Concerns
• Save Lake Lavon

Public Hearing
Lavon Lake Bridge Route Study (FM 1378 to SH 78)

Monday, October 11, 2010, 1:00 p.m

Collin County Commissioners Court
Jack Hatchell Administration Building, 4th Floor
2300 Bloomdale Rd., McKinney, TX 75071.

Kay
Bill

Possible mountain lion sighting along trail at Frisco Commons Park; park goers advised to use caution walking the trail.
-- From Frisco Communications

(October 8, 2010) There have been three separate sightings this week of what appears to be a mountain lion along the hiking trail area on the north side of Frisco Commons Park, located at 8000 McKinney Rd. The latest sighting was late this morning by a City of Frisco parks employee. The city employee says the animal was not aggressive and ran away.

Frisco Commons Park remains open, and parks management reminds residents and visitors that operating hours for all city parks are from dawn until dusk. Signs will be posted around the park alerting park goers of the recent sightings and you are urged to use caution in the area.

While there have been reports of bobcat sightings in Frisco in recent years, all three people who saw the animal along the Frisco Commons Park trail say it was not a bobcat, but a mountain lion. Texas Parks and Wildlife officials have been notified and will come out to look for physical evidence to determine what type of animal is in the area. Frisco Animal Control officers are also investigating.

“Animal control staff has walked the area, and could not find evidence that a wild animal is living in the hiking trail area of Frisco Commons Park,” said Greg Carr, Animal Control Administrator. “More likely the animal is passing through. Staff will continue to monitor the area to make sure a wild animal is not sticking around.”

The city will not be setting traps because most wildlife experts agree mountain lions are difficult to trap.

According to state wildlife officials, mountain lions are solitary animals, and attacks on humans are rare. Only four reports of mountain lion attacks on humans have been reported in Texas since 1980. Wild animals often use creeks to travel through cities. A female mountain lion has a range of up to 80 to 100 square miles and a male has a range up to 200 square miles.

Here are some things Texas Parks and Wildlife suggests you can do should
you encounter a mountain lion:

• Pick up small children to prevent them from running and triggering a
  rush or attack.
• Stay calm, talk calmly, and slowly back away, keeping eye contact with the mountain lion. Do not run or turn your back.
• Carry a sturdy walking stick with you. Do what you can to appear larger
  by raising your arms or waving the stick.
• If the lion is aggressive, throw rocks or sticks, and speak firmly and loudly.
• Fight back if a lion attacks you. Lions can be driven off by fighting back.

Read more information about mountain lions from Texas Parks and
Wildlife online.

###

The following information is distributed from the City of Frisco's News
and Information service.

###

Burbs gone wild!, CCO, Dec. 12, 2007

Texas judges run in the dark

Editorial Board - Austin American Statesman

As we've noted many times before, Texans zealously cling to their right to elect their judges but would be hard pressed to name even a few of the 18 people who occupy the benches of two highest courts in the state, the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Nonetheless, every two years, judicial candidates ask people for money and votes then cross their fingers. There might be a better way to do this, but until Texas finds it, the state's voters will hand the power to redirect lives and money to people they barely know.

The nine-member Supreme Court is the last stop in the state system for civil disputes, and, as the name implies, the Court of Criminal Appeals is the last word in the state system for criminal cases.

This year, three Supreme Court justices — all Republicans — face challenges from Democrats, and only one of the three justices running for re-election to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals faces a Democratic challenger.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

It is no coincidence that Justice Mike 
Keasler drew a Democratic opponent. Though Keasler, a Republican, who has served two six-year terms, is an amiable enough fellow, he is associated with a faction of the court that never met a conviction it didn't like.

A series of death penalty cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel, allegations of bad science or just plain sloppy police work have been affirmed by the court of appeals. One particularly troublesome case involved Verla Sue Holland, a former member of the Court of Criminal Appeals who, as a state district judge, presided over a capital murder case in which the evidence against the defendant was strong. The problem was not the quality of evidence, though. When long-standing rumors that Holland and the prosecutor in the case had a romantic affair were confirmed, questions arose about how fair the trial was for defendant Charles Dean Hood.

Keasler was part of the Court of Criminal Appeals majority that refused to grant Hood a new trial when the defense claimed that the first one couldn't have been fair given the circumstances. The case drew national attention and a lot of comment about the appeals court standards for a fair trial.

The appeals court finally ordered a new punishment trial for Hood but had to reverse an earlier ruling that had nothing to do with Holland's illicit affair with then-Collin County District Attorney Tom O'Connell Jr.

It isn't the only example of the court's strange notions of justice.

Keasler, 68, shrugs when asked about the cases, saying the law is imperfect sometimes. That attitude might make sense in a strictly academic legal sense to someone, but it is chillingly cavalier when a life is at stake.

Clearly, it is time for new blood on the court, and we recommend Keith Hampton, 49, an Austin lawyer, to inject it. Hampton is a well-respected advocate who was the overwhelming winner in a statewide poll of lawyers. The poll might not mean much outside legal circles, but it speaks volumes because incumbent jurists usually have an advantage in those surveys

It should concern all Texans that the Court of Criminal Appeals has lost respect; the judiciary is the bedrock of a civilized society.

Hampton won't necessarily be able to fix all the court's ills, but we bet that he'll make a pretty good start toward restoring the public's confidence in its court.

Incumbent Justices Lawrence Meyers, and Cheryl Johnson, both Republicans, face Libertarian opponents on the Nov. 2 ballot.

read the rest of this editorial at Statesman.com

Frisco battery recycling plant to test residents' blood levels for lead

Frisco battery recycling plant to test residents' blood levels for lead

October 7, 2010
By VALERIE WIGGLESWORTH and MATTHEW HAAG / The Dallas Morning News

link at The Dallas Morning News....

=============================================================================
Link: Letter from Frisco city manager

Link: TCEQ map of non-attainment area

Link: EPA recommendation

DA pulls 100 indictments from Wooten's court, Wooten's attorney says Roach has "lost his mind"

DA pulls 100 indictments from Wooten's court, Wooten's attorney says Roach has "lost his mind"

By Danny Gallagher, StarLocalNews.com/McKinney Courier-Gazette
October 5, 2010

The tension between Collin County District Attorney John Roach and District Judge Suzanne Wooten grew another notch Tuesday when Roach announced he would pull and re-submit over 100 cases from her court.

Roach said in a released statement that he ordered his office to pull and review more than
100 indictments filed in Wooten's court and resubmit them to another Collin County grand jury due to allegations of biased members that Wooten placed on the jury panel and the appointing commissioners.

Roach, who conducted an investigation into Wooten's election practices to the 380th District Court that ousted incumbent Charles Sandoval before handing the case to a special prosecutor from the Texas Attorney General's Office, claimed the questionable indictments were made by a grand jury selected by Wooten.

A separate grand jury approved the appointment of a second special prosecutor to investigate the Collin County DA's office's conduct in launching their investigation against Wooten. Roach's office recused themselves from the investigation after the Texas Attorney General's took over the case.

Roach alleged in a separate statement that Wooten had stacked the grand jury with questionable appointments including the father of her attorney Pete Schulte of Dallas and a former Collin County DA employee "who has had personal and professional conflicts with my office."

Schulte said Wooten did not directly appoint the members of the grand jury. She appointed commissioners to choose jurors from a sealed document.

Roach pulled the indictments when he discovered that an unidentified aunt of Schulte's served as one of the commissioners on the grand jury panel.

"We have also learned at least one of Judge Wooten's grand jurors, who we believe to be acting independently of the 'special prosecutor,'" Roach said, "has personally contacted at least one person to be a witness for Judge Wooten's grand jury."

Schulte rebuked the allegations made by Roach's office as the last act of a desperate man.

"The DA of Collin County has completely lost it," Schulte said. "He's lost his mind."

Schulte said he recommended her aunt to Wooten as a commissioner for the grand jury panel after Wooten asked him if he knew anyone "in Plano who has a lot of time. I thought of my aunt because she's retired."

He called Roach's decision "unprecedented."

"Basically for the DA to decided without any other determination that a grand jury is not lawful is unprecedented and probably illegal," Schulte said. "The fact of the matter is that taking the time to do away with these cases that he's dismissing and re-indicting or resubmitting is obstruction of justice."

The resubmitted cases represent the distrust that Roach and his office have in Wooten's ability to construct a credible and impartial grand jury, Roach said.

"I took these actions because I have profound reservations about the integrity of the entire process in impaneling Judge Wooten's grand jury and its subsequent actions, which also present serious ethical questions," Roach said. "Neither I, not any other citizen of Collin County can have confidence in the composition and operation of Judge Wooten's grand jury. All persons whose cases are presented to a grand jury have a right to expect, without reservations, that their cases will be considered ethically and within the bounds of the law. I am duty bound to see to it."

Schulte denied the allegations that Wooten tried to stack a grand jury with favorable members.

"If Judge Wooten was going to stack a grand jury, she would have put 12 angry lawyers on that grand jury because it takes nine out of 12 jurors to do anything," Schulte said. "This is all a smoke screen because he's scared. He knows the activity that he and his office have done and he knows he could get indicted. He's trying to cast a shadow of doubt because he has no other recourse."

link to article at StarLocalNews.com....

JOHN R. ROACH
CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY

McKinney, TX
October 5, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Collin County DA Orders Review of More Than 100 Indictments, Halts Submission of New Cases

Collin County District Attorney John Roach has ordered the review and re-submission of more than 100 indicted cases to another Collin County grand jury.

The indictments in question were issued by a grand jury selected by Judge Suzanne Wooten. At the time of the grand jury’s selection, Judge Wooten and at least two other persons were being investigated by the DA’s office for allegedly violating campaign election laws and for other alleged criminal conduct. Mr. Roach’s office later recused itself from the investigation, and the Criminal Justice Division of the Texas Attorney General’s Office was appointed by a court to continue the investigation and, if necessary, to prosecute any criminal cases resulting from it. That investigation is still ongoing.

In a statement released by the DA’s office two weeks ago, Mr. Roach announced that the same grand jury selected by Judge Suzanne Wooten had requested and obtained the appointment of a “special prosecutor” to investigate him and/or his assistants.

“Judge Wooten named to her grand jury the father of the attorney who represents her in the criminal case my office was, and the Attorney General is now, investigating.” Roach said. “She also named two grand jurors who are local lawyers, one of whom was dismissed from employment in my office and another who has had personal and professional conflicts with my office. One of those attorneys represents an indicted defendant in a high profile public corruption case my office is currently prosecuting.”

Mr. Roach ordered that all cases indicted by Judge Wooten’s grand jury be reviewed and resubmitted to another grand jury after it was discovered that the aunt of Judge Wooten’s criminal defense attorney (his mother’s sister) was one of the commissioners appointed by Judge Wooten to list the names of prospective grand jurors. Judge Wooten chose from that list when she impaneled her grand jury. Mr. Roach added, “We have also learned at least one of Judge Wooten’s grand jurors, who we believe to be acting independently of the “special prosecutor”, has personally contacted at least one person to be a witness for Judge Wooten’s grand jury.”

At Mr. Roach’s request, an additional grand jury was impaneled on October 1 to review the cases previously heard by Judge Wooten’s grand jury. That new grand jury will also consider all new cases that would otherwise have been heard by Judge Wooten’s grand Jury.

“I took these actions because I have profound reservations about the integrity of the entire process in impaneling Judge Wooten’s grand jury and its subsequent actions, which also present serious ethical questions. Neither I, nor any other citizen of Collin County can have confidence in the composition and operation of Judge Wooten’s grand jury. All persons whose cases are presented to a grand jury have a right to expect, without reservation, that their cases will be considered ethically and within the bounds of the law. I am duty bound to see to it,” Mr. Roach said.

link to PDF of news release....

McKinney Soldier Killed in Afghanistan

October 6, 2010
Adapted for Web by Tracy DeLatte

An American soldier with North Texas ties was killed recently while on foot patrol in Afghanistan.

Pfc. Cody Board was with two other soldiers when an explosive device went off. The two other soldiers survived, according to the Department of Defense.

Friends said the 20-year-old was a McKinney native who joined the Army after graduating from McKinney North High School in May 2009.

His parents have since traveled to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware for a special ceremony.

There will also be a candlelight vigil for him around the MNHS flag pole at 8 p.m. on Friday night. The school's football players will wear stickers with his initials during their game.

link to this article at myFOXdfw.com....

Nonprofit clinic to treat the poor opens today in West Plano

October 6, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

Feud escalates between Collin County District Attorney John Roach, state District Judge Suzanne Wooten

October 5, 2010

By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

DMN - Collin DA John Roach, foes ready for his retirement


October 5, 2010

By ED HOUSEWRIGHT /The Dallas Morning News

Collin County District Attorney John Roach says he's looking forward to his retirement at year's end.

Some defense attorneys say they are too. They've become increasingly vocal in criticizing Roach as arrogant, autocratic and demeaning of defense attorneys.

"He doesn't seem to shy away from personally attacking anyone who dares to criticize him," said Mitch Nolte, a former chief felony prosecutor under Roach.

He and other attorneys began speaking out because of Roach's yearlong investigation of state District Judge Suzanne Wooten, who was elected in 2008. The inquiry is believed to involve campaign finance issues. Roach defends the investigation but won't comment on its substance.

"It's a witch hunt, and there's no witch," said Sharon Curtis, president of the Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

Roach has received both criticism and praise in his eight years as district attorney.

He received the Lone Star Prosecutor Award from the Texas District & County Attorneys Association in 2008. The group honored Roach for "his courage and discretion in prosecuting – or choosing not to prosecute – several cases."

Roach's office has won a number of high-profile convictions. Last year, for instance, Raul Cortez was sentenced to death after being convicted of fatally shooting four people during a 2004 McKinney? home burglary. It was the worst mass murder in Collin County history.

Roach, an Air Force veteran, runs his office in a formal, regimented way. He addresses all his employees by "Mr.," "Ms." or "Mrs." Employees call him "Judge Roach" in recognition of his two decades as a district and appellate judge.

Roach requires male prosecutors to wear a suit or sport coat with a tie. Women can't wear "unreasonably short skirts or dresses or sexually provocative clothing," according to a 40-page office manual.

"I have some pretty set ideas about the way things ought to be," Roach acknowledges.

He has often riled county commissioners who set his office budget.

For instance, commissioners opposed his plan in January to spend $25,000 on high-powered rifles, shotguns, helmets and shields to equip a courthouse security team consisted of his investigators.

The money would have come from an asset forfeiture fund that Roach alone controls.

"It's my money," Roach said at the time. "I can spend it for anything my office requires, in my opinion."

