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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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/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/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/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

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

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.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

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

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....

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....

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....

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 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

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

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....

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

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

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....

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

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

After indictments, future of Collin County district clerk's office hazy

August 8, 2010
Ed Housewright / The Dallas Morning News

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

The McKinney Courier-Gazette

Collin County DA will not step down from prosecuting district clerk's employees

By Danny Gallagher / The McKinney Courier-Gazette
August 5, 2010

The Collin County District Attorney's Office has no plans to let another district attorney's office handle the case against six indicted Collin County district clerk's employees.

First Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis confirmed his office's decision by email.

"There are no plans to recuse our office," Davis said. "I will be handling these cases until they are concluded."

A Collin County grand jury returned indictments against chief deputy district clerk Patricia Crigger, civil/family manager Sherry Bell, senior administrator Rebecca Littrell, deputy district clerk Amy Mathis, civil/family supervisor Lorrie Robertson and deputy minutes clerk Marcia Simpson in connection with the Texas Rangers' investigation, according to Collin County court records.

An unidentified source told Sgt. A.P. Davidson of the Texas Rangers' Office that Crigger and Littrell held meetings last January to recruit employees of the District Clerk's office to "assist with the Crigger campaigns during regular working hours."

Employees earned paid time off for participating in Crigger's campaign. When the employee claimed "blue book time," "supervisors would falsely report to the county payroll system that the employee was at work," according to the affidavit.

Further investigations showed that Crigger used the county office's computer to transmit campaign materials including her "bio" and "an endorsement letter purportedly written by current district clerk Hannah Kunkle for use in the Crigger campaigns."

The Collin County DA's decision to pursue the case might seem unorthodox to some, but Tarrant County Assistant District Attorney Edward "Chip" Wilkinson said he believes they are simply following their judicial obligations....

read the rest of this article at The McKinney Courier-Gazette....

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

The Dallas Morning News

E-mails describe Collin County employees' campaign work for incoming clerk

Thursday, August 5, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

Collin County district clerk employees used county computers on county time to work on the campaign for chief deputy Patricia Crigger, according to e-mails contained in court documents.

County policy prohibits campaigning during work hours, yet the e-mails among staff members at the district clerk's office freely talk about campaign schedules, walking precincts and dressing for the polls. One supervisor even dubbed herself the "campaign queen."

"It's an unfortunate misunderstanding and misidentification of the facts," said Crigger's attorney, Robert Hinton, who spoke publicly for the first time Wednesday about the allegations against his client. "Patricia and the other girls indicted are just good salt-of-the-earth people. They were just doing what they've been told, including Patricia."

Hinton said that the office has rewarded employees for years with extra personal days, and that staffers volunteered to use their personal days to campaign for Crigger.

Crigger defeated law office manager Alma Hays in an April 13 Republican primary election runoff. Crigger faces no Democratic opposition and is due to take office Jan. 1, replacing longtime District Clerk Hannah Kunkle, who is retiring.

Accused of tampering
Crigger and fellow supervisors Sherry Bell, Rebecca Littrell, Amy Mathis, Lorrie Robertson and Marcia Simpson were indicted last week on felony charges of engaging in organized criminal activity. They are accused of tampering with government records and committing theft by falsifying time and attendance records to show employees were working when they were not.

More than two dozen e-mails from district clerk employees about Crigger's campaign are included in a search warrant affidavit from a Texas Rangers investigation. The affidavit states that employees were asked to assist Crigger in "various ways, such as walking neighborhoods and holding campaign signs at polling places."

Collin County policy states, "Employees are not permitted to perform or be involved in political campaigning ... during working hours or on paid overtime."

The e-mails shed light on how the campaign work was coordinated.

"Sandra and Pam are willing to work Farmersville on either Thursday or Friday and possible [sic] both," Bell wrote to Littrell on Feb. 23. "Do you want them there? I think it might be good."

About four hours later, Bell sent another e-mail to Littrell: "Lorrie will go to Allen. Just come on in the office and we will decide where we are going."

That same day, Bell wrote: "You better dress for us to work the polls tomorrow. That's what Patricia wants us to do."

On Jan. 19, Bell sent an e-mail from her county computer to a friend outside the district clerk's office.

"I am the campaign queen around here and Patricia has named my truck the 'Campaignmobile,' " she wrote.

Mathis, another defendant, sent an e-mail on Feb. 2, saying she had worked 10 straight days on the Crigger campaign. On March 5, Mathis wrote to the same person about the upcoming runoff election.

"We are in a run off [sic] now so I will not have a life until April 13th," Mathis stated in the e-mail.

Fuddruckers meeting
One e-mail in the affidavit mentioned an employee meeting at Fuddruckers restaurant in McKinney on Wednesday, Jan. 20.

The e-mail includes no details. But attorney George Milner III, who represents Robertson, said the lunchtime meeting was called to encourage employees to back Crigger. Kunkle was present but did not speak, Milner said....

read the rest of this article at The Dallas Morning News....

Bill

The Collin County Observer has learned that County Judge Keith Self's preliminary 2011 budget that will be presented to the Commissioners Court next week will slash the number of personnel in the district clerk's office.

The current FY 2010 budget authorizes Hannah Kunkle's District Clerk office to have 63 employees. The proposed budget cuts 9 Deputy District Clerks and close the passport office, thereby eliminating another 4 positions.

Since the county wide goal of the 2011 budget is no growth, the cut of 13 positions from the District Clerk's office is seen as a reaction to the raid on the District Clerk's office by Texas Rangers last June, and the subsequent indictment of the Chief Deputy and District Clerk elect, Patricia Crigger along with 5 other deputy clerks.

In documents filed with the court, the Collin County DA charges that over a five month period early this year, employees of the District Clerk's office took over 230 hours of illegal paid time off that was authorized by supervisors who falsified time sheets and other systems. Much of this time off was to reimburse employees for taking paid leave to work on Crigger's campaign.

Reacting to the raid, one commissioner told Kunkle, "it appears to me that your office is over-staffed".

The proposed budget will likely be presented to the Commissioners Court on Monday, with budget workshops beginning on August 16. After the workshops, the Commissioners Court will schedule 2 public hearings before final adoption of the 2011 Budget. Until final adoption, any proposal could be changed by a majority of the court.

Documents filed by Texas Ranger A.P. Davidson in order to get the search warrant for the court house allege that Kunkle has maintained a double set of books for over 20 years, granting employees "Free Time" extra holidays, such as "Shopping Day", "Spring Day", Hannah's Freebie", and "Birth Day".

Experts this author has talked to differ as to whether Kunkle had the legal authority to grant paid time off in violation of county policies. Most agree that the legality of the "Free Time" program is a separate issue from falsifying time sheets in order to hide the "Free Time" grants.

The "Free Time" system appears to have grown into a "Blue Book" system of gaining extra paid time off during Crigger's campaign. In a five month period earlier this year, investigators were able track 169 hours being logged into the blue book for 20 employees who worked on the Crigger campaign.

On occasion, Kunkle's "Free Time" would overlap with Crigger's "Blue Book".

Investigators uncovered one such incident where they allege Marcia Simpson used "Blue Book" time to travel during business hours and on the clock with Hannah Kunkle to the Choctaw Casino in Oklahoma.

In all, over the 5 months that were investigated, 56 of the department's 63 employees were the beneficiaries of alleged illegal time entries that promised them a total of 234 additional paid days off for campaigning, "Blue Book" and "Free Time".

Bill

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

Correction:

August 5,2010

I received a call from Monika Arris,the county's budget director who pointed out an error in this article.

The recommended budget will not be presented at the August 9th Commissioners Court, but will be made available on the web at some point next week.

The Observer regrets the error.

Bill

=======================================
NOTES:

• Collin County Fiscal Year 2010 Adopted Budget
  
  
• Affidavit for Search Warrant, signed by Texas Ranger Sergeant A.P. Davidson, June 1, 2010
  
  
• "Notice of Overt Acts of the Combination", Greg Davis, First Assistant Collin County DA, Texas v. Crigger, 401st District Court
  
  

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

Yesterday, the Collin County DA's office, filed a "Notice of Overt Acts" detailing the charges against Chief Deputy District Clerk Patricia Crigger and 5 other indicted deputy district clerks.

I have uploaded the 45 page "Notice of Overt Acts of the Combination" filed in the case The State of Texas v. Patricia Crigger.

The filing is basically a list of actions by the six accused Deputy District Clerks in falsifying time records and using access cards to clock-in absent employees.

A reading of the filing shows that the DA is accusing the defendants of falsifying time records to grant time off to themselves and others, and of using electronic access cards to clock-in absent employees.

The filing also accuses Crigger of arranging an after the election party in Oklahoma, and then falsifying the time records to show that she an the other defendants were at work at the time.

The "Notice" also accuses one or more of the defendants of removing an absent employee's access card during the raid by the Texas Rangers to keep the Rangers from finding it.

The filing, by First Assistant DA Greg Davis, charges the six defendants acted in an organized manner to commit two classes of crimes, "Tampering With a Government Record", and "Theft by a Public Servant".

It details instances of employees being granted paid time off for campaigning for Crigger, as "Blue Book" time, and as unofficial holidays such as "Hannah Freebies", "Free Days", Spring Days", Fair Days", Shopping Days", and "Birthday Days".

I counted over 230 days of unearned pay being granted over the 5 month period detailed in the filing.

You can read the entire filing, "Notice of Overt Acts of the Combination" here.

Bill

==============================================================
Collin County DA: District clerk's office padded time, attendance records

Tuesday, August 3, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

Incoming Collin County District Clerk Patricia Crigger rewarded five supervisors in the clerk's office who campaigned for her with a trip to Oklahoma and falsified records to indicate they were on the job during the two-day trip, according to court documents.

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

Imagine you are at work, the cops come and arrest you for embezzlement from your company.

Later that day you make bail.

Then you go back to work at the same company and spend time searching for the stool pigeon who turned you in. All while on the clock.

This daydream doesn't sound very plausible, does it?

.... unless your employer happens to be Collin County government.

The Collin County Courthouse

The Collin County Observer has learned from county records that the six deputy district clerks who were indicted and charged with racketeering by falsifying employee time records are reporting to work as usual while they are out on personal recognizance bonds.

As supervisors I am assuming they are still approving time sheets, personnel assignments, employee reviews and discipline and otherwise running the department.

Just as importantly, they are working for the very courts that will soon decide if they will go free or go to prison.

According to county time records, indictees Patricia Crigger, Marcia Simpson, Rebecca Littrell and Sherry Bell were at work all day Thursday and Friday of last week.

Lorrie Robertson clocked in every day last week, but had partial paid time off, while only Amy Mathis took a day and a half of paid time off.

Records for yesterday indicate that all six accused were at work in the District Clerk's office yesterday. Marcia Simpson took a half day of paid time off, but was clocked in for the other half of the day.

Since the investigation that led to these deputy district clerk's arrests was prompted by 5 fellow employees who became whistle blowers, these indicted supervisors are interacting with their accusers. That's not a very healthy situation, especially if the rumors that some of these accused are expressing a desire to find out who were the informers are true.

So, while the wheels of justice slowly turn, it is business as usual at the courthouse. Accused criminals are running the shop.

Welcome to corruption, Collin County style.

Bill

Collin County DA: District clerk's office padded time, attendance records with hundreds of false entries

Tuesday, August 3, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

Collin County District Clerk supervisors made more than 200 false entries to show employees were at work when they were not, according to a 45-page court document filed by the District Attorney's office.

The document also says that supervisors used employees' access badges to log in workers when they really weren't on the job.

Patricia Crigger, the incoming district clerk, and five other supervisors were indicted last week on charges of engaging in organized criminal activity. The indictments stem from a Texas Rangers investigation that alleges Crigger and the others pressured district clerk employees to work on Crigger's spring campaign.

Crigger defeated law office manager Alma Hays in an April 13 Republican primary runoff election. Crigger faces no Democratic opposition and is due to take office Jan. 1, replacing longtime District Clerk Hannah Kunkle, who is retiring.

The new court document alleges supervisors gave employees unauthorized paid time off in exchange for their campaign work.

The charges against Crigger, Sherry Bell, Rebecca Littrell, Amy Mathis, Lorrie Robertson and Marcia Simpson allege the women tampered with governmental records by making false entries in time and attendance records.

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

Six indicted supervisors at the Collin County District Clerk's office surrendered today, were booked into the Collin County jail, and then released on personal recognizance bonds.

All six face felony charges of "Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity", a second degree felony that carries a possible sentence of 2 to 20 years in the state penitentiary.

After setting PR bonds at $5,000 District Judge Mark Rusch recused himself from all six cases, which were then assigned to a visiting judge.

Sherry Bell	Patricia Crigger	Rebecca Littrell
Amy Mathis	Lorrie Robertson	Marcia Simpson

Unfortunately we have seen no sign that District Attorney John Roach and his team will also recuse themselves. Several knowledgeable insiders have pointed out that there are too many political under currents and too many personal relationships here. They believe these cases cry out for an independent prosecutor and judge.

The Observer has been unable to find out if these accused will be reporting to work on Monday morning or if they will be placed on leaves of absence.

Bill

Patricia Crigger

Six supervisors in the Collin County District Clerk's office were indicted by a Collin County Grand Jury today for "Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity" - a felony.

The six are:

1. Patricia Crigger, Chief Deputy District Clerk
2. Sherry Bell
3. Rebecca Littrell
4. Amy Mathis
5. Lorrie Robertson
6. Marcia Simpson

Patricia Crigger is the number 2 person in Hannah Kunkle's District Clerk's office. Ms. Crigger won the Republican Primary run-off to replace the retiring Ms. Kunkle. Since she faces no Democratic opposition, she is slated to be the next District Clerk on January 1, 2011. Her indictment casts doubt on her ability to assume that office.

The other 5 women are supervisors in the District Clerk's office. According to the Grand Jury report released today, the charges against all six county employees were brought by the Texas Rangers.

The Texas Rangers and other law enforcement personnel raided the District Clerk's office on June 3rd, seizing numerous records and computer drives. According to search warrant affidavits, it is alleged that Crigger and other supervisors were maintaining a double set of books on employees time, and then granting paid time off for various reasons, including time spent campaigning for Ms. Crigger.

So far, Hannah Kunkle has not been indicted. The Observer has heard rumors that both state and federal grand jury investigations may be underway.

Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity is a second degree felony. The Organized crime act is usually used against gangs and street gangs, not county courthouse personnel. Conviction could result in prison time from 2 to 20 years, a fine up to $10,000 and loss of many citizenship privileges.

The Collin County Observer has not heard if the six employees have been arrested or arraigned yet or when arraignment and bail hearings are scheduled.

Bill

====================
Update July 30

This morning, District Judge Mark Rusch granted personal recognizance bonds to all six supervisors. However, he refused to waive their personal appearance for processing and gave them until Monday to surrender to the Collin County County Sheriff.

The granting of the PR bonds stopped the Texas Rangers from executing arrest warrants on these accused. There will be no 'perp walk' unless one or more fail to surrender on time.

Bill

From the David Rippel for Judge Facebook page: "David believes in strict enforcement of, and fair treatment of the law. A conservative judge that Collin County will be proud of."

However, campaign reports filed with the county show that newly appointed County Court at Law Judge David Rippel has been consistently in violation of state law in that every one of his ethics reports has been late, misleading, incomplete and/or inaccurate.

Failure to file a complete, accurate and on-time campaign finance report is a Class C misdemeanor, and could subject Judge Rippel to civil fines by The Texas Ethics Commission or a criminal fine by a Justice of the Peace court.

Failure to file a timely Personal Financial Statement is a Class B misdemeanor and could lead to jail time as well as a fine.

Under Texas Law, the County Clerk is required to notify the District Attorney of all late Personal Financial Statements. It is unclear if Ms. Kemp did so. In past administrations, the County Clerk has refused to file the list with the DA, saying that she did not want to get involved in what seemed to be political disputes.

Only one of the 5 required report was on time

Only the first report Judge Rippel submitted was on-time and that one was filed in the wrong office. County candidates are required to file their campaign finance reports with the Elections Office. Judge Rippel filed his papers at various locations, including the Elections Office, the County Clerk's Office, and the Texas Ethics Commission.

All the other required reports were anywhere from 5 days to over 5 months late. Before the Election, The Collin County Observer contact Mr. Rippel several times about missing reports. I repeatedly told him that the reports were supposed to be filed in the Elections office, but they had no record of them being received. In every case, he insisted they had been filed, and on one occasion offered to fax them to me. I sent him my fax number, but Rippel never sent them.

Also troubling is that two of the reports (the Personal Financial Statement and the July Semi-Annual report) were filed one day after The Observer emailed an Open Records Request to Stacy Kemp, the County Clerk. It sure looks as if the County Clerk's office warned him that I was snooping around looking for his missing reports.

Reports filed

Reports inaccurate and misleading

Judge Rippel's reports contain mistakes in arithmetic, but most importantly they fail to state who gave him over $8,900 of the $36,000 he reported as having spent. Failure to state the sources of campaign funds is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by criminal and civil fines.

Of the $27,344 he does report as having received, $21,794 was his own money, and $5,000 was from relatives in Louisiana. Only 2 contributions, totaling $550, were from donors not surnamed Rippel -- none were from Texas.

Almost all the $36,000 spent went to a Plano political consultant. Rippel's reports show he paid consultant Joseph G. Counter over $31,000.

Contributions and expenses reported by David Rippel
Reported totals

Time lapses in the reporting periods

Judge Rippel's reports fail to explain where and when he received almost $9,000 in contributions - about a third of all his expenditures. Were some of these contributions made in the weeks that he never reported? What, if any, expenses did he pay during those lost weeks?

Campaign finance laws are designed to require candidates to fully disclose all sources and uses of campaign funds. The candidate's duty to report begins the day he appoints a Campaign Treasurer.

Rippel appointed his treasurer on September 4, 2009, but his report states it begins reporting on September 22 - three weeks later. Other reports indicate missing and overlapping reporting periods. One report, the "Run-off report" seems to have never been filed. Open Records requests at the County Clerk's office and to the Elections office have failed to produce any Run-off report. Nor does a search at The Texas Ethics Commission website uncover any Run-off report.

Dates reported

A profound inability to comprehend or contempt of the law?

David Rippel was appointed by the County Commissioners court to fill the vacant Court at Law #4 bench after winning the Republican Party primary run-off in April. There is no Democrat running for this court.

His appointment is until December 31. On January 1, he will begin a four year elected term on the same court.

County courts at Law are known as "Statutory Courts". They are created by acts of the Legislature. They handle misdemeanor criminal cases, appeals from Justice of the Peace and municipal courts and lawsuits below $100,000. Court at Law judges have the power to sentence law breakers to county jail up to two years.

With this kind of authority comes a responsibility to respect and obey the law. On that test Judge Rippel appears to have failed miserably. His ethics forms reflect a man whose ethics are trumped by his ambition -- a judge who either doesn't care what the law, as it pertains to him, requires.

Once again, as in the case of Doug Reeves, the ethic filings indicate either a profound inability to understand the law or a contempt of that same law which governs us all.

Bill

It's a truism that running for office is expensive and getting more expensive every year. Sure media and printing costs cost more money, and postage costs seem to increase every time you send out mail. But the real issue behind the inflation in campaigns are two fold.

One more folks are willing to spend more and more of their own money to get elected. Unless we are willing to concede public office only to those who can afford it, then other candidates must try to raise ever increasing sums to keep up.

Also as campaigns and the issues become more polarized, they attract out of town money. It's not unusual for a candidate in Collin County to run a campaign costing thousands of dollars, most of which was raised out of county. But on the whole local campaigns are still affordable to anyone with a political base who is willing to raise the needed funds.

For example, in the hotly contested primary battle for County Commissioner in Precinct 2, the winner Cheryl Williams spent about $67,000 while Jerry Hoagland spent $76,000. The difference is that Hoagland's campaign was financed by contributions, while Williams' campaign still owes her the $50,000 she loaned the campaign.

The County Judge's primary race cost challenger John Muns over $204,000 of which $80,000 was in loans to himself, while Keith Self spent $114,000 -- all donated.

These numbers, as large as they may seem to a potential candidate, are dwarfed in the race for State Legislature. Seats on the legislature have become very, very expensive.

The press has written much about Van Taylor and his $1.04 million primary race. Very little of that million was raised in-district. $950,000 of it was his own money, and much of the rest was from out of town donors. Mabrie Jackson too, lent herself $80,000 out of the $362,000 she spent trying to defeat Mr. Taylor's money.

While the District 66 Million Dollar Race has garnered the most media attention, it is the other legislative races that have brought in the big, outside dollars.

Unopposed Legislators

What other legislative races? The unopposed ones.

The war chests of our incumbant legislators are both bloated and stunning in their scope. It is ironic that thee legislators, whose pay is a measly $7,200 a year can amass campaign dollars in the hundreds of thousands, even though they are unopposed in both the primary and general elections.

A look at their campaign finance reports over time proves the fact that these large sums were not raised by loyal in-district constituents. On the contrary, these huge campaign war chests represent the donations from PACs, special interest lobby groups and rich out of town contributors.

Rep. Ken Paxton owns the largest campaign war chest -- over $679,000. Over the last six months, he has added over $35,000 to his campaign, including a $4,000 gift from the AT&T PAC, $1,000 from an Irving, Tx contributor, $5,000 from a Richardson real estate broker, $1,000 from the Tenet Healthcare PAC, $1,000 from the Texas Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store PAC, $3,000 from Unity Resources, and $5,000 and $1,000 from in-district constituents.

During the first half of the year, he raised over $122,000. The big contributors were once again mostly out of towners and Corporate PACs.

Rep. Paxton is certainly not the only state representative to rely on outside interests to fund his campaign account. Without exception, all the large war chests I examined were funded in a similar manner.

These state legislators campaign war chests even dwarf all but one local Congressional accounts. Federal records show that while Rep. Sam Johnson (who is unopposed) has amassed over $600,000 in campaign dollars, Ralph Hall (who did face primary opposition) has less than $25,000 on hand. Sen. John Cornyn has only about $18,000 on hand.

Some critics of Texas' system for campaign contributions argue that our system, in effect, offers up seats in the Legislature to the highest bidder. If so, our Collin County Reps should feel secure in knowing that thanks to their friendly PACs, they have the means to out bid all but the most determined millionaire candidate.

Bill

Tomorrow morning there will be a hearing in a Collin County District Court that may decide the future of a District Judge -- Suzanne Wooten, elected in 2008 to the 380th District Court.

For over a year now, the Collin County Courthouse has been a buzz with rumors that District Attorney John Roach, Sr. was using a grand jury to investigate 2 sitting judges; Judge Greg Willis (now the GOP nominee for District Attorney) and Suzanne Wooten.

Sources close to both judges have styled the investigations as being politically motivated.

Judge Greg Willis was exonerated by a Grand Jury in January. To date, no action has been taken by any Grand Jury against Judge Wooten. In fact, the Observer was told in January that all investigations against Wooten had ended. Not so.

Attorneys for Judge Wooten learned yesterday that the District Attorney's office would re-convene a recently released Grand Jury in order to seek an indictment against her. In an attempt to stop the DA, they have filed a "Motion to quash illegally re-assembled Grand Jury". The hearing on that motion will be at 9:00 AM in the 366th District Court, with Judge Ray Wheless presiding.

The motion tells only one side of the story, but it does present a compelling picture of what one court house regular called "an abuse of judicial resources" by the first Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis and Christopher Milner, the Chief of the DA's Special Crimes Unit.

Judge Wooten's motion tells the tale of a political vendetta that began the day after she was elected by defeating long time Judge Charles Sandoval.

Wooten's attorneys note that, "the first time a sitting district judge was challenged, let alone defeated, in a primary election in Collin County history." Her attorneys charge that the day after the election, "Judge Charles Sandoval reportedly had a lengthy meeting meeting with executive level members of the Collin County District Attorney's Office", and that Sandoval believed that the only reason he lost the election was that Wooten, "must have cheated".

