The Collin County Observer™

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- has the most litigation and trial experience;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Ragland

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

....

By Lex In Limine
Attorney at Law
Guest Contributer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lex
Attorney at Law

By: Magna Carta
Attorney at Law

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

Kristy Littrell Duty

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

Deric Walpole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magna Carta
Attorney at Law

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

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

John M. Helms, Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patricia Crigger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca Lettrell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sherry Bell

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

THE JURY WAS EXCUSED AT THE REQUEST OF JOHN HARDIN

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

AND THE JURY IS BACK

Hannah Kunkle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lex In Limine
Attorney at Law

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

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

Judge John Nelms

Voir dire took all morning.

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

59 people lined up to talk to the judge.

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

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

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

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

I'll be there.

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cast:

Judge:

• Judge John Nelms, a retired judge from Dallas County

For the State:

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

Hannah Kunkle

For the Defense:

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

The Charges

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

The Trial - Day One:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The voir dire will continue late tomorrow.

I will be back there too.

Bill

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

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

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

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

TERRI GREEN

for

380TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

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

Your Support

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

So why should you vote for me?

Family

• Proud mother of two “grown” boys

Professional

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

Experienced

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

Honors and Awards

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

Involved/Community Leader

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

THE TEXAS LAWYER’S CREED

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

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

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

Terri Green
Candidate
380th Judicial District Court

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

Suzanne Wooten

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

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

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

James Steven Spencer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

Mr. Spencer had arrived.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

Note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

The Observer is blogging outside the courtroom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

Updating the afternoon events:

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

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

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

That was a joke!

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

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

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

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

Bill

The Observer will be watching:

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

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

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

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

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

Readers, we will keep you informed.

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was this incident the whole story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

Lewis wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

Judge Suzanne Wooten	DA Greg Willis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Russell then denied the Wooten motion.

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

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

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

John

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

Motions and papers about the Wooten case:

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

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

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

MOTION TO QUASH, Peter Schulte - September 15, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

The Commissioners Court appointed:

James McCarley

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

The Texas Local Government Code gives the Civil Service Commission:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

ANGELA TUCKER

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

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

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

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

SHARON RAMAGE

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

BOB DRY

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

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

www.dryforjudge.com

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

Link to the Frisco DWI blog.....

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

The Observer adds....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Candidates are actively campaigning for this bench:

BARNETT WALKER

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

SHARON RAMAGE

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

Collin County Courthouse Loses Power - Judge Blows a Fuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

New Trial Date Set in Judge Suzanne Wooten case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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

The Collin County Jail is a non-smoking facility.

Bill

The Disingenuous Mr. Willis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

Notes:

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

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

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

Judge Suzanne Wooten	DA Greg Willis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schulte charges:

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

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

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

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

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

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

District Attorney’s Office in furor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

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

Notes:

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

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

Who You Gonna Call When The Courts Break The Law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who pays and who doesn’t

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

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

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

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

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

Think of it as a form of judicial euthanasia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ignorance of the law

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

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

Today, Patricia Crigger, Rebecca Littrell, Sherry Bell and Hannah Kunkle appeared at a hearing heard by visiting Judge Nelms to hear motions.

Attorney Robert Hinton John Hardin who is representing Hannah Kunkle, offered a motion to dismiss Kunkle's indictment, and challenged the Special Prosecutor, John Helms, to seek Kunkle's indictment and prosecution.

Robert Hinton John Hardin gave several spirited oral arguments. Hinton Hardin told the judge that this is a, "political case... who believes that in a perfect world, this case would go away". Nelms looked surprised and bemused at that comment. He said that his decision requires evidence and he's not hearing any "facts". HintonHardin said that this case has been tainted by John Roach's District Attorney's office. He described the DA's office as having "dirty laundry". Hinton Hardin implies that most of the decisions in this case are not in the file. The judge replied that, "you say you know what's been done [behind closed doors], you say they know, but I do not know it." Judge Nelms repeated that Robert Hinton John Hardin must provide evidence.

HintonHardin also argued that Special Prosecutor Helms only had a charter to investigate and seek prosecution for the original 6 district clerks employees. Hinton Hardin also asked the judge to rule that when the special prosecutor dismissed the previous indictments, he had no further authority. Judge Nelms ruled against Kunkle's motions.

HintonHardin asked the court for severance, requesting that Hannah Kunkle be given a separate trial, and not tried with the other three accused district clerk employee's.

However, Crigger, Littrell, and Bell's attorneys told the judge that they wanted to be tried together. Walker Barnett, Bell's attorney, told the judge that they understand Kunkle did want severance but that he would not oppose the motion to server the trial from Kunkle.

HintonHardin argued that combining Kunkle with the other three defendants could create a trial in which the other defendants could, "create an antagonistic situation". Hinton Hardin said that the trial could be, "a 'cluster'.... that we don't want to be in at the court, throwing rocks at each other". Hinton Hardin portrayed a situation where the three District Clerk defendants could claim that they only followed Kunkle's policies, and that he might show, that after her retirement, Kunkle was no longer in daily operations and delegated her office to the other defendants.

The judge stated that he was still inclined to consolidate the defendants for economy, and that the defense has the burden to provide evidence to support the motion. He told Hinton Hardin that he had not "seen any facts" for the severance, but he has giveRobert Hinton John Hardin until October to submit a motion.

Walker Barnett asked for more time to prepare for trial because he has only been hired by Bell. An associate of attorney Deric Walpole, representing Rebecca Littrell, told the court that Walpole is in San Angelo defending Warren Jeffs the Eldorado sect leader charged with bigamy and child sexual abuse. He told the judge that trial will likely go for many weeks.