Roach, 64, staunchly defends some policies that defense attorneys attack. For instance, he won't allow some defendants to plead guilty before a judge. Instead, Roach insists on trying the case.

"We're hard-nosed prosecutors," Roach said. "A lot of defense attorneys, not just here, want a DA who will roll over for them."

The repartee between Roach and defense attorneys won't last much longer. He decided not to seek re-election in the spring primary and his last day in office will be Dec. 31. In November, voters will decide his successor: Republican Greg Willis or Democrat Rafael De La Garza.

Roach plans to pursue his hobbies of swimming, scuba diving, skiing and firearm sports.

He won't rule out another run for public office, although he has no job in mind.

"Nobody holding office currently needs to be quaking in their boots," Roach said.

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

Trial of district clerk supervisors to move

October 5, 2010

ED HOUSEWRIGHT/The Dallas Morning News

link to article at The Dallas Morning News....

The publisher of the Collin County Observer, Bill Baumbach, suffered what appears to be a mild stroke Sunday evening. He is stable and undergoing testing in a Plano hospital.

With a "normal" patient, the report might also say that he is "resting comfortably," however, being Bill, that just doesn't seem to apply. He was dressed and roaming the hospital early this morning, and is actively thinking about several articles he plans to write for the Observer. To that end he spent time this afternoon reviewing the video of today's Collin County Commissioner's Court meeting and discussing research that needs to be done for upcoming articles. He is in good spirits, and as feisty as usual with family, friends and hospital staff.

That being said, he sometimes has trouble finding the right words and connecting them in the right order, particularly when typing. We are confident that this will be a temporary condition, so for the time being, a team of volunteer copy editors and researchers/reporters will be helping Bill keep the Observer current. We may not be able to post as often as usual, but we will maintain a watchful eye on local government and keep you informed as we head into the final weeks before the November General Election.

We are fortunate that Bill's stroke wasn't more serious than it seems, but he may have been in a much better situation now if he had asked for help earlier than he did. As best we can tell, he started experiencing confusion around 11 a.m. and finally called his son around 6 p.m. Grant immediately recognized that there was something seriously wrong with his father and called local authorities who dispatched an ambulance.

Bill was lucky, but the next person who has symptoms of a stroke may not be so fortunate. We hope you will keep his experience in mind if you or someone near you is exhibiting any of these symptoms:

• Numbness or weakness of the face, arm or leg, particularly on one side of the body
• Confusion or difficulty performing simple tasks
• Speech problems, including using or understanding normal words
• Dizziness, loss of balance or coordination, difficulty walking
• Severe headache, for no apparent reason
• Vision problems

Even if you're not sure, ask someone who can help you or call 9-1-1. And if you're trying to help someone you think may be having a stroke, don't take no for an answer, no matter how bull-headed they are! (yes Bill, this means you!) Delay can mean the difference in life or death, and between a normal life or permanent disability. You can learn more about the warning signs of stroke on the American Heart Association website - www.AmericanHeart.org.

On February 16th, 2010 Judge Lewis's Justice of the Peace Court in Plano collected $8515 in fees and fines. Of that $8515, $5,277 was in cash.

For two weeks, the money sat in the JP court office undeposited. Finally on March 8, all the checks and $4,077 in cash were deposited in the county's bank.

$1,200 in cash disappeared and remained unaccounted for until the County Auditor discovered the probable theft in June.

When the auditor's staff arrived on June 8th they discovered a deposit bag from June 2. The money had not been taken to the bank, and there was $586 in cash missing. Another deposit bag from June 4 was also missing $720 in cash.

In all, the Auditor documented $2,506 in missing cash and one lost check for #101.

The Auditor's office believes the money was most likely stolen by an employee, and has turned over the results of the audit to the Collin County District Attorney for investigation. Several high ranking officials at the county confirmed to The Observer that the DA and the Plano police are pursuing a criminal investigation at the JP court.

According to the 2010 County Budget, six people work in the Precinct 3-1 Justice of the Peace Court presided over by Judge Johnnie Lewis.

I checked with the county, there have been no personnel changes in the court in the past 12 months.

So every day, Judge Lewis's court collects fines and fees, much of it from people accused of breaking the law - including for stealing. Then someone in the court steals the fines. That person or persons are still working for our JP court -- still entrusted with collecting money owed to the county.

According to those I've spoken with, the prosecution of the thief has been made much more difficult, maybe made impossible, because of the slipshod way the office was run. Money, which county policy requires be kept secured until deposited in a bank within 24 hours, was left in bags on the floor for up two 2 weeks. Checkbooks were not reconciled, and the deposits were not checked against the day's receipts.

Two prior years of Audits warned the Judge that bank reconciliations were not being done.

Those employees who managed the money and the accounting still work at the court, still report to work every day and are still responsible for accounting for all money. In his response to the Auditor's report, Judge Lewis wrote that "updated policies have been implemented".

I called Judge Lewis and asked him if we could discuss the audit. He told me that he could not because "there was an active criminal investigation of a member of my staff".

According to state law, Judge Lewis is personally responsible for all money entrusted to his court. If the funds are not recovered he will have to repay the county out of his own pocket.

Bill

============================
NOTES:

Link: The 2010 audit report of Justice of the Peace Court 3-1

Auditor reports money missing from Johnny Lewis' Justice of the Peace court, CCO, September 21, 2010

Judge refuses to move trial of Collin clerk's office supervisors accused of falsifying records

Monday, September 27, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

Collin County commissioners' vote not to include vision, dental care services in '11 grants

September 25, 2010
ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

A

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

Editorial: David Smith for Collin County judge

The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board
Thursday, September 23, 2010

Give credit to Collin County Judge Keith Self for one achievement in office: stimulating citizen interest.

Unfortunately, much of the public interest that Self has ginned up has involved a level of acrimony and distortion that are a disservice to the county.

Self, a Republican, is seeking a second term by styling himself as an uncompromising fiscal conservative. Voters who like that message but could do without the drama have a good option on Election Day: former Plano City Council member David Smith.

Smith, 59, a telecommunications consultant, has the challenge of being a Democrat running in a GOP county. But he matches Self's credentials as a budget hawk. Known as a detail man in office, Smith served three terms on the Plano council as a finance committee member who pushed for efficiencies and lower taxes. One year, 1997, when Plano had a healthy budget surplus, the City Council approved an unprecedented property tax rebate; Smith pushed, albeit unsuccessfully, for a cut in the rate as well.

Smith used his voice in Plano to make the council's decision-making more accessible. He was sympathetic to homeowner interests when they clashed with big developers. He continues that work as legislative director for a statewide homeowners group.

One difference between the candidates that Smith pledges to accentuate: his interest in consensus-building vs. Self's predisposition to pick a fight.

Self, 57, a former career Army officer, has stirred up a fuss in arguing that the county funds extravagant pensions for its employees. He took that campaign to rallies and recruited supporters on Facebook, but the message stems from flawed assumptions.

Self has painted a picture of retirees rolling in pension dollars, when the truth is that most collect modest benefits. One session of the Commissioners Court overflowed with alarmed employees and raw emotion. A fellow officeholder, longtime Tax Assessor-Collector Ken Maun, challenged Self's integrity, saying, "Your math sucks."

Self grudgingly admitted to this newspaper that he might do some things differently now that the issue has caused such bitterness, but that's hard to believe when he insists that his numbers are not misleading. It's clear he doesn't accept responsibility for disingenuously pitting taxpayers against employees.

Self also fought his own Commissioners Court and a citizen-led planning process for a major countywide bond package for roads, a package ultimately approved overwhelmingly by voters. And he tangled at a hearing in Austin with state Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, and has made clear that he sees regional cooperation as infringement on local control.

This should not be the face of one of the nation's fastest-growing, most affluent communities. The county deserves measured, professional administration.

Smith, an Air Force veteran, brings a business portfolio to the table, drawing from a career at Texas Instruments and EDS as leader of engineering and business-development projects. The county could use collaborative leadership after four years of counterproductive head-butting.

link to this editorial at The Dallas Morning News.....

Judge Mark Rusch has set a hearing for 9 AM on September 30th to hear the motion by Judge Suzanne Wooten to compel Rusch to either admit that he ordered the appointment of a Special Prosecutor against Wooten or deny it.

Wooten has issued subpoenas for:

• John R. Roach, Sr., Collin County District Attorney
  
  
• Gregory Davis, Collin County First Assistant District Attorney
  
  
• Christopher Milner, Chief, Special Crimes Division, Collin County Attorney
  
  
• Harry White, Assistant Texas Attorney General and Special Prosecutor in investigation against Wooten
  
  

The purpose of the hearing is so that Wooten's attorneys can find out who appointed Mr. White as special prosecutor and when the appointment was made.

That's it. Just to find out who and when. Normally and by law, such an appointment is ordered by a judge, and then his order is filed with the District Clerk - as is every other order of a District Court.

Why is the District Attorney's office is keeping this normally public information a secret? The DA has admitted, in a press release, that "a court" had appointed a Prosecutor pro tem (Special Prosecutor). So why keep the details of the appointment hidden from the target of the investigation, and the taxpayers?

Every Collin County felony court has a long backlog of cases. Courtroom time is expensive. But Judge Wooten is forced to go seek a court order in order to find out what she or you or I should be able to get by simply asking.

Now I'm not an attorney, but I don't have to be to call the whole situation goofy.

Bill

UPDATE September 23, noon

The Collin County Observer has been informed that Judge Rusch has released a copy of his order appointing Harry White as Prosecutor Pro Tem. The appointment was dated July 22, 2010. As far as I know, no explanation was given as to why this appointment was not publicly filed in the District Clerk's office, as required by law.

Nor has there been any explanation why the District Attorney's recusal has not been filed with the appointment.

The hearing on the 30th will proceed so that witness can be examined to find out where and why the Collin County District Attorney's Office was disqualified (or recused) from the investigation it had initiated against Judge Wooten.

UPDATE September 30 1:00 AM.

The hearing scheduled in the 401st this morning is cancelled. Since Judge Rusch released his appointment of a special prosecutor, the issue to be considered at the hearing is moot.

Bill

The Fort Worth Star Telegram's "Honking Mad" blog has a good report on the newly elected chairman of the NTTA.

Victor Vandergriff will replace Plano's Paul Wageman who will retire at the end of September. Vandergriff is from Arlington and is the current Vice Chairman of the NTTA Board of Directors.

Paul Wageman led the Toll Road Authority for the last 10 years. Those ten years saw the contest with Cintras over construction and control of SH 121, a battle with Collin County over the route and control of the North Dallas Toll Road expansion, the all electronic toll booth, the creation of "managed lanes", and the construction of several new toll roads, including the George Bush Tollway.

Collin County's two NTTA board appointees, Wageman and Bill Moore spoke at Monday's Commissioners Court, introducing the new NTTA Executive Director, Allen Clemson who gave NTTA's annual update.

In his report, Clemson described a financial "pinch point" that will occur in 2013 as debt payments become almost as large as expected revenue. He stated that NTTA had developed a 5 year financial plan to mange the "pinch point". (I'll bet it's called 'raising tolls')

The commissioners must have winced as Clemson talked about the Authority's #1 legislative agenda item - granting regional toll road authorities primacy over local authorities, such as Collin County's own Toll Road Authority. The NTTA and Collin County have fought over who will build the next planned extension of the Dallas North Tollway.

When county commissioners traveled to Austin during the last legislative session, they were roundly outmaneuvered and certainly out gunned by Wageman and the NTTA. Only a last minute compromise kept the legislature from proposing that the NTTA could take over our own Outer Loop.

I know I winced when Clemson spoke of some of the other of NTTA's legislative goals. One was to "align" ethics legislation with local cities. I read this as code for weakening the restrictions for gifts and other restrictions.

Clemson also mentioned the legislative goal of "protecting" working papers and internal documents. That is code for exempting NTTA from many of the requirements of the Open Records Act.

Later in the meeting the Commissioners offered warm praise for Mr. Wageman and thanked him for his service to the county and NTTA.

Last month, the commissioners court named Jane Willard of Celina to replace Mr. Wageman on the NTTA board.

Bill

Attorneys for embattled District Court Judge Suzanne Wooten filed a motion in Judge Mark Rusch's District Court asking that Judge Rusch either disclose his appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate Judge Wooten by filing his appointment with the District Clerk or confirm that he made no such appointment.

The filing, titled: "MOTION TO FILE AND PRODUCE ORDER APPOINTING ATTORNEY PRO TEM AND RELATED DISQUALIFICATION DOCUMENTS" was filed Monday evening and assigned case number 401-03911-2010.

In the motion, which the Collin County Observer has seen and read, but does not yet have a copy to post here, Wooten's attorney, Peter Schulte lists a series of actions he and Judge Wooten have undertaken to try and find out if there were charges going to be filed against her and if so by whom.

In his motion, Schulte writes:

"It has now long been speculated and now confirmed by John R. Roach, Sr., District Attorney of Collin County, Texas, that Movant [Wooten] has been under investigation related to alleged violations of unnamed "campaign election laws" by the DA's office and by members of the Texas Attorney General's Office..."

"After a Hearing held on June 30, 2010, Judge Ray Wheless agreed that the Assistant Attorney General Harry E. White illegally tried to re-assemble a grand jury on his own without permission from the Court. In essence, White broke the law..."

"In addition, it was learned that White was evidently deputized as an Assistant District Attorney for the Collin County District Attorney's Office and was not acting as an "Attorney Pro Tem..."

"On September 12, 2010, Movant's attorney Peter A. Schulte filed a Public Information Act (PIA) Request with the Collin County District Clerk's Office requesting 'Any and all documents, records, memorandum, or Court Orders...currently in the possession of any member of Collin County District Clerk's Office appointing any member of the Texas Attorney General's Office an Attorney Pro Tem, or Special Prosecutor on any matter from March 4, 2008 to the date of this request.'..."

"On Thursday, September 16, 2010, John R. Roach, Sr. released a press release regarding an alleged "Attorney Pro Tem" appointment that had been made to investigate Roach or members of his office... This press release was released to the entire DA's office at 9:57am. The "Attorney Pro Tem" order referenced in this Press Release was not filed with the District Clerk until 1O:27am, exactly 30 minutes after this press release was issued..."

"In addition, Roach states in his press release that his 'office and the Attorney General of Texas have been investigating Judge Wooten, as she [sic] has publicly stated many times, and two other persons for allegedly violating campaign election laws and other alleged criminal conduct when she ran for election as [sic] as district judge in 2008.' The press release continues, 'My office has since recused itself from the investigation, as is appropriate in these circumstances, and the Criminal Justice Division of the Texas Attorney General's Office has
been appointed by a court to continue to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute any case against Judge Wooten and others as the law and the facts may dictate.'"