According to Judge Wooten's motion:

Shortly after the primary, the DA sought and obtained from Judge Curt Henderson Grand Jury subpeonas related to an investigation of Wooten. Because Grand Jury proceedings are secret, it wasn't until July of 2009 that Judge Wooten heard rumors that she was being investigated. More subpeonas were issued in July and again in August of 2009.

In September, 2009 Judge Wooten, "was made aware by her bank that there were 'unusual record activities' on her personal, former business and campaign accounts. Based on this information [Wooten] concluded that there could actually be an investigation pending against her." During this period, Chris Milner refused to admit or deny the existence of an investigation to Wooten's lawyers, despite their repeated inquiries and offers to cooperate.

During a meeting between Judge Wooten's lawyers and Mr. Milner held in October, 2009, Milner "demanded that [Judge Wooten] resign her bench by the following Wednesday, as 'Judge Roach (the DA) looks favorably upon public servants who accept responsibility for their actions and resign'." When asked what Judge Wooten was charged with, Milner responded, "She knows what she did.". Milner then stated that Judge Wooten, "needed to immediately resign to avoid them 'taking her law license, her family, her home, her liberty, and her reputation'."

But the Grand Jury never issued an indictment. In fact according to the motion, while the Grand Jury asked that the case be presented to them for a vote, "Milner refused to present the case and allegedly stated 'He was going to wait for a better Grand Jury'."

Six Grand Juries have come and gone since the investigation of Suzanne Wooten began. None have indicted her, nor even been given the opportunity to vote on a "True Bill" or a "No Bill".

The current Grand Jury's term officially ends on June 30. They held their last session last week on June 24th. On June 28th, Harry White, an Assistant Attorney General (acting as a deputy prosecuter appointed by John Roach) requested Judge Wooten appear before that Grand Jury on June 30th on a possible "bribery charge".

Fearing that Milner had finally found his compliant Grand Jury, Suzanne Wooten's attorneys filed the "Motion to Quash" arguing that the Grand Jury's term had ended and that only the court, and not the DA, could call them back into session.

For two years now, the courthouse has been rife with rumors of the investigation. for several months, Judge Wooten recused herself form hearing criminal cases, and has been unable to defend herself against unknown charges. As noted above six Grand Juries have come and gone. One investigation (against Greg Willis) ended with exoneration, but Wooten's case has not been allowed to come before a up or down vote by a Grand Jury.

During this period, the Collin County Observer heard persistent rumors that the DA would not allow bench trials (trials before a Judge, instead of a jury) in two District Courts -- the 380th (Judge Suzanne Wooten) and the 429th (Judge Jill Willis) -- both presided over by women. An email attached to Wooten's motion provides real evidence that the rumors were true. In the email, Greg Davis instructs one of his Chief Prosecutors to "conduct a TBC ["trial before the court", or a bench trial] in the 380th only if you have no interest in the outcome of the case"... "Those same guidelines are to be used in the 429th as well." The email further reminds the prosecuter that he has the authority to plead "any case set for trial before it was transferred to the 429th."

• John Roach's allegations against Judge Wooten have never been made public.
• Judge Wooten's allegations against DA John Roach charge that the DA is manipulating the justice system in trying to engineer outcomes he desires; not only forum shopping Judges, but also Grand Juries.

Why, if as Milner told her attorneys in 2009, he had "boxes and boxes of evidence" against the Judge Wooten, he has waited 2 years to finally present to a Grand Jury, and one whose term was ended or at best ending.

The hearing tomorrow should determine if this Grand Jury will be allowed to vote, or if the District Attorney will have to take his chances with yet another panel of Collin County citizens.

Bill

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

UPDATE June 30 11:00 AM

After a hearing in which no witnesses were called, Judge Wheless has ruled in favor of the Motion to Quash.

His decision was that the Grand Jury's term had ended and that the District Attorney could not legally re-call the Grand Jury into session.

Wheless's ruling means that Roach will have to present the case to another Grand Jury, if he is still seeking an indictment of Judge Suzanne Wooten. Wheless's decision is seen by most courthouse observers as a significant set back to the reach of DA Roach.

D Magazine's Front Burner Blog commented on the case this morning. Editor Wick Allison opines that John Roach and Charles Sandoval are trying to, in effect, overturn the election of Judge Wooten.

Bill

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

NOTES:

"In Re: Grand Jury Proceedings", "Motion to quash illegally re-assembled Grand Jury" filed in the 366th District Court on June 29, 2010 by Hon. Suzanne Wooten, movant.

Two local judges targets of grand jury investigations, CCO, Nov. 19, 2009

Judge accuses DA of "forum shopping" and "needless expense": DA appeals (updated), CCO, Dec. 21, 2009

Court releases Willis Grand Jury report, CCO, Jan. 26, 1010

Judge accuses DA of "forum shopping" and "needless expense": DA appeals (updated), CCO, Dec. 21, 2009

Collin County district Clerk Hannah Kunkle issued a press release Friday on the Texas Ranger's raid on her office. Said Ms. Kunkle:

PRESS RELEASE

I have now had an opportunity to review the allegations that prompted a search warrant on the office of the Collin County District Clerk.

When I announced I was retiring and several candidates filed to run for the office of District Clerk, I clearly instructed all of the employees of this office that there was to be no campaigning during work time for any candidate and that County property was not to be used for the benefit of any candidate. If the authorities had come to me with these allegations, I would have cooperated fully and all of us could have avoided the complete shutdown of the Clerk’s office.

I will be conducting an internal investigation of these allegations and will deal with my findings accordingly. I will not be speaking publicly about this matter until the completion of my investigation and the completion of any ongoing criminal investigation.

Until that time, the District Clerk’s office will continue to be open and serve the needs of the citizens of Collin County.

Hannah Kunkle
Collin County District Clerk

Ms. Kunkle would have us believe that the Texas Rangers were interested in a bit of campaign misconduct. Unfortunately, the press seems to also want us to see last week's raid as a response to some on-the-clock electioneering.

I wish that were the case.

The Texas Rangers have better things to do that to question 5 witnesses, develop over 100 pages of evidence, go to an Austin appeals judge for a search warrant, and then seize dozens of county hard drives over a little unethical campaigning.

The real issue with the District Clerk's Office - the issue that drove the investigation forward, and that caused the large-scale raid was that, according to witnesses, the District Clerk's Office had engaged in an organized conspiracy, perhaps for as long as 20 years, to defraud the taxpayers of Collin County.

District Clerk supervisors maintained a double set of books on employee time off. One set, the official one was turned into the county's HR department for payroll processing. The other was a record of illegal time manipulations designed to allow employees additional paid time off that they were not entitled to.

I spoke to a source at the County Auditor's Office Friday and asked him how such a large-scale fraud could go undetected by audits over so many years. He replied that while the Auditor was working to improve the audit process, such an ingrained system of double-bookkeeping would be almost impossible to detect - unless a whistle blower tipped them off to the problem.

But for years, and until this election, no such whistle blower appeared.

Internal emails and documents discovered by the investigators showed District Clerk's supervisors adding dozens of names and time adjustments to the "Blue Book" where extra time off was granted and tracked. Employees routinely asked for entries to be made in the Blue Book. Several emails refer to "bb" time as an alternative to the County's official Paid Time Off (PTO). An example, "Lauri, I clocked in at 9:15 this morning, so I'll use my lunch and PTO or bb time, OK?"

Although Patricia Crigger, as Chief Deputy District Clerk was a major driver of the "Blue Book" entries, virtually every single supervisor made entries into the Blue Book. Emails show almost 1/2 the employees of the department were the beneficiaries of the illegal Blue book time off.

It seems impossible for Hannah Kunkle not to know what was going on.

Now, the county does not keep its personnel policies top secret. All employees and especially supervisors are aware of the policies on PTO. Every employee that took part in this conspiracy must have known it was illegal.

The emails and evidence collected by Ranger Davidson make clear that the culture at the County District Clerk's office was that of dishonesty. Cheating in time sheets was OK. Hiding records and reporting false data was OK. Stealing was OK.

Under Hannah Kunkle, the supervisors and employees were corrupted. They lied, they stole and they believed it was their right to do so. They engaged in an organized conspiracy to cheat the system. Cheating was rewarded with paid time off.

There were no rewards for being honest, and so no one snitched. There existed a culture of dishonesty.

That is the problem that caused the raid.

The citizens of Collin County were cheated by employees of their justice system. The District Clerk's office is an important and vital adjunct to our courts. They not only keep the court's records, they accept filing fees, forward child support payments, and administer over $3 million in several dedicated bank accounts.

Many defendants whose records the District Clerk's Office receives committed crimes of less import than this, by the court personnel themselves.

This scandal will not be cleaned up until every supervisor who made a Blue Book entry is prosecuted, and every employee who accepted Blue book time is fired.

Cleaning house will not be easy. Hannah Kunkle is an elected official.

If Ms. Kunkle and Ms. Crigger are indicted and convicted of misconduct, they would be automatically removed from office. But the criminal process will take some time and meanwhile the perpetrators of the conspiracy could remain in place.

The Commissioners Court can not fire Hannah Kunkle. She can only be removed by a district judge after a jury trial in what is called a Removal Petition hearing. The Commissioners Court or any single commissioner can ask a judge for a Removal Hearing. (In fact, any Collin County citizen can petition the District Court for a Removal Hearing.)

The Commissioners Court can not fire her staff either. As an elected District Clerk, only Ms. Kunkle can fire a member of her staff. The Commissioners can not keep Patricia Crigger from assuming the post of District Clerk next January. What the court can do is to try to use their power of the budget to squeeze the District Clerk. They can refuse to approve expenditures and to approve new hires. (Monday's Commissioners Court agenda has a new hire in the District Clerk's office needing approval. There is also a request by Ms. Kunkle to advertise for another open position. I hope both will be denied.)

The Commissioners Court needs conduct their own internal investigation, and then if warranted, file a petition for the removal of Hannah Kunkle as District Clerk. The Commissioners Court, the County Administrator, the County Auditor and the County HR Department should also begin a thorough investigation of all departments in order to determine if the cancer in the District Clerk's Office is an isolated case or widespread.

Our society is based on the rule of law. Our rule of law is administered by our courts. We must have complete faith that our courts are run by ethical, law abiding public servants. Here in Collin County, we will need to clean our own house, or risk corrupting the very court system we rely on for our justice.

Bill

The Collin County Observer has obtained the sworn affidavit by Texas Ranger A.P Davidson that was used to obtain the search warrant of the Collin County District Clerk's office yesterday. We are also posting the Search Warrant, 110 pages of attachments and the Return. The Return lists 18 pages of items seized in yesterday's raid.

In his sworn statement, Ranger Sergeant Davidson tells of 5 District Clerk employees who came to him with evidence of off-the-books time sheets used to pay District Clerk employees for time spent on Patricia Crigger's campaign.

The Affidavit and its attachments are damning. While I must point out that all these charges are still only allegations and must be proved in a court, the evidence shows that Ranger Davidson and his investigators spent considerable time gathering their facts before asking for a warrant. They present a compelling case.

The affidavit charges that, "On or about the dates of December 28, 2009 and June 1, 2010, in Collin County, Texas, Patricia Wysong CRIGGER, Sherry L. BELL, Rebecca A. LITTRELL, Amy E. MATHIS, Lorrie M. ROBERTSON, Marcia E. SIMPSON, Judy A. BLAZIER, and others did then and there, with intent to establish maintain and participate in a combination and in the profits of a combination, collaborate with each other and conspire to commit the offenses of Tampering with a Governmental Record, and Theft by a Public Servant by agreeing with each other that they would engage in conduct that constituted said offenses, namely, the falsification of official Collin County time and attendance records for employees of the Collin County District Clerk's Office and the maintenance of a separate system of accounting for their own additional program of unauthorized paid leave at Collin County Taxpayer expense..."

"On or about the dates of December 28, 2009 and June 1, 2010, in Collin County, Texas, Patricia Wysong CRIGGER, Sherry L. BELL, Marcia SIMPSON and Sandra K. HILL, public servants, with intent to obtain a benefit, did knowingly and intentionally misuse government property and services, namely, Collin County computers, printers, and copiers that had come into their custody and possession by virtue of their employment as public servants...."

Hannah Kunkle	Patricia Wysong Crigger

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'.

One informant told Davidson that Kunkle had always authorized employees to receive "Blue Book" holidays off, including such holidays as, "Spring Day", "Summer Day", "Fall Day", "Winter Day", "Christmas Shopping Day", "Birthday Day", and two extra Holiday days to be used to extend three-day holiday weekends into four-day weekends.

The affidavit makes accusations against 6 ranking employees of using the "Blue Book" to reimburse employees time taken off for campaigning and/or for campaigning on County time and with County computers and printers. They are:

• Hannah Kunkle, the elected District Clerk
• Patricia Wysong Crigger, Chief Deputy District Clerk (and Republican Party nominee for District Clerk)
• Rebecca Littrell, Senior Administrator
• Sherry Bell, Civil/Family Manager
• Amy Mathis, Deputy District Clerk
• Lorrie Robertson, Civil/Family Supervisor
• Marcia Simpson, Deputy Minutes Clerk
• Judy Blazier, Criminal Supervisor

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 Ranger's raid on the court house resulted in 68 items being seized, including computer hard drives, removable storage drives, calendars, binders, and 2 employee Access Cards.

The charges as laid out by the Texas Rangers show a District Clerk's office that encouraged and pressured employees to use their legitimately earned leave to campaign for Ms. Crigger, and then re-paid them with illegal "Blue Book" time. It describes an operation where the "Blue Books" effectively corrupted a large percentage of the employees, encouraging them to lie, steal and cheat the County's taxpayers.

The affidavit details an environment where a County Department became, in effect, a campaign office for Patricia Crigger, and where effective controls by independent auditors and management were non-existent.

In the weeks and month ahead, much will be written and talked about on how a Collin County operation could, for decades, flaunt County policies and steal payroll time. But first, Law Enforcement will have to step in where the lack of effective controls and personal integrity failed the citizens of our county.

Bill

Links to relevant documents:

Affidavit for Search Warrant, signed by Texas Ranger Sergeant A.P. Davidson, June 1, 2010

Exhibits attached to Affidavit (Warning, large file!)

Search Warrant for the Collin County District Clerk's Office, signed by Judge Michael E. Keasler of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, dated June 1, 2010

Return and Inventory of items seized during the search, signed by Texas Ranger A.P. Davidson and dated June 3, 2010

Here is the statement from DPS in Austin on yesterday's search warrant and raid of the District Clerk's office:

“Pursuant to an ongoing investigation into allegations of improper use of Collin County resources and personnel in furtherance of a political campaign, the Texas Rangers executed a search warrant at the offices of the Collin County District Clerk in McKinney this afternoon. The search warrant was executed to search for evidence which would support the allegations. If the allegations were found to be true, charges of Abuse of Official Capacity and/or Tampering with a Government Record could be filed in the future. Currently, no arrest have been made.”

Bill

Doug Reeves, who placed 2nd in the March GOP Primary race for Precinct 3 Justice of the Peace pleaded guilty this morning to charges of failure to file a complete and timely campaign finance report - a class C misdemeanor.

Reeves' plea came just a few minutes before he was to face trial in Judge Terry Douglas' JP Precinct 2 court in Farmersville. Reeves was sentenced to a $200 fine with 180 days deferred adjudication.

Mr. Reeves was acting as his own attorney, and had demanded a jury trial. He then subpoenaed several former candidates and elected officials, including Judge Mike Yarbrough as witnesses. After Judge Douglas refused to grant Reeves a continuance, Reeves then filed a motion to quash the complaint. Judge Douglas denied the motion to quash.

Just before the trial was to begin, Reeves accepted Assistant District Attorney Lauren Shapiro's offer of a plea bargain that included the deferred adjudication. For Collin County taxpayers, it was a very expensive Class C misdemeanor trial.

Doug Reeves is a well known Republican Party and Tea Party activist. In 2008 he ran 3rd in the primary race for County Commissioner, behind incumbent Phyllis Cole and the eventual winner, Matt Shaheen. In this year's primary, Reeves placed 2nd, knocking out Kelley Adley. However, Mr. Reeves withdrew from the run-off race after allegations of campaign finance violations, notary public violations and possible fraud in soliciting money for his charity, My Brother's Helper were published in The Collin County Observer.

Mr. Reeves still faces action by the Texas Ethics Commission for late and incomplete filings of campaign finance reports. He also is under investigation by the Texas Secretary of State for illegally notarizing his own signature on a finance report.

Bill

Fairness gets upstaged in courtroom soap opera

The Austin American Statesman Editorial Board
Tuesday April 20, 2010

The evidence the state amassed against convicted murderer Charles Dean Hood was formidable.

His fingerprints were found at the scene of the bloody double homicide in Collin County. Hood pawned the victims' jewelry and cashed the victims' checks. Hood used the victims' credit cards, and he was apprehended driving a victim's Cadillac, 800 miles from the crime scene.

Despite the evidence, Hood says he didn't kill Ronald Williamson, his employer, or Tracie Lynn Wallace, Williamson's girlfriend. Williamson was 46 when he was killed at his Plano home in 1989; Wallace was 26. They died bloody deaths and deserve justice.

Unfortunately, a sordid set of circumstances involving an illicit love affair between the judge who presided over the trial and the district attorney who prosecuted Hood raises significant questions about the conviction, which otherwise would have been a slam dunk.

The legal standard for conviction is not "he probably did it," but in this case that appears to be good enough. It shouldn't be. Maybe a criminal justice system run by fallible human beings can't achieve perfection, but it should be fair.

No one could argue credibly that Hood is a victim of bad luck or coincidence. A credible argument could be made — and has been made by a bevy of judicial experts and ethicists — that the romantic relationship between then-state District Judge Verla Sue Holland and then-Collin County District Attorney Tom O'Connell Jr. casts doubt on the fairness of the proceedings. The affair was over by the time of trial, but the two remained close friends.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused, without comment, to hear Hood's appeal.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals — where Holland served between 1997 and 2001 — refused Hood a new trial because he didn't raise the issue of the relationship at trial. It was a ruling that would have made Franz Kafka proud.

One reason the relationship wasn't raised sooner is that there was no way of verifying long-standing courthouse rumors of the relationship.

Holland and O'Connell acknowledged their affair only after they were subpoenaed and asked under oath about it years later. By then, the Court of Criminal Appeals — most of the members of which served with Holland — said it was too late.

The case is outrageous even by Texas standards. Former FBI Director William Sessions and former Gov. Mark White have interceded; many an expert on jurisprudence has weighed in on the case; and so far the best the system can do for Hood is provide him with a new sentencing hearing.

He was sentenced to death in 1990 and has been on death row while the soap opera has unfolded.

In all the hubbub, it's easy to overlook the families of two murder victims who are prisoners to each new wrinkle in a case that would have been settled long ago had the judge and prosecutor just let the case be decided by more objective parties. Their indiscretion again raises doubts about the way Texas administers justice.

The state's reputation as being tough on crime is well-established. There is nothing wrong with being tough on crime as long as the system is fair to those accused of it. Hood's prosecution was plenty tough, but the trial was very short on fair.

link to this editorial....

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

Justice further delayed in Hood case

The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board
Wednesday April 21, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision against taking up the tawdry Charles Dean Hood murder case is disappointing to those of us who crave a watchdog against the mischief that sneaks into Texas courtrooms.

The state's appeals judges had already taken a pass on examining allegations of corrupted justice and sexual secrets kept by the Collin County judge and prosecutor in the death penalty trial. The fact that the two admitted to bed-hopping before the trial – and remaining "good friends" – wasn't enough to get the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to consider whether the outcome was fatally flawed.

The appeals court's refusal had the look and feel of sweeping the state's dirt under the rug.

Enter the Supreme Court and a request by Hood's appellate team for a judgment on whether former Judge Verla Sue Holland and former District Attorney Tom O'Connell could have been faithful to their oaths to uphold the law and its demands for impartiality. Is it even possible for a judge to manage impartiality toward a prosecutor with whom she had been repeatedly intimate, in her home and his, when their spouses were away?

In declining to hear the case this week, the Supreme Court did not give its reasons. It's anyone's guess whether it was solely on procedural matters or whether Hood's legal team might get the fair-trial question back into federal courts, perhaps back to the high court itself.

For its part, the Court of Criminal Appeals is on record with its rationale for rejecting the argument: Hood's lawyers were too late in dredging up the affair, even though they produced sworn admissions from Holland and O'Connell. (Their depositions, incidentally, were ordered by a local judge who was sufficiently concerned about the possible miscarriage of justice.)

The case continues in state courts, but in a different vein. The appeals court postponed the latest of six execution dates based on a finding that sentencing procedures were flawed in Hood's trial. That sends the case back to the courtroom for more testimony and re-consideration of the death sentence. That means the possibility of the affair finally being aired in open court – perhaps even testimony by the one-time lovers themselves.

This all is a glaring case of justice delayed, which is a shame on the court system. Mostly, it's a shame for the families of the two murder victims, Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace of Plano.

Their loved ones sat through Hood's trial in 1990 and have waited 20 years for finality – whatever that turns out to mean.

Evidence at trial convinced a jury of Hood's guilt. That finding we don't question. He appears to be a dangerous man with the blood of two people on his hands.

But shortcuts to justice can't be tolerated, even when it comes to unsavory people. Leaving the door open to corrupted justice makes everyone vulnerable.

link to this editorial.....

Rodman LLC is closing, laying off 242

Dallas Business Journal - by Kerri Panchuk, Web Reporter
Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Construction services firm Rodman LLC is closing its doors and laying off 242 employees on April 30, the company said in a letter to the Texas Workforce Commission.

Frisco-based Rodman LLC said in its letter that the company has been searching for a cash infusion to keep operations going and to prevent the business from closing.

The organization said despite its best efforts, negotiations that it had planned fell through, leaving the company with no option but to close, the TWC warn letter said.

Link to article at The Dallas Business Journal....

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

The Collin County Observer notes that Rodman was a major contributor to Commissioner Jerry Hoagland's failed re-election campaign.

Rodman, LLC and Rodman Paving are Collin County vendors; over the last two years, they received over $4 million from county contracts. At this time I don't know if they are working on any ongoing projects for the county and if so, how those will be affected.

The Observer has contacted county purchasing officials and I will post their responses here.

Bill

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

UPDATE April 15

Frank Ybarbo, Collin County's Purchasing Agent, responded to my request about ongoing projects with Rodman with:

"We do not have any current projects in progress with Rodman, LLC. The last project we had was over a year ago and that was let on a bid for the Dallas Toll way, Extension 4A."

Bill

Holland shuts down insurer
A Texas-based company's execs are "looting the business," she says.
"The business is "owned and managed by scam artists."

By DON MECOY / NewsOK.com
Tulsa World
Published: 4/13/2010

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland has taken control of a Texas-based insurance company "owned and managed by scam artists" engaged in the "ongoing looting" of the business, Holland said in court filing.

Holland claims the management of Imperial Casualty and Indemnity Co. — based in Frisco, Texas, and licensed in 47 states including Oklahoma — "is not fit to be engaged in the business of insurance." An expert retained by Holland claims in a court filing that Imperial is insolvent by more than $19.2 million.

Attempts to reach company officials or their attorney were unsuccessful. Imperial, responding to Holland's initial court filing, claims that before Holland seized the company, it was "solvent, profitable and well managed" and has not violated state law.

Imperial's officers and directors "systematically looted" the company by creating a bogus entity, General Insurance Managers Inc., to provide medical review services for Imperial, according to court documents. Imperial paid millions of dollars to General Insurance Managers, but the business did no work, the court filings stated. Imperial President Derek Lancaster has been paid $8.6 million "under the guise of this bogus services agreement," the filings say.

Click here to read the complete article at NewsOK.com.