Judge Nelms then re-set the trial for November 28, 2011.

(Patricia Crigger will likely remain in his office for more than two years after being both elected and indicted.)

Bill

-----------------------------------
Errata

I apologize to all concerned for the confusion between Robert Hinton and John Hardin.

Bill

NBC KXAS - Planned Parenthood Attacked With Molotov Cocktail
By Greg Janda, KXAS- NBC TV
Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011, Updated 5:25 PM CDT

McKinney fire officials say an overnight blaze at a Planned Parenthood clinic was started by a "Molotov cocktail."

The health center on Eldorado Parkway was attacked Tuesday night around 10 p.m. Firefighters arrived to extinguish the fire and discovered a wine bottle filled with diesel fuel and a rag for a lighter.

Officials say the fire did damage to the exterior of the building, but did not penetrate the building. Investigation into the attack is still ongoing.

The clinic opened in 2008 and has been the site of multiple protests. This is the first serious attack at the location.

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

CBS KRLD - Molotov Cocktail Hurled Through McKinney Planned Parenthood
By Matt Goodman, CBSDFW.COM
July 27, 2011 4:31 PM

MCKINNEY (CBSDFW.COM) – Someone hurled a glass bottle topped with a flaming rag and filled with diesel fuel through the front door of the McKinney Planned Parenthood offices just before 10 p.m. Tuesday, a spokeswoman said.

The attack left shards of glass littered in front of the office at 1720 Eldorado Parkway and charred the metal door, but Planned Parenthood staffers hurriedly cleaned the mess and still saw patients Wednesday.

“Since we’re seeing patients today and trying to do repair and cleanup as fast as possible, you may not get an idea of the damage done if you go by there today,” said Holly Morgan, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of North Texas.

The Molotov cocktail failed to make it into the actual clinic and no staffers or patients were there, Morgan said.

Though the McKinney location has been the center of controversy in the area since it opened in 2008, Morgan said the attack was unprecedented – none of the 28 north Texas locations have suffered something like this.

And though the McKinney Police Department still has not identified a motive, Morgan said the arson is even more upsetting because the targeted location does not offer abortion services.

“It’s really unfortunate because that site only provides preventative care,” she said. “But until we know from the police, until they figure out what happened, we can’t really say what the motivation was.”

The McKinney location offers preventive services such as breast and pelvic exams, as well as birth control, diabetes screenings, sexually transmitted infection tests, pregnancy testing and emergency contraception. News Radio KRLD reported picketers at the location earlier in the day.

McKinney police has not identified a suspect.

“Ninety-six to 97 percent of what we do –and that’s an audited number – every year for our patients is preventative health care. It’s breast and cervical cancer screening and well women visits,” Morgan said.

“We even give flu shots.”

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

chutzpah, hutzpah [ˈxʊtspə] n Informal shameless audacity; impudence [from Yiddish]

Patricia Crigger has continued in office, trying to lead the District Clerk's Office, while under felony charges of corruption. Crigger not only refused to take a leave of absence, but instead has attempted to put on a show of there is "no problem."

CHUTZPUH
Crigger's reaction to the indictment was to promote the alleged two co-conspirators and give them a raise in pay. Crigger promoted[ed.: caution, large file]:

• Rebecca Littrell from Senior Administer making $52,766 to Chief Deputy District Clerk, now receiving a salary of $64,213.
• Sherry Bell from Lead Clerk making $49,190 to Senior Administer, now receiving a salary of $51,650.

Crigger herself was given a raise by the voters after her indictment from approximately $65,000 to $110,998.

By appointing the two other top managers in the department who are under indictments, Crigger has created a vacuum of leadership. If Patricia Crigger took a leave of absence, resigns, or is convicted, there will be no senior management able to temporarily take over the District Clerk's Office. Crigger has made it difficult so there will be no senior management in place to temporarily take over the District Clerk's Office. (If the Crigger resigns or convicted, the Board of Collin County District Judges will appoint a new District Clerk.)

And last week, Patricia Crigger, Rebecca Littrell, and Sherry Bell used county money to attend a convention together in Las Vegas. According to a Open Records request, the County Auditor confirmed that the three alleged co-conspirators traveled to Vegas from July 10 to July 15, 2011 to attend the National Association of Court Management Annual Conference.

The bills are all not in yet, but the conference will cost the Collin County taxpayers several thousand dollars.

Also in April, Crigger received a county check for $1,308, and $1,208 went to Rebecca Littrell for travel reimbursement. During the entire year to date, the rest of the un-indicted staff members of the District Clerk's office have spent less than $360 on travel total.

Yes, chutzpah is one way to make crime pay.

Patricia Crigger, District Clerk

THE CRIMES
Last June, The Texas Rangers targeting the District Clerk's Office raided the Collin County Courthouse. In July, a grand jury indicted 6 employees of the District Clerk's department, including Patricia Crigger, for conspiracy and theft of more than $20,000 in government money. At that time, Patricia Crigger was the Republican nominee for District Clerk. Facing no real oppositions, Crigger was the next "Elect District Clerk", who would be sworn in on January 1, 2011.

On January 1, Patricia Crigger was sworn in as the elected District Clerk although charged with "Abuse of Office" and "Conspiracy" for allegedly stealing over $20,000 of services for the benefit of her 2010 campaign. Also indicted were alleged co-conspirators including Rebecca Littrell and Sherry Bell.

Hannah Kunkle (no mug shot available)

On May 31, 2011 a Grand Jury also indicted Hannah Kunkle, the previous long-time District Clerk.