On Monday, September 20, 2010, Movant's attorney Peter A. Schulte spoke with Hon. Hannah Kunkle, District Clerk of Collin County, Texas, who communicated to Mr. Schulte that after a due diligence search no Attorney Pro Tem Order exists in relation to the investigation currently being conducted of the Movant."

And then the zinger:

"It has been discovered by Movant that the Honorable Judge of this Court may have signed an Order appointing an "Attorney Pro Tem" at some time in the recent past, but such Order has not been filed with the Collin County District Clerk's Office as required by law."

"This motion respectfully requests that Judge Rusch file any such order and to produce a copy of such Order to Movant's attorney, or in the alternative, confirm to Movant that such an Order does not exist."

As has been reported in The Collin County Observer, DA John Roach has investigated Judge Wooten for almost years. Several Grand Juries have heard testimony, but none have voted on a bill of indictment.

A simultaneous investigation by Roach against Judge Greg Willis (now the Republican candidate for DA) resulted in a 'no bill' and an exoneration by the grand jury.

Judge Rusch has not set a date for a hearing on the motion.

Bill

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

Collin County Observer coverage of the DA vs the Judge:

• Collin Judge and DA battle it out with dueling special prosecutors, CCO, Sept. 17, 2010
  
  
• "The DA vs. the Judge" or "In re: Grand Jury Proceedings" (UPDATED), CCO, June 29, 2010
  
  
• Court releases Willis Grand Jury report, CCO, Jan. 26, 2010
  
  
• Attorney General objects to Observer's request for Willis Grand Jury Report, CCO, Jan. 25, 2010
  
  
• Two local judges targets of grand jury investigations, CCO, Nov. 19, 2009
  
  

Last week, the Collin County Auditor sent the County Commissioners a report detailing $2,600 missing from Justice of the Peace Johnny Lewis' court.

The audit, which was conducted beginning on May 10th, uncovered several instances of 'missing' bank deposits. According to Judge Lewis' response to the Auditor, the incidents were 'referred to investigation'.

The Auditor's report details an almost comedic incompetence in the management of the Plano JP's office. During the audit, checks were found in a file on a shelf and in a receipt book. Money was left in a "red tote bag on the floor". Bank deposits, which are supposed to be made daily were almost alway made late - 20 days late in one case.

Escrow funds were deposited in the wrong account. Money bags were left unsecured, and bank account reconciliations were routinely not done.

From the auditors account of an on-site audit on June 8:

"Upon our request to review funds collected from previous days that were not deposited into the bank account:
a. The office administrator pulled the corresponding reports, funds and deposit bags from a red tote bag that was located on the floor beside her desk. The funds were not secured in the safe.
b. A deposit from June 2, 2010, in the amount of $2039 was on hand and not deposited; the cash total for that day was $638. $586 of the $638 received for that day was unaccounted for. The office administrator immediately stated that the cash was missing.
c. A deposit from June 4, 2010 in the amount of $821 was not deposited into the bank and the money and reports for that date could not be found. The total cash money received for that date was $720. The office administrator stated that she has no idea where the report or the money is for that date. The office administrator searched her desk, surrounding file cabinets, the safe, the office of Judge Lewis, and the desk of the back-up clerk who also makes deposits.
d.During the aforementioned search, a money order in the amount of $108.40 was found in a case file located on a shelf behind the office administrator. The money order was dated May 29, 2009. The total funds missing from the items described above consists of $1306 in cash and a $101 check.
"

"During the course of the audit the following discrepancy was identified:
a. On February 16th, 2010, funds were receipted totaling $8515. This consisted of $5277 in cash money, $1394 in check/money orders, and $1844 in credit card payments. $4000 of the $5277 was deposited into the escrow account on March8, 2010; fourteen business days after the funds were received. $1471 of the $5277 was deposited into the General Bank Account on March 8, 2010. This consisted of $77 cash and $1394 in checks/money orders. The remaining $1200 of the $5277 was not included on the deposit slip as part of the deposit. The $1200 was not located on the bank statements or in the office. As of June 8, 2010, $1200 cash is missing; the detail consists of sixteen cash receipts issued on February 16th, 2010. The total funds missing from the item described above is $1200 cash."

The report went on to note:

"During the course of the audit the following discrepancies were identified with receipts issued during the period under review:
a. Funds received and receipted are not being deposited by the next business day. Bank records show that funds are being deposited late. There were 234 working days for the period under review and 190 days (81%) were reviewed. Late deposits were identified on 170 of the 190 days reviewed; approximately 89% of the deposits were late. The lateness ranged from 3 days to 20 days late.
b.An observation of the daily close-out process of the office was conducted on May25 and May26 , 2010. The office administrator was observed placing the deposit from the previous day in an unlocked drawer in the front counter area until the armored car pickup was made for the day. The office administrator was immediately informed to place the funds in a secured location, such as the safe, until the deposit is picked up.
c. On December 9, 2009, $170 in cash was receipted but not deposited into the bank. When brought to the attention of the office administrator on May 13, 2010, she stated she would need to research the matter. Later that day, she stated that she found the money in the case file that was inside the safe. The money was then deposited into the bank account.
d. On May 25, 2010 a check in the amount of $108, attached to the yellow copy of the manual receipt, was found in the manual receipt book. The check was not deposited into the bank. On May 25, 2010 a letter was sent to the customer stating that a new payment was needed to be made. The AS400 system shows this payment as outstanding...."

The auditor's report then goes on to document other problems with cash handling, including not reconciling bank statements and depositing funds to the wrong accounts. The report notes that previous audits have shown that bank statements for the last two years have not been reconciled regularly.

Judge Lewis responded that he had taken steps to correct the deficiencies in his office, and that the missing funds were being investigated.

The Commissioners Court is scheduled to discuss the audit result at next Monday's court session in Melissa.

Bill

Link: The 2010 audit report of Justice of the Peace Court 3-1

The Collin County Observer has learned that Novaline Varner who is the District Attorney's Chief Investigator will retire on October 1, two months before DA John Roach's term ends.

Emails sent to Chief Varner are returned with the note, "Effective October 01, 2010 I will no longer be with the Collin County District Attorney's Office. Deputy Chief Chad Smith will assume my responsibilities along with his current duties. I have enjoyed my twenty-six years serving the citizens of Collin County, but look forward to my retirement. God Bless."

Chief Varner has led the District Attorney's Investigations Division since 2002. She started and led the county's "Cold Case" team which has been responsible for solving several old murder cases. More recently, Chief Varner found herself in the hot seat in defending the DA's proposed purchase of automatic weapons for a DA investigator's "Quick Response" team for courthouse security.

Chief Varner began her career in Collin County in 1984 as a jailer in the Sheriff's department. In 1989 she became the bailiff in then District Judge John Roach, Sr.'s 199th District Court.

In 2002, newly elected District Attorney John Roach appointed her the Chief of his Investigations Division.

I believe Chief Varner is the first of DA Roach's senior staff members who has announced they will be leaving the DA's Office before the new DA takes office on January 1. Republican Greg Willis and Democrat Rafael De La Garza will be on the November ballot seeking the District Attorney position.

Bill

For almost two years, the now lame duck Collin County District Attorney John Roach has been investigating District Judge Suzanne Wooten. During that time, at least two grand juries have heard evidence against Judge Wooten, but no indictments have been issued.

Now the DA has issued a press release stating that he has recused his office from the Wooten investigation and that, "The Criminal Justice Division of the Texas Attorney General's Office has been appointed by a court to continue to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute any cases against Judge Wooten...".

Roach's press release also revealed that, "One of two current Collin County grand juries has requested the appointment of a attorney pro tem, sometimes referred to as a "special prosecutor" to investigate me and/or my assistants." That grand jury was impaneled and is supervised by Judge Suzanne Wooten of the 380th District Court.

Dueling Knights (How Stuff works)

Judge Roach charges that, "The selection of this grand jury raised more than a few eyebrows among knowledgeable observers at the courthouse at the time, and this action was expected when this grand jury was impaneled, given its makeup."

Roach goes on to charge that, "Judge Wooten impaneled this grand jury. Among other he [sic] chose to name to this grand jury the father of the attorney who represents her in the criminal case my office had been, and the Attorney General is now, investigating. In addition, she chose two grand jurors who are local lawyers, one of whom was dismissed from employment in my office and another who has had personal and professional conflicts with my office. One of those attorneys represents an indicted defendant in a very high profile public integrity case that my office is currently prosecuting.

"In addition, Judge Wooten appointed a person who has some felony criminal problems, and who my office managed to get disqualified, as a matter of law, from grand jury service."

It should be noted that in Texas, district judges do not appoint members of a grand jury. According to Article 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge appoints 3 to 5 grand jury commissioners who then choose the members of the grand jury.

Article 19.06 requires that, "The jury commissioners shall select not less than 15 nor more than 40 persons from the citizens of the county to be summoned as grand jurors for the next term of court, or the term of court for which said commissioners were selected to serve, as directed in the order of the court selecting the commissioners. The commissioners shall, to the extent possible, select grand jurors who the commissioners determine represent a broad cross-section of the population of the county, considering the factors of race, sex, and age. A commissioner is not qualified to be selected for or to serve as a grand juror during the term of court for which the commissioner is serving as a commissioner."

Six grand juries have come and gone since Roach began his investigation of two judges, Wooten and Judge Greg Willis (now the Republican nominee for DA). While Willis was cleared by a grand jury last year, no indictments or no-bills have been issued against Judge Wooten.

In papers filed this last June, Judge Wooten charged that Roach is pursuing a campaign of "political harassment and/or intimidation", since she defeated Judge Charles Sandoval in 2008.

Wooten's attorney charges that immediately after the election, Sandoval, "reportedly had a lengthy meeting with executive level members of the Collin County District Attorney's Office." and that, "Sandoval believed that the only reason he lost was that [Wooten] 'must have cheated'."

Since her election, courthouse observers and defense attorneys have noticed that Roach appeared to be forum shopping, avoiding pleading criminal cases in her court and working to restrict the judge's option in setting punishments. In court, Wooten produced internal DA memos that instructed prosecutors to not plea cases in her court unless they "had no interest in the outcome".

Her attorney, Peter Schulte, wrote in a court filing that Assistant DA Chris Milner told him that Wooten, "needed to immediately resign to avoid them 'taking her law license, her family, her home, her liberty and her reputation'."

Schulte also charged that jurors of a 2009 grand jury had demanded that Wooten's case be presented for a vote, but that Assistant DA Chris Milner stated, "He was going to wait for a better jury". This was the same grand jury that refused to indict Judge Greg Willis.

In his press release, Roach notes that his office, "has since recused itself from the investigation, as is appropriate in these circumstances", yet as late as June 29, Peter Schulte, charged that the District Clerk had no recusal or appointment of an prosecutor pro tem on file. At the time, I spoke to Hannah Kunkle, the District Clerk, who confirmed to me that she had no such appointment and was concerned that an Assistant Attorney General was presenting to a grand jury without the legal authority to do so. And earlier this year, Roach stated that the Assistant AG, Harry White, was working "under his (Roach's) authority" and direction and was actually deputized as an Assistant District Attorney for Collin County.

Then in 2010, after the last grand jury term had ended in June, White attempted to reconvene the grand jury to vote on an indictment of Judge Wooten. Wooten objected and filed a motion to quash the grand jury summons. After hearing testimony from both sides, Judge Ray Wheless agreed with Judge Wooten, and the grand jury stayed dismissed.

Currently we are in the last Collin County grand jury term before Roach leaves office on January 1. He and/or the Attorney General will have to seek their indictment now in a grand jury supervised by Judge Mark Rusch (or possibly take the case to a Travis County grand jury).

Both Mark Rusch's and Suzanne Wooten's grand jury terms end in December. A few weeks later, John Roach will retire as DA, and both special prosecutors should have completed their investigations.

The stakes are high, both sides are hard fighters, the outcome is anybody's guess, but the general sleaziness of the whole affair will stink up the county courthouse for some time to come.

Bill

Scott Becker Appointed to the 219th District Court

Posted on September 15, 2010 by Hunter Biederman
Frisco DWI Lawyer and Attorney Blog

Congratulations to Scott Becker on his appointment to the 219th District Court in Collin County. The appointment was announced on the Governor's website today.

Mr. Becker won the Republican Primary election and was set to take office (no democratic opponent) on January 1, 2011. However, current sitting Judge Henderson recently announced his retirement. Most people around the courthouse assumed he would be appointed to the bench, but until today nothing was official.

Mr. Becker's appointment is to begin on October 5, 2010, and expire at the end of the term January 1, 2011 (when he will become the elected Judge).

Mr. Becker is an assistant district attorney in the Collin County District Attorney’s Office. He is a member of the State Bar of Texas, Collin County Bar Association and Collin County Young Lawyers Association. Becker received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas and a law degree from Southern Methodist University School of Law.

The Collin County District Clerk's office began laying employees off today.

Reports I've heard is that 3 people, including at least one at the passport office were informed that their jobs would be going away.

Hannah Kunkle

None of the mid-level clerks let go today have been charged with any crimes - they were simply expendable.

However for the six who were indicted in July for theft by a public servant and falsifying government documents... their jobs appear to be quite safe.

On Monday, the Commissioners Court passed the fiscal year 2011 budget. The new budget called for the elimination of 3 mid-level Clerk 2 positions and one mid-level Passport Office clerk position. Today's lay-off actions by lame duck District Clerk Hannah Kunkle appear to be the result of the budget cuts.

The court approved the reduced staffing in the District Clerk's office after Texas Rangers raided the courthouse and a grand jury indicted Patricia Crigger, the new District Clerk- elect, and 5 deputy clerks for falsifying dozens of time sheets granting at least 160 days paid time-off to 20 Crigger campaign workers.

Bill

WATER

Earlier this week, the City of Plano issued a press release informing citizens that the city had, "collected 19 water samples during June, 2010 that contained coliform bacteria." The press release went on to say that some of these positive readings were repeat tests.

The press release went on to say, "This water system is required to submit a minimum of 150 routine water samples each month for bacteriological analysis. Eleven routine samples were coliform-found and eight repeat samples were coliform-found for the month and year indicated above."