===========

There is more coverage on Oklahoma's takeover of Imperial in the Dallas Business Journal. Click here to read.

Bill

Texas House race in Plano a bitter one

Saturday, April 10, 2010
By THEODORE KIM / The Dallas Morning News

"the election might tell us what the future of the Republican Party will look like."
Michael McConachie, political science professor at Collin College

After Sam Johnson beat a young Brian McCall in 1984 to represent Plano in the Texas House, McCall drove to his opponent's election party to congratulate him.

A lot has changed in politically genteel Plano as Republicans Mabrie Jackson and Van Taylor now battle to succeed McCall, who won the House seat after Johnson moved to Congress.

The battle in House District 66, which culminates in a runoff election Tuesday because no Democrat is running, has unfolded as Plano's bitterest, costliest and most intense political race in memory, observers agree.

"This is probably the lowest we have seen," said Ken Lambert, a former Plano City Council member who has not endorsed either candidate. "The way to win today's elections, it seems, is to do character assassinations."

Some believe the contest is but a testament to how Plano rarely sees contested state legislative races. Others view this year's primary as a harbinger of heated campaigns to come.

Friction evident

In a broader sense, the contest illustrates the friction between mainstream and hard-line conservatives emerging in elections nationwide.

"Mabrie, a mainstream Collin County Republican, is seen as the natural successor to Brian McCall. And here comes this new guy, this hard-line conservative, outflanking her on the right," said Michael McConachie, a political science professor at Collin College. "It's a microcosm of what the Republican Party is struggling with."

Jackson and Taylor have blasted each other's records, affiliations and ideologies on Web sites, in television ads and in political mailers.

Record amounts of campaign money have only added to the stakes and intensity.

Taylor, a real estate investor and former Marine, had lent his campaign $710,000 as of last week. Experts say the amount is staggering for a local House primary.

Few House candidates have spent more since 2000, according to figures provided by Texans for Public Justice, which tracks money in politics. And those totals were for entire general election campaigns.

Taylor is on pace to spend more of his personal wealth on the House primary than any Texas candidate this year other than Democrat Farouk Shami, who spent millions on a bid for governor, the group's research found.

Jackson, meanwhile, has spent more than $172,000 since late February, the latest campaign finance reports show.

Of the nearly $120,000 that Jackson raised in the latest filing period, more than half came from political action committees and business groups. The former Plano City Council member also received checks from homebuilder Bob Perry ($15,000) and grocery-chain mogul Charles Butt ($10,000).

Topping the mailers and money totals is a palpable sense that the candidates, generally, do not like each other.

Jackson fired the first shot a few days before the March 2 primary when she accused Taylor and a third candidate, Wayne Richard, of misrepresenting their résumés.

Taylor, who came in second in the primary but triggered a runoff election, dismissed the criticism as "negative" and "false."

Accusations flying

The salvos continued on Friday.

Jackson took aim at Taylor's personal loans, accusing him of "trying to buy this seat."

"What's he going to do with your money if that's what he's doing with his money?" she asked. "It's an insane amount of money. It's irresponsible to spend that much money on a political opportunity."

She also portrayed Taylor as an opportunist with little connection to Plano. Taylor, who grew up in Midland, ran for Congress in the Waco area in 2006.

"I'm the only one with experience in Plano," Jackson said. "He isn't beholden to anybody in Plano because he's not from here."

Taylor characterized Jackson's comments as "ridiculous."

"I live 20 miles from where I was born. My mother lives here. It's ridiculous. I have served in this community for years before this election."

Taylor, as he has in a last-minute ad campaign, painted Jackson as "courting lots of liberal groups" such as an association representing teachers that has supported Democrats and President Barack Obama. (Jackson dismissed the criticism.)

Taylor also defended his largely self-financed campaign, saying the personal loans have been "necessary to defeat these liberal interest groups that are coming into Plano and these negative, false attacks."

'Bare-knuckled'

In general, Taylor said, he believes he has run a "positive, issues-based campaign."

Others would disagree, saying both candidates have bashed each other with equal force. Plano City Council member Harry LaRosiliere, who has remained neutral in the race, said he "can't remember any race being as bare-knuckled as this."

"I certainly hope this is not the direction of our local politics," LaRosiliere said.

McConachie of Collin College noted that more is at stake than election tactics.

"Depending on which side wins," he said, "the election might tell us what the future of the Republican Party will look like."

link to this article at The Dallas Morning News....

at least $800,000.

That is the amount Van Taylor will likely spend in his bid to win the GOP nomination for the District 66 seat vacated by veteran Brian McCall.

It looks to be a record sum for a Texas Legislative seat, and leaves Taylor vulnerable to the charge of trying to buy a seat in the Texas Legislature.

In his latest campaign finance report filed with the Texas Ethic Commission, Taylor lists personal loans to he made to is campaign that total $710,000.

During the reporting period from February 22 to April 3, Taylor spent $326,000. Since January, his total expenditures have been over $771,000. He also reported $25,000 in contributions.

Mabrie Jackson listed expenses of $172,000 during the reporting period, and she reports she has spent about $265,000 since January 1. She also listed $116,000 in contributions from February to April.

In 2006, Van Taylor spent over a million dollars of his own money in an unsuccessful attempt to buy unseat Democrat Chet Edwards for a Waco congressional seat.

Nicholas Van Campen Taylor can afford the huge sums he puts into his divers political races. He is a heir to an oil company fortune, living on dividends from over $11 million in inherited Exxon Corp. stock and least $1 million in big pharma stock.

And there's another election yet to come after the run-off. On May 8, on city and school board election day, Van Taylor and Mabrie Jackson will once again face off at the ballot box. This time in a special election to fill the unexpired term of Brian McCall, who resigned his seat last Friday to accept the chancellorship at the Texas State University System.

The winner of the special election will fill the District 66 seat until December 31. The winner of the run-off will (since there is no Democrat in the race) serve a two year term, beginning January 1, 2011.

Bill

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

Notes:

Mabrie Jackson's campaign finance reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.

Van Taylor's campaign finance reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.

Governor Rick Perry proclamation calling a special election to be held on May 8.

All candidates in the April 13 run-off were required to file campaign finance reports detailing contributions, expenditures and loans for the period from February 22, 2010 to April 3, 2010.

Since Collin County does not post campaign finance reports online, The Collin County Observer has posted all reports by local filers. The latest reports were filed with the County Elections Department on April 3.

All have filed with the exception of David Rippel, running for County Court at Law #4. He told the Observer he thought he was supposed to file with the County Clerk's office. He did state that he would refile his last 3 reports (all misfiled) at the Elections Department by Wednesday.

The local filers are the run-off candidates for:

• County Commissioner, Precinct 2
• County Court at Law #3
• County court at Law #4
• County Court at Law #6
• District Clerk

In the Court at Law races, Jay Bender spent the most during the reporting period. His report shows $15,000 in expenditures, Stewart Matthews came in with $11,200 in expenditures. Matthews also reported $15,000 in loans to the campaign.

Terri Green raised the most money during the period. She raised $11,000 in contributions. The next highest was Jay Bender, with $6,900.

In the Commissioners court race, Cheryl Williams outspent Jerry Hoagland almost 4 to 1. She listed expenditures of $21,630 to Hoagland's $5,595. However Hoagland raised 3 times the money in contributions - $15,200 to William's $3,100.

Cheryl Williams lent her campaign over $46,000 and reported a balance of zero dollars on hand. Jerry Hoagland listed $9,800 in loans, but ends the period with over $14,000 he can still spend.

In the district Clerk's contest, Alma Hays spent $10,677 to Patricia Crigger's expenditures of $6,900.

Hays reported loans of $63,000, while Crigger listed only $2,500.

The webpage linking to all these locally filed reports is here.

The other two local races on the ballot are required to file with the Texas Ethics Commission. Click on the Candidate to link to the reports:

• Texas House of Representatives, District 66
  Van Taylor
  Mabrie Jackson
• 219th District Court
  Scott Becker
  Angela Tucker

In the race for the 219th bench, both Becker and Tucker spent about $9,000 during the reporting period. However, Scott Becker raised over $15,000 in contributions to Tucker's $6,000. Neither candidate reported outstanding loans.

The big bucks were spent in the Legislative race in West Plano. I have discussed these in my post, "The Fair Market Value of a seat in the Legislature is..."

Bill

Running for Judge

There are 4 judicial races in the run-off. One for District Judge and three in the County Courts at Law. I wonder how many voters know the difference between these courts, or can name any 2 or 3 of the eight candidates.

Voters will have one more opportunity to see and ask questions of the judicial candidates on Monday. The Collin County Bar Association will be holding a question and answer forum at noon at Ralph and Kacoo's in Allen.

Your Collin County Observer will moderate the Q and A. I'm looking forward to leading a lively discussion. The public is invited.

The Observer is trying to give the voters an opportunity to learn all they can about the courts and the candidates. I have just finished interviews with each of these candidates. Scroll below and you will find profiles of each race and each candidate.

I hope I can help make your choice less confusing.

The best political ad of the year

Plano's District 66 legislative race has certainly seen its share of mud slinging. Recently, the Mabrie Jackson side put up a clever website and 30 second TV ad about "Moving Van Taylor". Yes, I know it's an attack -- but the video IS funny.

Of course, Taylor has put up his own attack site, accusing Jackson of (guess what?) being a liberal.

Oh no, not another election!

Pity the diligent Plano voter. His/her presence was required at the polls for the Primary, the City Special Election, the city run-off, and will be for the Primary run-off, City and School elections in May, and the November general election.

Paul Burka of Texas Monthly writes of a truly scary scenario -- another Mabrie Jackson vs. Van Taylor election battle.

Burka writes, "If Jackson wins the runoff, it would not be surprising to see Taylor enter that race, since he has spent a small fortune to get his name and message out and has made no secret of his desire to run for Ralph Hall’s or Sam Johnson’s congressional seat, if either retires. The special election gives him the chance to continue to put his name before the public. Jackson conceivably might enter the race too, to get a leg up on seniority and to be able to hit the ground running in January — and, if she were to win the runoff handily, to squash Taylor permanently."

Regardless of whose running, there will be another election - on May 8 to fill Brian McCall's unexpired term. McCall has been named Chancellor of the Texas State University system.

Where do you live?

That seems to be the burning question in the Precinct 2 Commissioners Court race between incumbent Jerry Hoagland and former Plano City Councilwoman Cheryl Williams.

It's another race where the mud-slinging threatens to overwhelm the issues as Hoagland's camp continues to question if Williams really, really lives in her Richardson duplex. Rumor has it that Hoagland even has Williams' neighbor, Karl Voigtsberger spying on her duplex to make sure they come home at night.

I'm looking forward to seeing the first Peeping Tom complaint. That's got to be a terrifying thought - Karl looking in your windows!?

Meanwhile back to the issues, the Save Lake Lavon anti-bridge folks are all over Jerry Hoagland. His assurances that the bridge will never be built doesn't seem to dampen their ardor at all.

At a recent Tea Party forum in Lucas, both the anti Williams forces and the anti bridge folks were out in force. There was a lot of emotion from the crowd, and unfortunately, sometimes basic civility was lost in the discussion.

Ed Housewright at The Dallas Morning News has written an interesting piece about the Precinct 2 race. It's worth the read.

Clerking or campaigning?

Last month accusations were made that district Clerk employees were campaigning at the polls for their boss, Patricia Crigger on county time.

The Observer looked into these allegations. In an Open Records request, I asked for all the time sheets for all District Clerk employees for a two month period that included the early voting dates.

What I found was that absences were very high during early voting and leading up to election day. But all those absences were recorded as comp time, personal leave with pay, or personal leave without pay.

The Observer concluded that NO funny business was occurring on county time.

It was just another example of what I'm beginning to call "Republicans doing the nasty to each other".

This primary season has plenty of the nasty.

Bill

In a response to an email from The Collin County Observer, Doug Reeves informed me that on Friday, he withdrew for the race for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4.

Mr. Reeves was responding to a request to comment on or rebut the issues raised in this investigative article.

####

Doug Reeves, whose surprising 2nd place finish in the Republican primary race put him in a run-off against the incumbent Mike Yarbrough, will soon have his day in court.

But Reeves will appear in Judge Raleeh's JP Court, not as a judge but to defend himself against a Class C misdemeanor charge of filing an incomplete campaign finance report.

CASE NO. 01-TR-10-01329, STATE of TEXAS vs.DOUGLAS REEVES has not been scheduled for trial as of the date of this article. Court records appear to indicate that a fine of $320 dollars is proposed.

The hapless Mr. Reed, who boasts on his website that he has been "Tea Approved" by the North Texas Tea Party, is also under investigation by the Texas Secretary of State for illegally notarizing his own signature on a campaign finance report.

Not the first time: My Brother's Helper, Inc.

This is not the first time Mr. Reeves has run afoul of state law and regulations.

Research by the Collin County Observer has turned up a disturbing record of failure to comply with the law.

On his campaign website, Reeves writes, "In 1988 I founded My Brother's Helper, Inc. For the past 22 years, I have assisted handicapped adults in their quest to obtain meaningful employment and become self-supporting. This small business, 501(c) (3) non-profit organization also provides for young people to perform community service and learn life lessons. In January, 2009 we began a program mentoring fatherless young men."

There is a website for My Brother's Helper, and it is actively soliciting donations. It asks that donations be sent to "101 West Buckingham Road, Ste. 144 Richardson, Texas 75081".

However the company at that address is not "My Brother's Helper", but "Lincoln American Security Officer/Concealed Handgun Academy".

The website for Lincoln American advises, "Call Doug to schedule a class", and that is is "designed and hosted by Doug Reeves @ Homestead."

A search at the Texas Department of Public Safety lists Doug Reeves at 101 West Buckingham Rd. as a licensed to operate a school for private investigators.

A search of incorporation records at the Texas Secretary of State shows that "My Brother's Helper" was incorporated as a non-profit on August 28, 1989, but that on August 3, 2007 Reeves was sent a "Notice of Forfeited Rights for non-filing of Periodic Report"

The State of Texas then "involuntarily dissolved" My Brother's Helper on December 5, 2007. Yet in an article about a pro-life rally in 2008, Mr. Reeves continued to represent that My Brother's Helper was an incorporated non-profit.

Further, on a web page titled "Ethics and Texas, Happy Halloween from My Brother's Helper", Reeves writes that:

"Approximately seven years ago Carol McKinney, a Texas Rehabilitation Commission Counselor, called me with some astonishing news. Paul Begales, the TRC regional Programs Director had visited the Plano field office. He met with the Vocational Rehabilitation Commission counselors. He told these VRCs that they could no longer take referrals from me and to cease doing business with my organization, My Brother's Helper Inc.

"I had been referring handicapped clients to TRC for years. They in turn would refer many of them back to me for various services that I provide. Some of the services I provide are, helping clients with a resume, and teach them job getting and job keeping skills. The main service I provide is teaching a security course and helping handicapped people get a job as a security officer."

Nevertheless, Reeves continues to state in his campaign materials that My Brother's Helper, Inc. is a non-profit corporation helping rehabilitate young men.

Withdraws from race: Reeves responds

The Observer contacted Mr. Reeves and asked him to refute or comment on any of the issues raised in this article. I received 3 seperate email responses from Mr. Reeves.

The first one was a terse, "I withdrew from the race on Friday."

His second response asked me to double check my facts, charging that I, "have drawn a wrong conclusion in some regards".

On the issue of the campaign finance reports, Reeves stated that:

"You and many others do not take into account the circumstances that I faced in this campaign. I am not a criminal or evil man. I have made stupid mistakes on paper work. Much of this campaign I have been depressed related to circumstances. My father passed away last year, a few months later an uncle who was like an older brother passed. We were close in age, fished and hung around together, and he was the big brothers that I never had. In the middle of the campaign my cousin passed away. You are probably aware of the grief process which can last one week or in some cases over one year. The first stage is shock---you expect them to walk through the door. You pick up the phone to call them; it does not seem real. Then anger sets in. I was at this stage at the very beginning of the campaign. People who knew me inquired into what was wrong with me. I wasn't myself. I was able to put a smile on my face when in public, but as soon as I left the public the smile left my face. The third stage--grief did not set in until the last 1 1/2 months into the campaign. Also my job went the way of the economy. My income dropped and I took on a part time job. I was the candidate, the campaign manager, and the campaign secretary. Almost every night I was up until one or two o'clock, and arose for my part time job at 4:45 in the morning. This eventually took its toll on my body--the grief--the lack of sleep---I developed stomach problems, my blood pressure went up. At 59 I am not the man I used to be. Yes, I made paper work mistakes, and have been beaten up pretty badly for them. I look forward to the day when everything is resolved."

On the issue of My Brother's Helper, Inc. accepting donations, Reeves wrote:

"Incidentally, My Brother's Helper, Inc. was run out of the office on Buckingham. I now operate it out of my home, and have done so for a long period of time. I operate another business out of the Buckingham address. I have asked the building owner to change the name on the door, but they have not. Some tenants have moved out of the building and the name on the door was not changed for up to two years. My Brother's Helper, Inc. does not accepted donations. When people inquire, I refer them to their church. The website needs to be updated, and I will get to it. I have not been on tha site in a long time."

He also issued a veiled threat, asking me if I had checked the statute of limitations, as someone might want to file a complaint against one of my 2006 campaign reports.

In his third response, Reeves again issued a veiled threat, but offered no specific defense or argument other than to say, "Some of your assessments earlier are definitely wrong. Some will amount to slander. I am under no legal obligation to correct before you go to print."

A few hours later, someone revised the donations page at My Brother's Helper, removing the suggested $10 donation and adding the line, "We will resume our non-profit status soon."

The Texas Election Code permits a run-off candidate to withdraw from the race, if he informs the County Chair of that party within 10 days of the primary. If Reeves does in fact officially withdraw, then Mike Yarbrough will be the nominee.

Since Yarbrough is unopposed in November, he is in effect, re-elected.

Bill

On March 8, I received the documents from the Texas Secretary of State's Office that are referenced in this article:

My Brother's Helper - Incorporation
My Brother's Helper - Incorporation Certificate
My Brother's Helper - 1st warning letter of periodic reports not filed
My Brother's Helper - 2nd warning letter of periodic reports not filed
My Brother's Helper - Notice of Involuntary Dissolution
North Shepherd Christian Center - Incorporation
North Shepherd Christian Center - Forfeiture of Incorporation

Doug Reeves, who came in a surprising 2nd place in the Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4 race has been accused of violating "the duties and responsibilities of [his] office as a Notary Public.

Reeves is accused of notarizing his own signature on a campaign ethics filing. State law specifically prohibits Notary Publics from notarizing their own signature.

In a letter to Mr. Reeves from the Texas Secretary of State's office, Reeves was ordered to respond to the accusations within 20 days. He was also asked to turn over to the State portions of his notary log book.

If the allegation is upheld, Reeves could have is Notary commission suspended or revoked. He may also face a fine and criminal prosecution.

Last month, the Observer pointed out that Reeves campaign ethics reports were the worst we've ever seen. It is our understanding that more than one complaint has been filed with the commission. The errors, omissions and creative accounting on all 3 of his reports will, if sustained, likely subject Mr. Reeves to heavy fines by the Texas Ethics Commission.

Reeves will face incumbent Mike Yarbrough in a run off for the Precinct 4 Justice of the Peace Republican nomination.

Bill

Notes:

Letter to Doug Reeves from the Office of the Texas Secretary of State dated February 25, 2010

Reeves form C/OH Campaign Finance Report dated February 3, 2010 signed and notarized by him on Feb. 2.

Reeves form C/OH Campaign Finance Report dated January 15, 2010

Reeves form C/OH Campaign Finance Report dated February 22, 2010

This guy ought to get elected to something, he's got all the qualifications. His company, Pogue Construction ("A Name, you can Trust", according to its web site) in McKinney, has built many local city and county buildings.

Bill

=========

McKinney man guilty of federal tax income violations
By U.S. Department of Justice as reported in North Texas E-News
February 24, 2010

PLANO, Texas - U.S. Attorney John M. Bales announced today that a McKinney, Texas man has pleaded guilty to federal income tax violations in the Eastern District of Texas.

Paul Pogue pleaded guilty to making false statements on his federal income tax returns today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Don D. Bush.

According to information presented in court, Pogue, who stated he was employed as a consultant for a construction company, acknowledged in court that he stated on his 2003 tax return that he only had taxable income of $4,594,052 for that year, when he knew he had taxable income of $5,588,249.70.

Pogue admitted in court documents that he also knowingly understated his taxable income on his 2004 and 2005 individual tax returns. Pogue admitted reporting only $3,111,715 in taxable income for 2004, when he knew his taxable income was $3,686,784.40, and reporting only $2,908,235 in taxable income for 2005, when he knew he actually had $3,030,684.70 in taxable income that year.

Pogue acknowledged that the total tax loss resulting from his additional, unreported income was $473,680.53.

Pogue faces up to 3 years in federal prison. A sentencing date has not been set.

This case is being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations Division, and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy Williams.

link to article at North Texas E-News....

The Collin County Observer is committed to providing voters the information they need to make informed choices in the 2010 Primary Election. We believe an informed voter will make better choices -- and to be informed, the voter should know who is contributing money to their candidates.

While Federal and State campaign finance reports are online, a voter had to drive to the county's election office to see the local reports. In order to make these local reports available online, the Observer made Open Records requests to the county elections office.

The Collin County Observer has now posted online the "8 Day" or "Telegraph" campaign finance report required of all local candidates who face an opposed primary race.

This report details contributions and expenditures from February 1, 2010 to February 22, 2010, and is the last of 3 reports filed before the primary.

The reports, along with the "January Semi-Annual" report (details from July 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009), and the "30 Day Report" (January 1, 2010 to January 27) are linked here.

The Collin County Observer is only publishing the reports from "local, county filers".

There are four kind of campaign finance filers. Only "County" filers form C/OH are posted by the Observer:

1. Federal - Officeholders and candidates for Congress and the Presidency file with the Federal Elections Commission. The reports are publicly available through an on-line database here.

2. State - Texas state filers include candidates for Governor, Texas State offices, Legislator, State Senate, all Appeals Courts, District Judge, and County Party Chair. These office holders and candidates file with the Texas Ethics Commission. The reports are publicly available through an on-line database here.

3. County - County officials and candidates file with the Collin County Elections Department. County filers include: County Judge, County Commissioner, District Clerk, District Attorney, County Court at Law justices, Justices of the Peace and constables.

   The Collin County Elections Department has told the Observer that it is their goal to post all campaign finance reports on-line, but they do not have a real time frame (budget) approved to do so. It is these local county reports that the Collin County Observer has posted.

4. Local - Office holders and candidates for local offices file with their respective local authority. School Board candidates file with their ISD, City Council candidates file with their city, etc. Most local filings, except in large cities, are not on-line and can only be obtained by request from the filing authority.

Personal Financial Statements for State filers are kept at the Texas Ethics Commission, but are not on-line. They can only be accessed by requesting them with an Open Records request. A copy fee is assessed for each request.

County PFS reports are kept by the Collin County Clerk, and are available by request in a personal appearance. The Observer will be requesting all local form PFS and will make them available on-line.

While campaign finance reports are kept for several years, Personal Financial Statements are destroyed annually.

The Observer tips its hat to and thanks Sharon Rowe, the Collin County Elections Administrator, and Elections Department staffer Sandy Braswell for their cooperation and assistance in helping gather all the reports as electronic files.

Bill

Texas House race starting to get ugly in Plano

Tuesday, February 23, 2010
By THEODORE KIM / The Dallas Morning News

Politically genteel Plano is witnessing a testier brand of politics this year.

The GOP campaign to represent West Plano in the Texas House of Representatives is emerging as one of the city's most cantankerous races in years. Candidates are trading barbs over everything from resume discrepancies to charges of tax evasion.