The Collin County District Attorney's Office (under John Roach, Sr.) bungled the original indictments of six District Clerk's employees. Twice the charges against the defendants were dropped, and they have been re-indicted three times now. The need to appoint a visiting Judge, and then the need to name an out-of-town special prosecutor, have created delay after delay, allowing the elected District Clerk to remain in office under a cloud for more than a year.

The visiting Judge Nelms (of Tyler) will hold a hearing on July 27 to hear motions.

The Texas Rangers investigation shows a credible case against these employees -- a case credible enough for three Grand Juries to indict these officials.

THE AUDITS
The Collin County Auditor has released two audits that are critical of the financial operations of the District Clerk's Office. The audits covered the 3rd quarter and 4th quarter of 2010 during the Hannah Kunkle administration. Both audits show that the District Clerk's Office has been unable to correct the table of fees and that the department has been unable to reconcile their funds with the new Odyssey program. The auditor has shown that convicted defendants in criminal cases were not charged all the fees the District Clerk's Office is responsible to collect, nor have the cases been corrected.

Crigger did appear before the commissioners' court on May 2[ed.:video], and said that the issues were inherited, but acknowledged that they are struggling with correcting the problems. Crigger asked if the Auditor would assign an accountant to help her with Odyssey. After five months, Commissioner Duncan Webb and the commissioners' court expressed impatience with the loss of criminal fees and concern with the lack of progress. Neither the Auditor nor Crigger can determine the amount of revenue criminal fees that incorrectly may cost the county revenue. [ed.:video]The commissioners' court has asked the County Auditor to prepare a "Full Audit" of the District Clerk's Office, and to report the amount of fees that have been lost as county revenue.

Later in June, Crigger submitted a request to promote a clerk to senior clerk. Cheryl Williams expressed frustration[ed.:video] that Crigger chose to promote a clerk without financial experience. The court unanimously voted to delay the promotion, once again asking Crigger for explanation, later two weeks later, the court approved the promotion.

CLOUD
The District Clerk's Office is responsible for the custodial care and management of the District Courts. The department has 58 employees with a budget of over $5 million, and holds in trust more than $3 million in public funds in 5 bank accounts.[ed.: caution large linked file]

Many, including members of the Commissioners' Court, have questioned the ability of the District Clerk's Department to function effectively.

The top 3 administrators of the department are facing charges of conspiracy and corruption, while some of their own employees were whistle blowers. The Texas Rangers used at least five employees who gave sworn affidavits that were used to gain a search warrant to raid the courthouse. The defendants immediately asked the court to give them the names of the whistle blowers.

The judge refused to release the names. An informer county source has told the Collin County Observer of three of the whistle blowers: two of those employees asked the county to and received a transfer to other departments where they do not fear retribution. A third person was laid off when the commissioners' court cut the 2011 staffing budget by three people. The whistle-blower brought an attorney to the courthouse to ask the District Clerk if she really wanted to be sued for laying off someone who is allowed protection as a whistle-blower. The whistle-blower got her job back.

Source have told The Observer of a department that has low morale and lack of leadership. The District Clerk's top leaders are working under the shadow of a real possibility of being sent to prison. Some employees in the department are supporters of Crigger, some support Kunkle, and some have antipathy to both of them.

The Observer spoke to several leading Republicans who told us that the party is not in agreement that Patricia Crigger should step down, but the majority of individual Republicans we spoke to expressed a desire for Crigger to resign for the good of the taxpayers and the party.

But Crigger, like the title character in the fable about the Emperor's New Clothes, she has been unable to see herself, while that our citizens can see through her arrogance.

Bill

--------------------------------
Notes:

The 2010, 3rd Quarter Audit of the District Clerk

The 2010, 4th Quarter Audit of the District Clerk

The Observer has learned that yesterday Judge John Roach, Jr jailed Sharon Easley on contempt. Sharon Easley lost the 2006 primary race against John Roach, Jr. for the 296th District Court.

Easley was attending a court hearing on behalf of a client over a child guardianship in a divorce suit that has been litigated since 2007.

Judge John Roach, Jr.	Sharon Easley

Sources at the courthouse told the Observer, that Attorney Sharon Easley was angry and some loud comments were exchanged between her and the judge. Ms. Easley left the courtroom, and then said something to the effect that, "Are you going to put me in jail?", in a manner that many perceived as challenging the judge. Judge Roach then ordered Easley to be placed under arrest and jailed.

Easley was released later that evening.

John Roach, Jr. won in the 2006 Republican by defeating Sharon Easley; He ran unopposed in the general election. Judge Roach was re-elected after defeating Keith Gore in the 2010 primary, and once again was unopposed in the November general election.

The Observer's has been unable to reach Ms. Easley for comment.

Bill

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

Comment from: Sharon Easley

Sure are a lot of strong feelings about this matter! I am not surprised. The situation is a very polarizing one.

Judge Roach and I are both adults, however, and we will find a way through this, even if I end up in jail. We are both human beings with frailties; we are also two very strong-willed individuals; we have both shown the propensity to let our emotions get the best of us. This was one of those occasions and it got out of control.

This has always been a great county in which to practice law and I don't want to do anything at this point to make this situation worse than it is.

When does innocence mean innocence?
 
A Frisco man has been unable to clear his name for over four years. An appeals court has decided he has no right to seek equitable justice. Though he has never been found guilty of any crime, he is shackled with a record he is unable to clear.
 
It is our country’s tradition that a person charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless found guilty by a judge or jury, and that a person can only be sentenced if convicted. But in this 21st century, a person never adjudicated guilty of a crime is still followed around by his record. An employer, a landlord, a banker, an insurance company and the police can easily access an applicant’s “criminal” background. Companies make decisions after looking up an applicant’s record. Now it is routine. A person cannot obtain a good job or a new apartment – merely for being charged with a crime, without a guilty conviction.
 