Now what is "coliform". According to Wikipedia, "Coliform is the name of a test adopted in 1914 by the Public Health Service for the Enterobacteriaceae family. It is the commonly-used bacterial indicator of sanitary quality of foods and water." I've generally heard the word coliform as part of a two word descriptor, "fecal coliform". Wikipedia also notes that, "Coliforms are abundant in the feces of warm-blooded animals, but can also be found in the aquatic environment, in soil and on vegetation. In most instances, coliforms themselves are the cause of many nosocomial illnesses, they are easy to culture and their presence is used to indicate that other pathogenic organisms of fecal origin may be present."

The city's press release however emphasized that, "No pathogenic organisms (those which cause illness) and no indicators of fecal contamination, such as E.coli or fecal coliform, have been detected."

The state standard is that no more than 5% of sample be positive for coliform. The city's testing failed in over double the allowed standard.

When coliform is found in a sample, the city is required to retest that sample. According to the city, it failed to do so

The City of Plano, along with most of the towns and cities in Collin County, gets all its water from the North Texas Municipal Water District's (NTMWD)treatment plant in Wylie. The most recent water quality report the from NTMWD shows coliform present only in untreated water samples. So far, the NTMWD has not commented publicly on the Plano violations.

The city notes that the problem may not be with the water, but with the testing: "Working with the Plano Health Department and NTMWD, the city completed thorough replications of testing procedures to identify possible sources for the abnormal results. This testing review determined several sites were found to have physical problems that have been corrected. For quality assurance, a private lab and environmental consultant were employed to corroborate results and evaluate our procedures. The private lab results did not verify total coliform bacteria and the consultant recommended procedural changes which have been implemented."

“We are doing everything we can to determine what caused variation in the results. All samples in July and August have been good.”, said Alan Upchurch, Director of Public Works and Engineering.

AIR

Frisco's air quality has been called into question because lead contamination from the local Exide battery recycling factory will cause parts of the city to fail the newest federal EPA standards.

Along with the lead, on some days, Frisco residents are also required to breathe an unhealthy amount of ozone.

According to a health alert issued today by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality:

AIR POLLUTION WARNING - LEVEL ORANGE

OZONE is UNHEALTHY FOR SENSITIVE GROUPS in the Dallas-Ft. Worth Area Thursday, September 16, 2010, 17:15 CDT

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has issued a LEVEL ORANGE warning for the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. Ozone air pollution levels are rated as UNHEALTHY FOR SENSITIVE GROUPS based on measurements at the following monitoring site(s)*:

[Collin] County: Frisco C31/C680

Recommended Actions for Ozone Levels Unhealthy For Sensitive Groups (Level Orange):

- Active children and adults as well as people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

Point your web browser to the following URL to see a map of the current hourly ozone averages for the Dallas-Ft. Worth area:
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/select_curlev.pl?region04_cur.gif

This ozone map is updated about 32 minutes after each hour.

High ozone could form or travel to other locations within the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, depending upon wind direction/speed and other factors. Elevated levels of ozone may persist past sunset. No additional Ozone Warnings will be issued unless measured ozone levels are projected to reach 'Level Red - Unhealthy'."

Other warning were issued by the TCEQ today for Grapevine and Denton Airport.

Bill

A tornado touched down in Dallas this evening about 2 blocks from where I work. (While this has nothing to do with Collin County, other than that a few minutes later the same tornado set off the sirens in southern Collin County, I thought the telling of it might interest some of our readers.)

We were outside loading up our cars about 6 PM at the shop which is 2 blocks from Mockingbird lane and just off the Trinity levee. It had just finished raining - a real tropical downpour with heavy winds that made the rain appear to be falling sideways. As the warning sirens began to blare, we noticed 2 dark low hanging clouds spinning low in the sky. I later learned that one of those funnel clouds touched down in Oak Cliff)

As we looked on, both low hanging clouds quickly disintegrated and became assimilated into the thunderclouds. A minute later, the sun came out. Thinking the danger had passed, we continued our work. A few minutes later, we noticed a weird long, thin, vertical, almost transparent, white cloud silhouetted in front of the sun and reaching all the way to the ground.

We watched as that cloud grew and began moving quickly from south to north. As it arrived in front of us, about 2 blocks away we heard a machine-like noise, like a wood chipper. Then debris rose from the ground as a black cloud at the base of the long, thin tornado. It was only on the ground for half a minute, trashing a quarter mile path along Mockingbird Ln.

After it passed, I drove to the storm's path, about 2 blocks from where we had stood.

It looked like the funnel cloud hit the ground just north of the levee - smashing out all the windows in a parked van, tearing down large tree limbs and breaking glass at a store front.

As the path moved north, the damage became greater, doing the most damage just north of the intersection of Mockingbird and Irving Blvd. There, telephone polls were down and one business was completely destroyed, with a large 18 wheeler smashed into the front of the building as the walls and roof collapsed.

All apparent damage ended just a block further north.

Had the storm stayed on the ground just a few more hundred yards, it would have crossed SH 183 and I-35 - while both roads were crowded with rush hour traffic.

Then the cost in life would have been horrid.

Bill

First city budget hearing to be held Tuesday

By Andrew Snyder / The McKinney Courier-Gazette
September 2, 2010

On Tuesday the McKinney City Council will hold the first of two public hearings on a proposed budget totaling $90.7 million in general fund expenditures. The hearing will be held at city hall during the scheduled council meeting that begins at 6 p.m.

Expenditures under the proposed budget see a decrease of about $2.5 million from last year. Despite the reduction, the proposal is still a deficit budget that sees expenditures exceed revenue by about $4.4 million. The city will use reserve dollars to bridge the gap without raising the tax rate from it's current level or cutting staff, though 16 open positions will remain frozen.

The budget under consideration sees drops in a number of funding categories. Some funds seeing large decreases include the Utility and Street Construction Funds, which each fell from amounts around $50 million last year to $536,932 and $1,976,130, respectively. Park construction also fell by a large amount from $55.6 to $2.7 million.

City services paid for through the general fund such as police, fire, public works, city government and parks and libraries will also see reductions. Public works funding will see the largest decline with a 9.4 percent decrease, followed by police (-4.7) and fire (-1.9). In an earlier budget hearing, the police department said it will make up for the loss by delaying vehicle replacement and using less money on computer hardware, uniforms and ammunition.

Under the proposed budget, the general fund balance will drop from 27 million at the start of the fiscal year to an estimated 23.8 million. That keeps it about two million over the city’s 90-Day Revenue Requirement, though projections for Fiscal Year 2011-12 show the balance falling below that amount if the current rate of expenditures to revenue continues.

read the rest of this article at The McKinney Courier-Gazette.....

Retraction, September 5, 2010 -

I have spoken with the commenter who provided information asserting that Ms. Bell's use of the handicapped tag was legitimate. That commenter is, in my opinion, credible.

I have also talked with some of the sources I used in this article and I have come to believe that I likely was wrong in reporting that Bell was not handicapped and entitled to use a handicapped space. Because of the judge's request that the defendants not speak with the media and HIPAA laws, I was not and am not able to ultimately prove the issue one way or the other.

I did publish based on what I thought was good information, checked with several sources. Nevertheless, reporting that Ms. Bell was not handicapped and not legally using the handicapped tag was wrong and I apologize to Ms. Bell.

I am and have been very aware that articles I write can hurt people. For that reason I try very hard to be certain of all the facts before I publish. Many articles I have written have never been posted here because I could not verify the facts to my satisfaction. I very much regret that despite my efforts to corroborate the allegations I posted, what I published appears to be untrue. I am very sorry for any hurt I have added to Ms. Bell.

I am retracting the article and once again I offer my sincere regret and apology to Ms. Bell.

Bill

======

The Campaignmobile, the clerk and the law -

Retracted.

Bill

======

UPDATED Sept 3, 11:00 PM

A reader has challenged the truthfulness of this article. I try very seriously to double-check all my facts, and to publish only after I am convinced that what I have written is truthful. I did so when I wrote this article.

Until I am able to independently verify the charges I made here, I will attach his comment that follows:

I want to address the above article. First off I am not a county employee and I am not kin to the person in the above article. You wrote this article and yet you did not investigate it thourghly. You were right in who the vehicle was registered to, but you are wrong in who the Handicapped parking sticker is registered to. The sticker that she uses is registered to her, not her deceased mother as you implied. I will provide you with its number so you can check it out with the Motor Vehicle Department at the Tax Office. It is CO# 043, DL/ID # 0349 Int SB, tag # B00265592P expires 3/2014, and it is a Permanent Tag, not a temporary. This was issued by her Orthopedic surgeon. Maybe you should go look at her knee yourself to see if the Dr is correct, she is 63 years old and he advised her she needed knee replacement surgery. After you finish your "investigation" I think you need to write another article apologizing to Ms. Bell. Also, what does this have to do with what she has been indicted for.

Bill

10:30 on Monday night, and the public hearing on the budget is in its 4th hour. I've been watching it live on the web, and texting some in the room.

I've had it, I'm going to bed.

Hundreds of employees and Tea Party members turned out to take part in the debate on employee benefits.

I probably shouldn't call the hearing a hearing, or even a debate. Very few, with the notable exception of Sheriff Terry Box, and a few department heads seemed willing to actually discuss .... they came to fight and shout at each other.

Judge Keith Self found himself a target by employees who believed he manufactured the issues surrounding the pension plans in a bid to run for congress. They're probably right.

While quite a few Tea Party member made their point that county employees should face the same realities of pension that they face in small business, the overall impression I got from these first 4 hours of comments was summed up by County Tax Collector Kenneth Maun, when he shouted,

"Judge Self, your math sucks!"

Bill

Retiring Collin County district clerk waits to see if she'll face criminal charges

August 29, 2010
ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

Link to this story at The Dallas Morning News....

"There's battle lines bein' drawn.
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.
Young people speakin' their minds
A-gettin' so much resistance from behind."

"I think it's time we stop.
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down."

For what it's worth, Buffalo Springfield, 1967

There's battle lines bein' drawn.

On Monday evening at 6:00 PM the Central Jury room of the new Collin County Courthouse will be the scene of a fight that need never happened - over a crises that never was.

For the last year or more we have heard predictions of pending economic doom. The county would have to drastically cut back on services to avoid huge deficits.

That crises never happened. A fact that I think actually disappointed the doomsdayers, chief among them the County Judge, Keith Self. The truth is that the revenue shortfall is very mild, and the county has more than sufficient slack in the budget to overcome the slight reduction in tax revenue. After all, Collin County typically spends only 90-95% of its annual budget. The excess is deposited in the reserve fund -- a fund that is capable of sustaining county government for over 9 months, even if no taxes were collected.

And while some may find justification in complaining that their tax burden is too great, the county taxes are certainly not the culprit. A taxpayer in McKinnney for example, who owns a $207,000 home pays $5,090 in property taxes:

• School District - $3,194
• City - $1,214
• County - $503
• College District - $179

Looking at other Texas counties of similar size, Collin County's tax rate is the second lowest.

• Tarrant County - .2640
• Bexar County - .3269
• Travis County - .4215
• El Paso County - .3382
• Hidalgo County - .5900
• Collin County - .2425
• Denton County - .2358
• Fort Bend County - .4790
• Cameron County - .3632
• Nueces County - .6468
• Montgomery County - .4838

Collin County remains one of the most affluent and fastest growing counties in the entire nation. Our growth has to a large extent blunted the impact of the economic recession. We here in Collin County continue to enjoy low taxes and a balanced budget.

In fact, the county is in such good shape financially that it has cut the tax rate 3 times in the last four years.

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong

Nevertheless, some on the commissioners court feel that drastic action is required to protect the county's taxpayers from ruinous over-taxation.

Judge Self and Commissioner Matt Shaheen have an agenda to make county government more like the 'private sector'. They believe only in this way will the citizens get real value for their tax money.

Now I don't know where Keith Self learned private sector business practice. I didn't think that was a subject taught at the US Military Academy. Nor would a life spent with Pentagon budgets seem to prepare him for the role of preacher of the private sector.

Nevertheless Self has determined that the path to private sector savings lie in attacking and insulting his own employees. This has indeed been a path a few unsuccessful business have taken, notably Greyhound Bus a few years back, (Its CEO was fired after a huge outcry over he gave himself a bonus right after cutting employees wages and jobs).

Judge Self, ignoring the fact that he is paid over $130,000 for a part time job, has decided that county employees are receiving 'gold plated' benefits. His characterizations have made it seem that county employees are nothing more than leeches sucking money out of the wallets of the taxpayer.

Ignoring the fact that no CEO ever won by attacking his own team, a close analysis shows that Self is simply wrong.

His rhetoric is full of allusions to county employees retiring with $100,000+, even with $200,00 pensions. He is wrong.

An analysis of retirement data from the Texas County and District Retirement System by The Collin County Observer shows that of the 194 employees who are currently eligible to retire in 2011:

• Their average age is 63 years old
• Their average service is 19 years
• Their average 2011 salary will be $52,700
• Their average pension benefit will be $29,600 or 56% of their current salary.

Now 56% of salary after 19 years and after making 7% salary deductions is hardly gold plated.

But Self's rhetoric is not concerned with the reality on the ground. He has instead made a great deal over the 250% County match, and its resultant unfunded future liability.

Both he and Shaheen have stated over and over that no private company offers a 250% match.

He ignores the truth that private pensions and 401k plans require that the company match be made at the same time as the employee's contribution. The company match then earns compound interest over the life of the pension.

The county 250% match however is made only after the employee has retired.

Self's diatribe has focused on a statistic that taken out of context does make it appear that the county employees are somehow getting rich. They are not.

Everybody look what's goin' down

The proposed 2011 budget reduces the county retirement match from 250% to 200%. It also increases the cost and deductibles for employee health insurance.

It, for the second year in a row fails to look at competitive salary rates and instead grants only a minimal pay for performance raise, that for most employees will be under 1%

Yet that is not enough for those who want to see public servants as blood sucking leeches. Judge Self wants to take his fight to further cut pension matches to the people in the two public hearings scheduled for next week.

He and Commissioner Shaheen have appeared at several Tea Party meetings to urge members to attend and support his effort to further reduce the pension match. His Facebook page links to several "calls to action" all asking for unhappy taxpayers to lobby their commissioner and then attend the hearings.

Predictably, most county employees see things differently. Several elected officials have spoken publicly and have urged employee and citizens to both speak out and attend the public hearings.

A large number are expected to turn out, with overflow crowds anticipated.

That's right, a large turnout to fight over a budget that cuts taxes.