The first volley came Friday, when Mabrie Jackson sent out a mailer and put up a Web site entitled "Plano Resume Fraud." The mailer and site accused opponents Wayne Richard and Van Taylor of misrepresenting their records and other transgressions.

"Don't be tricked by resume fraud in the Plano State Representative Race," Jackson's Web site reads. The mailer blames Richard and Taylor for having "falsified their backgrounds to win votes" for the March 2 primary.

Richard and Taylor have fired back, accusing Jackson of spreading falsehoods and poisoning the political atmosphere.

Taylor charged Jackson, a former City Council member, of publishing "one of the most negative mail pieces in Collin County history." Richard characterized Jackson's allegations as "malicious and hateful."

Unusual

Such heated rhetoric is unusual in Plano, which has long revolved around a stable of powerful incumbents and has rarely played host to knockdown campaigns.

But the stakes are high. The prize is the Texas House seat representing District 66, which has not been open since 1991. Incumbent Republican Brian McCall? is not seeking re-election.

The turbulent campaign also reflects a deepening battle to court conservative primary voters as all three candidates tilt to the right.

On her Web site and mailings, Jackson accuses Richard of "cheating on his business taxes," hosting a "voyeurism video" Web site and receiving campaign help from "extremists."

She also charged Taylor with being a "political carpetbagger" who is "searching for a political office to run for" (Taylor ran unsuccessfully for Congress in the Waco area in 2006) and of bankrolling his entire campaign.

Jackson declined to comment about the Web site or mailing, which feature her photo and campaign logo. Her spokesman Judd Pritchard called the materials a "comparison between candidates."

"All this stuff is legitimate candidate resume material," he said.

Richard said the accusations are "inaccurate, untruthful, hateful and inappropriate."

Regarding the charge that he has cheated on his business taxes, Richard, who owns a small Web company, said the accusation is false and proof of what he called Jackson's "lack of expertise in business and how she would address legislative issues as a representative."

Richard also responded to questions about his political ties. One of his top campaign aides, Peter Morrison of Lumberton, Texas, keeps a Facebook page on which Morrison has blamed the "Third World" for the Fort Hood shootings and criticized Texas schools for advocating diversity.

"I'm happy to have their support," Richard said of his aides.

More response

Taylor, meantime, said Jackson's "attacks are negative and false." He did not dispute any of her claims when asked specifically about each of them. But he said he had been up front about his record.

"She is attempting to mislead voters that I'm trying to hide something," Taylor said.

Fundraising, like the rhetoric, has picked up in recent weeks.

Taylor, who works in real estate, has loaned his campaign $420,000, including nearly $200,000 since late January. He raised $41,000 from other sources during that period.

He gave more than $1 million in contributions and loans to his 2006 bid for Congress, federal records show.

Jackson has raised $64,000 in recent weeks, according to records. That includes more than $20,000 in cash from political action committees representing interests ranging from natural gas and liquor to finance.

She has more than $110,000 on hand.

Richard reported $47,000 in contributions, though that figure includes more than $37,000 in noncash campaign services.

He has spent $12,000 since late January and reported having no money left in his campaign account.

No Democrats are running for the seat.

read article at The Dallas Morning News....

The Collin County Observer, in a collaboration with the Frisco DWI Lawyer's Blog and McKinneyNews.net recently sent all 27 judicial candidates a 12 question form designed to give the voters an insight both into the plans each candidate has for operating his/her court and their approach to criminal justice.

We will first present the candidates for District Judge.

Collin County has 9 District Courts. Two of them will have contested races in the 2010 Republican Primary. (No Democrats have filed for a District Judge Bench this year.)

District Courts are created by the Legislature as "courts of general jurisdiction". They handle all family law cases, felony criminal cases (including death penalty cases), and civil lawsuits above $100,000. District Court Judges serve 4 year elected terms.

In addition, the 9 District Court Judges collectively comprise the Board of District Judges which is the "supervisory" and appeal authority for the Commissioners Court. The Board of District Judges hires the County Auditor and Purchasing Agent and therefore plays an important role in the system of checks and balances in county government.

We asked each candidate 12 questions. These questions probe the candidates' ideas and attitudes of their role as a trial court judge.

We asked questions about role models, efficiency, temperament, activism, access to justice and alternative sentencing.

The questions are:

1. What current or past judge do you most want to inspire your approach to judicial excellence, and why?

2. What has been the greatest accomplishment in your legal career? In your personal life?

3. What, if anything, would you change to improve the procedures and efficiency of the court you are seeking?

4 Do you feel that ALL citizens have equal and adequate access to justice in our county? How would you improve that access?

5 Collin County tracks indigent defense dollars ordered by each judge. What effect would that reporting have on your decisions to order that the county pay for a defendant’s defense?
6 What do you perceive as the greatest obstacles to justice in Collin County?

7 Incarceration is the most expensive criminal sanction available. How would that fact affect your sentencing decisions?

8. Without commenting on a specific case or type of cases, should Collin County explore more or different types of alternative sentencing? What do you think works? What would you like to try?

9. Recently a Dallas judge made the news when he replaced a white juror with a minority one in a capital trial where the jury was all white and the defendant was not. Do you believe it is important for a minority defendant to have a jury that contains minority members?

10. When a judge’s sense of justice appears to be at variance to the strict application of the law, what approach should an ethical judge take to resolve the conflict?

11. Do you believe that our system of partisan election of trial judges should be continued? How can it be improved?

12. Tell the voters one thing about yourself that isn’t on any website, nor discussed at any forum.

219th District Court
Judge Curt Henderson is retiring at the end of the year from the 219th District Court after what will be 22 years on the bench.

Three Republican candidates have filed to fill the open seat.

Scott Becker's responses are here

Wendy McMillon's responses are here

Angela Tucker responses are here

296th District Court
Incumbent Judge John Roach, Jr. was first elected to the 296th in 2008. He is challenged by Keith Gore in the Republican Primary.

Keith Gore's responses are here

John Roach's responses are here

Links to all received judicial candidate questionnaires are here.

We thank all the candidates for their thoughtful answers. With 27 judicial candidates on the GOP ballot, it is extraordinarily difficult for a conscientious voter to make informed choices.

We hope the questions and answers are enlightening. It is our hope that these questionnaires will assist the careful and discerning voter in understanding the character and motivation of those who would stand up for us in judgment of their fellow man.

Readers can look forward to further analysis and commentary on these questionnaires in The Collin County Observer, the Frisco DWI Lawyer's Blog and in McKinneyNews.net

Bill

Keith Self, who is never at a loss for words when it comes to branding his opponents as commissars, socialists or liberals has moved even further right, now invoking the specter of Nazism against his primary opponent John Muns. From Keith Self's Facebook page:

Let's try Some Truth

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. ...truth is the mortal enemy of the lie."
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany Propaganda Minister

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

Friends,
Our opponent is using the Goebbels method of telling big lies often. Let's do something, let's try some truth.

I will not spend much time refuting lies because I want to stay on positive message, but I do want to give you a sentence or two on each of the big lies by my opponent.

Auditor lawsuit: The auditor requested an AG’s opinion that basically asked that he be given control, not audit ability, but control over all computer systems in the county by way of access to the deepest programming codes. We sued to stop him from even having the chance to acquire that control - we defended state law and the authorities of all elected officials. If he had prevailed, he would have overturned state law for the entire state and usurped elected officials authorities. The status quo prevailed and we stopped a very dangerous possibility. We welcomed his independent auditing function, we fought his control over all computer systems. He resigned soon after.

SH121 Toll road: Please read my blogs from March 16, 22, and 30, 2007. You will see that I did not advocate for foreign companies, I advocated first of all for the state to build the road with gas tax funds, then to make a decision and get it built.

March 16, 2007 “My position has not changed since before I was elected - I do not believe that we should establish additional taxes in the form of tolls, but for years the legislature has abdicated its responsibility to build the state transportation network and we in Collin County need SH121 built in order to continue our growth.”
March 30, 2007 “I ask that our legislature fund transportation as a top priority of the state.”

Transportation Bond: My opposition was no secret. The program did not address the congestion on our major roads and it contained improvements on roads that will carry little traffic in 2030. Once the citizens voted, I committed to carrying out their vote. My vision for highway funding is now in place with the $1.1 Billion in the bank. US75 has some $500 Million committed to it, and our congestion on major roads across the county will be relieved.

We have already dealt with the personal slander of the Florida trip lie.

By the way, my other old blogs provide some original writings that may continue to protect against this type of slander.

Sincerely,
Keith

Keith Self sent the identical message as an email to his list today.

Now Self's quixotic opposition to all things transportation (with the exception of the creation of the Collin County Toll Road Authority, which he voted for) is well known enough not be repeated here.

However, the Observer does wish to set the matter straight about the Auditor. Point by point:

Self - "The auditor requested an AG’s opinion that basically asked that he be given control, not audit ability, but control over all computer systems in the county by way of access to the deepest programming codes."
Observer - Big Lie. The Auditor's request is here. What he asked for was 'read only access'. He also wanted to examine the permissions and structure of the data tables in order to detect fraud.

Self - "We sued to stop him from even having the chance to acquire that control - we defended state law and the authorities of all elected officials."
Observer - Big Lie. Judge Self and the Commissioners Court first sued to stop the Auditor from simply ASKING the Texas Attorney General to rule on the question. The auditor's request to the Attorney General, had it been answered, would have been the simple, cost effective way to resolve any dispute between Self, the Commissioners Court and the Auditor. Instead the County Commissioners court began $300,000 of legal battles just to stop their Auditor from asking the questions. Judge Self and the Commissioners Court then filed a second suit asking for a jury to answer the questions posed to the Attorney General by their Auditor. Their intent was to protect their investment in multi-million dollar software packages that did not contain the minimum necessary auditing portals required by accepted auditing standards and current law.

Self - "If he had prevailed, he would have overturned state law for the entire state and usurped elected officials authorities."
Observer - Big Lie. The Auditor merely wanted the current law to be enforced. The Self and the Commissioners Court were refusing him access granted to him by the law... and granted to every other Auditor in the State of Texas. This is demonstrated by the fact that BOTH times the court ruled, it ruled in Summary Judgments against the Commissioners. In other words, the court granted a full and complete victory to the Auditor stating that the Commissioners suit was totally without basis in law. The court then ordered the County Commissioners Court to pay the Auditor's legal bills.

Self - "The status quo prevailed and we stopped a very dangerous possibility. We welcomed his independent auditing function, we fought his control over all computer systems."
Observer - Big Lie. The Auditor won on all points. It's that simple.

Self - "He resigned soon after."
Observer - Big Lie. Donald Cozad did not resign, he retired. And Judge Self and the Commissioners should be ashamed that they threatened a dedicated public servant with personal financial ruin over a power struggle. After winning his fight and forcing the county to pay his expenses for their suit, Mr. Cozad retired from the field victorious.

And finally -

Self - "protect against this type of slander."
Observer - "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

The Collin County Observer would like to ask why Judge Self feels the need to rant about candy canes, bibles, socialism and Nazism when there are real issues begging to be debated in this election?

The Observer does not support or endorse Mr. Muns. However, The Collin County Observer deplores and will protest the use of campaign tactics that even Judge Self has described as, "the politics of personal destruction."

Bill

[Note: This completes the series of articles introducing each of the primary candidates, posting their campaign finance information as well as a video of each when possible]

Complete copies of these and other January, 2010 Semi-annual form C/OH campaign finance reports are available on-line here.

JERRY HOAGLAND

www.jerryhoagland.com

Contributions July - Dec. $20,354
Expenditures July - Dec. $14,346
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $26,908
Loans - $9,019

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
John Aughinbaugh - $1,000
Texas Association of Realtors PAC - $1,000
Carter & Burgess PAC - $1,000
Bill Carmickle - $2,000
Rich Family Partners, LTD - $1,000
C.P. & Y. Inc. PAC - $1,000
CH2M Hill PAC - $1,000
Rodney J. Vilhauer - $1,000
Anthony Jeffrey - $1,000
David Andrews - $1,000
Halff Assoc. PAC - $1,000

RICK KOSTER

www.rickkoster.org

Contributions July - Dec. $0
Expenditures July - Dec. $0
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $0
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
none

KARL VOIGTSBERGER

www.electkarl.org/

Contributions July - Dec. $2,889
Expenditures July - Dec. $2,794
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $1,309
Loans - $10,000

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
none

CHERYL WILLIAMS

www.votecherylwilliams.com

Contributions July - Dec. $14,465
Expenditures July - Dec. $8,445
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $6,020
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
C.W. Kendall - $2,000
Carla McPeters - $1,000
William Grant - $1,000
Jerry McPeters - $1,000

Bill

Complete copies of these and other January, 2010 Semi-annual form C/OH campaign finance reports are available on-line here.

KATHY WARD

www.kathyward.org

Contributions July - Dec. $10,250
Expenditures July - Dec. $3,903
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $10,296
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
HNTB Holdings LTD. PAC - $1,000
James D. Dannenbaum - $1,000
LAN-PAC - $1,000
CH2M Hill Texas PAC - $1,000
TREPAC/Texas Association of Realtors PAC - $1,000

DUNCAN WEBB

www.duncanwebb.org

Contributions July - Dec. $17,804
Expenditures July - Dec. $6,372
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $11,276
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Case, Jordan - $1,000
Joyner, Richard - $1,000
Smith, Joan - $1,000
Wohlers, Craig - $1,000

Bill

The Collin County Observer has posted the "30 Day" campaign finance report required of all local candidates who face an opposed primary race.

This report details contributions and expenditures from January 1, 2010 to January 27. It is the second of three reports due during the primary season.

The reports, along with the "January Semi-Annual" report (details from July 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009) are linked here.

The Collin County Observer is only publishing the reports from "local, county filers". For a detailed explanation of who files where and how you can see the reports of state and national filers, see out previous post, Observer posts all county campaign finance reports on-line

The County Judge candidates appear to be building large war chests for the final 3 weeks of the campaign. Judge Self has amassed $51,869, while Mr. Muns has $64,155 in his campaign account. Keith self entered the season with over $50,000 in his campaign fund - since July, Self has recieved over $48,000 in contributions and Mr. Muns has recieved over $60,000. John Muns has also loaned his campaign $30,000 of his own money.

However, Keith Self has far outspent Mr. Muns. Self has so far spent almost $45,000 to Muns' $27,000. The winner of the the primary will then face Democrat and former Plano city councilman David Smith in the November election.

For the 3 weeks or so covered by the reports, the top fund raisers were Keith Self ($16,535), Greg Willis ($16,055) and John Muns ($15,550).

By far the worst campaign finance report was filed by Doug Reeves, a candidate for the GOP nomination to the Justice of the Peace Court #4 in Frisco. His report was late, is missing critical and required information and like his first "Semi-Annual" report covers a period of time at variance to what the law requires.

The report is basically incomprehensible and shows either indifference to the law or a gross ignorance of it. And this from a guy who wants to be a judge and mentor kids! During my campaign for commissioner, I accidentally left a few boxes "reason for expenditure" blank and was fined $100 for it. I hope Mr. Reeves has saved lots of nickles - he'll need then if a complaint is filed with the TEC.

A pair of Democratic clubs, while not having any candidates in contested primary races that require a 30 day report, have nevertheless run afoul of campaign finance laws. Conservative blogger Curtis Rath, writing in the McKinneyNews.net discovered that two local Democratic PACs had their treasurers fined recently by the Texas Ethics Commission.

The Texas Democratic Women of Collin County PAC's treasurer, June Perdue Jenkins filed two reports late and then appeared to ignore notices from both the TEC and the Texas Attorney General. She was fined $11,400. Barbara Walters, the President of the TDWCC told the Observer that the group has appointed a new treasurer. Ms. Walters also stressed that the violation and the fines were not against the Texas Democratic Women or their PAC, but against the treasurer, who under Texas law is personally culpable and liable.

The Stonewall Democrats of Collin County's PAC also filed a report lase. Its treasurer was fined $500. Mike Agan, the president of the group has noted that the Stonewall Democrats have appointed a new PAC treasurer.

Bill

JAMES "JIMMY" ANGELINO

www.angelino4da.com

Contributions July - Dec. $18,690
Expenditures July - Dec. $7,429
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $10,421
Loans - $5,000

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Timothy Powers - $5,000
Frank Perez - $1,000
Mike Pinchinson - $1,000
Dallas Police Assoc. PAC - $1,500

K. JEFFERSON "JEFF" BRAY

http://www.brayforda.com/

Contributions July - Dec. $15,011
Expenditures July - Dec. $20,779
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $6,011
Loans - $46,000

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
William Bray - $6,000 (in-kind)
Clark Kennington - $3,000
Clark Kennington - $2,000 (pledged)
Harold Simmons - $1,000
Michelle Buckolow - $3,000 (in-kind)
Jeff Bray - $20,780

RAPHAEL DE LA GARZA

www.delagarzaforda.com/

Contributions July - Dec. $6,325
Expenditures July - Dec. $4,893
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $6,325
Loans - $

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Bernardo De La Garza - $1,000
Gloria Trevino - $2,500

GREG WILLIS

www.gregwillis.org

Contributions July - Dec. $61,618
Expenditures July - Dec. $30,108
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $33,837
Loans - $

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
ABC Pediatrics McKinney PA - $1,000
Barbieri, Heather - $1,000
Barrett, Peter - $2,500
Baxter, Sam - $3,000
Burnham, Jim - $1,000
Crowder, Darlina - $1,000
Dean, Shan - $2,500
Finkelstein, Jeff - $1,500 (in-kind)
Franklin, Richard - $1,000
Gomez, David - $1,000
Herblin, Dana - $1,000
Howard Shapiro Attorney-at-Law PC - $1,250
Key, Paul - $1,000
Martin, EX III - $2,500
May, Jennie - $5,000
McCall, David III - $1,000
McKool, Mike Jr, - $2,000
Mitchell, Tandy - $1,000
Parker, George - $2,500
Renfro, John - $9,000
Waddill Skinner LLP - $1,000
Warmbrodt, Michelle - $2,500

Bill

As a service to the Collin County voters, the Collin County Observer has posted a link to all county filed campaign finance reports beginning with the January 2010 Semi-annual Report.

In Texas candidates file two different types of reports. The Campaign Finance Report (form C/OH) lists campaign contributions, expenditures and loans. Candidates are required to file this report several times during the election season. All Texas candidates and Office holders are also required to file a Personal Financial Statement (form PFS) annually. The PFS lists the assets, holdings, liabilities and debt of the filer and spouse.

The January C/OH report covers contributions and expenditures from July 31, 2009 to December 31, 2010.

There are four kind of campaign finance filers. Only"County filers form C/OH are posted by the Observer:

1. Federal - Officeholders and candidates for Congress and the Presidency file with the Federal Elections Commission. The reports are publicly available through an on-line database here.

2. State - Texas state filers include candidates for Governor, Texas State offices, Legislator, State Senate, all Appeals Courts, District Judge, and County Party Chair. These office holders and candidates file with the Texas Ethics Commission. The reports are publicly available through an on-line database here.

3. County - County officials and candidates file with the Collin County Elections Department. County filers include, County Judge, County Commissioner, District Clerk, District Attorney, County Court at Law justices, Justices of the Peace and constables.

   The Collin County elections Department has told the Observer that it is their goal to post all campaign finance reports on-line, but they do not have a real time frame approved to do so. It is these local county reports that the Collin County Observer has posted.

4. Local - Office holders and candidates for local offices file with their respective local authority. School Board candidates file with their ISD, City Council candidates file with their city, etc. Most local filings, except in large cities, are not on-line and can only be obtained by request from the filing authority.

Personal Financial Statements for State filers are kept at the Texas Ethics Commission, but are not on-line. They can only be accessed by requesting them with an Open Records request. A copy fee is assessed for each request.

County PFS reports are kept by the Collin County Clerk, and are available by request in a personal appearance. The Observer will be requesting all local form PFS and will make them available on-line.

While campaign finance reports are kept for several years, Personal Financial Statements are destroyed annually.

The Observer tips its hat to and thanks Sharon Rowe, the Collin County Elections Administrator, and Elections Department staffer Sandy Braswell for their cooperation and assistance in helping gather all the reports as electronic files.

Bill

JAY BENDER

www.benderforjudge.com

Contributions July - Dec. $3,900
Expenditures July - Dec. $2,340
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $2,763
Loans - $500

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
none

TERRI GREEN

www.terrigreenforjudge.com

Contributions July - Dec. $12,509
Expenditures July - Dec. $8,179
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $4,934
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
James W. McCartney? - $2,000
John Hinson - $1,479 (in-kind)
Terri Green - $2,065

DON H. HIGH

www.donhigh.com

Contributions July - Dec. $9,600
Expenditures July - Dec. $7,116
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $9,725
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Anderson, Amy - $1,000
Kramer, Charles and Britt - $1,000
Mathis, Joel and Ellen - $1,000
Don H. High - $4,452

SHAWN ISMAIL

www.ismailforjudge.com

Contributions July - Dec. $6,411
Expenditures July - Dec. $3,849
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $2,562
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Salim Kassan - $1,000

Bill

CHRYSTI BRYANT

www.chrystibryantforjudge.com

Contributions July - Dec. $1,340
Expenditures July - Dec. $3,036
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $969
Loans - $50

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
none

LINDA WYNN DRAIN

www.lindawynndrainforjudge.com

Contributions July - Dec. $7,597
Expenditures July - Dec. $10,040
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $0
Loans - $1,621

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Susan Plonka - $1,250 (in-kind)
Linda Drain - $1,450 (loan)

MATTHEW GOELLER

www.mattforjudge.com

Contributions July - Dec. $4,200
Expenditures July - Dec. $4,973
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $2,992
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Michael Curran - $1,000
Wynn Dillard - $1,000
Matthew Goeller - $4,972

DAVID RIPPEL

www.rippelforjudge.com

Contributions July - Dec. $3,050
Expenditures July - Dec. $7,551
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $0
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Dr. James Rippel - $2,500
Gail A Rippel - $2,500
David Rippel - $4,051

Bill

KEITH SELF

www.keithself.com

Contributions July - Dec. $32,205
Expenditures July - Dec. $31,698
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $50,080
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
William Mills - $1,000
TREPAC - $1,500
T.N. / N.K. Chalin - $1,000
James / Jennie Daley - $2,500
William / Catherine Hogsett - $1,000
Patrick Fallon - $4,300 (in-kind)
Patrick Fallon - $1,250 (pledge)
Tye Williams - $1,000 (pledge)

JOHN MUNS

www.johnmuns.org

Contributions July - Dec. - $45,175
Expenditures July - Dec. - $14,998
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $58,086
Loans - $30,000

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Greg Samuel - $1,000
C. Michael Brodie - $1,000
Alpha-Barnes Real Estate Services - $1,000
Walter O. Hill - $1,000
Dr. Ritchie. D. Beougher - $1,000
Beverly D. Lancaster - $1,000
Ronald J. Pegram - $1,000
C. Schenkel - $1,000
William J. Hibbitt - $1,000
James D. Shelton - $1,500
Richard M. Abernathy - $1,000
David M. Doll - $1,000
Robert E. Beaudine - $1,000
Mark Cashman - $5,000
D. Michelle Brennan Hall - $1,000
Ben~am~n J. Biller - $1,000
Leslie M. Duke - $1,000
Marilyn James - $1,000
George & Wanda Farr - $1,000
Jim & Deanne May - $1,000
Michael & Marla Boone - $1,000

DAVID M SMITH

www.DMS4CollinCounty.com

Contributions July - Dec. $1,449
Expenditures July - Dec. $289
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $1,160
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
none

Bill

Overruling an objection filed by the State's Attorney General, 416th District Court Judge Chris Oldner has released a copy of the Grand Jury report on the Greg Willis investigation by the Collin County District Attorney and the Texas Attorney General.

Last week The Observer wrote to Judge Oldner asking for a copy of the report, but the Attorney General objected, claiming that the report was a proceeding of the Grand Jury, and therefore secret.