Nader Akhavan of Frisco told the appeals court that the charges against him have ruined his life. He was a highly paid professional, but since the 2007 charges, he has been unable to find employment in his field after any potential employer obtains a background check.
 
He was indicted in 2007 of two charges of aggravated child sexual assault after two young sisters alleged Akhavan had touched them in an indecent manner. Eleven months later, two jury trials were held in the 366th District Court.  The jury voted unanimously to acquit Akhavan on one charge, but were dead-locked on the second charge. Ten jurors voted ‘not guilty.’
 
In this case, the man was charged with the heinous crime of child sexual indecency. He was accused by a very young child, and he denied he committed any crime. There were no other witnesses and no physical evidence. After four years, the State admits it can not obtain a guilty plea. Because the DA does not want to lose a trial, the District Attorney has stated it will not demand a trial. So for the rest of his life this man will be followed around by an allegation, which can not be proven or disproved – nor allowed a trial to seek a verdict.
 
Two years later, the District Attorney dismissed the charges, telling the court that, “it has been determined that the State is unable to make a prima facia case.”
 
In 2009, Akhavan asked the 366th District Court to expunge his criminal record from all police, DA, and courts files. Akhavan told the court that he has always maintained he has never touched the children in a sexual manner, but that the District Attorney will not allow him an opportunity to have a fair trial. He had been able to earn over $345,000 a year, but now that he is ruined he is unable to find suitable employment.
 
The District Attorney's Office under Judge Roach objected at the expunction hearing that there the defendant has no legal right to gain an expunction after being charged. The DA also argued that the complainant has never recanted her testimony, but that the child’s father has not been cooperative in bringing the child to the hearings. The DA’s believes that it is no longer in the best interest of the child to  require her to appear in a trial. But the DA’s office also states it is not interested in seeking a trial that will result in a not guilty verdict.
 
Assistant District Attorney Andrea Westerfield argued the case before Judge Ray Wheless saying, “…case law is very clear that expunction is not an equitable right, it is not a constitutional issue”, but nevertheless, Judge Ray Wheless granted Akhavan's request for expunction.
 
The District Attorney's Office insisted that he does not want the defendant found innocent, nor free of the charges. The DA’s office appealed Judge Wheless’s ruling to the Texas 5th Court of Appeals.
                                                                                                                     
Last week, the Texas 5th Court of Appeals overturned Judge Ray Wheless’ decision. The appeals court's decision reversed and rendered the trial court’s decision,  meaning that the defendant’s expunction was not only denied…but it was final ad infinitum – the accused cannot petition for this relief again. The Appeals Court refused to look at Constitutional issues or listen to arguments of equity (justice). The 5th Appeals Court Justice FitzGerald wrote, “We conclude that Akhavan's constitutional challenge... is not properly before us”, and also wrote, that, “Akhavan’s argument for equitable expunction is not properly before us”.
 
Can an appeals judge write that he is unwilling to seek, “justice”? Not likely. Instead Justice FitzGerald writes the court can not order, “Equity”. The court decided “fairness” is not “justice”.

In law, an expunction for one who has not been convicted is only allowed if the grand jury has made a mistake, or the statute of limits have run out. Akhavan had the burden to prove the error by the grand jury, and the statute of limits has no limit. The appeals court decided that the defendant did not prove a mistake and that there was no statute of limitations, therefore Judge Wheless was overturned.
 
Texas Appellate Courts rarely order justice.
 
This month, the Texas Legislature passed HB 2889.  It has been sent to the Governor, but it has not yet been signed. HB 2889 allows a defendant to seek an expunction when the state dismisses his charges, and if the DA agrees to that expunction. The House voted 141 yes, 1 nay, the Senate also agreed to the bill with a vote of 26 – 5.
 
It is unknown whether a citizen can seek another expunction after it had been earlier denied. Even if the Governor signs the bill, a citizen charged with a crime can not demand a trial nor demand an expunction. A Criminal District Attorney has all the power. Former DA John Roach defended his right to force a citizen to carry an arrest record for life, without a trial.
 
Is an indictment and an arrest record an impediment to a person’s “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”, even if he is never allowed to face his future before a jury of peers?
 
Bill

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

NOTES

• The transcript of the 366th hearing “in re Nader Akhavan”, February 5, 2010
• Brief for Appellee Nader Akhavan
• Amended Appellant’s Brief for the Collin County District Attorney’s Office
• Texas 5th Appeals Court opinion of, Collin County District Attorney’s Office V. Nader Akhavan, May 25, 2011
• Text of HB 2889

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

From a Collin County press release. Flu vaccination includes protection from both H1N1, and influenza A and B:

Collin County

HEALTH CARE ADVISORY: Nov. 30, 2010

Free flu vaccine for children available; adult doses for $10

(McKINNEY, Texas) - Collin County Health Care will be offering free flu vaccinations for children and discounted flu shots for adults during National Influenza Week, Dec. 5-11.

Flu shots will be administered at 825 N. McDonald Street, Suite 130, in McKinney, from 7:30 11 a.m. and 1 to 4 p.m. all week. Adult doses are $10 each, and cash or check is accepted.

The 2010–2011 flu vaccine will protect against an influenza A H3N2 virus, an influenza B virus and the 2009 H1N1 virus (swine flu) that caused so much illness last season.

If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.)

National Influenza Vaccination Week was established to highlight the importance of continuing influenza vaccination, as well as fostering greater use of flu vaccine after the holiday season into January and beyond. The flu is a serious contagious disease that can lead to hospitalization and even death.