Bill

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

Link to The Texas County and District Retirement System presentation to Collin County, August 27, 2010

Link to the 2011 Proposed Collin County budget

Public Hearings on the 2011 budget will be held at:

Monday, August 30, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Central Jury Room - Collin County Courthouse 2100 Bloomdale Road, McKinney, Texas

Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Central Jury Room Collin County Courthouse 2100 Bloomdale Road, McKinney, Texas

Final vote on the budget is scheduled for September 13, 2010

Link to The Texas County and District Retirement System presentation to Collin County, August 27, 2010

Public Hearings on the 2011 budget will be held at:

Monday, August 30, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Central Jury Room - Collin County Courthouse 2100 Bloomdale Road, McKinney, Texas

Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Central Jury Room Collin County Courthouse 2100 Bloomdale Road, McKinney, Texas

Final vote on the budget is scheduled for September 13, 2010

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

From The County Line blog by Commissioner Joe Jaynes, August 19:

Dear Friends,

You have seen the numbers before:

Approximately 40% of all current county employees could make over $100,000 per year in retirement.
246 could receive more than $200,000 per year.

More than 500 could receive more in retirement than their final salary just before retirement.
It has been sent out in several mass emails and presented in commissioners’ court.

Those numbers are wrong on so many levels.

They are based on an actuarial table provided by the Texas County and District Retirement System or (TCDRS) which assumes that all employees at Collin County will work until they are 60 with new employees working up to 40 years during which all employees will receive a 4% raise per year compounded annually.
The reality is that no one works at Collin County for 40 years with 4% raises compounded annually. This year we proposed a 1.5% raise and last year we had 2% raise and those raises went only to employees who were our top performers.

More importantly, they do not take into account that we have salary caps for all our employees. For example a truck driver at Collin County “tops out” at approximately $39,000 a year.

The scenario presented above has that same truck driver working here for 40 years (our average length of employment is 10 years) and making approximately $180,000 a year!

The “facts” stated by are just not realistic. The TCDRS said so in a letter sent to the county on August 12. According to the TCDRS, “The data provided…was not intended to be used as an estimate of future retirement benefits to be paid by your plan.”

This, however, did not deter some from the continued presentation of these “facts” in mass emails and in interviews with the Dallas Morning News.

Our county retirement plan through the TCDRS is a 2:1 match plus 7% guaranteed annual interest after a vesting period of 8 years.

Is that plan to rich? That’s a fair question which I look forward to addressing in future emails.
However, in the meantime, I wanted to set the record straight and cut through the reckless and misleading political spin that has been presented.

It is my belief that you should always shoot straight with the taxpayers and that is what I will do as we carry on this conversation.

On another note, my family and I were deciding how to spend the $5.50 annual tax savings that the commissioners’ court recently passed. We decided to go to Starbucks and used the savings to buy and share a skinny vanilla latte. Unfortunately, on the way home it spilled all over the car when we hit a pothole.

Best,

Joe

and on August 26th, Joe wrote:

The average salary for Collin County citizens, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is $72,801.

The average salary for Collin County employees, according to our HR Department, is $48,030.

Like most governmental entities, Collin County pays less than the private sector. As you know, the rule of thumb for anyone going to work in the public sector is that the pay is lower but the benefits are better.

This is why Collin County like most counties and virtually every city in this county and region has a retirement plan based on a 2:1 match plus a varied amount of interest. The Collin County amount of interest is 7 percent.

It is important that we break this down. The 7 percent interest is state law, however, it is actually below the S&P 500 average for a person who is retiring after 20 years of service. For example, if a twenty year retiree had invested in the stock market for the last 20 years their return would be over 10 percent per year. Check out the following link to run stock market averages over various times: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm

Once an employee retires, Collin County matches the employee’s final account balance with a $2 match for every dollar saved.

Sound too generous?

On the surface it does, but once you look at our county’s retirement history it really comes out to be a much smaller amount than others have previously claimed.

For example, check out these averages for Collin County retirees. All the information below is provided by the Texas County and District Retirement System or (TCDRS):

Average Age at Retirement: 62
Average Service at Retirement: 18 years
Average Monthly Payment at Retirement: $1,500
Average Salary Replacement Ratio: 39%

It is also important to note that out of all the employees that will work for Collin County over the next twenty years only 1 in 4 will actually retire and draw their $2 match.

Listed below are projections, again provided by the TCDRS, which shows the number of future retirees and the average benefits:
2009 281 retirees with an average benefit of $22,269
2010 337 retirees with an average benefit of $23,678
2015 567 retirees with an average benefit of $30,153 which in 2010 dollars amounts to $24,529
2020 782 retirees with an average benefit of $36,230 which in 2010 dollars amounts to $24,815
2025 949 retirees with an average benefit of $44,541 which in 2010 dollars amounts to $25,687.

The dollars that Collin County will pay its future retirees will come from the following areas:
Employee Deposits: 11 percent
Employer Contributions, i.e., Collin County taxpayers: 13 percent
Investment Earnings: 76 percent

As you can see this is a plan that no one will grow rich on nor is it one that is unfair to the taxpayers.

To completely fund this plan Collin County will set aside $40 million over the next 20 years. To put this into perspective, this 20-year figure is less than half Collin County’s yearly $85 million payroll.

This commissioners’ court has taken proactive steps to address this “unfunded liability.” As a matter of fact, this year we took $5 million out of our $132 million in reserves to ensure that this is paid off ahead of schedule.

As this issue of public sector retirement funds becomes a problem for places like California and Illinois, Collin County stands out as a shining example of your local government actually having a handle on this very complicated issue at a minimal cost to the taxpayers.

So when you read postings that 246 county retirees will earn $200,000, that over 40% will earn over $100,000 and that Collin County is $40 million “in the hole,” the bottom line is that they are just not true.

John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.” Hopefully the facts presented here will clear up any confusion that has been stirred up on this issue.

Please plan to attend our budget public hearing on Monday, August 30 at 6.30pm and Tuesday, September 7 at 1.30pm. Both public hearings will be held in the Central Jury Room at the Collin County Courthouse.

Best,

Joe

And from County Judge Keith Self's Facebook page:

The Pension Plan Saga
by Keith Self on Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 8:09pm

Friends,
The world has changed. The private sector has moved almost exclusively to 401(k) pension plans where employees manage their retirement assets in the marketplace.

But government plans have not changed with the times. Our county pension plan still matches 250% and guarantees 7% interest, an unrealistic expectation in the marketplace.

By the way, I just received a letter of clarification from the retirement system in Austin. The letter states that "It is projected that the average current employee will retire with 13 years service. After adjusting for 13 years assumed inflation, the estimated average annual benefit for those employees who will receive a retirement benefit would be $59,634 in today's dollars." If that's correct, it's amazing!

This government pension plan issue is getting attention all over the nation, but changing our retirement system will not be easy. Word is moving quickly.

One fine employee who has served long and honorably with the county wrote that he would make $150 LESS (his capitalization) per month than his current salary if he retired next year. That is EXACTLY my point. When did government retirement start to mean that you make a full salary for the rest of your life? It certainly does not mean that in the private sector.

How many of you would love to see a retirement plan where you receive only $150 LESS per month than your final salary?

I'm getting feedback on lower paid employees. Let's be honest. Lower paid private sector employees may not contribute to a 401(k) at all because they are just trying to feed the family. Yet that same employee is helping pay that 250% match and 7% interest on government plans.

Our more mature private sector workers and retirees have seen their 401(k) plummet in value over the past several years, yet they are also helping pay that 250% match and 7% interest on government plans that are insulated from the realities of the marketplace.

My whole effort is to more closely match our public sector pension plans with private sector pension plans.

This issue reminds me of two previous compensation issues in our county:

1) There was the great "Salary Saga" (Dallas Morning News actually named it) of 2006 when the Commissioners Court voted themselves a 17% pay raise the year before I took office. The court had been taking heat for their longevity pay for over a year. When the court finally cut their own longevity pay and auto allowance, they replaced them almost dollar for dollar in salary. As you can guess, the public didn't take kindly to a 17% government pay raise. Something like 400 folks showed up at a public hearing. After several votes, the court settled on something less than 17%.

2) Collin County used to give 8% pay raises to retirees in this same system that we are discussing. That's right, 8% Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) to folks already retired. The state stepped in to stop that several years ago.

One more point: When is someone going to think about the future taxpayers of Collin County? The federal
government is saddling our kids and grandkids with unimaginable future debt and our own county cannot sustain our retirement program. Yet everyone is writing about themselves and their entitlements - does no one care about the future and about our children? The federal government gets all the coverage, but what about our children and grandchildren right here in Collin County? We enjoy a great life here - will it still be available for our grandchildren, or will taxes to support full government salaries for life drive them out?

Do you remember when General Motors was described as a health care provider that happened to make cars on the side? I don't want Collin County to be described as a retirement plan manager that happens to provide public services on the side.

Government retirement should not mean full salary for life. What's so controversial about that?

Sincerely,

Keith

District Judge Ray Wheless sent out an email this week:

Dear Judge Self, Commissioner Jaynes, Commissioner Ward, Commissioner Shaheen and Commissioner Hoagland:

The following information is posted by the County on its official website:

Collin County:

* The fastest growing county in Texas, and one of the fastest growing in the U.S.
* The 6th most populous county in Texas
* Among counties with more than a half-million people, the highest sustained growth rate since the last Census in 2000, at 52.1 percent
* The wealthiest county in Texas

Collin County has experienced major changes since 2000:

* The population has grown by more than 52 percent
* The number of households has grown by 35 percent
* Asian and African American populations have more than doubled
* The Latino population has increased by 85 percent
* The Caucasian population has grown by 35 percent
* Householders aged 65 and older have increased by almost 65 percent

Paychecks & Such

* County residents' per capita income is 28 percent (or $10,000 per year) higher than the national rate
* Our median family income here is almost 34 percent (or $30,000 per year) higher than the U.S. median
* The 2006 county median household income was estimated at $74,051
* Less than two percent of county families were estimated to have received public cash assistance in 2006
* Only four percent of county families were estimated to fall at or below the 2006 federal poverty line ($9,800 annual income for one individual and $20,000 for a family of four)

What is not posted on the County's website is that, notwithstanding our explosive growth and wealth, our criminal justice system has made Collin County one of the safest places in the U.S. to live. And we have done that by attracting top quality personnel.

One of the primary reasons I left my law practice in 2000 and assumed the Bench was the retirement system Collin County offered. With my appointment to the District Court, I personally don't have to worry about the County's plans for reducing its retirement contributions. However, the cuts you make now will affect the type of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers the County has in the future. In other words, the total compensation package must be attractive enough to interest the best lawyers from private practice and the best prosecutors from the D.A.'s office to seek out judicial positions. If not, then only the less successful private attorneys will seek the County Court positions and our best prosecutors will choose to enter private practice.

Many of our law enforcement personnel and assistant district attorneys came to work for the County because of the current retirement match. If that is reduced, they may well have less reason to continue to work for Collin County. My bailiff, and every Sheriff's deputy, can earn more working for the Plano or Frisco Police Department than by working for the County. And our assistant district attorneys can obviously earn more in private practice. The retirement package is critical to keeping these high quality employees on board with the County.

In conclusion, we have established a high quality criminal justice system that has made Collin County a very safe place to live. Reducing our employees' benefits sends the wrong message about our priorities.

Sincerely,

Ray Wheless
Judge, 366th District Court
Collin County, Texas

And from Justice of the Peace Judge Terry Douglas

Dear employees,

I am truly disappointed in our County Judge and his push to take away your retirement benefits and to hack away at your insurance benefits.

I am one elected official that understands that you went to work for the benefits that County provided. We all know that it was not for the pay. I for one know that the benefits are what keep quality people in the County in order to better serve our citizens.

When I first applied to Collin County in 1979, I was actually offered a choice between Plano PD and Collin County . I obviously took the lower paying job with Collin County . I started work for Collin County for $880.00 a month, but the County benefits appeared to be better at the time. I know that you too have the qualifications to do the same job at a better paying City government job or with the private sector. If the County Judge gets his way it will destroy not only the morale of the county, but it will destroy the service that we supply to the citizens because our qualified people will seek employment elsewhere.

I am very proud of the job that each of you does and I am sorry that you have become the pawns of what appears to be a political agenda. Just remember that our only voice against radical politics is our vote. Always vote that’s one thing they can’t take away from you.

May God Bless the Employees of Collin County , Texas

Terry Douglas

From Sheriff Terry Box:

A Message From Sheriff Box

Posted on August 24, 2010

I would encourage everyone to attend the public hearing on the 30th at 6:30PM at the Central Jury room and let your opinions be known. I will be there speaking my opinion about how our County Judge is completely using the calculations in an improper manner.

You have to fill out a card to be able to speak at the hearing I would encourage someone to go by the 4th floor Comm. Courts and get several cards or make a copy and have them filled out before the meeting, this will save a lot of time. Your can write your thoughts on the card to be read in Court or you can say you want to address the Court.

You have the right theme we have to stay competitive with our local Police Depts. I am asking all department heads and employees to be at these meeting to make their wishes and opinion known.

from David Smith, Democratic Party candidate for County Judge:

I will address retirement funding. I have walked the walk in this area before. I will be able to address this in a responsible manner from both fiduciary and employee morale perspectives.

The incumbent's recent foray into this is irresponsible for several reasons.

1. He is proceeding with partial information and disinformation.
2. He is proceeding in a manner that is sharply alienating county employees.
3. His conduct appears to be designed to give him a good election issue rather than actual cost reduction.

Although in office for 3 1/2 years, the incumbent apparently came across some information about the county employees retirement program a few weeks ago. He sent some disinformation out about it that was designed to be sensational and inflammatory. He made proposals which were unlawful, demonstrating his lack of knowledge.

In doing this, he also blindsided his employees. Worse, he is rallying his supporters to speak out against employees.

And, while maybe getting what he feels is good press among his supporters, he has been ineffective in implementing his recommendations. Virtually every budget proposal he unveiled a few weeks ago has met one of two fates:
A) Defeated by the full Commissioners Court on 2-3 votes
B) Withdrawn due to being clearly unlawful or unfounded

If you want to implement major changes in a retirement plan as part of an annual budget cycle, objective information about the plan should be circulated, discussed and understood by the decision-makers months in advance. You also need to look at retirement benefits and costs in the context of total compensation and costs. And you need to look at not only your own operation but also the operations of those with whom you compete for employees.

(By the way, a good time to start looking at funding for the retirement plan would have been in 2008, when the economy tanked. Why no interest until now?)

Also, you also need to engage your employees. All of them may or may not ultimately agree on a course of action, but they need to understand what you are doing and why.

Most county services are dependent on people for their delivery. The ability to retain good people and maintain good morale is absolutely essential.

If you are going to successfully implement a compensation change, you need buy-in or a good understanding not only from employees but also from those responsible for the operations (other elected officials and department heads) and the other decision makers (other members of the commissioners court).