In an email to the Collin County Observer, Judge Oldner wrote:

The Court OVERRULES the objection.
The requested report is attached to this e-mail.

Judge Chris Oldner

The Grand Jury's report is short and to the point. In 4 terse sentences it cleared Judge Greg Willis of any criminal wrongdoing.

Addressed to Judge Oldner on January 6, 2010, the report reads:

Re: Investigation of the Collin County Court at Law #6

We the undersigned members of the Grand Jury, having heard all the evidence presented in the investigation mentioned above, over a period of several weeks, have concluded:

1. No activity occurred in County Court at Law #6 that could in any way be construed as rising to the level of a felony.

2. No activity occurred in County Court at Law #6 that could in any way be construed as rising to the level of a misdemeanor.

3. While Judge Greg Willis may have run his court in a manner that is different than another judge may run theirs, that is not a crime and should not be viewed as one.

With this report the Grand Jury ends months of uncertainty regarding the political future of Judge Willis, who resigned his position as Judge of the Court at Law #6 to begin a run for the Republican nomination for District Attorney.

But the report will not end the speculation about why there was an investigation in the first place. Many have called the simultaneous Grand Jury investigations of Judge Willis and Judge Suzanne Wooten "political witch hunts" by District Attorney John Roach. We may never know the truth.

What we do know is that neither Judge Willis or Wooten was indicted. We know that one Assistant District Attorney was fired, and we know that the Texas Attorney General became involved with the Grand Jury after the District Attorney's office either recused itself or was forced to recuse itself.

As to the exact nature of the charges, or who was called to testify -- these facts are protected by Texas Law which, in order to protect the innocent, requires that all Grand Jury proceedings be held in secret.

Bill

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

Notes:

The Grand Jury Report, Re:Investigation of the Collin County Court at Law #6

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, November 19, 2009

Collin County Commissioners have to run for re-election every four years. It takes money to run a political campaign, so some commissioners look to a reliable source for campaign dollars - the county's vendors.

Engineering and construction companies, law firms and car dealers are all tapped by incumbents on the court to pony up for their "favorite" commissioners. It's a cost of doing business with the county. Challengers need not apply for some of this vendor cash, after all, county contracts must be approved by a majority vote of the commissioners court. The firms the county does business with know full well which side of the toast is buttered.

Witness a recent example.

Commissioner Jerry Hoagland's campaign is holding an "Appreciation Reception" and fundraiser at the Stonebriar Country Club in Frisco. (I guess the campaign couldn't find a tony enough venue in Hoagland's precinct).

Who is advertised as the sponsor of this Appreciation event? Rodman, LLC.

Rodman, LLC is the parent company of Rodman Paving. According to county records, Rodman Paving was paid $4,279,467.20 for county contracts during the last 2 fiscal years. Four million dollars buys a lot of appreciation.

A look at the donor list that County Judge Keith Self has posted to his web site shows several of the county's largest vendors as campaign contributors.

David McCall is a donor to Self's campaign. He is a partner in Gay, McCall, Isaaks, Gordon and Roberts, a Plano law firm that holds a no-bid contract to collect overdue county taxes.

Rider Scott is listed. He is a partner in Strasburger, a law firm that often consults with the county commissioners' court. In 2008 and 2009, Strasburger billed the county over $30 thousand in legal fees.

Bob Tomes is also on Self's donor list. His McKinney dealership, Bob Tomes Ford, was paid over $96 thousand in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for parts and service business with the county.

These examples are just what can be found on a simple web search. If past campaigns are any indication, there's a lot more vendor cash flowing into incumbent races. Three incumbents are running for re-election in 2010 - The Collin County Observer will be looking at all the Commissioners Court candidates' campaign finance reports during the entire campaign season. We will report what we find back to you, the voters.

Bill

On Monday's Commissioners Court agenda is the line item, "AI-31093 Personnel Changes, Human Resources."

A look at the background information in the court's meeting packet reveals that one of the personnel changes is the demotion of Curtis Howard from Second Assistant DA to Chief Felony Prosecutor. As part of the demotion, Howard will see his pay cut 5% from $104,393 per year to $99,174.

Howard is the 3rd person to fall after WFAA's Brett Shipp published a story alleging that a wealthy DWI defendant had his case "vanish in the Collin County Court system".

Earlier this month, Chief Misdemeanor Prosecutor Kerrie Walker resigned her job at the District Attorney's office. She was the person named by Shipp as the prosecuter who forced an acquittal of the DWI defendant with a 'stand and rest' tactic before a visiting judge.

Last month, prosecuter Brad Clements resigned after writing an email that described the circumstances of the case in a general criticism of the county's prosecution of indigent and poor defendants. Clements accusation that wealthy, well connected defendants receive preferential treatment has never been answered by the District attorney or his office.

District Attorney John Roach has promised a full investigation, but has never said when the investigation would be complete or if a report would be made public.

The Collin County Observer has called for an independent jurist to conduct an impartial inquiry.

Bill

Last Wednesday, former Collin County Chief Misdemeanor Prosecutor Kerrie Walker resigned her job at the District Attorney's office.

According to what trusted sources at the court house have told the Observer, her resignation was not voluntary. Last week, DA John Roach demoted Walker from Chief Misdemeanor Prosecutor to Misdemeanor Prosecutor, cutting her pay from $64,900/yr to $61,665.

The disciplinary actions come on the heels of a report by WFAA's Brett Shipp charging that Walker took over a solid DWI case from a subordinate, dismissed the witnesses and canceled the jury trial.

WFAA reported Saturday that, "Collin County District Attorney John Roach said that Walker's actions — and perhaps those of another prosecutor — appear to violate county policies." The other prosecuter is likely her former boss Curtis Howard.

According to the WFAA story, DA John Roach's investigation continues.

Ms. Walker is the second prosecutor to be forced out of the District Attorney's office because of this DWI case.

Last month Assistant DA Brad Clements, a 2007 SMU Law School graduate, also resigned (sources tell the Observer he was asked to resign) after writing a letter blasting the DA's office and Collin County justice system for its disparate treatment of wealthy and indigent defendants.

In his letter, Clements charged that Walker allowed a wealthy defendant to buy and scheme his way to an innocent verdict. Clements intimated that Walker, who is a former Frisco Police officer, did so in part because she was applying for a job with the FBI and the defense attorney was her former boss and a former FBI employee.

The letter found its way to WFAA's Shipp who then broke the story in the media.

The Collin County Observer has covered this issue by presenting interpretations by both WFAA and of a local DWI defense attorney along with the Observer's own comments.

Believing that the DA's own policies may have set the stage for the DWI acquittal, The Collin County Observer has called on DA Roach to commission an investigation by an independent jurist who would be charged with finding and reporting on the facts of the case.

Bill

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

Notes:

E-Mail from SMU Professor Greg Crespi that included a letter from Collin County prosecutor Brad Clements

WFAA - DWI case disappears in Collin County courts, October 23, 2009

CCO - WFAA - DWI case disappears in Collin County courts, October 24,2009

Frisco DWI Attorney blog - And now for the rest of the story..., October 27, 2009

CCO - FDWIL - And Now For the Rest of the Story. . ., October 28, 2009

WFAA - Collin County prosecutor quits in wake of News 8 investigation, October 31, 2009

This is a very disturbing story.

It involves a DWI case that appears to have been "fixed" by a senior prosecutor in the Collin County District Attorney's office.

DA John Roach's response six months later?

1. 'Reassign' the prosecutor accused of the 'fix' and her boss.
2. Fire the original prosecutor who had the case taken away from him by his superior and then complained about it, in what sure looks like 'firing the whistle blower'.
3. Complain about the laws that allow people found innocent to have their arrest records expunged.
4. Order an investigation.

The DWI arrest in question was last November. The 'fix' was in June. How much time does Mr. Roach need to ask his own employees what happened?

Collin County and its District Attorney have a well justified reputation for being tough on law breakers. Unless he wants to be seen as just another good ol boy politician protecting his own, Roach needs to take swift, public and decisive action to bring anyone guilty of a breach of the public trust to justice. Roach says he has zero tolerance for drunk drivers. He needs to reassure the citizens that he has exactly that same amount of tolerance for those who abuses the public trust in the justice system.

DA Roach is retiring at the end of 2010. His actions and that of 2 of his prosecutors should provide grist for an interesting discussion between the candidates who want our votes to become the next district attorney.

Bill

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

DWI case disappears in Collin County courts

Friday, October 23, 2009
By BRETT SHIPP / WFAA-TV

PLANO — Two North Texas men who tried to get a drunk driver off the streets and into a courtroom are confused and upset.

The seemingly iron-clad DWI case against the driver somehow vanished in the Collin County court system until News 8 became involved.

Adam Bennett and Steven Tibbles were scheduled to tell their story to a jury this past summer, but never got the chance. So they are telling it to News 8.

Last November in Plano, Bennett and Tibbles say they witnessed an apparent drunk driver.

"He swerved over and almost hit us," Bennett said. "Another car passed him and he almost hit him as well. He almost hit several cars."

Tibbles said the driver “obviously was not suitable for driving."

Bennett and Tibbles called 911 and followed the driver to a convenience store, where he was intercepted by Plano police. The incident report spells out what happened next.

The investigating officer said he smelled the "odor of an intoxicating beverage on his breath."

Police said the driver failed the eye test, observing "a lack of smooth pursuit in both of his eyes," which were described as "watery."

On the field sobriety, walk-and-turn test, the officer said the driver "stepped off the line" several times and "raised his arms and swayed."

But the most incriminating evidence in any DWI case is the Intoxilyzer test. In this case, the driver "blew" a 0.14, nearly twice the legal limit.

Despite the evidence, the driver and his attorney insisted on a jury trial.

Bennett and Tibbles were subpoenaed by the Collin County District Attorney's office and were eager to testify. The Collin County prosecutor assigned to the case amassed seven witnesses, gathered all the evidence, and set the trial for June 22.

But ten days before trial, something happened.

The court's chief prosecutor, Kerrie Walker, took the case away from the original prosecutor. Walker dismissed all the witnesses and filed paperwork waiving the jury trial.

She reset the case for July 23, a day the regular judge would be gone. In his place was a visiting judge who had no previous knowledge of the case.

On the day of the hearing, Walker apparently presented no evidence or witnesses.

The driver, who allegedly posed such a threat to the public, was quickly found "not guilty."

No probation. No community service. No fines.

And — according to the witnesses to the crime — there was no justice.

"Where's our justice system?" asked Tibbles. "Why do we have laws if that kind of thing is just going to happen? If people are just going to be able to walk from an open-and-shut case?"

Bennett and Tibbles say they have several questions for Court Chief Kerrie Walker, who abruptly took over the case.

Walker declined to discuss the case with News 8 and referred us to her supervisor, Curtis Howard, who also has declined to comment. Howard was allegedly notified of the disappearing DWI case this summer.

Howard failed to pass along the concerns to District Attorney John Roach, who says he has a zero tolerance attitude toward drunk drivers.

"If we can prove that you committed a DWI, then we are going to prosecute that case," Roach said. "It's just that simple."

Now that the case of the disappearing DWI has come to his attention, Roach said he has concerns of his own. He said both Walker and Howard have been reassigned pending a full investigation.

"Nobody should be making any mistake about what my attitude is and what my policies are here, and people who deviate from those policies without some excuse or justification are going to be investigated," Roach said.

As for the identity of the alleged drunk driver in question, that information will never be made public because the case was legally expunged from the files — all records are purged as if it never happened.

District Attorney Roach said he is frustrated by the Texas expungement laws. He said he has been fighting to have them changed, but he still feels he knows enough about this case to hold his prosecutors accountable.

read full story and watch News 8 Investigates video....

Yesterday, the Collin County Observer wrote of the issues with ADB and the North Central Texas Fusion Center.

Today, without any discussion, the Commissioners Court awarded a $240,000 contract for maintenance and operation of the Fusion Center to Dr. Bob Johnson, his wife, and presumably his brother-in-law. Bob Johnson is the son of US Congressman Sam Johnson.

Johnson's company, ADB Consulting, LLC was the lowest bidder in a contest that saw an extreme range of quotes - from ADB's low $240,000 to a high bid of over $3 million. It was a contest where Dr. Bob played a significant role in writing the bid specifications.

In response to an Open Records Request by the Observer, the county sent the bid tabulation data, a summary of which is presented below.

Before price was considered, ADB was rated 3rd of the 5 bidders. County staff rated it lowest among the bidders in qualifications, 4th in successful track record with fusion centers and third in having relevant experience.

But it was total price which carried the most weight. ADB's proposal was almost 50% lower than the next lowest bid and less than one tenth of the highest.

Sources in the county told me that because of the wide variance in quotes, all the bidders were given an opportunity to review and resubmit their pricing.

The North Texas fusion Center will continue to rock along as it has with Anita and Dr. Bob at the helm.

With the lowest priced product, and the least qualified support, ADB will be able to offer the Fusion Center the Wal-mart plan for Homeland Security.

Bill

On the Collin County Commissioners Court consent agenda for Monday, September 28 is item, #4c2: Award, Services: Fusion System Data and Analysis (RFP No. 02362-09), Homeland Security.

Both the agenda item and the published court packet seem intentionally vague as to the winner of the award. Typically, the agenda item states to whom the contract is to be awarded, and the packet contains the proposed contract as well as the bid tabulation, showing all bids received. In this case, there is no information published other than the basic agenda item quoted above. (The Observer has submitted an Open Records request for the missing documents, and they will be posted here as soon as they are received.)

Despite the lack of published documentation, the Collin County Observer has learned that the purchasing department will recommend the contract be awarded to ADB Consulting.

According to sources at the county, ADB was far and away the lowest bidder.

The whole process of getting to the Fusion Center contract award has been as Alice said in Wonderland, "curiouser and curiouser".

ADB Consulting is a partnership between Dr. Robert Johnson (Dr. Bob) and his wife Anita Miller that operates out of their home in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Dr. Johnson is the son of Plano's US Congressman, Sam Johnson.

For over a year now, the Observer has documented over $1.3 million in "no bid" county contracts to ADB Consulting for Fusion Center operations. After a series of articles hit the national press, the commissioners court decided to put the Fusion Center operations contract out for competitive bid.

In a story broadcast last May on Channel 8, WFAA's Brett Shipp revealed that Dr. Bob, "played a major role in writing the bid specifications".

It was back in February when the bid specifications were distributed, the 'closing date' for receiving proposals was March 19. It has taken the county over 6 months to come to a decision to award the contract to ADB - despite the performance of ADB in writing a much publicized Fusion Center Bulletin, and despite charges that ADB was subcontracting in violation of federal nepotism prohibitions.

Collin County owns and operates the Fusion Center, more properly called the North Central Texas Fusion System (NCTFS), to collect and disseminate intelligence data for action and planning relating to homeland security, bio-terrorism, police actions, and natural disaster. The Fusion center collects and stores vast amounts of data on citizens and attempts to use the data to predict and plan for terrorist acts. It also shares much of its data with other regional law enforcement agencies for use in more traditional police work. The Fusion Center is primarily funded through federal grants. It collects no funds from cooperating agencies - all its services are free of charge.

The county has yet to face the real dilemma on the Fusion Center - what to do with it. It is becoming an albatross around the neck of the elected commissioners court, which is totally unqualified by training or temperament to manage an intelligence operation.

And there has been mismanagement:

- several years of no-bid contracts to a politically well-connected insider.

- Publication of the "Prevention Awareness Bulletin" (PAB) that quoted from inflammatory internet rumors to call for law enforcement to report on legal lobbying and protest activities by Muslin and anti-war groups. That goofy PAB received national attention, caused federal and state homeland security trainers to rush to Texas to "train and counsel" local personnel, became the subject of a US House of Representatives subcommittee hearing, was used as a "how not to do it" example at a national homeland security conference, and is still cited by the press as an example of what can go wrong whenever a new fusion center is proposed. The PAB was written by Dr. Bob Johnson.

- revelations that ADB awarded Fusion Center contracts to the brother of one of its partners, and was accused of violations of federal ethics rules relating to nepotism.

- Running a "Code Red" early warning system that was so ineffective that local cities believed they got better information from the TV weatherman.

There are other concerns.

Several commissioners have also expressed concern of "unfunded programs" - if the federal funds dry up, the county would find itself with an expensive operation that would have to be paid for by local tax funds.

That will happen eventually and could happen soon. Federal Homeland Security grants filter down to the local level through a web of operational committees and organizations. Several of these are under the effective control of the Texas Department of Public Safety. The new DPS director previously was directly involved with the DPS fusion system. Reports form Austin lend credence to the rumors that he will keep most of the federal funding in Austin to complete the construction of the State's own fusion center.

The NCTFS is not the only Fusion Center operating in the region. The North Central Texas Council of Governments has built and is operating LEAP (Law Enforcement Analysis Portal). The City of Dallas has a fusion center called MOSAIC (Metro Operations Support and Analytical Intelligence Center), and the Texas Department of Public Safety is building a statewide fusion center, The Texas Intelligence Center.

Operating an intelligence center is not one of the core or even traditional functions of a county government. To date, the NCTFS has provided little or no value to the citizens of Collin County and its continued viability is doubtful.

The commissioners court would do well to consider alternatives to owning a Fusion Center. There are other possibilities. One would be to merge the NCTFS with the other large regional system, LEAP, run by the NCTCOG. COG has a long history of operating regional, multi-jurisdictional programs. They already have contracts with many of the local police agencies for data sharing.

Another alternative might be to turn over the technology and data to the DPS. This past year, it has become apparent that DPS is in need of a core intelligence technology that works.

The commissioners court needs to take a hard look at its fusion center. It need to order an independent investigation of past financial and contract practices, and it needs to decide if operating the Fusion Center is in the long-term interests of the county's taxpayers.

Bill

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

Collin County Observer coverage of the NCTFS:

What is going on with the Fusion Center contract?, CCO, July 12, 2009

What's wrong with the North Texas Fusion Center?, CCO April 8, 2009

Fusion Center kills controversial newsletter, CCO April 6, 2009

Commissioners refuse Fusion Center grant that would benefit ADB, CCO March 13, 2009

Fusion Center vendor accused of nepotism and unfair competition, CCO March 8, 2009

Fusion: Fear, Fiction, Fact and Freedom, CCO, Feb. 2009

County pays ADB over $1.1 million in no-bid Fusion Center contracts, CCO, Dec. 2008

Commissioners to consider "no bid" contract for Fusion Center, CCO, Dec. 2008

While Plano was watching TV, what was the Fusion Center doing?,CCO, May 2008

Other media coverage:

Fusion Center's spending questioned in Collin County, WFAA Channel 8, May 2009

No More Lobbyist-Terrorists?, The Texas Observer, April 7, 2009

Dr. Bob's Terror Shop, The Texas Observer, April 2, 2009

Keystone Kounter-Terrorism, The Texas Observer, March 20, 2009

For Reference:

The Prevention Awareness Bulletin, NCTFS Feb. 19, 2009

Surveilling for clues of evil intent, Bruce Fein, The Washington Times, April 1, 2009

“The Future of Fusion Centers: Potential Promise and Dangers”, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, April 01, 2009

“Homeland Security Intelligence: Its Relevance and Limitations”, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, March 18, 2009

Fusion Center Guidelines, US Dept. of Justice and US Dept. of Homeland Security, 2008

Privacy Impact Assessment for the Department of Homeland Security State, Local, and Regional Fusion Center Initiative, US Dept. of Homeland Security, 2008

28 CFR Part 23 Guideline: CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS OPERATING POLICIES, Code of Federal Regulations

Fusion Center Encourages Improper Investigations Of Lobbying Groups And Anti-War Activists, ACLU April, 2009

The Plano City council will meet in a Special Executive and Open Session immediately following the regular City Council meeting on Monday night.

The Special Session agenda is to consider one item, an ethics complaint filed against Mayor Pro Tem Harry LaRosiliere.

No other details are available. As soon as I have any further information, I will post it here.

The Special Session agenda reads:

EXECUTIVE SESSION
Personnel
A. To receive report from City Attorney regarding ethics complaint.

OPEN MEETING
I. Council action regarding ethics complaint filed against Mayor Pro Tem LaRosiliere to either reject the complaint or initiate a complete investigation.

Bill

========================
Update September 28, 6:30 AM

The Dallas Morning News' Plano Blog offers this possible explanation of the complaint:

"From what we've heard so far, the complaint appears to be relatively minor (though it still bears watching). It stems from an email that Mr. LaRosiliere sent to the city's Planning and Zoning Commission in which he disagreed with the panel about a decision involving a west Plano zoning case."

"At issue is whether the email, which we're told was copied to Mayor Phil Dyer and at least one other City Council member, Pat Miner, constitutes inappropriate council deliberation. (We should note that both LaRosiliere and Miner serve as council liaisons to the zoning board.)"

If the allegations are sustained, the emails would also be a possible violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

Update, September 28, 9:00 PM

The Plano City council voted to NOT sustain the ethics complaint against Mr. LaRosiliere.

Is Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation between Church & State" relevant in Collin County?

I wonder.

Tonight (September 21), the Collin County Commissioners Court will meet in special session to hold a budget hearing and conduct other business.

They are not meeting in their brand new Jack Hatchell Administration Building. Instead, they're going to church.

The meeting will be held at the First Baptist Church in Melissa. I find that troubling.

I find the choice of meeting place troubling because it is in a church when there are many other suitable government buildings in northern Collin County. I find it especially troubling because it is being held at First Baptist in Melissa.

Since 2002, the pastor of First Baptist is the Rev. Trey Graham. Graham, an unabashed social conservative broadcasts a radio talk show on a Christian Talk Radio station that co-mingles political and spiritual themes. For example, last week's program was a discussion of President Obama's health care plan and the upcoming race for Texas Governor.

His blog, Faith Talk, often interviews government officials, sends questionnaires to candidates for local office, and campaigns in local option elections. During the last presidential election, Graham wrote several articles praising Sarah Palin and criticizing Barrack Obama.

In 2006, Graham wrote in his blog that, "As a pastor, my calling is to help others find God and find a place of service in God’s kingdom. My desire is to persuade followers of Jesus Christ to live for the Savior outside the walls of the church, letting their faith guide their politics. I believe our county, state, and nation would be well served by having faithful Christian believers in positions of political influence."

Last year, the commissioners court appointed Graham their county "chaplain". They also paid him to moderate workshops designed to formulate new mission statements.

You don't have to be a 'knee jerk ACLU'er' to be concerned that the choice of meeting at FBM is disturbing. This is a church led by a pastor who is a political activist, and who has worked hard to influence policy on local, state and national issues.

The Reverend Graham is welcome to his political views, he has a right to them... but the County Government represents ALL the citizens in Collin County and ought, no must, keep its affairs at arm's length to that of any church.

Bill

Video camera company claims WatchGuard Video had unfair advantage in winning state contract

By Matt Pulle | Monday, August 17th, 2009 | Texas Watchdog

When MPH Industries, a Kentucky-based company that makes digital video cameras for patrol cars, lost out on a state contract, it claimed it never had a chance. That’s because, the company argued, the Texas Department of Public Safety wrote the requests for proposals in such a way that only one bidder would win.

That bidder was Watchguard Video, which at the time it landed the contract in 2006, had two state representatives–Republicans Ken Paxton and Byron Cook – among its initial investors. Another financial backer, Bob Griggs, was a former GOP member of the state House.

State Rep. Ken Paxton

In correspondence with state officials obtained by Texas Watchdog, MPH Industries does not mention its rivals’ well-connected investors, and it’s unclear if the company knew of them. But MPH claims that Watchguard Video may have received favorable treatment from Texas officials.

MPH's argument was highly technical in nature, but their main point was clear: State officials outlined a very specific type of digital camera that it wanted – and Watchguard was the only company that made that type of camera. That device wasn’t better suited to the demands of police work, MPH claimed. It was just uniquely positioned to take advantage of the state’s bidding process.