Flu-like symptoms include fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some people may also have vomiting and diarrhea. People may be infected with the flu, and have respiratory symptoms without a fever.

People at high risk of serious flu complications include young children, pregnant women, people with chronic health conditions like asthma, diabetes or heart and lung disease and people 65 years and older. Vaccination of high risk persons is especially important to decrease their risk of severe flu illness.

Vaccination also is important for health care workers, and other people who live with or care for high risk people to keep from spreading flu to high risk people.

Children younger than 6 months are at high risk of serious flu illness, but are too young to be vaccinated. People who care for them should be vaccinated instead. For more information regarding the flu please visit http://www.cdc.gov/flu/NIVW/index.htm.

###

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/frisco/stories/111610dnmetexide.2375dc7ae.html

November 16, 2010

By VALERIE WIGGLESWORTH and MATTHEW HAAG /The Dallas Morning News

read this article at DallasNews.com

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/columnists/ehousewright/stories/DN-housecol_14met.ART.Central.Edition1.4b7cd70.html

November 14, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

read this article at DallasNews.com

The City of Frisco issued a press release also released from Exide: Exide will allow all Frisco residents free blood tests for lead.

********************************************

The following information is distributed from the City of Frisco's News and Information service.

********************************************

***The following information has been released by Exide Technologies, Inc.

Blood Lead Testing Now Available for Residents of Frisco, TX

Frisco, TX – (November 4, 2010) – Exide Technologies has announced that testing for blood lead concentration is now available for all residents of the City of Frisco, at no charge. Exide will be responsible for all expenses incurred for the blood draw and testing. Frisco residents interested in the testing must go to the office of Dr. Vicki B. Davis at 8680 East Main Street, Suite 1E, Frisco, TX, phone number: 972-377-2447. The blood testing can be done by appointment or on a walk-in basis. Please note that walk-ins may have to wait for staff availability. Citizens will be asked to confirm their residency prior to the testing. All blood samples will be sent by Dr. Davis to ACL Laboratories for a lead concentration analysis. Results obtained by ACL will be returned to Dr. Davis. She will contact residents to provide and discuss the results and answer any questions.

“We are offering this testing to all residents of the City of Frisco in order to provide peace of mind regarding blood lead levels,” said Don Barar, plant manager for Exide’s Frisco recycling facility. “I encourage any citizen who has a question about blood lead levels to take advantage of this testing.”

For questions regarding the testing, please contact either Dr. Davis or Susan Jaramillo at Exide, (203) 699-9133.

###

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/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

CBS 11TV: Collin County Judge Suspended Following Indictment

Collin County Judge Suzanne H. Wooten has been suspended by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct following her indictment on criminal charges last week.

Wooten and three others are accused of funneling money to her 2008 political campaign in exchange for favorable rulings in her court. There are seven counts of bribery, including Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity.

In a written response to the Commission, Wooten's attorney, Peter Schulte says "Judge Wooten accepts the Commission's decision and has immediately ceased acting in the capacity of Judge of the 380th Judicial District Court."

But supporters of Judge Wooten gathered in a courtroom this morning before the judge arrived. Upon her arrival she as given a standing ovation. Wooten's supporters say the investigation is a political vendetta by the Collin County District Attorney's office that began in the days after her successful campaign for the bench.

"They have their favorites. She's not one of their favorites" says Sharon Curtis, the President of the Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, who organized today's show of support for the judge. "From reading the indictment, it sounds like it has lots of holes" says Curtis.

"And so we're letting her know, and the community know, that people who are kind-of in-the-know, in her court every day, believe in her and don't believe this (the allegations) happened" says Curtis.

Collin County District Attorney John Roach says he forwarded the investigation to the Texas Attorney General's office on July 22, 2010, and he would not comment on the case or the show of support for the judge.

Wooten also would not comment. She has been suspended with pay. Visiting judges will hear cases in the 380th Judicial District Court until the criminal case is resolved.

link to CBS TV 11 an video and article.....

How To Gut Your Own Case: Collin County Clerks Case
Posted on October 18, 2010 by Hunter Biederman

The Short Answer? Admit to doing the exact same thing the people charged did.

I have never had a case where a prosecutor has stood in front of a large group and admitted to driving while intoxicated -- or any other crime for that matter.

But that seems to be exactly what the elected District Attorney in Collin County recently did. No, he did not admit driving while intoxicated, but instead stood in front of the county commissioners and asked for assistance on properly "coding" his Hi-Five Paid Time Off program. A program that on its face seems to be doing the same thing he accuses Six Collin County Clerks of doing. Taking time off from work with the permission of their supervisors, but putting in with the county that they were actually present so they can be paid.

From the Commissioners Agenda below:

The request started off innocently enough. DA John Roach was asking for was a way to change the computer coding of employees time off. Apparently he had already asked HR to do this, but they refused to make the change.

DA Roach explained the program: A supervisor or manager recommends an employee for a certificate that allows some time off. The recommendation is reviewed by manager, division chief and ultimately by me personally (John Roach). The employee "might get an hour off or two hours off "and they must take it within a certain amount of time, usually 30 days. They must get their managers approval, then fill out a scheduling request. That lets us (The DA) know when they’ll take the time off.

Cynthia Jacobson (HR's appointed official) told the Court Commissioners that they only make the change with these programs are approved by the Court. And this program has not been approved by the court.
The meeting then took on a much different tone. The commissioners seemed very disturbed by the elected DA coming up with his own time off compensation program.