Someone recently wrote me to succinctly describe the incumbent's conduct and his reaction:

"I am a Republican but this is political grandstanding for the upcoming election. . . . When your signs are ready, I want one."

Walking the Walk - General Motors and local public sector

In the 80's, I was part of the EDS management team that moved thousands of General Motors information technology workers from a financially unsustainable compensation and benefits package to an EDS package more like the rest of the private sector.

In the 90's, I was part of a two member Finance Committee and eight member City Council that made adjustments to City of Plano employee compensation and benefits to improve city finances while retaining high employee morale and first-class government services.

In the current day, I am prepared to work with all concerned to successfully make any and all needed changes to county employee compensation and benefits, again to improve public finances while retaining high employee morale and first-class government services.

The incumbent does not appear to demonstrate comparable knowledge, experience or commitment.

A few notes about the county employees retirement system in response to the prior disinformation:

First, it should be understood that we are talking about a state retirement system in which county employees participate (not a county retirement system). The commissioners court does have discretion over the employer contribution to employee accounts in that system. Other aspects of the system are set by state law. As the incumbent quickly learned a couple of weeks ago, the county does not have the discretion to replace it with something else nor make other changes. County officials can ask state legislators to make changes. But, if this was not the subject of an interim study, major change is not likely in the coming state legislative session. Certainly, major change cannot take place in the current Collin County budget sessions.

Second, if you look at the system, you may find it is not actually mathematically doomed to failure, etc. See http://www.collincountybuzz.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=632:collin-county-retirement-facts&catid=85:local-news&Itemid=197 for an excellent article written by Commissioner Joe Jaynes.

In any case, I look forward to examining all aspects of county employee compensation and benefits, again, all with the objective of improving public finances while retaining high employee morale and first-class government services.

And a note about maintaining employee morale:

Disappointingly absent from the recent budget sessions was discussion of cost reductions other than employee compensation and benefits. There was no talk of things such as more paperless filing or home confinement with ankle bracelets (instead of jail confinement), all of which can save taxpayer dollars.

You need employee support and, better, employee initiative to implement such things. The incumbent is apparently not welcoming this.

David M. Smith
Candidate for Collin County Judge

and finally from the "unofficial" Collin County Deputies Association website:

In Defense of Keith Self…
Posted on August 22, 2010
The following is a reader contributed article:

In Defense of Keith Self:

There have been a lot of questions posed to Keith Self regarding how he calculated that 40% of Collin County employees would earn $100,000+ in retirement. Self has stated that this information comes directly from TCDRS, and he is correct it does. If you go to TCDRS.org the homepage has a simple calculator to determine your potential future salary in retirement. According to the website if you start at $49,000/year as a Deputy for Collin County and work for 25 years, then your potential future salary in retirement would be right around $130,000. Well there you have it, Self was correct! It is all right there on the internet.

And now for the rest of the story….

Keep in mind that a financial model is only as accurate as the assumptions used to create it. What Self failed to check were the assumptions. This model on the TCDRS homepage is based on a 5% salary increase annually! At 5% increase/year after 25 years a Deputy would be earning $169,000/year in salary. Obviously, with salary increases like this one’s retirement account would get quite large. As far as I know, no employee of Collin County is receiving 5% annual increases in salary.

Like many before him Self simply fell victim to what he read on the internet without checking his facts. It happens all the time. On another note, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona that would be perfect for Mr. Self if he is interested in buying. I have it listed on Craigslist right now.

and...

The Great Shell Game
Posted on August 28, 2010

Guest Commentary:

On August 18, Judge Keith Self stated on his Facebook page “Yesterday, with our county unemployment rate near 8%, making jobs the #1 issue for our citizens, a majority of the Commissioners Court stood with the taxpayer.” Judge Self felt that lowering matching county retirement contributions, increasing employee medical costs and lowering the tax rate would make Collin Count competitive for businesses looking to relocate.

The tax reduction agreement was August 17. On August 11, the Collin County Business Press published an article stating “The booming North Texas area was home to six of the top 25 cities posting population gains during the past year, according to new U.S. Census Bureau estimates released June 22.” This was published 6 days prior to the vote and was released by the U.S. Census Bureau on June 22, nearly two months earlier.

Where is the panic Judge Self speaks of?

Could it be that these people are moving to Collin County because of the beautiful mountains, white sandy beaches, lush rain forest or Plano’s popular River Walk? Or, could it possibly be that they are moving here because of the explosive job growth created by businesses relocating here, to Collin County, because of the already existing low cost of doing business?

Collin County’s own website states that “People are moving here. Businesses are moving here. And they’re all staying.” What’s happening with the foreclosure rate in Collin County? According to recently published report, it’s down 1% compared to an increase of 3% in the rest of the FW area.

In November, County Judge Keith Self gave this 18-page presentation – Collin County: Still First in Growth — at the 2009 State of the Community. Key words, “First in Growth”. It was a very impressive presentation, honestly.

In response to the one quarter of a cent tax decrease, Keith Self told the Star Local “the decrease will make business look to the county.”

So Keith Self is now taking credit for businesses relocating to Collin County? Was Collin County not doing a pretty good job before he stepped in to save the day?
In an August 11, 2010 article by the Collin County Business Press entitled Pro-business attitude leads to growth, they state “Businesses are always looking to find the low-cost areas to do business, and Collin County always comes out on top.”

Apparently, businesses already thought Collin County was a pretty good place to relocate to before Self’s worthless tax cut, which by the way, will be felt more by losing $25 million in infrastructure dollars than the measly $5.50 savings passed on taxpayers.

I’m sorry, I just don’t, and cannot, buy in to Judge Self’s misguided assessment that this county is in dire circumstances. He has provide virtually no data to support his rhetoric and judging from his confusion of the TCDRS retirement data, I’m not wholly confident in his ability to interpret economic and growth indicators. Future blunders may end up costing this county dearly, just as the current one is bound to do.

It appears that Self is playing a shell game for political purposes. Cut government fat on one hand, and cut taxes with the other. It makes it appear that he saved the county money in both categories but it’s really a wash. The county may be saving by reducing matching retirement funds, but it also loses much needed funds by cutting the tax rate. You can’t spend what you don’t have. In reality, citizens lose because less roads can be built, and county employees lose because they lose a portion of their retirement. It will, however, look pretty spiffy in campaign pamphlets.

Judge Self needs to be held accountable for his decisions that affect not only county employees, but the county as a whole. He may have been a good soldier, but his ability to lead a county is suspect at best. Fortunately, we have three out of four commissioners who can think on their own and who have the best interest of this county, and it’s future, at heart.

Bill

In a hearing yesterday morning, Senior (visiting) Judge John Nelms accepted 'not guilty' pleas from incoming District Clerk Patricia Crigger and from Deputy District Clerks Sherry Bell, Rebecca Littrell, Amy Mathis, Lorrie Robertson, and Marcia Simpson.

Sherry Bell	Patricia Crigger	Rebecca Littrell
Amy Mathis	Lorrie Robertson	Marcia Simpson

The six defendants stood in a line with their attorneys as the indictments were read by the judge. After reading each of the two indictments, Judge Nelms asked each in turn for their plea. All responded with "not guilty".

All six were indicted last month on charges of "Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity", theft and falsifying government documents for their roles in an alleged "Blue Book" scheme to award unearned paid days off for campaign work for Patricia Crigger.

Conviction on the charges could result in prison time from 2 to 20 years plus a fine.

The indictments were read as part of a 2 hour 'First Appearance' hearing. At the hearing, Judge Nelms heard and ruled on several defense motions filed by Deric Walpole, who is Rebecca Littrell's attorney.

The first motion was to limit publicity on the trial with a 'gag order'. Walpole had subpoenaed Ed Housewright of The Dallas Morning News, Danny Gallagher of the McKinney Courier-Gazette and me as owner of The Collin County Observer.

The Dallas Morning News sent an attorney who claimed 'reporter's privilege' under the Texas shield law for Mr. Housewright. After hearing arguments, the judge ruled that Housewright did not have to testify (except to answer a question of the size of the Morning News' readership). Both Gallagher and I took the stand to testify that we had published articles about the cases.

On cross examination, The First Assistant DA, Greg Davis asked me if I had an opinion on restricting publicity. I replied that "These trials are for official corruption by public servants, and that the public had an absolute right to know what went on in the trials."

Nelms ruled against restricting publicity, but he did issue a stern lecture to the participants on refraining from trying the case in the press.

Judge Nelms told those in the courtroom that, "The evidence does not, in my opinion, override the First Amendment. Therefore I will not restrict publicity. While I am not prepared to make such an order, I advise all to refrain from publicly commenting [on the trials]"

Judge Nelms went on to say, "I consider myself to be a rather laid back judge... but when I ask for something to be done, or not done, which I have the right to do - and it is done, it gets my gander up."

"If I read [about] it, and I know where it comes from, I will be extremely unhappy", Nelms told the court.

The defense complained that the release, by the District Attorney, of over 13,000 documents was an underhanded leak to the press. He asked that all further filings be done "in camera" [secretly, in the judge's chambers]. Nelms agreed.

The district attorney's office had filed a motion asking for expedited trials. Judge Nelms, overruling vigorous objections by Crigger's lawyer and by Walpole, told the court that he, "wanted to try these before the end of the year" when their would be a change of administration in the District Attorney's office. The current DA, John roach will retire on December 31. An election in November will determine who the next DA will be.

Stating that, "The citizens of the county are entitled to a speedy resolution", Nelms brushed aside attorney Robert Hinton's objection that, "There was no way we can be ready.".

"The citizens of Collin County are deserving of a speedy [trial], Nelms ruled.

In granting the expedited trail schedule, Judge Nelms set the next hearing date for September 27, and a trial date of November 15.

At the September hearing, Nelms is expected to hear arguments on defense motions to:

• 'Sever' the trials, trying each defendant separately.
• Disclose the identity of the informers whose complaints to The Texas Rangers led to the June raid on the Collin County courthouse.
• unseal and release the transcripts of the grand jury's deliberations.

Mr. Walpole also told the court that he may be filing a motion for a change of venue.

One of the more bizarre twists in the story is that Littrell's attorney, Deric Walpole, once defended himself against the same charge of tampering of a government document his client now faces.

Those charges, which were later dismissed as baseless, were prosecuted by Chris Milner, the same assistant district attorney who is prosecuting the six district clerks.

Milner, Davis and DA John Roach have come under intense criticism for vigorously prosecuting several high profile cases that were later tossed out.

These cases include:

• The 2003 indictment of Deric Walpole and James Vasilis for tampering with a government document -- later dismissed.
• The 2004 indictment of Dallas County Sheriff Jim Bowles. These indictments were later thrown out by a Dallas judge.
• The 2010 investigation and eventual grand jury 'no bill' of District Attorney candidate Judge Greg Willis.
• The on again, on again grand jury investigation of District Judge Suzanne Wooten. Last June, a judge ruled that the DA could not reconvene the grand jury to vote on a possible indictment of Judge Wooten.

In another ironic twist in these trials, last year the Collin County DA's office acted as special prosecutors and successfully tried Ray Sumrow, the Rockwall County DA who was convicted of theft and sentenced to prison by the same Judge Nelms who is presiding over these district clerk cases.

Bill

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

Other media coverage of yesterday's hearing:

McKinney Courier-Gazette, District clerks plead not guilty

The Dallas Morning News, Incoming Collin County District Clerk Patricia Crigger pleads not guilty to corruption charges

DART saves Senior Rides program

By Jon Vanderlaan / The Plano Star Courier
August 24, 2010

The tightening budget in Plano is not without its casualties, one of which was scheduled to be the Senior Rides program -- but an agreement between the city and DART will spare it for at least another two years.

Because DART service does not flow extensively through Plano, especially its northwest reaches, the agency has agreed to fund the program at $50,000 per year for the next two years, or until the northwest Plano park-and-ride station is operational.

The program has offered taxi vouchers and mile reimbursement as part of its services since its inaugural year in 2008.

Lee Stark, the transportation coordinator at the Geriatric Wellness Center of Collin County, said the change to two years -- board members requested to fund the program for an initial year from the proposed one-year agreement -- helps give the program stability.

“We’re not expecting there to be significant change in terms of what the client deals with,” he said. “It marries the two agencies a lot more in terms of looking directly at the issues of senior transportation.”

Todd Plesko, DART vice president of planning and development, said until the agency can bring more coverage to that area of Plano, funding the program is a good option.

However, Vice Chairwoman of the planning committee Pamela Gates said she does not want other member cities to believe the funding is a pilot program and available to all.

Because Plano is in a different situation than member cities, it is a one-time funding agreement, she said.

Stark said despite spending just over $50,000 in 2009 and estimating the cost of the program at more than $70,000 in 2010, administrative cuts should keep the program under the $50,000 budget.

The program originally was going to cut the mile reimbursement program as part of those cuts, but as of the planning committee meeting, that part of the program still was in the plans.

Stark said the Geriatric Wellness Center is going to absorb some costs, and marketing also is going to take a cut, because the program already is almost at capacity with about 90 clients.

He said when the funding is cut off in two years, he believes not only will Plano have a park-and-ride station in the northwest area of the city, but DART and Plano will have come up with a Mobility Management Plan, which DART is working on courtesy of a United We Ride grant.

According to a presentation by DART Innovative Services Project Manager Daniel Dickerson, eligible seniors 65 years old or older can purchase discounted taxi vouchers at $25 for a $100 voucher or have mileage reimbursed at 50 cents per mile.

Plano still will be charged with running the program with funding from DART...

read the rest of this article at The Plano Star Courier....

Fusing Fear and Data

August 25, 2010
PETER GORMAN / Fort Worth Weekly

In December 2008, State Rep. Lon Burnam had a one-car accident. The Fort Worth Democrat didn’t even get a ticket. Nonetheless, Burnam is convinced that the accident report was passed from local police to who knows what local, state, and federal agencies, via the Collin County North Central Texas Fusion System.

You may have thought fusion these days had mostly to do with cross-cultural cuisine, but in this case the Collin County fusion system is a “remotely accessed data-sharing and analysis system” that involves more than 170 agencies in 16 counties, including Tarrant and Dallas. It’s meant to provide policing agencies, the FBI, Homeland Security, first responders, and health providers with a wealth of information at the touch of a computer keyboard.

According to advocates, such information-sharing systems allow police to do a better job of tracking and apprehending dangerous criminals by giving them information covering a broad area rather than just their own backyard.