“The manner in which the specifications are written is so narrow that the Watchguard is the only system on the market that can meet them,” wrote acting president Kevin Willis in a letter to state officials obtained by Texas Watchdog. “We hope the state will give due consideration to our product, which has been on the market longer and has much wider use than Watchguard.”

(View the state document that shows all bidding companies, except for Watchguard, were disqualified, and MPH Industries’ response to the bid specifications.)

In a story first reported by the Associated Press, Paxton and Cook were among the early investors in Watchguard Video, while Cook served on the company’s board. Both Paxton and Cook voted for massive spending bills that funded the state’s contract with the company they partly owned.

Watchguard's deal with the state, which could be worth as much as $10 million, calls for trooper vehicles in Texas to be fitted with WatchGuard? digital cameras. Last year the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department also awarded a contract to the firm.

The Associated Press reported that in April 2008, Watchguard Video claimed that its net earnings skyrocketed 250 percent. About three months later, Cook sold off his investment, with Paxton unloading most of it. On their personal financial statements on file with the state, both Paxton and Cook had disclosed ownership in Watchguard Video in past years. But in the form filed in 2008, and covering calendar year 2007, Paxton did not disclose his ownership share.

Paxton and Cook’s stake in Watchguard Video may have breached the state constitution, which prohibits lawmakers from benefiting from a contract put in place by the legislature. But even if their ties merely place them in a legal gray area, political observers say that Paxton and Cook shouldn’t have anything to do with a company doing business with the state.

“How can Texans ever come to believe that their government acts in the citizens’ best interests when their legislators can’t keep from mixing up their investments with their votes?” says Bill Baumbach, the editor of The Collin County Observer, a local news and political Web site. “And then when found out, these same legislators emit smoke screens that all too frequently go uncontested by the press.”

‘Not a small-time enterprise’

At issue is whether Watchguard benefited by having two lawmakers sign on as investors.

Tela Mange, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Public Safety, says nobody at the agency had any contact with Cook or Paxton at the time they were evaluating bids for the videocam contract. She says the agency choose Watchguard because it made the precise type of digital recording device it was looking for.

Robert Vanman, the CEO and founder of Watchguard, says he didn’t divulge the names of his investors to the state, so it’s not like he could have used them to curry favor during the bidding process.

Still, the Plano executive does admit to one curious thing: Using Paxton and Cook’s status as elected officials to build the name of his fledgling firm. An early profile for Watchguard Video noted that his company is “held by an influential shareholder group that includes three state representatives, a judge, and a number of distinguished entrepreneurs.”

If Paxton and Cook were not significant investors — as Vanman is now claiming — why reference them at all?

“The candid answer, ” he says, before a deep pause. “That original profile was on our Web site during the start-up phase of our company, and it was intended to help demonstrate the case that the funding of Watchguard was significant and this was not a small-time enterprise. That was the point of putting that in there.”

One ethics expert says that’s hardly a good excuse.

“The CEO’s logic seems to be if the state has no knowledge that these lawmakers have a vested interest in the company receiving the contract, then it’s all cool,” says Bruce Barry, a management professor at Vanderbilt University. “But concerns about conflict of interest in public affairs are as much about the appearance of conflict as the corruption that may result. The lawmakers who voted these spending bills knew they were investors in firms bidding on state contacts. So they have a vested interest in the contracting procedure.”

read more....

The Dallas Morning News' Theodore Kim has been covering a couple of items relating to financing the May City Council election races.

First, expanding on its May 3rd story about the growing political muscle of the Plano Firefighters Association, Kim notes that:

"The firefighters spent far more in the weeks before the May 9 municipal election than any other special interest group, new campaign finance records show. The group spent an estimated $20,000 on the Plano City Council and mayoral campaigns in the months leading up to the election. Most of the money went toward mailings, according to records. As it turns out, all of the candidates that the association backed this year claimed victory."

Then in its Plano Blog, Kim shines a light on the post-election war chests of the incumbent council:

MAYOR
Phil Dyer: $23,173

CITY COUNCIL
Lissa Smith: $5,515
Lee Dunlap: $3,442
Mabrie Jackson: $2,762
Ben Harris: $1,477 (not including an outstanding $2,000 personal loan.)
Jean Callison: $279
Harry LaRosiliere: $60
Pat Miner: $36

Great work Mr. Kim

Bill

County Judge Keith Self, who is running for re-election, has posted a list of his campaign donors and their contributions on his web site. To the best of our knowledge his is the first time an incumbent or candidate for our commissioners court has made such a disclosure online.

Judge Self's press release stated, "I'm proud that Collin County was the first county in the entire nation to post our checkbook registry online, providing citizens with the opportunity to see first-hand how their tax dollars are spent. I'm extending that type of transparency to my campaign, allowing Collin County citizens convenient and full disclosure to my campaign funding."

State ethics law requires that candidates report all political donations and expenses. These reports are public records and any citizen can look at or copy them. The State of Texas' Ethics Commission maintains a web site where citizens can see online all campaign finance reports for all state wide candidates, as well as candidates for District Judge, District Attorney, and State Legislature.

However, most other county office candidates fall under a rule that designates them as 'local filers'. Local filers, such as candidates for County Judge and County Commissioner do not file their ethics reports with the state, but with the county Elections Department.

Collin County does not publish campaign finance reports online - citizens must go to the elections office and request a copy. The county charges a nominal per page fee for all copies.

There is no law that prohibits Collin County from posting all local filer's ethics disclosures on the internet. I hope that Judge Self's action will prod the commissioners to require that the elections department post all campaign finance reports online.

In posting the list of campaign donors, Self has raised the transparency bar for any one running for local office. Self listed 36 donors who have contributed $22,600 to his re-election campaign. The largest donors were Jim & Jennie Daley of Plano who contributed $5,000. State Representative Brian McCall was the next largest contributor, giving Self's campaign $2,500. Five contributors each donated $1,000. They are Mark & Sherry Tucker David of McKinney, Rex & Sherese Glendenning of Celina, John & Diann Jones from Anna, Ray & Ann Huffines, and Jerry & Judy Gallagher of Plano.

Bill

Correction:

When researching this article, I made 2 serious errors.

First, the $2,500 donation was from Plano lawyer David McCall, not his brother State Representative Brian McCall. I sincerely regret the error.

Second, I only noticed the first page of Self's report, which was actually 4 pages long. With my apologies, I list below the corrected totals and major donors as of July 1, 2009.

Judge Self reported 179 donations (a few are multiple donations from the same donor) for a total raised of $67,923.

The largest donation was $5,000 from Jim & Jennie Daley of Plano.
John & Leahray Wroten of Fairview donated $3,273
Mark & Sherry Tucker David of McKinney contributed $3,000
David McCall and HR Perot, both of Plano each donated $2,500
Paul & Judy Pogue of McKinney, Ross Perot, Jr. of Plano and Bob & June Petitt of Frisco each gave $2,000
Paul & Jennie May of McKinney donated $1,500

$1,000 donations were made by Jerry & Judy Gallagher, Rex & Sherese Glendenning, Ray & Ann Huffines, John & Diann Jones, Dr. Paul & Joy Flavill, Gene Phillips, and Susan & Patrick Fallon.

Bill

It was in January that the commissioners court decided to put the operation of the North Central Texas Fusion Center out for competitive bid.

The Fusion Center was (and still is) being run by ADB Consulting of Santa Fe, New Mexico. ADB is wholly owned by Dr. Bob Johnson and his wife, Anita Miller. Dr. Johnson is the son of Plano's US Congressman Sam Johnson.

The commissioners were reacting to published reports detailing a series of no-bid contracts between the county and ADB Consulting going back over 5 years and at that time, totaling over $1 million.

Since that January decision, an RFQ was prepared and bids were solicited in February. The closing date for submission of all proposals was March 19. In the 4 months since the bids were received, the county has still not awarded the contract.

But while the county staff 'negotiates' or whatever it is they are doing, Dr. Bob and his ADB Consulting are still getting checks from Collin County.

A search through the county's check register shows that since January, the county has paid ADB over $ 76,000 in maintenance and consulting fees.

It looks like ADB will continue to be the no-bid vendor of choice until the county staff and commissioners court make a decision.

One of these days, they might just do that.

Bill

Over the last several years, the Collin County Commissioners Court has awarded "no bid" contracts in excess of $1.2 million to ADB Consulting of Santa Fe New Mexico. ADB is owned and operated by Dr. Bob Johnson and his wife, Anita Miller. Dr. Johnson is the son of US Congressman Sam Johnson of Plano.

These 'no bid" contracts awarded federal and state grant funds to ADB for construction and operation of the North Texas Fusion System.

The Fusion Center is a high-tech data center that collects, analyzes, and distributes data on possible terror and environmental threats. It is operated by Collin County, but mostly funded with federal homeland security grants.

Stung by criticism of insider dealings for not requiring ADB to submit competitive bids, the commissioners court in February put the contract for running the Fusion Center out for bid. WFAA's Brett Shipp reported that the county's Homeland Security Director, Kelley Stone acknowledged that Dr. Bob Johnson helped to write the bid specifications, even though ADB planned to submit a proposal.

The closing date, when all bids were required to be submitted, was March 19, 2009.

Yet almost 4 months later, no contract has been awarded.

Two months ago, I asked the county's Purchasing Agent, Frank Ybarbo what was holding up the award. "Were any qualified bids received?", I asked. Ybarbo told me that the county had indeed received 5 qualified bids. He confirmed that one of the 5 bidders was ADB Consulting.

Ybarbo told me that when bids are opened, the affected county department managers analyze them, and may take an option to further negotiate with one or more of the bidders. Nevertheless, Ybarbo thought that the bid would be ready for the Commissioners Court to make an award in late June.

The affected department head is Kelley Stone, who was the one who brought ADB and Dr. Bob into the Fusion Center. Stone has admitted that before now, no other vendor had been given an opportunity to quote work for the Fusion Center.

In fact, when back in 2007 another vendor, Sypherlink, attempted to bid on subcontracted work for ADB at the Fusion Center, its bid was thrown out in favor of another insider deal - this time for a company headed by Dr. Johnson's brother-in-law. Sypherlink wrote a letter to Kelley Stone and Frank Ybarbo, but the county took no action to enforce or report the alleged federal nepotism violations.

Federal grant money however, keeps rolling in. Recently, Congressman Ralph Hall submitted an earmark that would evade normal grant writing procedures and give the Fusion Center another $500,000 in federal funds for "Completion of the North Central Texas Fusion System".

After having a history of insider dealings with one politically well connected vendor (ADB) who actually helped write the bid specifications, the county has spent over 100 days "negotiating" rather than making an award.

There's a rotten smell beginning to come from this whole deal.

Bill

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

Collin County Observer coverage of the NCTFS:

What's wrong with the North Texas Fusion Center?, CCO April 8, 2009

Fusion Center kills controversial newsletter, CCO April 6, 2009

Commissioners refuse Fusion Center grant that would benefit ADB, CCO March 13, 2009

Fusion Center vendor accused of nepotism and unfair competition, CCO March 8, 2009

Fusion: Fear, Fiction, Fact and Freedom, CCO, Feb. 2009

County pays ADB over $1.1 million in no-bid Fusion Center contracts, CCO, Dec. 2008

Commissioners to consider "no bid" contract for Fusion Center, CCO, Dec. 2008

While Plano was watching TV, what was the Fusion Center doing?,CCO, May 2008

Other media coverage:

Fusion Center's spending questioned in Collin County, WFAA Channel 8, May 2009

No More Lobbyist-Terrorists?, The Texas Observer, April 7, 2009

Dr. Bob's Terror Shop, The Texas Observer, April 2, 2009

Keystone Kounter-Terrorism, The Texas Observer, March 20, 2009

It's no surprise that there is little love between the Collin County Auditor, Don Cozad and the Collin County Commissioners' Court.

Since the commissioners filed suit against their auditor last year, Cozad who by all accounts hates confrontations, has not attended many meetings of the commissioners' court.

Late last year, Cozad announced that he would retire on September 30. Since his announcement, he has rarely been seen at court. That's a shame.

The Collin County Auditor has a legal duty to protect and report on the financial health of the county. His office sends several reports to the commissioners' court every month. One of these reports is the Quarterly Investment Report.

This report details over $344 million in operating and bond fund investments. The Investment Report has been on the commissioners' agenda for the last 2 meetings of the court. Both times, Commissioner Shaheen asked if Cozad or a member of his staff could explain the report. Both times, there was no one at court who could answer questions about $344 million of the taxpayers' money.

That's unacceptable.

I understand Mr. Cozad's reluctance to attend the court sessions. After all these commissioners not only sued him, but tried their very best to ruin him financially and professionally. (Thankfully justice was done and the Auditor prevailed.)

Maybe Mr. Cozad needs to wear a garland of garlic and carry a cross and wooden stake to protect himself at court. If so, he needs to do it...or whatever it takes to be at court and represent the interests of the citizens of Collin County.

Bill

Fusion Center's spending questioned in Collin County

Thursday, May 14, 2009
Brett Shipp / WFAA

Watch Video

The North Central Texas Fusion Center is Collin County's new criminal and intelligence data gathering center.

But, it may be gathering more criticism than acclaim as questions mount about how the million dollars to fund it are being spent.

Fusion centers began springing up after 9/11. Funded mostly by grants, they were fostered by the need for law enforcement to better share information.

Collin County's North Central Fusion Center has drawn national attention, but not for its innovation. Instead, the spotlight is due to its questionable operations and relationships of the man who created the center.

Tucked away inside the Collin County Sheriff's Office and behind a set of secure doors is a post-9/11 world where security meets technology.

The North Central Texas Fusion System is an award-winning nerve center for gathering and sharing criminal and crisis information to 94 agencies via the Internet.

The operator and architect is acclaimed computer scientist Dr. Bob Johnson, who works out of his home in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He's also known as the son of local Congressman Sam Johnson.

Since 2004, Collin County has awarded Johnson $1.2 million to design and operate the center.

But some say Johnson's mission has taken a sharp right turn away from computer science and towards political science, blurring the line between public protection and propaganda.

Last February, Johnson warned of "Middle Eastern Terrorist Groups" infiltrating organizations such as "The Council on American Islamic Relations." He spoke of a growing Muslim influence in America, including "airport footbaths," "public school prayer breaks to accommodate Muslim students" and "hip hop fashion boutiques" where terrorists go to recruit.

He also has warned of terrorists "operating in the North Central Texas region ... meeting at smoke shops and other locations to organize and plan attacks."

Johnson issued weekly "Prevention Awareness Bulletins" that featured "threat indicators." When Homeland Security officials found out, they ordered him to stop. The American Civil Liberties Union said Johnson's bulletins set off an immediate alarm.

"What we warned about, and now what we are seeing, is that too often these entities tend to look at people who disagree with public policies as potential terrorists," said Mike German, with ACLU in Washington D.C.

Bill Baumbach's Collin County Observer blog monitors local government business.

"And I thought it was one of the more bigoted, paranoid pieces I have ever seen on government stationery," he said of the bulletins.

He was the first to raise questions about the Fusion Center's operations and expenses. The Fusion Center's 2004 start-up budget was $67,000. In 2005, the price tag jumped to a quarter of a million dollars. In 2006, the year the center actually opened, the costs dropped to $77,000.

But from there, Johnson's billings grew to $368,000 in 2007.

Last year, Johnson billed Collin County nearly half a million dollars to maintain and add to the system.

Johnson said the budget has grown as the system improves.

"I wanted to see what it was about," Baumbach said. "But what I found out was a bunch of politically-connected insider nepotism that was going on. The commissioner's court was not paying attention."

Collin County Commissioner Joe Jaynes may be the exception. He has questioned not only the expenses, but the ethics as well.

"I've probably been watching it closer than most because of my concern," he said.

Among his concerns, Johnson's awarding of a $100,000 sub-contract to a software firm called Bassham and Associates. It turns out the owner, Elbert Bassham, is Johnson's brother-in law. Bassham's business address is a post office box in Marfa, Texas.

His website is designed similarly to Collin County's Fusion Center, which was designed by Johnson.

"I have a major concern with that," Jaynes said. "I've expressed my concern with that. Technically it's all legal. It's above board. But quite frankly, it doesn't pass the smell test."

Meanwhile, Collin County's contract with Johnson was never put out for bids.

Collin County Emergency Management Director Kelley Stone said he handpicked Johnson to run the center.

Stone said he chose Johnson based on his professional reputation and was not influenced by his father.

Since questions started surfacing about some of Johnson's operations, Collin County Commissioners have decided to put the center's operations up for bid.

Not only is Johnson bidding on the project, he has also played a major role in writing the bid specifications.

link to article and video....

Collin County Observer coverage of the NCTFS:

What's wrong with the North Texas Fusion Center?, CCO April 8, 2009

Fusion Center kills controversial newsletter, CCO April 6, 2009

Commissioners refuse Fusion Center grant that would benefit ADB, CCO March 13, 2009

Fusion Center vendor accused of nepotism and unfair competition, CCO March 8, 2009

Fusion: Fear, Fiction, Fact and Freedom, CCO, Feb. 2009

County pays ADB over $1.1 million in no-bid Fusion Center contracts, CCO, Dec. 2008

Commissioners to consider "no bid" contract for Fusion Center, CCO, Dec. 2008

While Plano was watching TV, what was the Fusion Center doing?,CCO, May 2008

It was on April 8, 2008 that Don Cozad, the Collin County Auditor asked the Texas Attorney General to rule whether the auditor had the right to access county computer software for auditing purposes. A year later, on April 28, 2009 the Auditor and the County Commissioners have signed a settlement.

What year its been getting to a settlement!

Background:
The issue of access by the auditor's office had been long simmering since the county installed the PeopleSoft program to run all of its HR and payroll functions. After being frustrated by roadblocks to read-only data access thrown up by the commissioners and other elected department heads, the Auditor, with the consent of the District Judges, asked County District Attorney John Roach for a written opinion on the question.

DA Roach declined to issue an opinion and suggested that Cozad take the matter to the Attorney General. He did, and the county commissioners filed suit in district court to stop the AG from ruling. The auditor filed a counter suit and then also filed suit as an individual against the commissioners.

The commissioners then refused to pay the auditor's legal bills.

After much legal gymnastics, visiting Judge Jerry Calhoun denied the county's request for a trial and ruled in a summary judgment for the Auditor on all counts. The county filed a new law suit, this time asking for a trial to prohibit the auditor from accessing computer software without prior permission from the county. Once again, Judge Calhoun refused the county a trial and ruled in favor of Cozad. The county then appealed.

After losing in court twice, the commissioners asked Rep. Jerry Madden to file a bill in the Texas Legislature that would limit the rights of the auditor to inspect computer software. The bill was roundly criticized in committee and will not survive to a vote.

At this point, with the chances of a successful appeal doubtful, it seemed that the commissioners court would have to come to some sort of agreement with Cozad.

With the signing of the final settlement who really did win?

The settlement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Auditor and commissioners requires that the county pay Mr. Cozad's attorneys, Siebman, Reynolds, Burg, Phillips & Smith, $150,000. With the estimated cost of the county's own legal bills from Gardere Wynne Sewell at over $200,000, it seems that the lawyers could certainly count themselves among the winners.

In the MOU, the commissioners promise that Cozad would be able to gain read-only access to the PeopleSoft program, and to any software "owned, operated, and/or in the custody/custodian control of Commissioner's Court departments."

The restriction to "Commissioner's Court departments" could be an issue in the future. In her testimony before the Texas House County Affairs Committee in March, Caren Skipworth, the county's IT director, testified that some departments under elected officials controls had refused read-only access to the auditor. Skipworth specifically mentioned the District Attorney's office and the Tax Assessor-Collector.

The MOU between the commissioners and Cozad could be read as to exclude these departments from the agreement, although sources who are familiar with the MOU have told me that they expect no such challenges. The MOU also does not address access to the Odyssey system, which many believe was the real issue behind the commissioner's lawsuits. (I have heard rumors that Tyler Technologies has upgraded much of Odyssey to allow for an auditor's portal.)

As a result of the agreement, Don Cozad gets all his legal bills paid without having to wait for a lengthy appeals process. In the end, he gave up virtually nothing and did get just about all he asked for. Cozad is a winner here. He wants to retire. Now he can, and with the assurance that he will not take a huge personal financial hit as a result of these lawsuits.

Collin County got off the hook on its lawsuit. The Commissioners negotiated an inexpensive software package (the same ACL software the auditor asked the court to authorize on two separate occasions, but was refused) that the auditor will use for read-only access to their large software systems instead of requiring major and expensive modifications.

However, now that Cozad is retiring, the County will have a difficult time recruiting a top-notch replacement auditor. After all, what seasoned professional wants to got to work for an employer who tried to financially ruin his predecessor.

In the end, it is the Taxpayers of Collin County who are the big losers. They paid well over $350,000 to litigate a law suit that the Texas Attorney General could have decided for free.

Bill

Postscript:
In this uncertain financial environment, I hope but do not expect that our elected Commissioners Court will accept the responsibility for their actions and repay the taxpayers the money that was frivolously spent pursuing these disastrous lawsuits against the taxpayers' auditor.

Budget planning for FY 2010 has already started. It will take a $70,000 salary cut by the County Judge and each of the 4 commissioners to pay back the taxpayers for the court's recklessness.

BB

NOTES:

Documents:

Memorandum of Understanding, dated April 28, 2009

Cozad's letter to Judge Self and the Commissioners Court, dated November 25, 2008

Judge Calhoun's Final Judgment, dated October 15, 2008.

Collin County's Response to the Auditor's and intervenor's first traditional motion for partial summary judgment, August 4, 2008

Sworn Affidavit of Caren Skipworth, August 1, 2008

Don Cozad's request for Attorney General's opinion, dated April 3, 2008.

Coverage by the CCO and press:

County settles with Auditor, CCO April 29, 2009

Collin County Auditor - The media catches on, Madden doesn't, CCO March 11, 2009

Auditor told to grovel - still gets nothing, CCO February 24, 2009

Auditing, Collin County Style, CCO January 22, 2009

Who gains from the county's suit against its auditor?, CCO November 18, 2008

Turf battle costs taxpayers over $300,000, CCO, November 9, 2008

Expensive turf war with taxpayer dollars grinds on, CCO, August 13, 2008

County auditor won’t have to answer deposition questions - McKinney Courier-Gazette August 12, 2008

Officials meet today in court over county's suit against its auditor, Don Cozad - McKinney Courier-Gazette August 11, 2008

Auditor alleges county Open Meetings violations - CCO June 11, 2008

Auditor asks for an attorney - CCO June 9, 2008

Who authorized the suit against the Auditor? - CCO May 28, 2008

County seeks declaratory judgment against auditor - McKinney Courier Gazette May 23, 2008

I protest yet another secret meeting - CCO May 20, 2008

Who's watching the store? (And the disk drives?) - CCO April 26, 2008

The capital case of the State of Texas vs. Charles Dean Hood reached another milestone Friday when Collin County District Judge Greg Brewer ruled that Hood's lawyers did not wait too long to file an appeal based on allegations that Hood's trial judge and the then Collin County DA were involved in a sexual relationship that denied him a fair trial.

Charles Dean Hood

Judge Verla Sue Holland

Tom O'Connell

It was back in 1990 that Charles Dean Hood was sentenced to death for a double homicide.

In the years since his sentence, Dean has survived 5 execution dates.

Seven months ago, in September of 2008 the truth of how Hood's trial was conducted finally came out. After stonewalling tactics from the Collin County District Attorney's office failed, District Judge Greg Brewer required the trial judge Verla Sue Holland and Tom O'Connell, the former Collin County DA to give sworn depositions detailing the relationship they concealed from defense attorneys for 14 years.