One Commissioner asked, "The application should reflect our policies. Do we have policy where people get time off for rewards?" The question seemed rhetorical, because from the way the meeting went, it was clear that no such program exists within the county. There are policies in place that dictate time off, and this isn't one of them.

The commissioners not only refused to change the computer coding, but refused to accept that it was OK for the elected DA to start his own paid time off program.

In response to the District Attorney's statement, "if I have someone doing a really good job, I should have the discretion to reward them for it," the commissioner responded with a resounding, "I disagree."
So if the elected District Attorney feels it is OK to come up with his own paid time off program, why is it not OK for the clerks office to do the same? He charged six clerks with felonies for doing just that.

Here is the major problem I see with the State's case against the clerks. Even if they did exactly what the District Attorney alleges (and they might very well have), do those actions constitute a crime? The clerks supposedly padded their time in the office when they were not actually in the office.
According to the District Attorney paying someone for time off when they are not in the office is legal. But apparently only if they are his employees, not employees of the Clerk's office. Perhaps it is because the clerks didn't first come up with a name as cool as the "High Five" program.

If you would like to view the video, click on the video picture above. You can click on the agenda item below the video to jump to that portion of the commissioner's meeting.

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

link to the blog at the Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog....

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

Bill's note: There is a Texas Attorney General's opinion that may not allow the commissioners to overrule an elected officials' right to manage their offices.

The Texas General Attorney Opinion : Opinion No. GA-0778
Re: Whether a commissioners court may amend the county budget to reduce salaries for the county clerk's office because the clerk closed her office temporarily for a weather-related emergency (RQ-0834-GA)

The Grayson County Clerk had dismissed her employees for a short period of time due to a severe thunderstorm and power outage in the building. The Grayson commissioners would not authorize the country clerk to pay the employees for the time, which could be considered a reduction in the payroll budget. An AG's opinion was requested to resolve the dispute.

In the resulting opinion, the AG states: "Elected county officers have a 'sphere of authority' within which they may manage their offices without interference from the commissioners court." On the other hand, the opinion also notes that, "The commissioners court's budgetary power over the expenses of elected county officers does, however, create some tension with an elected county officer's sphere of authority."

In summary, the AG concluded, "Based on the information provided to us, we believe that a court would likely conclude that the Grayson County Commissioners Court may not transfer funds to reduce the salary line item to deprive the clerk's employees of payment for the time period that the clerk dismissed them due to a thunderstorm and power outage in the county courthouse, because such a reduction would intrude upon the elected county clerk's sphere of authority."

In a similar situation recently, the Collin County Commissioners Court did not approve a request by the District Attorney to pay employee salaries for time off during an emergency situation. The DA let his employees go early - and had his offices locked - during the shooting incident at the nearby McKinney police station, although other county offices remained open.

Based on this AG's opinion, it would seem that he has the authority to make that decision, and calls into question whether or not he and the District Clerk have the authority to authorize time off for other purposes?

Bill

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

The grand jury today indicted Judge Suzanne Wooten.

Judge Wooten was changed with seven counts of "Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity - Bribery."

The grand jury also named three co-defendants "with intent to establish, maintain, and participate in a combination and in the profit of a combination of three or more persons, namely herself, David Cary, Stacy Stine Cary, and James Stephen Spencer, did commit and conspire to commit the felony offense of BRIBERY..."

I am attaching a copy of the Grand Jury Indictment. Co-defendants David and Stacy Cary are alleged to have given $150,000 to a company owned by James Stephen Spencer, who was Wooten' campaign manager.

The Judge and the three co-defendants were changed with a First Class Degree Felony, with Judge Ray Wheless setting a $50,000 personal recognizance bond.

The special prosecutor named by The Texas Attorney General's office in this case, Harry White, was also working with the Collin County DA, John Roach, in grand jury forum shopping for over 2 years.

This author has written more on this grand jury in the forum:

Judge Wooten subpoenas Roach and staff (Updated twice),CCO, September 23,2010

IN RE: Attorney Pro Tem appointment: Judge Wooten fires another salvo, CCO, September 21, 2010

Collin Judge and DA battle it out with dueling special prosecutors, CCO, Sept. 17, 2010

"The DA vs. the Judge" or "In re: Grand Jury Proceedings" (UPDATED), CCO, June 29, 2010

Court releases Willis Grand Jury report, CCO, Jan. 26, 2010

Attorney General objects to Observer's request for Willis Grand Jury Report, CCO, Jan. 25, 2010

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

Bill

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

The Grand Jury Indictment, October 15, 2010
Judge Suzanne Wooten Indicted, Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog, Oct. 15, 2010

Texas judges run in the dark

Editorial Board - Austin American Statesman

As we've noted many times before, Texans zealously cling to their right to elect their judges but would be hard pressed to name even a few of the 18 people who occupy the benches of two highest courts in the state, the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Nonetheless, every two years, judicial candidates ask people for money and votes then cross their fingers. There might be a better way to do this, but until Texas finds it, the state's voters will hand the power to redirect lives and money to people they barely know.

The nine-member Supreme Court is the last stop in the state system for civil disputes, and, as the name implies, the Court of Criminal Appeals is the last word in the state system for criminal cases.

This year, three Supreme Court justices — all Republicans — face challenges from Democrats, and only one of the three justices running for re-election to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals faces a Democratic challenger.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

It is no coincidence that Justice Mike 
Keasler drew a Democratic opponent. Though Keasler, a Republican, who has served two six-year terms, is an amiable enough fellow, he is associated with a faction of the court that never met a conviction it didn't like.