But critics aren’t sure that putting that much information — including some that has nothing to do with criminal activity — into the hands of law enforcement is really a good thing. They fear it will lead to racial profiling, the targeting of perfectly legal groups, and even harassment of individuals. One major concern is that information from various sources will be sent up the line to federal agencies, which will use it to target undocumented residents for deportation — and that the result will be a wedge driven between Latino communities and local police.

“When that happens, people often won’t even report criminal activity or come forward as witnesses to criminal activity,” said Aerin Toussaint, a policy analyst with Texas Impact, a grassroots network that includes Christian, Jewish, and Muslim individuals and institutions. The group works for public policies that enhance freedom and justice.

“I am tremendously concerned about the potential violation of privacy” with fusion systems, Burnam told Fort Worth Weekly. “I have been trying through the Open Records Act to discover what they have gathered on me. I know they gathered something in the context of my having been the director of the Dallas Peace Center for 10 years. And I want to know what it is.”

Fusion centers were started in 2004 as part of the post-9/11 anti-terrorist backlash. They are funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which developed the idea of creating multi-jurisdictional agencies that would share information in order to track and prevent terrorist and criminal activity. However, the federal government offered no strict guidelines on how the centers would be run, leaving that up to the local jurisdictions.

The first such center in Texas was opened in 2004 by the Department of Public Safety’s Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division. Since then several others have been created, including the one in Collin County that covers North Texas. All the participating agencies supply data to that “bank.” Dallas, which has its own center, provides only limited information to the Collin County center.

The result thus far has been the creation of overlapping data centers with different missions, each run independently — and some taking the kind of actions that civil libertarians have feared all along.

The Collin County fusion center, for instance, sent out a “prevention awareness bulletin” in February 2009, ordering law enforcement authorities to report on all civil rights meetings involving Muslims and to gather and pass along information on any anti-war groups in the 16-county jurisdiction. The ability to “order” local jurisdictions to supply information comes from the center’s federal mandate.

It turned out that the bulletin was not authorized by the Collin County head of Homeland Security, but was sent out by a computer worker in the center. [Bill notes: actually the 'computer worker' was Dr. bob Johnson, the prime contractor to the Fusion Center and the son of Congressman Sam Johnson]

In the months that followed, everyone from the ACLU to religious groups objected to it. In the wake of the scandal, center officials center limited the scope of their data collecting — but many of the agencies in its jurisdiction continued to pass along the information demanded.

“This memo is not a plea for legitimate intelligence, and seems to endorse discrimination against Muslims,” Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, said in a press release. “The idea that the tolerance advocated by the groups being targeted would be treated as a menace to American security demonstrates a disregard for civil liberties and a disdain for democracy itself.”

The Collin County fusion system hasn’t released another such bulletin since then.

According to Lt. Todd Thomasson of the Dallas Police Department, commander of that city’s fusion center, other centers have “passed out documents that suggest that if a person has a certain bumper sticker they might be a terrorist and other misleading things.” But he said the Dallas City Fusion Center — officially called Metro Operations Support and Analytical Intelligence Center, or MOSAIC — does not participate in that sort of grab-bag information gathering.

“Dallas is part of the NCTFS, but our center only provides the Collin County fusion center with information related to criminal activity,” he said. “A lot of fusion centers around the country are multi-agency. We’re not. We are a tactical fusion center, focused on crime. We share information as it relates to criminal activity and nothing else.”

Thomasson said that while his staff has the ability to gather data from the NCTFS, neither the Collin County center nor any other agency can look into the Dallas center’s computers. “Other agencies can call us for information, but there would have to be a criminal predicate before we would release information,” he said.

Asked whether he had run into any issues with the Dallas Hispanic community, so easily targeted because of the number of undocumented aliens, he said, “We view that as strictly a federal issue.”

The Fort Worth Police Department did not respond by deadline to questions about what information they pass along to the Collin County center.

Hector Carrillo, civil rights chair of the Fort Worth LULAC chapter, said, “We have not seen any upheaval with regard to the Fort Worth Latin community from the Collin County fusion program. Yet.”

“The reason that one fusion center might target a specific race or group of people and another won’t is that different fusion centers have different missions,” said Bill Baumbach, a printing company manager and reporter who writes for D Magazine’s FrontBurner blog and runs his own blog, the Collin County Observer. “They all have the same basic concept, which is to take information from different databases to make them relational. But what data they choose to collect and what data they send on to the FBI and Homeland Security is where they differ. The Department of Public Safety’s Texas Fusion System in Austin is one of the most frightening.”

The Texas Fusion Center shares information with the Texas prison system, Homeland Security, federal treasury and immigration agencies, the Air and Army National Guard, and a host of other police and non-police agencies.

Baumbach said the DPS center also collects personal information every time a police officer talks with someone, including drivers who are pulled over and issued nothing beyond a warning. “That is gathering information on people who were not only not convicted of a crime — they weren’t even charged with one. That’s very frightening to me,” he said.

“Think of what can go into those databases. The Collin County Sheriff’s Department has bought handheld license plate scanners, and they walk around certain parking lots recording those plates. And that information is fed into the fusion center. The question is, should the government collect that information — where your car was at 3 p.m. yesterday, for instance? I don’t think so. But these fusion databases have escaped scrutiny because they wave the flag of national security.”

Because there is so little federal oversight, he said, “They’re all mavericks. You can have a good one in Dallas but one that overreaches in Collin County and affects millions of people.”

Many groups have been calling for oversight and transparency regarding the centers, almost since they began operating in 2004. In a 2009 press release, the ACLU noted that it had predicted that the “complete lack of oversight over [fusion centers’] activity would lead to violations” of civil rights.

Part of the problem, Baumbach said, is that the Collin County fusion center’s top official reports to the county administrator, who is ultimately responsible to the county commissioners. “Are the county commissioners capable and willing to set constitutionally acceptable espionage-gathering guidelines? I don’t think so.”

read the rest of this article at Fort Worth Weekly....

Collin County Observer subpoenaed

Rebecca Littrell

Deric Walpole, the attorney for indicted deputy county district clerk Rebecca Littrell has issued "Subpoenas Duces Tecum" to local reporters including me.

A "Subpoenas Duces Tecum" requires the recipient to both appear in court and to bring with him named papers or documents. I have been ordered to appear before the 401st District Court on August 25 and to bring "articles regarding Rebecca Littrell... including but not limited to 'Blog' posts and responses".

The subpoena was signed by Sylvia Greer, a deputy district clerk who was mentioned in filings in this case as having been awarded at least 2 days "Blue Book" time off during the six months the Texas Rangers have investigated. Ms. Greer has not been charged with any crime.

The Collin County Observer will likely file a motion to quash the subpoena.

click on picture to download

In any event, I plan to attend the hearing, report on them, and while at the courthouse obtain more court documents that we will publish on the Observer.

As previously reported here, the August 25th hearing will be the "1st Appearance" hearing. All six defendants are expected to be required to appear. The judge will also hear arguments on several defense motions.

Two of those motions, filed by Deric Walpole, seek to restrict publicity of the trial.

The Collin County Observer believes that official corruption trials are the public's business, and we will continue to do our utmost to insure that the citizens are informed of the progress of these trials.

Also receiving Subpoenas Duces Tecum in this case were Ed Houseright of The Dallas Morning News and Danny Gallagher of the McKinney Courier-Gazette.

After The Texas Rangers raided the Collin County courthouse, Rebecca Littrell, along with 5 others in the District Clerk's office, were indicted for "Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity", including counts of "Theft by a Public Official" and "Falsifying Official Documents". They are accused of falsifying time records to grant hundreds of hours of paid time off to district clerk employees - much of it to recompense the employees time off working for the Patricia Crigger campaign.

Ms. Crigger, who was also indicted, is the District Clerk elect, and is scheduled to take office on January 1, 2011. A felony conviction would make her ineligible to hold the office.

Bill

Local reporters subpoenaed in district clerk case

August 19, 2010 6:05 PM CDT
McKinney Courier-Gazette

McKinney Courier-Gazette reporter Danny Gallagher has been subpoenaed by the defense in the case of Rebecca Littrell, one of the district clerk employees indicted for engaging in organized criminal activity.

The subpoena, which he received Thursday, instructs Gallagher to bring all articles he has written on Littrell and report to the 401st District Court on August 25.

Ed Housewright of the Dallas Morning News and Bill Baumbach of the Collin County Observer have also been subpoenaed.

link to this article at the McKinney Courier-Gazette....

Plano coming to terms with new identity, needs

August 16, 2010
By THEODORE KIM and MATTHEW HAAG / The Dallas Morning News

"Plano has changed from the perception that it is a well-to-do, all-white community."
Plano Mayor Phil Dyer

"We need to accept that Plano today is not your daddy's Plano."
Plano City Councilman Harry LaRosiliere

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

Frisco's air has too much lead under new federal pollution rules

August 16, 2010
By MATTHEW HAAG and VALERIE WIGGLESWORTH / The Dallas Morning News

An area of Frisco that encompasses downtown, several schools and neighborhoods will soon be in violation of new federal lead pollution standards.

read the rest of this article at The Dallas Morning News.....

13,000 pages of evidence filed in case against Collin County District Clerk supervisors


August 15, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

Collin County prosecutors have filed a barrage of evidence – more than 13,000 pages – in their case against six district clerk supervisors indicted on felony charges of engaging in organized criminal activity.

"They're making a statement that they've got the goods."
Defense attorney Mitch Nolte

"The whole thing is kind of sad. You've got a bunch of grandmothers who have never been in trouble a day in their lives."
George Milner III, defense attorney for Lorrie Robertson

Patricia Crigger

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

Over the last few weeks, Plano, Frisco, Allen, McKinney and now Dallas have banned the sale of K-2 or "Spice", which has been billed by internet sites and the press as a marijuana substitute, or synthetic marijuana.

A March Newsweek article pointed out that, "Although the federal Drug Enforcement Agency has listed K2 as a "drug or chemical of concern," it isn't officially 'scheduled,' and that makes it legal."

The Newsweek article goes on to state:

"Is JWH-018 [K-2] dangerous? No one really knows. There's not a lot of research on what it does to mice and almost nothing on what it does to humans. Its effects shouldn't be that different from marijuana's, but then, we could argue all day about how dangerous marijuana is."

But as USA Today noted, "Clemson University chemist John Huffman, a research professor whose graduate students synthesized the substance in his lab 15 years ago, says the chemical may be harmful. 'It shouldn't be out there,' he says."

The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction released a paper last year, "Understanding the Spice Phenomenon", which seems to be the most detailed study of K-2 that I've been able to find. The EMCDDA explains:

"So far, little is known about metabolism and toxicology of the synthetic cannabinoid compounds. It cannot be assumed that the risks associated with the use of synthetic cannabinoids will be necessarily comparable to those seen with THC, and indeed there are some reasons for concerns that these drugs may have a greater potential to cause harm. Because the synthetic cannabinoids in the ‘Spice’ products have only been tested in the laboratory (in vitro or in animals), the health risk of the inhaled smoke is unknown. In the case of JWH-018, it can be speculated that, due to structural features, there may be a certain carcinogenic potential. Furthermore, accidental overdosing with a risk of severe psychiatric complications may be more likely to occur because the type and amount of cannabinoid may vary considerably from batch to batch even within the same product."

..."What is clear is that further studies are needed to assess these risks reliably."

With or without the science, Sen Florence Shapiro has promised to carry a bill banning K-2 in the next Texas Legislature.

The Dallas Morning New's editorial writer Todd Robberson wrote an article yesterday where he decries the passage of laws prohibiting K-2 without any scientific evidence that it is harmful. Also yesterday, the Morning News editorialized on the issue, calling the Dallas ban on K-2 "premature".

The News summed up its position by stating:

"By all means, let's address the dangers where they truly exist. But before instituting broad-brush bans, we should be guided by science and statistical evidence, not emotions."

The lack of action by the federal and state governments is the crux of the dilemma facing our local municipalities.

The regulation of drugs is usually accomplished at the state and federal levels. But neither the state nor Washington has acted, leaving local officials scrambling to protect their citizens. Data or no data, local elected officials are simply trying to respond to the fears of their constituents.

The lack of any real pharmacological data only heightens the fear and lends it more justification.

Bill

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

City Council's K-2 ban not well considered
August 11, 2010 | Tod Robberson / Editorial Writer
The Dallas Morning News Opinion Blog

I wish actual science had been used in today's City Council debate regarding K-2 and other cannabinoid substances that head shops are currently selling as an alternative to marijuana. Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway made an impassioned plea for approval of the ban that he and Mayor Tom Leppert proposed, arguing that K-2 poses a danger to children as the latest thrill-seeking way to evade marijuana prohibitions. He likened the danger to "cheese," as if heroin and pot are equivalent in terms of what they do to abusers physically.

The only voice of sanity in this debate was that of Councilwoman Angela Hunt, who calmly asked the city attorney and police chief for statistics about hospitalizations or deaths related to the use of K-2. The answer came back: none, save for one instance in which K-2 was one of many drugs used by a guy who also ingested PCP. Then Hunt asked about calls to poison control related to K-2. Statewide, there had been 119 calls and 6 in Dallas, City Attorney Tom Perkins stated. When asked about hospitalizations, deaths and calls to poison control related to alcohol, it was obvious that they far exceed those related to K-2.

So Hunt suggested amending the ban so it didn't go further than the ban on alcohol sales: if you're under 21, you can't buy it, possess it or use it. She also suggested waiting until either the state or federal governments had passed bans, reasoning that it didn't make sense for the city to pass a ban that is meaningless if you take two steps beyond the city limits into a jurisdiction where it remains legal. No luck.

With Hunt as the only dissenter, the cannabinoid ban passed. The worst that the Food and Drug Administration can say about K-2 is that it has not been approved for consumption. That's a far cry from declaring it "dangerous" as Caraway did. I'd like to see some real science on this. Plus, it's worth considering that there are probably a thousand cannabinoid derivatives, of which K-2 is one. Does the City Council propose to enact a ban each time a new product emerges containing one of these other derivatives?

Legal or not, I won't be trying K-2. But I really would prefer that such laws be based on actual scientific evidence of harm rather than anecdotal evidence and highly emotional appeals.

Link to this article at the Opinion Blog of The Dallas Morning News....

Judge John Ovard of the First Judicial Administrative Region has appointed Dallas retired District Judge John Nelms to preside over all six district clerkgate cases.

Two weeks ago, a Grand Jury indicted incoming District Clerk Patricia Crigger and 5 other deputy district clerks for theft and engaging in an organized criminal activity. They are charged with falsifying time records to reward clerks for their working on the Crigger campaign.

Judge Nelms is no stranger to public corruption cases. Some readers may remember that Nelms, a Republican, heard the theft trial against Rockwall County District Attorney Ray Sumrow.