A previous appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) based on the alleged Holland/O'Connell had failed when the court ruled that no proof existed that the affair had in fact happened. This appeal was brought after a former Collin County assistant DA filed an affidavit stating that the Holland/O'Connell affair was "common knowledge" at the county courthouse.

After the CCA ruled, and less than two hours before Hood's scheduled 6 p.m. execution, Collin County District Judge Curt Henderson issued an order withdrawing the warrant for execution. Judge Henderson then recused himself from the case. The COCA reinstated the warrant later that evening, but by then it was too late to carry out the execution.

Since the appeals process does not allow for the subpoenaing and deposition of witnesses, Hood's defense team then tried a desperate tactic. They went back to the district courts and said they wanted to sue Holland and O'Connell for violation of Hood's civil rights - thereby using the discovery process to compel the testimony of the former judge and former DA.

It almost didn't work. The civil case was originally assigned to District Judge Robert Dry. Judge Dry scheduled a hearing on Hood's lawsuit to occur 2 days after the execution date. Dry noted that it wasn't necessary for Hood to be alive - his estate could file the suit in his stead.

Several days later, Judge Dry, citing a "previous business relationship with Earl Holland, ex-husband of Judge Sue Holland", recused himself from the case.

Hood's civil action was then assigned to Judge Brewer.

After hearing testimony that the former judge and DA had been involved in a long running, illicit and adulterous affair, Hood's attorneys finally had the proof they needed to ask the Court of Criminal Appeals to grant Hood a new trial.

The Collin County DA, argued against granting Hood a new trial, saying that Hood's attorneys waited too long to present new evidence in the appeals process. In response, the CCA sent the case back to Judge Brewer, ordering him to hold a hearing to determine if Hood has waited too long to raise the issue of the affair in his appeal. The CCA noted that, The prosecution bears responsibility for proving the defense waited too long to bring up the issue, but the court ruled “both parties should be allowed to be heard.”

Judge Brewer held the hearing and ruled in favor of Mr. Hood.

In January, responding to objections raised by the Collin county district Attorney's office, the CCA again sent the case back to Brewer on another procedural question.

On Friday, Judge Brewer again ruled in favor of Hood.

Once again, the life of Charles Dean Hood is in the hands of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals - the court that Judge Vela Sue Holland was a member of for 4 years, and the same court whose Chief Justice (Sharon Keller) is facing disciplinary action and an impeachment hearing for her handling of an execution appeal.

Bill

I want to add the following to the previous article:

Grits for Breakfast has written an excellent critique of the proceeding and its implications for the Court of Criminal Appeals. It's a must read.

Also Judge Brewer's findings are very instructive in understanding why justice demands that Hood receive a new trial.

Notes:
Sex Parte: Coverup of judicial tryst tests CCA's ethical mettle, Grits for Breakfast, May 2, 2009

EX PARTE CHARLES DEAN HOOD, Cause No. W296-80233-90, Judge Greg Brewer, May 1, 2009

Bill

Remember Prometa?

Prometa is the controversial, unproven drug treatment regimen involving a "cocktail" of drugs delivered intravenously and sold by Hythiam, an upstart company founded by Terren Peizer, a stock and bonds whiz kid.

Hythiam argued that it didn't need FDA approval, instead the company aggressively marketed Prometa to government agencies.

Former Collin County district Judge Charles Sandoval liked Prometa. He experimented with it, using convicted meth addicts as guinea pigs, even though the drug program had not been approved by the FDA.

After a series of scandals and setbacks, there are to the best of my knowledge no government agencies that are testing or using Prometa any more.

For several years now, Hythiam has promised to release peer reviewed, double blind testing results that will prove that Prometa is effective. Instead all it has published are more promises and hypes for its stock. The few test results it has released have not been peer reviewed. (Hythiam has the disconcerting habit of using its financial marketing group to write scientific sounding press releases that end with financial disclaimers.)

So what is Hythiam doing now?

Well mostly, it appears to be trying to stay afloat. Its sales are down and operating losses are up. The company has changed its marketing emphasis from selling to governments to HMO's. The number of clinics licensed to sell the Prometa program are down from 70 in 2007 to 49 in 2008.

Back in 2007, Hythiam stock was trading for about $9.00 per share. When the Collin County Observer published its first article in January of 2008 questioning the use of Prometa on probationers, the stock was trading at about $3.00.

Today, Hythiam closed at $0.26 per share. Hythiam stock has traded as low as $0.17 this year. Morningstar lists the stock as "distressed".

...and Peizer is still trying to sell the stuff (Both the stock and the drugs).

Bill

On April 1, Congressman Ralph Hall (R-Rockwall) submitted a $500,000 earmark to the House Appropriations Committee for "Completion of North Central Texas Fusion System."

If past history means anything, the lion's share of this $500,000 will go directly to the son and daughter in-law of Hall's fellow Congressman Sam Johnson. So far, over $1.1 million of federal grant money for development of the Fusion Center has gone to ADB, a small company owned by Dr. Bob Johnson and his wife Anita Miller and operated out of their home in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Hall's earmark listing states, "I am requesting funding for the Completion of North Central Texas Fusion System in fiscal year 2010. The entity to receive this program is the Collin County Homeland Security on behalf of the North Central Texas Fusion System"

A presentation prepared this month by the fusion center's manager, Kelley Stone for the commissioners court (but never presented to them) showed that federal funding for the county's Homeland Security Department is decreasing.

In fiscal year 2003, the county received over $1.1 million dollars in federal Homeland Security grants. These grants to the county have decreased almost every year, such that in FY 2008 the county only was awarded a little over $501 thousand.

As long as federal grant levels for the fusion center remain unstable, it is far from certain that the federal government will continue to make adequate fusion center funds available in future budget years.

The county commissioners have expressed the fear that if federal funds are decreased or eliminated, the Homeland Security Department and especially the fusion center will become a kind of unfunded mandate paid for by county tax revenues.

Future federal fusion center funding could be harder to obtain after recent revelations of alleged nepotism by ADB, and after an alert bulletin put out by the Fusion Center sparked a congressional hearing and swift visit from federal HS Department officials to "re-train" local fusion center employees.

Collin County might find the recent federal grand jury summoning of the local fusion center manager in Cuyahoga County, Ohio for possible grant fund fraud far more troubling than any unfunded mandate.

Meanwhile, Ralph Hall's earmark could be Dr. Bob Johnson's best hope for a Collin County meal ticket in 2010.

Bill

Plano ISD candidate files complaint against district officials

Saturday, April 11, 2009
By MATTHEW HAAG / The Dallas Morning News

A Plano ISD school board candidate is alleging that district officials have tried to intimidate him, restrict his free speech and deny him access to staff and teachers.

Steve Navarre filed a complaint to the school board on Friday against the district's administration, alleging that officials violated several district policies and a state election rule.

In the complaint, Navarre claims that administrators showed favoritism by letting former Plano ISD teacher Marilyn Hinton, who is running against him, visit numerous schools and talk to principals despite a district official telling him he couldn't do so.

"They cannot play double standards," Navarre said. "It shows an extreme bias in the campaign."

Multiple phone calls and e-mails sent to Plano ISD officials for response about the complaint weren't answered Friday or Saturday.

Hinton, Navarre and two other candidates are vying for Place 6 on the school board. The race is among the most contested of the local school board elections on May 9.

Hinton said that Navarre's complaint is unwarranted because schools are public buildings, and Plano ISD gave her permission to visit them and talk to principals. She said she's never handed out campaign materials, visited with teachers or mentioned the election on the campuses.

"In their minds, I know they think I'm shaking hands and passing out literature," said Hinton, who taught in Plano for three years. "But that's not the case."Hinton said she received permission to visit the schools from Karla Oliver, the district's communication director. But Navarre said that Oliver told him last month he, as a school board candidate, couldn't visit schools that his sons didn't attend.

"There needs to be fairness," he said. "I think if it's open for her, it should be open to anybody."

Navarre said he would pull his complaint from the school board and would not file another with the Texas Ethics Commission if administrators let all candidates visit the schools and talk to principals.

Navarre's complaint is the second salvo he has fired at the district in the past week. He previously claimed that district officials tried to bully him and restrict his free speech rights when they told him to cease sending e-mails to teachers at work.

read more....

Here is another example of sleazy Collin County politics at its nastiest. Self calls it the "politics of personal destruction". Unfortunately he has diluted that criticism by using it to describe anyone who disagrees with him.

So far this year we've seen other slimy attacks against Commissioner Jerry Hoagland, and against Melissa's Mayor David Dorman.

I'll just call them all cowardly. Those who use the internet for anonymous, personal innuendo, slander and attacks are cowards.

That's an easy call to make.

Bill

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

Prankster links sites in judge's name to gay website

Thursday, April 2, 2009
By SHELLY SLATER / WFAA-TV

A recent prank has been no laughing matter for a Collin County judge.

Judge Keith Self said his name, position and reputation have all been linked to a website that has nothing to do with politics.

It's the first jab in what could be an interesting 2010 primary.

Self said he learned about the prank after a friend alerted him to several websites setup in his name.

One click onto any of the sites led Internet users to gay.com, which has what some might call graphic photos on its pages.

The sites included keithself.org, keithself.net and collincountyjudge.com, .net, .org and .info.

"Both my name and my position have been linked to it," "It's more than a high school prank. This means serious business."

News 8 wrote to an e-mail linked to the owner of one of the sites and received an e-mail that said "as you might have guessed, this email isn't from Keith Self." The e-mail also said "we can't reveal our identity yet," and "we can tell you that we are much closer to Keith than you might think."

"This goes beyond dealing with the issues," Self said. "This is part of that politics of personal destruction."

Self sent a note to the same e-mail and called their response extortion.

"They told me to open the bidding and they would make the same offer to my primary opponents," he said.

The FBI was given the e-mails now.

When News 8 tried to trace who was behind the website, it was discovered a higher price was paid to keep the identity private.

"I have enough trust and faith in my good name that people will not think that this is anything that I am associated with," Self said.

read more....

watch the WFAA video....

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

Update: The Dallas Morning News has published an editorial condemning the web slurs on Keith Self:

DMN - Editorial: Web pirates targeting Keith Self are cowards

Thursday, April 2, 2009
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board

Internet pirates have targeted Collin County Judge Keith Self by buying up Web site domain names similar to Self's blog address and holding them ransom. These people should be exposed, stopped and punished. This is no way to elevate a political cause or to challenge an elected official.
Also Online

Last week, a person using the conservative judge's name as a Yahoo e-mail address sent a message containing links to several Web sites that play off the judge's name and title. Those links took people to what appeared to be dating sites for gay men. Since a phone conversation with an editorial writer, the anonymous pirates have rerouted the sites to a generic Google page.

This "cybersquatting" seems to be a reaction to Self's successful effort last year to oust Justin Nichols, the county's teen court coordinator, who had recently come out as gay. (Nichols says he has no knowledge of who's behind the blackmail.)

The Web pirates appear to have crossed a line drawn by federal law when they linked the domains to gay dating sites and then threatened the judge with this e-mail message: "If you're interested, we are willing to sell you these domains. You can start the bidding! Of course, we'll be making this same offer to your opponent(s) in the coming primary. What is your name worth, Keith?"

When domain speculation has such clear ill intent, federal law allows pirates to be sued but calls only for payment of court costs and attorneys fees. A steeper price might help prevent this kind of behavior in the future.

We strongly disagree with Self on many issues, including the ouster of the gay teen coordinator. But our elected leaders deserve better than this. Indeed, anyone who has ever signed a letter to the editor should be outraged at these tactics.

In the digital age, it is easy to throw grenades, to call people names, to do any number of things that derail civilized debate – all behind a shroud of secrecy. But honorable people stand behind their opinions – as Self does on his real blog, www.keithself.com.

These critics of the county judge do their cause no service when they behave as cowards.

read the editorial....

Since the 81st Texas Legislature was called into session on January 13, Collin County taxpayers have watched a parade of their elected county officials and staff troop back and forth to Austin.

Who pays for all these trips?

Commissioner Jerry Hoagland (left), and County Judge Keith Self (right) testify on opposite sides of SB855 before the Senate Transportation Committee. The guy in the middle wants to be anywhere else but there.

The taxpayers of Collin County pay.

Both Judge Self and Commissioner Hoagland flew to Austin last week to testify on opposing sides of the Local Option Transportation District bill (SB855). Taxpayers paid for both trips.

It seemed that both Self and Hoagland were advocating personal agendas. At their last meeting, the Commissioners Court had agreed not to take a position on SB855.

Both Self and Hoagland are running for re-election in 2010 and both are anxious to differentiate themselves from each other in the eyes of the voters.

I asked both Judge Self and Commissioner Jerry Hoagland the same question, "Would you care to comment on the appropriateness of taxpayers footing the bill for legislative lobbying on issues where the Commissioners Court has not voted on a resolution taking a stance on those bills being advocated or opposed?"

Self replied, "I represent the citizens of Collin County as their County Judge, and part of that representation is to travel to Austin during the legislative session in order to participate in the legislative process on their behalf."

Hoagland's response was, "I was representing myself as one commissioner (not the entire comm. court) and have only testified on the one bill."

I thought it interesting that neither claimed to speak for the commissioners court, yet both felt that they had the right to travel using taxpayer's money.

The week before, Judge Self and 2 staff members flew to Austin to testify against the County Auditor. That trip too was on the county's tab.

Auditor Don Cozad, his attorneys, and 2 of his staff also traveled to the capitol to speak that day. I suspect that the county did not pay their way to Austin.

In his response to me, Judge Self noted that, "Collin County does not spend taxpayer dollars on lobbyists because we believe that is the job of your elected officials." Judge Self and I are in full agreement that local government should not be paying lobbyists to influence other local elected representatives.

Two of the trips that the taxpayers paid for were to oppose bills that would allow those same taxpayers the right to referendum on creating new taxes.

When the Commissioner's court votes in open session to support or oppose a bill before the legislature, I think it is proper for them to then appoint a spokesman or team to argue the county's position before the legislature. The county should then pay their representatives' travel expenses.

However, when the court has not stated a position on a bill, and an elected official feels moved to speak for all of us, then he or she should also feel moved to pay for the trip out of his own pocket.

Bill

Notes on lobbyists: According to recent Texas Ethics Commission filings, only one registered lobbyist claims to represent Collin County. James Hudson stated in his filing that he expected to bill the county less than $10,000.

Collin County is also a dues paying member of several organizations such as the Texas Association of Counties (TAC) which use members' dues to hire lobbyists.

According to Texas Ethics Commission filings, the TAC this year has employed 17 lobbyists with an combined expected billing adding up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Two State Senators and four State Legislators represent the voters in the Texas State Legislature from districts that include parts of Collin County.

We the voters elect these folks to represent our interests, yet many of our local governments believe they have to hire expensive and well-connected lobbyists in order for their voice to be heard.

It would be near impossible to determine exactly how much of your tax money has been spent by local Collin County governments and quasi-governmental bodies to lobby the current session of the Legislature. However, the Texas Ethics Commission does require lobbyists to register and to reveal who they are representing, along with an estimated billing of their efforts.

I have listed below those lobbyists who have reported that they represent local government bodies, as well as government associations that our tax money pays dues to, and quasi-governmental bodies that operate with your tax dollars.

All this lobbying begs the question, Why do we need to pay others to insure that our elected officials look out for us?

Your elected State Senators are:
District 8, Florence Shapiro
District 30, Craig Estes

Your elected State Representatives are:
District 66, Brian McCall
District 67, Jerry Madden
District 70, Ken Paxton
District 89, Jodie Laubenberg

Bill

The following list is distilled from Texas Ethics Commission Reports. The list shows the client, followed by their lobbyist(s), along with the lobbyists registration number and the anticipated reportable revenue from that client.

City of Allen
Hill, Fred (00020297) $25,000 - $49.999.99

City of Celina
Scott, Rider (00035064) Less Than $10,000.00

City of Frisco
Aghamalian, Brandon T. (00059188) $10,000 - $24,999.99
Carr, Snapper L. (00039466) $10,000 - $24,999.99
McCartt, J. (00050674) Less Than $10,000.00
Russell, Kerry E. (00017375) Less Than $10,000.00

City of McKinney
Erben, Randall H. (00013689) $25,000 - $49.999.99
Wakefield, Kakhi Huffaker (00062269) Less Than $10,000.00
Yarbrough, Brian G. (00037475) Less Than $10,000.00

City of Richardson
Hill, Fred (00020297) $50,000 - $99,999.99

Collin County, Texas
Hudson, James Greg (00036094) Less Than $10,000.00

Conference of Urban Counties
Hill, Fred (00020297) $50,000 - $99,999.99

County Judges & Commissioners Association of Texas
Allison, James P. (00050989) $100,000 - $149,999.99

Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Brown, Jay P. (00039172) Less Than $10,000.00
Gibson, Machree Garrett (00028312) Less Than $10,000.00
Graydon, Galt (00013173) Less Than $10,000.00
Hill, Fred (00020297) $10,000 - $24,999.99
Propes, Jay W. (00014474) Less Than $10,000.00
Swan, Shannon Lea (00014744) Less Than $10,000.00

North Texas Municipal Water District
Embrey, Ty H. (00056282) Less Than $10,000.00
Lewis, Ron E. (00020172) $25,000 - $49.999.99
Martinez, Mindy M. (00060781) Less Than $10,000.00
Rochelle, Martin C. (00053106) $10,000 - $24,999.99
Russell, Kerry E. (00017375) Less Than $10,000.00
Sledge, Brian L. (00041086) Less Than $10,000.00
Valdez, Gerald A. (00053423) $25,000 - $49.999.99

North Texas Tollway Authority
Acevedo, Julianne (00053651) Less Than $10,000.00
Cain, Randy C. (00025263) $25,000 - $49.999.99
Eschberger, Brenda (00029854) Less Than $10,000.00
Johnson, Michael J. (00055885) Less Than $10,000.00
Kelley, Russell T. (00013737) Less Than $10,000.00
Kemptner, Sara (00057952) Less Than $10,000.00
McCarley, James Bradley (00034739) $50,000 - $99,999.99
McGarah, Carol (00051437) Less Than $10,000.00
Waldon, Barbara (00057030) Less Than $10,000.00

Texas Association of Counties
Boethel, Carey (00013205) Less Than $10,000.00
Brown, Timothy W. (00060546) Less Than $10,000.00
Casteel, Carter (00051154) $50,000 - $99,999.99
Emerson, Paul K. (00060548) Less Than $10,000.00
Erskine, Candis B. (00035590) $ 0.00
Erskine, John M. Jr. (00012969) $25,000 - $49.999.99
Flores-Ortiz, Aurora (00060541) Less Than $10,000.00
Forbes, Nanette (00056550) Less Than $10,000.00
Ford, Victoria C. (00060035) $10,000 - $24,999.99
Garcia, Laura (00060547) Less Than $10,000.00
Hill, Fred (00020297) $150,000 - $199,999.99
Leo, Myra (00034631) Less Than $10,000.00
McGinnis, Larry D. (00013432) $25,000 - $49.999.99
Nicholes, Laura (00053596) Less Than $10,000.00
Norris, Karen A. (00013179) Less Than $10,000.00
Roberts, Cary L. (00033594) $50,000 - $99,999.99
Sugg, Paul J. (00050735) Less Than $10,000.00
Thompson, John (00053597) Less Than $10,000.00

Thursday, the Collin County Commissioners Court voted against a motion to, "Request consideration and action for commissioners court approval to allow Homeland Security to submit a proposal with the University of Texas at Dallas to the United States Air Force for a information sharing program, funds to be disbursed from UT Dallas from grant funds provided by the United States Air Force in the amount of $400,000.00 beneficial to the Collin County Fusion Center operations and further authorize Kelley Stone to sign and submit a letter of commitment to UT Dallas on behalf of Collin county."

The grant request stated that, "Kelley Stone will manage the project" and that "The level-of-effort research and development is to be done by Dr. Johnson of ADB Consulting, as requested by UTD."

This grant request was on the court's consent agenda but was pulled for discussion by Commissioner Joe Jaynes because the request mentioned that the R&D in the grant program would be performed by Dr. James Johnson of ADB Consulting.

Jaynes said he would not vote any more funds that would go to ADB Consulting until he was briefed on the issues he's heard about. He asked Frank Ybarbo, the County Purchasing Agent to look into allegations outlined in a vendor's letter to the county that raised accusations of nepotism by ADB.

Last week, The Collin County Observer published a letter from Sypherlink that accused ADB and Dr. Bob Johnson of awarding an $80 thousand contract to Johnson's brother-in-law based solely on favoritism. Dr. Johnson is married to Anita Miller, the manager of the Fusion Center and is the son of US Congressman Sam Johnson.

Over the past 6 years, Collin County has paid ADB over $1.1 million in 'sole source', no bid contracts for the management of the North Central Texas Fusion System (NCTFS)

On a motion to approve the grant request, the court split on a 2-2 vote, thereby defeating the motion. Judge Self and Commissioner Hoagland voted "yes" Jaynes and Ward voted "No". Commissioner Matt Shaheen did not attend the court meeting.

The consent agenda also included getting court support for filing a grant request with 4th Congressional District Congressman Ralph Hall for a grant to fund, "operations, maintenance, and project support for the North Central Texas Fusion System." No dollar figure was attached to the grant request item.

This request for grant passed without discussion.

Bill

Last night, WFAA, Channel 8's reporter Brett Shipp broadcast a 6 minute "investigative" piece on the Collin County vs. Collin County Auditor lawsuit.

Since April of 2008, The Collin County Observer has been the only news source covering this expensive ongoing turf war. We're happy that WFAA and Mr. Shipp's investigative skills have finally 'uncovered' this ongoing waste of taxpayer dollars. (We're also happy to include WFAA among our regular readers.)

In fairness, Shipp and Gloria Campos did a fine job of reporting. They even almost got it right most of the time. The video and accompanying story are posted on WFAA's website.

On Monday, the Texas House County Affairs Committee held a public hearing on Jerry Madden's HB561 which would prohibit the auditor from accessing software.

At the last minute before the hearing, Rep. Madden replaced his bill with a watered down "committee substitute" bill. The committee substitute still removed authority from the Auditor and gave department managers a veto over his ability to audit software. Madden told the committee that he wasn't finished rewriting the bill, and he would submit another rewrite.

I testified at the hearing, which lasted almost 3 hours. There was a good representation of auditors from around the state who testified against the bill.

The only people who spoke in favor of HB561 were Collin County Judge Keith Self, 2 county employees and Donald Lee, from the Texas Conference on Urban Counties (CUC).

You might remember that it is the CUC who is selling the Odyssey software to Collin and other counties around the state.

Testifying against the bill was the former Collin County Auditor, Pasco Parker, the current auditor Donald Cozad and 2 of his staff. Also offering testimony against the bill were representatives from El Paso County, Tarrant County, Travis County, Gaines County and the Texas Association of County Auditors.

By the end of the hearing, it seemed clear that the committee members believed that the bill would attempt to, in the words of one committee member, "change the rules for all 254 Texas Counties - only because the Collin County couldn't find a way to get along with their own auditor". Several committee members seemed embarrassed that this bill was brought before them.

My prediction is that HB561 is DOA - dead on arrival.

The hearing was recorded, and can be seen on the Texas Legislature's website.

The commissioners can drag this on at even more taxpayer expense. They have an appeal pending at the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas. Their brief is due by April 15.

They can drag it on, or they can save us a whole lot of money by making peace with Mr. Cozad. They should give him the access he needs, and if they feel like suing someone, let them sue Tyler Technologies, who wrote the Odyssey program that couldn't be audited in accordance with state law.

Then, instead of paying the $600/hr that Peter Vogel is charging them, I'm sure Mr. Cozad could refer the commissioners to a good $250 an hour attorney.

Bill

ADB charged with keeping it all in the family

The North Central Texas Fusion System (NCTFS) is an intelligence and preparedness operation financed by federal Homeland Security and bio-terrorism grants and run by Collin County's Homeland Security Department.