A series of death penalty cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel, allegations of bad science or just plain sloppy police work have been affirmed by the court of appeals. One particularly troublesome case involved Verla Sue Holland, a former member of the Court of Criminal Appeals who, as a state district judge, presided over a capital murder case in which the evidence against the defendant was strong. The problem was not the quality of evidence, though. When long-standing rumors that Holland and the prosecutor in the case had a romantic affair were confirmed, questions arose about how fair the trial was for defendant Charles Dean Hood.

Keasler was part of the Court of Criminal Appeals majority that refused to grant Hood a new trial when the defense claimed that the first one couldn't have been fair given the circumstances. The case drew national attention and a lot of comment about the appeals court standards for a fair trial.

The appeals court finally ordered a new punishment trial for Hood but had to reverse an earlier ruling that had nothing to do with Holland's illicit affair with then-Collin County District Attorney Tom O'Connell Jr.

It isn't the only example of the court's strange notions of justice.

Keasler, 68, shrugs when asked about the cases, saying the law is imperfect sometimes. That attitude might make sense in a strictly academic legal sense to someone, but it is chillingly cavalier when a life is at stake.

Clearly, it is time for new blood on the court, and we recommend Keith Hampton, 49, an Austin lawyer, to inject it. Hampton is a well-respected advocate who was the overwhelming winner in a statewide poll of lawyers. The poll might not mean much outside legal circles, but it speaks volumes because incumbent jurists usually have an advantage in those surveys

It should concern all Texans that the Court of Criminal Appeals has lost respect; the judiciary is the bedrock of a civilized society.

Hampton won't necessarily be able to fix all the court's ills, but we bet that he'll make a pretty good start toward restoring the public's confidence in its court.

Incumbent Justices Lawrence Meyers, and Cheryl Johnson, both Republicans, face Libertarian opponents on the Nov. 2 ballot.

read the rest of this editorial at Statesman.com

DA pulls 100 indictments from Wooten's court, Wooten's attorney says Roach has "lost his mind"

DA pulls 100 indictments from Wooten's court, Wooten's attorney says Roach has "lost his mind"

By Danny Gallagher, StarLocalNews.com/McKinney Courier-Gazette
October 5, 2010

The tension between Collin County District Attorney John Roach and District Judge Suzanne Wooten grew another notch Tuesday when Roach announced he would pull and re-submit over 100 cases from her court.

Roach said in a released statement that he ordered his office to pull and review more than
100 indictments filed in Wooten's court and resubmit them to another Collin County grand jury due to allegations of biased members that Wooten placed on the jury panel and the appointing commissioners.

Roach, who conducted an investigation into Wooten's election practices to the 380th District Court that ousted incumbent Charles Sandoval before handing the case to a special prosecutor from the Texas Attorney General's Office, claimed the questionable indictments were made by a grand jury selected by Wooten.

A separate grand jury approved the appointment of a second special prosecutor to investigate the Collin County DA's office's conduct in launching their investigation against Wooten. Roach's office recused themselves from the investigation after the Texas Attorney General's took over the case.

Roach alleged in a separate statement that Wooten had stacked the grand jury with questionable appointments including the father of her attorney Pete Schulte of Dallas and a former Collin County DA employee "who has had personal and professional conflicts with my office."

Schulte said Wooten did not directly appoint the members of the grand jury. She appointed commissioners to choose jurors from a sealed document.

Roach pulled the indictments when he discovered that an unidentified aunt of Schulte's served as one of the commissioners on the grand jury panel.

"We have also learned at least one of Judge Wooten's grand jurors, who we believe to be acting independently of the 'special prosecutor,'" Roach said, "has personally contacted at least one person to be a witness for Judge Wooten's grand jury."

Schulte rebuked the allegations made by Roach's office as the last act of a desperate man.

"The DA of Collin County has completely lost it," Schulte said. "He's lost his mind."

Schulte said he recommended her aunt to Wooten as a commissioner for the grand jury panel after Wooten asked him if he knew anyone "in Plano who has a lot of time. I thought of my aunt because she's retired."

He called Roach's decision "unprecedented."

"Basically for the DA to decided without any other determination that a grand jury is not lawful is unprecedented and probably illegal," Schulte said. "The fact of the matter is that taking the time to do away with these cases that he's dismissing and re-indicting or resubmitting is obstruction of justice."

The resubmitted cases represent the distrust that Roach and his office have in Wooten's ability to construct a credible and impartial grand jury, Roach said.

"I took these actions because I have profound reservations about the integrity of the entire process in impaneling Judge Wooten's grand jury and its subsequent actions, which also present serious ethical questions," Roach said. "Neither I, not any other citizen of Collin County can have confidence in the composition and operation of Judge Wooten's grand jury. All persons whose cases are presented to a grand jury have a right to expect, without reservations, that their cases will be considered ethically and within the bounds of the law. I am duty bound to see to it."

Schulte denied the allegations that Wooten tried to stack a grand jury with favorable members.

"If Judge Wooten was going to stack a grand jury, she would have put 12 angry lawyers on that grand jury because it takes nine out of 12 jurors to do anything," Schulte said. "This is all a smoke screen because he's scared. He knows the activity that he and his office have done and he knows he could get indicted. He's trying to cast a shadow of doubt because he has no other recourse."

link to article at StarLocalNews.com....

JOHN R. ROACH
CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY

McKinney, TX
October 5, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Collin County DA Orders Review of More Than 100 Indictments, Halts Submission of New Cases

Collin County District Attorney John Roach has ordered the review and re-submission of more than 100 indicted cases to another Collin County grand jury.