Nelms sentenced Sumrow to 4 years in prison in the 2008 case where the Collin County District Attorney's office acted as special prosecutor.

A Dallas Morning News article written after the trial, quoted the judge, "Judge Nelms said he hoped the case would send a message that those holding elective office cannot be 'tempted to feed themselves at the public trough.'

'A public official, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion,' he said."

Judge Nelms also heard motions in Charles Dean Hood's attempts to get a new trial after being convicted of capital murder in a case heard by a Collin County Judge and DA who had been secret lovers. Nelms was assigned to the Hood case after Collin County judges removed themselves.

In July of last year, Judge Nelms presided over the trial of John Barry, sentencing him to 25 years for orchestrating mortgage fraud schemes in McKinney.

More recently, Judge Nelms presided over the trials of Alfred and Abneris Santiago, the Dallas couple who were convicted of starving thier children in a motel bathroom.

Judge Nelms is a graduate of Highland Park High School, Texas A & M, and the UT Law School. He retired from the Dallas 195th District Court in 2006.

All six defendants are due in court on August 25th for a "First Appearance Hearing".

Derek Walpole, who is defending accused deputy district clerk Rebecca Littrell filed a flurry of motions in court today, including requests to divulge the names of the informers who blew the whistle to the Texas Rangers, for grand jury testimony, and to restrict publicity.

No rulings on any of the 9 motions have been issued yet.

Bill

Pogue Construction founder faces sentencing in late August

By Danny Gallagher / The McKinney Courier-Gazette
August 12, 2010

The former president and found a major McKinney construction company will face sentencing for his federal tax charges later this month.

Paul Pogue is scheduled to enter the sentencing phase of his federal criminal trial on Aug. 27 in the U.S. Eastern District of Texas court, according to federal court records. Pogue accepted a plea deal and entered a guilty plea in the U.S. Eastern District of Texas court on a federal felony violation of making and subscribing a false tax return back in February. Pogue admitted that he "willfully made and subscribed a U.S. individual income tax return form...for calendar year 2003" that reflected his taxable income by a lesser margin of approximately $1 million, according to court documents.

His 1040 reflected he earned taxable income of $4,594,052 for his work as a consultant for a construction firm, but investigators discovered he actually earned $5,588,249 in the span of the calendar year.

He then submitted two additional fraudulent tax returns in 2005 and 2006 that also contained significant deductions of actual taxable income. His 2004 return only reflected earnings of $3,111,715 when he actually earned $3,686,784 and his 2005 return only reported $2,908,235 when he knowingly earned $3,030,684.

Internal Revenue Service investigators said these fraudulent returns cost a tax loss of $473,680, according to a finding of fact document filed with the court.

Pogue entered a guilty plea last Thursday. A sentencing date has not yet been set.

Pogue faces a possible sentence of up to three years in a federal prison and a possible fine not to exceed $250,000 or "not more than the greater of twice the gross gain to the defendant or twice the gross loss of any victim," according to the notice of penalty.

Pogue helped found and served as president and chief executive officer of Pogue Construction, a McKinney based construction firm that has designed and built numerous local projects with the city of McKinney and the McKinney Independent School District including the McKinney Public Safety Building on Taylor-Burk Drive and several fire stations for the McKinney Fire Department, the McKinney ISD administration building and several McKinney ISD schools.

link to this article at The McKinney Courier-Gazette.....

Homeless shelter backs off plan to expand in Plano

by JASON WHITELY / WFAA
August 10, 2010
Updated 11:26 PM

MCKINNEY — The Samaritan Inn, Collin County's only homeless shelter, said it will no longer push Plano to open its own homeless facility.

Late Tuesday night, the Plano City Council indefinitely postponed applying for $700,000 in federal funds to buy land for its own shelter.

So The Samaritan Inn — which had volunteered to run a Plano shelter and make interest payments — said it will now back off, though it will still offer help to the city whenever asked.

Even if Plano isn't ready to take part in its own shelter, the city tells us it has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Samaritan Inn over the last 20 years, which is earmarked for homeless residents and also to provide rent and utility assistance to prevent people from ever losing their home.
"Plano absolutely helps out," Samaritan Inn director Lynne Sipiora said. "We are very grateful for all the support we get from them."

The McKinney shelter is about to open a new wing, she added, which includes 40 more beds for 10 new families.

"We're tired of seeing moms and dads and kids sleeping in their cars and checking back every day to see if we have an opening," Sipiora said. "I expect that when this wing is open, we'll fill it in a week."
That's how much demand exists in the suburbs.

Plano city officials tell us nothing else to help the homeless is currently under consideration, although the city will continue to award thousands of dollars in grant money to organizations that provide assistance.

link to this article and video on WFAA.com....

Last week, the Collin County Commissioners Court held an evening meeting. The quarterly evening meetings are an experiment by the commissioners in opening up the county government to citizen interest and involvement.

Some of the evening meetings have been well attended, because the commissioners scheduled important public hearings or discussions for those nights.

Not so last week. The court's agenda was little more than routine consent items. In fact the court session lasted less than 10 minutes from invocation to adjournment - the shortest regular court meeting I remember seeing.

In a plus for the county's open government initiative, only one citizen showed up to watch the non-meeting. I understand that afterwards, Commissioner Jaynes bought the intrepid citizen a cup of coffee, hoping that would help make the trip to Bloomdale Rd. at least a little worthwhile.

This week, the court was back on its regular schedule of meeting at 9:30 AM when only retirees and the unemployed are not busy working. This week's agenda was chock full of items that would have really made the evening meeting interesting.

First came the theater.

Act 1
During the public comments, a Mr. Hostetler and our well known Karl Voightsberger used the comments section to solicit the court's interest in buying what's known as "Life Settlement funds" to increase the yield on the county's retirement funds.

With Life Settlement Funds, investors pay sick, elderly people cash today in return for the money from their life insurance when they die. The sooner they die, the more the investor makes.

Ghoulish, yes... and I didn't miss the irony of funding retiree pay by betting that other old folks will die soon.

Act 2
During the presentation of employee awards, District Clerk Hannah Kunkle presented a 15 year pin to her deputy Amy Mathis. The Observer's readers will remember that Ms. Mathis is under felony indictment for racketeering and theft by a public servant.

This author is astounded at the attitude Hannah Kunkle and the Commissioners Court. The indictment of Ms. Mathis, Patricia Crigger and 4 other deputy clerks has brought shame to our courthouse. All these indicted ladies are still supervising workers in the District Clerk's office -- acting as if nothing is wrong.

Instead of putting these ladies, who a Grand Jury has charged with the commission of multiple felonies and are out of jail on bonds out of sight, the county gives one of them an award. Wow!

If this is how we want to run our courthouse, perhaps the Texas Rangers need to put the Collin County courthouse on a monthly raid schedule.

Later in the meeting, by a vote of 4-1, the commissioners court approved the continuation of the Vote Center experiment for the November gubernatorial election. Commissioner Jaynes voted 'no' saying he had concerns that the Vote Center plan had not matured into the successful "big box" model used elsewhere.

Commissioners Jaynes and Shaheen asked Elections Administrator Sharon Rowe to consider opening an additional early voting location in Frisco and west Allen.

Jaynes also asked that the west McKinney early voting site be moved to a more convenient location.

Judge Self then gave his budget presentation.... the Observer will write more on this in the next day or so.

After meeting in executive session, the court appointed Jane Willard of Celina to replace Paul Wageman as one of the county's two representatives to the NTTA Board of Directors.

Bill

At 11:30 tonight, after a long public hearing, the Plano City Council voted 6-2 on a motion by Councilman Pat Minor to table the Samaritan Inn grant request until after the Plano Planning and Zoning Commission has acted on the Inn's rezoning request of the proposed site on FM 544 and Shiloh Rd.

The vote to table has the effect of temporarily not approving any grant funding for a homeless transition facility in Plano. The vote is a major set back for the Samaritan Inn and its plan to build a facility to house 40 homeless families. The Inn must now present its case to the P & Z, and then the City Council for the land use request.

Only after clearing those hurdles can it request the community development grants.

Bill

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

DMN - Plano council tonight weighs $700,000 land purchase for homeless shelter

Monday, August 9, 2010
By MATTHEW HAAG / The Dallas Morning News

The Plano City Council could take a major step tonight toward building one of North Texas' largest homeless shelters, a plan that triggered a fierce debate about the shelter's location.

Area of proposed Plano homeless shelter site
The City Council will consider approving the use of $700,000 in federal grant money to buy land Plano for the shelter.

The Samaritan Inn of McKinney has proposed placing the facility on six acres in east Plano.

Much of the opposition comes from businesses near the proposed site, on 14th Street near Shiloh Road.

Business owners worry that the complex will lead to higher crime rates and lower property values.

Supporters say the $4 million project is needed. While Collin County is one the country's most affluent, it has a growing homeless population. About 7 percent of Plano families live in poverty.

read the rest of this story at The Dallas Morning News....

also....

WFAA - Plano homeowners gripe about homeless shelter plan, CCO, Aug. 4, 2010

The real story behind Samaritan Inn in Plano, Chuck Bloom, CCO, Aug. 2, 2010

DMN community opinion - Lynne Sipiora: Collin County needs to shelter its homeless, CCO, Aug. 1, 2010

DMN - Homeless shelter director says need must trump Plano residents' oppositionul. 25, 2010

DMN - Plano weighs plan to build long-term homeless housing facility, CCO, Jul. 16, 2010

Transportation blog: Jane Willard to replace NTTA Chairman Paul Wageman as board's Collin County representative

Monday, August 9, 2010
By MICHAEL LINDENBERGER / The Dallas Morning News

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

Plano employees file suit; seek break, overtime pay

By Jon Vanderlaan / The Plano Star-Courier
August 9, 2010

Six Plano employees have filed a class-action lawsuit against the city seeking lunch break pay and overtime pay because of the work they had to do during those times.

According to the complaint filed July 27, the employees were promised pay during lunch breaks while they also monitored the radio for relevant calls. They also were promised overtime pay during on-call hours.

Billy Horton, Robert Morris, Robert Prunty, Alan Spurgin, David Ratcliff and Sam Bigham are the named plaintiffs in the case, which is presented on behalf of others in the same situation.

In the court filing, the plaintiffs argue they should be paid for breaks and on-call time because they must continuously listen for messages and adhere to company policy during the time.

It also alleged that employees were not paid for overtime work.

The city has since instituted a policy that pays its employees for such time, but has not compensated employees for past work, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs allege that the practices violated the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

“Plano showed reckless disregard for the fact that its failure to pay workers overtime compensation and minimum wages was in violation of these laws,” according to the lawsuit.

Even if the court does not grant full payment for breaks, the lawsuit requests payment for the time employees spent on their radios or doing work resulting from a radio call.

According to the document, the plaintiffs are bringing suit against the city for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, common law debt and the Texas Payday Act.

They are seeking unpaid wages, attorney fees, costs and interest.

read the rest of this article at The Plano Star-Courier.....

At the Commissioners court meeting today, the court will hear Dr. Robert Stein of Rice University present his report on the use of Vote Center in the November, 2009 election. After Dr. Stein's presentation, the court will hold a required public hearing on using the Vote Center concept in the upcoming November gubernatorial election.

Some background:

In 2006 and again in 2009, the Texas Secretary of State approved Collin County, along with Lubbock, Galveston and Erath counties, as a test site for the use of Vote Centers, or consolidated polling places.

The concept of Vote Centers involves reducing dramatically the number of election day polling places by eliminating precinct based polls and replacing them with larger Vote Centers where anyone in the county can vote. A similar concept has been in use for several years in early voting.

In an early voting polling place, anyone in the county can vote in any of the polling places. Citizens are no longer limited to voting in their neighborhood, but can vote near their school, office, stores or on their way to work.

It a popular idea, and the data shows the voters like the concept.

In 2006, the county elections department submitted a plan to the commissioners court, but withdrew it after the commissioners heard objections to the poorly designed plan from both political parties.

Collin County used Vote Centers for the first time in the November, 2009 constitutional amendment election. The County also contracted with Dr. Robert Stein of Rice University to perform some statistical analysis of the election and the effect of the Vote Centers.

Dr. Stein released his report in January. Stein compared statistics and exit poll data from Collin and Denton counties. Collin used the Vote Centers, and Denton did not.

Stein's report shows a lower Collin County turnout on election day compared to Denton County and Texas as a whole.

The data also showed that 8.4% of the Collin County voters waited in line for more than 10 minutes. In Denton County 5.2% waited for 10 minutes or more.

Several voting locations were used by large number of voters, while others were almost empty all day. In Collin County almost a third of the voters chose to vote in only 10% of the Vote Centers. This uneven distribution was, according to Stein, the likely cause of the additional waiting in line.

Since Collin County will be using substantially the same locations this year, it would be reasonable to predict that there will be lines of voters waiting at some of the more popular Vote Centers.

One issue that makes it difficult to use any analysis of the 2009 election is the great disparity expected in voter turnout between the 2009 Constitutional Election, and the 2010 Gubernatorial Election.

In 2009, less than 5% of the voters turned out to vote in 57 Vote Centers. This year, turnout should be closer to 25%-35% and they will vote in 70 Vote Centers.

The 70 proposed Vote Centers are a reduction from 129 precinct poling locations that would be expected if the Vote Centers are not approved.

After Dr. Stein's report, the county commissioners will hold a public hearing. It is expected that the Republican Party will support the 2010 plan, but that the Democratic Party will express some reservations.

In 2009, representatives of the Democratic Party, minority groups and disabled voter advocates who were on the county's Site Selection Committee all expressed some serious issues they believed could reduce voter turnout. Most then opposed going forward with the 2009 plan.

This year, the Democratic Party is expected to once again express real reservations of the wisdom of the plan. It is expected that their concerns will be similar to those in 2006 and in 2009 -

1. There are insufficient electronic poll books needed to check in voters. While this did not prove to be a huge problem in the low turnout 2009 election, the lack of poll books was a root cause of much of the lines seen in 2009 and it can be expected that the lines will grow exponentially this year.

Traditional vote centers offer multiple, as many as 10 or 20 electronic poll books so that voters can queue up in lots of shorter lines. Most Collin County Vote Centers will have only 2 poll books, thereby forcing voters into only 2 much longer lines.

Collin County has had real problems in the past with the electronic poll books and the VoteSafe software behind them. In 2008, Snafus with VoteSafe caused long lines, poll worker frustration and days of missed reporting during early voting. The lines were so long, and poll worker frustration so high that there were cases reported where election workers asked voters to 'come back on another day'.