The prime contractor to the Fusion Center is ADB Consulting, a small company based in Santa Fe, NM and owned by the husband and wife team of Dr. Robert Johnson and Anita Miller. Robert or as he is known, "Dr. Bob", is the son of Plano's Congressman Sam Johnson. For the last several years, ADB has won a series of "no bid" contracts from the county totaling over $1.1 million to set up the databases and programming for the NCTFS.

Last year, ADB consulting issued a request for bids to subcontract a portion of the database conversion for the Fusion Center. According to sources who I've spoken with, two companies responded to the estimated $80,000 bid request.

One, Sypherlink, is a mid-sized company out of Dublin, OH that specializes in database converting and merging, with a history of doing work for Homeland Security.

The other, Bassham and Associates was a small, unincorporated operation sharing a West Texas post office box address with a beauty salon and a defunct surveying business.

The Collin County Observer has obtained a copy of a letter of protest, dated September 6, 2007 from Sypherlink addressed to Kelley Stone, the Collin County Director of Homeland Security and the NCTFS and to the County Purchasing Agent, Frank Ybarbo.

In the letter, Sypherlink charges that Bassham and Associates is nothing more than a one man operation operating out of the home of Elbert Bassham and that Anita and Dr. Bob Johnson awarded the bid to Bassham in violation of Federal Homeland Security Grant Management Guidelines.

Elbert Bassham is the brother of Anita Johnson, the co-owner of ADB consulting.

In their letter, Sypherlink points out a page from ADB's now defunct website that is headlined,"Elbert Launches Strategic Services Business."

ADB's web page goes on to state, "Anita's brother has launched Bassham and Associates strategic Services (BASS). BASS provides software products and services used by academic and business organizations to implement plans and analyze performance."

At the time when ADB awarded the contract to BASS, Elbert Bassham was a full time employee at Sul Ross State University in Alpine, Texas. Bassham retired from Sul Ross on September 14, 2007, to work "in computer programming". Bassham was quoted as saying he would continue to live in Marfa and that, "I am now subcontracting to a corporation and working on a server in Dallas."

ADB announces that Anita's brother Elbert has founded Bassham & Assoc	Robert Johnson, Anita Miller and Elbert Bassham at Lake Tahoe	Congressman Sam Johnson (R-Plano)

Bassham and Associates web site even bears an uncanny resemblance to the home page of the North Central Texas Fusion System.

NCTFS website	Bassham & Assoc website

Sypherlink's letter quotes from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Financial Grant Management Guide:
"No official or employee of a State or unit of local government or a non-governmental recipient/subrecipient shall participate personally through decisions, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise in any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, award, cooperative agreement, claim, controversy, or other particular matter in which award funds (including program income or other funds generated by Federally funded activities) are used, where to his/her knowledge, he/she or his/her immediate family, partners, organization other than a public agency in which he/she is serving as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee, or any person or organization with whom he/she is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest, or has less than an arms-length transaction."

In their complaint to the County, Sypherlink accuses ADB of:

• Conflict of interest in that ADB awarded the contract to the brother of a co-owner of ADB.
• Awarding the contract to an unqualified vendor since BASS has no experience in law enforcement data bases or in any database data discovery. Sypherlink also wrote that after D&B search on Bassham and Associates, they could not find that BASS was a registered business in any of the 50 United States.
• Unfair competition in that ADB gave BASS favorable information, positioning and bid scoring. due to its relationship with the owners of ADB.

Sypherlink's letter was dated September 6, 2007 and was addressed to both the County Purchasing Agent and the director of the Fusion Center. A search of Commissioners Court agendas and minutes since September, 2007 turns up no sign of any action by the commissioners to address or investigate Sypherlink's accusations.

To the contrary, even after receiving the complaint, the Collin County Commissioners Court continued to award 'no-bid' contracts to ADB consulting.

Since September of 2007, the court has awarded 3 additional 'no-bid' contracts to ADB worth a total of $311,000.

According to check registers published on the county website, Collin County paid ADB consulting $556,123.51 in fiscal year 2008 for consulting, maintenance and software for the North Texas Fusion Center. All funds paid ADB were for 'no bid' services.

Responding to a open records request, the Collin County Auditor reported that since 2004, the county has paid a total of $1,139,245.77 in no-bid contracts to ADB.

Since the Collin County Observer began coverage of the relationship between ADB and the Fusion Center, ADB has taken down its website and the County has placed a "Request for Bid" for a general contractor for the Fusion Center.

The bid process is ongoing with a closing date of March 12, 2009.

Bill

NOTES:

Sypherlink letter to Kelley Stone, dated September 6, 2007

Screen shots of ADB and BASS web sites ca. September, 2007

CCO Coverage of Fusion Center:
Fusion: Fear, Fiction, Fact and Freedom, CCO, Feb. 2009

County pays ADB over $1.1 million in no-bid Fusion Center contracts, CCO, Dec. 2008

Commissioners to consider "no bid" contract for Fusion Center, CCO, Dec. 2008

While Plano was watching TV, what was the Fusion Center doing?,CCO, May 2008

Code Red: better late than never - or is it?, CCO, Apr. 2008

COURT FILING suggests, CoServ ZAPPED $54 million intended for members

February 25, 2009 -
Collin County Business Press

There is blood in the CoServ boardroom, according to Denton County court filings. Plaintiffs claim, in a class action lawsuit filed against Corinth-based CoServ Electric, that the co-op converted $54 million of class member money into equity owned by the co-op that was intended for distribution to its members.

CoServ services the fast-growing communities of McKinney and Frisco and large parts of Denton County.

The Collin County Business Press has obtained an Amended Counter Claim and Original Petition of Intervention in which Janice Brady, Duncan Duval and Paul Confer filed against CoServ Electric seeking $54 million for alleged conversion of member money.

Austin Attorney, Paul Lawrence of The Lawrence Firm, filed the petition on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Denton Judiciary District 211, on documents Wednesday Feb. 18, 2009 on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The filing alleges that CoServ has committed serious, unlawful breaches of it relationship of trust with plaintiffs and of the members and former members of the electric co-op. The information is based on tax filings and public documents provided to the plaintiffs by Mark Glover, a CoServ director.

“We have the highest level of confidence that CoServ will defeat all of the counterclaims,” said Mike Dreyspring, CEO, CoServ

Between 2003 and 2008, the plaintiffs claim CoServ converted $54 million of class member’s money in to equity owned by CoServ. The property is referred to as patronage capital or capital credits. The defendant allegedly retired $75 million in patronage capital to its member and former members.

“Our attorneys are looking over the suits and looking into the details of the filing,” said Shane Laws, spokesperson for CoServ. No other comments were made.

The process is known as retirement of the class member’s patronage capital. The claim by the plaintiffs against CoServ states that only $21 million of $75 million was distributed to members and former members. The conversion of funds is classified as “discounting” of class members’ capital credits.

“Without the practice of capital credit discounting, that 77 percent would have received no capital credit retirement payments from the $21 million paid in the last six years," Dreysping said. “All of those dollars would have gone to only 23 percent of the members, and that is contrary to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) strong recommendation for cooperatives to maximize the percentage of current membership receiving capital credit retirements. For CoServ, capital credit discounting is an effective way of achieving that goal. Our capital credit retirement process is consistent with sound industry practice and supported by numerous Internal Revenue Service rulings.”

On November 30, 2001, certain subsidiaries of CoServ filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. On February 1, 2002, CoServ entered into the same fate.

The petition filed by the plaintiffs alleges that during the bankruptcy, CoServ primary creditor, the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC), stated repeatedly that the co-op’s management acted in bad faith, failing to fulfill its fiduciary duties, and unwilling to put creditors interest ahead of management interest.

CFC’s concerns prompted reorganization, requiring CoServ to replace William McGinnis, CEO and president, and Kevin Haney, general council. McGinnis resigned, but was awarded a severance package and moved to a position as CoServ insurance agent, according to the filing. CoServ 2002 balance sheet shows that the defendant accrued a liability of about $3.7 million for “Accrued Severance Obligations,” the petition filed by the plaintiffs stated.

Haney resigned and was awarded a severance package and then affiliated himself with an outside law firm that was already doing business with CoServ under his supervision, the plaintiffs allege in the lawsuit. He continued as CoServ’s outside general council under contract at a compensation of approximately $414,000 per year, plus employee benefits, the petition alleges.

$50,000 investigation against Brady prompts filings

In 2008, Glover assisted Brady in an unsuccessful attempt to replace Jerry Cobb, chairman of the board, in hopes of assisting in shifting control of the board from “old guard” to a newer, more reformed minded majority.

Glover is one of seven board members.

“,CoServ has wrongfully undertaken an investigation of Janice Brady's campaign, exaggerated the issues, wasted member money and filed frivolous litigation in an attempt to punish Janice Brady and remove me as a director,” wrote Glover in a letter to CoServ's board of Directors.

Glover admits to providing Brady with a list of co-op members who voted in previous board elections. The list was also provided to incumbent board members for their use in the election process.

According to the petition filed by the plaintiffs, upon learning that Brady had a list of members who vote and that she knew about the board’s access to daily vote tallies, the defendant embarked upon an $50,000 investigation to establish that Glover supplied Brady the voter list so that it might call for Glover’s resignation on the premise that he violated board policy by providing “confidential” information to one of the cooperative’s member-owners.

On November 20, 2008, reading a script prepared by the corporate general counsel, the board chairman called for and obtained a board resolution requesting Glover’s resignation and censoring him by denying him access to information required for the performance of his duties as a director, the plaintiffs allege.

On December 20, 2008, the general council sent Glover a certified letter requesting that he announce before January 20, 2009, whether he would resign from the board.

read more (subscription may be req'd.)....

Questions surround Melissa water tower

February 5, 2009
By BYRON HARRIS / WFAA-TV

MELISSA — As mayor of Melissa, a small but growing community in northern Collin County, David Dorman serves without pay.

His record as mayor is studded with accomplishments. He touts the city's "A" bond rating, its highly-rated volunteer fire department, recent donations of property to the city, and the construction of the new Melissa Town Center.

Mayor Dorman supports charities such as CASA and Habitat for Humanity, and says he donates his time to them and the city "because it's the right thing to do."

But as he runs for his sixth term as mayor, Dorman has a list of critics which is growing more vocal.

"He's playing the people; and he's playing the developers," said Janet Hull, who lives on Melissa's border and fears the town's expansion.

Dorman himself is in the real state business, with major land holdings around the city.

One of his companies, DHT Investments, sold the city land for its water tower in 2001. That transaction and others related to it lead some to question his motives.

Dorman is listed as president of DHT with the Texas Secretary of State.

Michael Hudson is DHT's secretary and treasurer. Dorman appointed Hudson as head of Melissa’s Planning and Zoning board.

David Moore is DHT's only director. He is also Melissa's municipal judge, presiding in some code enforcement cases.

Moore also runs a business as a financial planner, and — according to a court deposition — had his business office in Melissa City Hall for a time, which he rented for $1 a year.

The signatures of all three men appear on documents involving the water tower.

In the fall of 2000, the city had yet to choose where the tower would be built. A consultant was hired to investigate possible sites.

In early 2001, documents show DHT bought one of the parcels under consideration for the water tower for $139,000. Then the city chose DHT's property as the site for the tower, and DHT sold the city part of its land at no profit.

"I haven't made any money off the real estate in Melissa at this time," the mayor told News 8 in an interview in December.

But the water tower deal was not yet completed. Contrary to the mayor's recollection, public records indicate that in 2006, DHT sold the remaining water tower property at a profit of $659,000.

The mayor declined to be interviewed on-camera for this story. In a phone conversation, he said he had forgotten about the $659,000 profit when we interviewed him in December, but that he "earned every penny" he made in the transaction.

Municipal Judge David Moore did not return our phone calls.

read article here....

Other WFAA News 8 coverage of Melissa:

9/1/07: Melissa accused of overstating population

12/20/07: Melissa residents oppose further growth

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an opinion today that effectively granted Charles Dean Hood another 60 day stay.

Hood was sentenced to death in March of 1994 for the murders of Tracie Lynn Wallace and Ronald Williamson during a robbery in Plano in 1989 in a trial the defense maintains was tainted by an undisclosed love affair between the judge and district attorney.

In today's ruling the CCA ruled that Collin County District Judge Brewer erred in appointing a master to hear arguments relating to the now admitted affair between former Judge Verla Sue Holland and former District Attorney Tom O'Connell.

The appeals court did not rule on any questions as to whether the original trial was impartial and fair. It limited its opinion to the question of Brewer's appointment of the master.

In granting District Attorney John Roach's petition to overturn the master's appointment, the appeals court required Judge Brewer to vacate the appointment and gave Brewer 60 days to comply and report back to the court.

This is the second time in 2 months that the CCA has remanded the case back to the trial court on a purely procedural issue.

Perhaps some day the Court will address the real issue - "Could Hood get a fair trial in a court where the Judge and prosecuter are in the midst of an adulterous affair?"

Bill

I have received 2 responses from the commissioners court to my letter warning that they were about to violate the Texas Open Meetings Act:

Judge Self wrote:

and from commissioner Jerry Hoagland:

My take on the issue remains unchanged.

The court tried this same dodge during the 2008 budget hearings. After I protested about the executive session to discuss elected official's pay raises, they changed the agenda to read "Executive session to consider "individual" salaries of elected officials."

It was a transparent and illegal work-around to avoid compliance with the law, as are their explanations today.

If the executive session is planned for individual actions, then the county would have treated these individuals to a normal review process.

Have each of these 'individuals' been served written notice that their employment terms are to be examined in closed session?

Is each individual entitled to a separate hearing, in open session if they so choose?

Have any of these individuals done anything to deserve an unscheduled review of their employment?

Have they, prior to this meeting been again individually evaluated on performance?

Has the list of these individuals been posted on the agenda?

I'll bet the court has done none of the above.

The simple fact is that the County Judge and commissioners court wants to re-evaluate its policy of giving one time cash payments, in lieu of a PFP raise, to those employees at the top of their pay scale. They want to save money and they want to do it with the least fuss and bother.

To do so in executive session violates both the letter and the spirit of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

The issue is clear, the taxpayers have the right to hear and be a part of all deliberations by their elected representatives. As Attorney General Greg Abbott stated in the Texas Open Meetings Handbook, "The Texas Open Meetings Act commits every public official, at every level of government, to the principle of government in the sunshine. It codifies our guarantee that the public's business is conducted openly and without secrecy"

Bill

Editorial: Death penalty moratorium needed

The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board
Monday, December 29, 2008

The year draws to a close with Texas in its familiar No. 1 place nationally in capital punishment statistics (18 of the nation's 37 executions in 2008). It has also been a year rich with examples of why this state should stop its error-prone machinery of death.

For a change, discussion about flawed justice need not start in Dallas County, the nation's ground zero for DNA exonerations. Just to the north, Collin County illustrates how even a highly educated, affluent community can get it wildly wrong in the high-stakes gamble called capital punishment.

No murder case more nauseated North Texas than the 1993 strangulation of 7-year-old Ashley Estell after she was plucked from a Plano city park. A Collin County jury deliberated only 27 minutes before convicting serial molester Michael Blair of capital murder. It took far longer – 14 years – for the truth to fully emerge. DNA and other forensic tests undermined the case so thoroughly that a judge dismissed the conviction this summer.

In a second discredited case, evidence has never been a question. Rather, it took 18 years for the truth to emerge about an illicit sexual affair that the trial judge had been having with Collin County District Attorney Tom O'Connell, who personally asked jurors for the death sentence. The double murder conviction against Charles Dean Hood raised serious questions of corrupted ethics this summer, and the courts have yet to address it.

There is no quick or neat fix for breakdowns in justice that range from poor technology to dishonesty among officers of the court. Dozens of DNA exonerations across the state – including the nation-leading 19 in Dallas County – have demonstrated how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be. Further, statistics indicate a disturbing arbitrariness of capital punishment, varying greatly by county. Data also show that a killer is far likelier to die for killing a white person.

It's notable that a veteran state lawmaker from conservative Collin County, Plano's Brian McCall, is sufficiently concerned about the justice system that he favors a two-year moratorium on executions in Texas. Mr. McCall is a Republican with law-and-order bona fides, having authored legislation in 1994 creating the state's first criminal DNA database.

That tool has achieved its primary objective of helping law enforcement officials identify culprits and solve crimes. It has also offered new perspective on how much more reform our system of laws requires before we can be confident that fatal error will never occur in Huntsville's busy death chamber.

read more ....

After I wrote Commissioners to consider "no bid" contract for Fusion Center earlier this month, I sent an Open Records request to Collin County asking for a list of all county payments to ADB consulting.

The response was astounding, especially since my search of Commissioners Court records finds no record of any competitive bid ever being awarded to ADB.

ADB stands for Anita and Dr. Bob. Dr. Robert Johnson is the son of Plano's Congressman Sam Johnson. Anita Miller is Dr. Bob's wife. Together they own and are ADB Consulting.

On the Fusion Center's website, Dr. Bob is listed as the Fusion Center's Architect, and Anita Miller as the Fusion Center Manager. In a recent Fusion Center mailing, Dr. Bob is also described as the Acting Intelligence Analyst. Neither Anita Miller nor Dr. Bob Johnson live anywhere near Collin County - their home is in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

According to the County Auditor, the payments to ADB are as follows:

• In fiscal year 2004, $20,156.60
• In fiscal year 2005, $81,486.69
• In fiscal year 2006, $264,324.72
• In fiscal year 2007, $195,084.50
• In fiscal year 2008, $556,123.51
• In fiscal year 2009 (to date), $22,069.75

For a grand total of $1,139,245.77

I conducted an extensive review of all commissioners court meeting minutes for 2006, 2007, and 2008 - looking for any contracts between ADB and the county.

In 2006, requests were made on March 28, and on May 2 for no-bid contract approval for a sum total of $144,000.

Almost all of the funding was for the, "Pursuit of Directed Funding to aid in the advancement of homeland Security capability" - in simpler language, the money was so that ADB would seek state and federal funding for more grants to pay for more ADB contracts. On both occasions, the court approved the no-bid contracts on 4-1 votes. Commissioner Joe Jaynes voted 'no' on both occasions.

On February 13, 2007 a no-bid request was made for $120,000 for ADB. The request was approved 5-0. Commissioner Hatchell asked for more information about ADB and the Fusion Center, and was promised that another discussion would be on a March agenda. That discussion never happened.

On July 23, 2007 another no-bid request was made for a contract with ADB for $180,000. This time Commissioner Hoagland asked for more information and was promised there would be a presentation at the next workshop. On this contract Commissioner Jaynes was again the sole 'no' vote.

On August 28, 2007 $52,000 was requested and approved, without dissent, for a no-bid contract with ADB.

On March 26, 2008 a huge no-bid contract to ADB for consulting services was approved without discussion or dissent. The amount approved was $253,637.

On April 29, 2008 a $130,000 no-bid contract request for translation software with ADB was pulled off the agenda, and never resubmitted.

On November 18, 2008, a $5,000 no-bid contract for software integration consulting to ADB was approved unanimously, without discussion.

And on December 9, 2008 the court approved a no-bid contract to ADB for $36,500 for software maintenance. Mr. Jaynes was the sole 'no' vote.

During the period from 2006-2008 that I was able to check the minutes, the county wrote checks totaling $1,037,602.48 to ADB, while only $802,137 was awarded to the Johnsons by an open vote of the commissioners court.

The accounting for the disbursements to ADB is also interesting, probably tracking the grant funds.

In 2004 and 2005, almost all the payouts to ADB were charged to a "Health Related Services" account number; in 2006, to "Consulting Services; in 2007 to "Educational Services"; and in 2008, to "Misc. Software", "Professional Services" and "Consultants".

County Commissioners are quick to point out that most of the money for the Fusion Center was from federal bio-terrorism and homeland security grants. No one yet has come forth with a plan to fund the Fusion Center when the grant money runs out.

It should also be noted that funding for Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" was also federal grant money.

Bill

2008's Top Ten reasons why there is a Collin County Observer. Most of these stories were first covered here, a few were only covered here.

10. Commissioners forcing the resignation of the Teen Court Coordinator because he was gay.

9. Commissioners refuse to enact an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, shortly before they force the gay guy out.

8. Lovejoy ISD fighting Open Records requests, banning a parent and firing a teacher.

7. District Judge Charles Sandoval pushing experimental drugs on probationers.

6. Commissioners sitting quietly while Commissioner Hoagland rants against A-rabs and Indians.

5. Judge Mark Rusch issuing search warrants against the defense attorney in a capital case, and then refusing to recuse himself.

4. Commissioners awarding, without competitive bid, over a million dollars in federal grant money to the son of Sam Johnson for Fusion Center software.

3. DA Roach fighting against new trial of defendant sentenced to death in a trial conducted by a judge and DA who are playing coochie-coochie in secret.

2. Commissioners spending $300,000 to sue the Auditor, loosing the suit twice, and still appealing.

1. County pushing for SH 121 tolling only to have the Attorney General refuse to allow the county to get any of the $2 billion in toll funds it was promised.

Bill

Republicans Ken Paxton of Plano, Byron Cook of Palestine, and former Rep. Bob Griggs of Tarrant County owned shares in Plano company that won $10 million state contract.

WTOP - Lawmakers profit from company with state contracts

By JAY ROOT, Associated Press Writer
WTOP News, Washington, D.C.
October 16, 2008

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A company that became a national leader in providing patrol cameras to police was built on the strength of a Texas contract obtained while two state lawmakers were shareholders in the firm - a possible violation of state ethics laws.

WatchGuard Video points with pride to the legislators who became early investors in the company as it grew from a tiny startup into a government contracting powerhouse.

The two men said they never pulled strings on behalf of WatchGuard. But they voted for the spending bills that gave state business to the company, and both turned a profit after selling some of their shares.

Their actions might violate the state constitution and disclosure rules established by the Texas Ethics Commission.

A published company profile boasts that WatchGuard, based in the Dallas suburb of Plano, is "held by an influential shareholder group that includes three state representatives, a judge, and a number of distinguished entrepreneurs."

"When the state representatives are involved, it appears like they're greasing the skids with the contract," said Texas ethics watchdog Fred Lewis, who has urged the Legislature to tighten conflict-of-interest laws. "I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's what it looks like."

The state constitution prohibits lawmakers from benefiting "directly or indirectly" from a state contract authorized by the Legislature, but it doesn't say what happens to lawmakers who violate the provision.

Company President Robert Vanman called WatchGuard "squeaky clean" and said he resented any suggestion that the contractor had engaged in "shady" dealings.

WatchGuard is best known for producing in-car video systems that record directly onto DVDs. It sells equipment to state and local police departments across the nation.

If WatchGuard is an industry leader, Vanman said, it's because of the company's products, not because of political influence.

But WatchGuard's own Web site touted the company's politically connected shareholders. A published company profile boasts that WatchGuard, based in the Dallas suburb of Plano, is "held by an influential shareholder group that includes three state representatives, a judge, and a number of distinguished entrepreneurs."

Vanman named the lawmakers: Republican Reps. Ken Paxton, Byron Cook and former Rep. Bob Griggs. WatchGuard's vice president of operations, Dennis Pirkle, is a part-time city judge and jail magistrate, according to company literature.

Cook and Paxton made early investments in WatchGuard, and Cook sat on the company's board. Founded in 2002, the company grew just as digital technology began to replace older-generation analog systems.

But it was the Texas Department of Public Safety contract in late 2006 that gave WatchGuard its biggest financial boost.

Eventually the entire fleet of trooper vehicles in Texas will use WatchGuard camera systems, bringing the company $10 million, Vanman said. WatchGuard also landed a smaller contract for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department this year.

Paxton and Cook have previously disclosed ownership in Enforcement Video L.P., the registered company name for WatchGuard Video. But records show Paxton did not disclose his ownership in WatchGuard on his 2008 personal financial statement filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.

read more....