The indictments in question were issued by a grand jury selected by Judge Suzanne Wooten. At the time of the grand jury’s selection, Judge Wooten and at least two other persons were being investigated by the DA’s office for allegedly violating campaign election laws and for other alleged criminal conduct. Mr. Roach’s office later recused itself from the investigation, and the Criminal Justice Division of the Texas Attorney General’s Office was appointed by a court to continue the investigation and, if necessary, to prosecute any criminal cases resulting from it. That investigation is still ongoing.

In a statement released by the DA’s office two weeks ago, Mr. Roach announced that the same grand jury selected by Judge Suzanne Wooten had requested and obtained the appointment of a “special prosecutor” to investigate him and/or his assistants.

“Judge Wooten named to her grand jury the father of the attorney who represents her in the criminal case my office was, and the Attorney General is now, investigating.” Roach said. “She also named two grand jurors who are local lawyers, one of whom was dismissed from employment in my office and another who has had personal and professional conflicts with my office. One of those attorneys represents an indicted defendant in a high profile public corruption case my office is currently prosecuting.”

Mr. Roach ordered that all cases indicted by Judge Wooten’s grand jury be reviewed and resubmitted to another grand jury after it was discovered that the aunt of Judge Wooten’s criminal defense attorney (his mother’s sister) was one of the commissioners appointed by Judge Wooten to list the names of prospective grand jurors. Judge Wooten chose from that list when she impaneled her grand jury. Mr. Roach added, “We have also learned at least one of Judge Wooten’s grand jurors, who we believe to be acting independently of the “special prosecutor”, has personally contacted at least one person to be a witness for Judge Wooten’s grand jury.”

At Mr. Roach’s request, an additional grand jury was impaneled on October 1 to review the cases previously heard by Judge Wooten’s grand jury. That new grand jury will also consider all new cases that would otherwise have been heard by Judge Wooten’s grand Jury.

“I took these actions because I have profound reservations about the integrity of the entire process in impaneling Judge Wooten’s grand jury and its subsequent actions, which also present serious ethical questions. Neither I, nor any other citizen of Collin County can have confidence in the composition and operation of Judge Wooten’s grand jury. All persons whose cases are presented to a grand jury have a right to expect, without reservation, that their cases will be considered ethically and within the bounds of the law. I am duty bound to see to it,” Mr. Roach said.

link to PDF of news release....

Nonprofit clinic to treat the poor opens today in West Plano

October 6, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

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

Feud escalates between Collin County District Attorney John Roach, state District Judge Suzanne Wooten

October 5, 2010

By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

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

DMN - Collin DA John Roach, foes ready for his retirement


October 5, 2010

By ED HOUSEWRIGHT /The Dallas Morning News

Collin County District Attorney John Roach says he's looking forward to his retirement at year's end.

Some defense attorneys say they are too. They've become increasingly vocal in criticizing Roach as arrogant, autocratic and demeaning of defense attorneys.

"He doesn't seem to shy away from personally attacking anyone who dares to criticize him," said Mitch Nolte, a former chief felony prosecutor under Roach.

He and other attorneys began speaking out because of Roach's yearlong investigation of state District Judge Suzanne Wooten, who was elected in 2008. The inquiry is believed to involve campaign finance issues. Roach defends the investigation but won't comment on its substance.

"It's a witch hunt, and there's no witch," said Sharon Curtis, president of the Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

Roach has received both criticism and praise in his eight years as district attorney.

He received the Lone Star Prosecutor Award from the Texas District & County Attorneys Association in 2008. The group honored Roach for "his courage and discretion in prosecuting – or choosing not to prosecute – several cases."

Roach's office has won a number of high-profile convictions. Last year, for instance, Raul Cortez was sentenced to death after being convicted of fatally shooting four people during a 2004 McKinney? home burglary. It was the worst mass murder in Collin County history.

Roach, an Air Force veteran, runs his office in a formal, regimented way. He addresses all his employees by "Mr.," "Ms." or "Mrs." Employees call him "Judge Roach" in recognition of his two decades as a district and appellate judge.

Roach requires male prosecutors to wear a suit or sport coat with a tie. Women can't wear "unreasonably short skirts or dresses or sexually provocative clothing," according to a 40-page office manual.

"I have some pretty set ideas about the way things ought to be," Roach acknowledges.

He has often riled county commissioners who set his office budget.

For instance, commissioners opposed his plan in January to spend $25,000 on high-powered rifles, shotguns, helmets and shields to equip a courthouse security team consisted of his investigators.

The money would have come from an asset forfeiture fund that Roach alone controls.

"It's my money," Roach said at the time. "I can spend it for anything my office requires, in my opinion."

Roach, 64, staunchly defends some policies that defense attorneys attack. For instance, he won't allow some defendants to plead guilty before a judge. Instead, Roach insists on trying the case.

"We're hard-nosed prosecutors," Roach said. "A lot of defense attorneys, not just here, want a DA who will roll over for them."

The repartee between Roach and defense attorneys won't last much longer. He decided not to seek re-election in the spring primary and his last day in office will be Dec. 31. In November, voters will decide his successor: Republican Greg Willis or Democrat Rafael De La Garza.

Roach plans to pursue his hobbies of swimming, scuba diving, skiing and firearm sports.

He won't rule out another run for public office, although he has no job in mind.

"Nobody holding office currently needs to be quaking in their boots," Roach said.

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

Trial of district clerk supervisors to move

October 5, 2010

ED HOUSEWRIGHT/The Dallas Morning News

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

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

Attorneys for embattled District Court Judge Suzanne Wooten filed a motion in Judge Mark Rusch's District Court asking that Judge Rusch either disclose his appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate Judge Wooten by filing his appointment with the District Clerk or confirm that he made no such appointment.

The filing, titled: "MOTION TO FILE AND PRODUCE ORDER APPOINTING ATTORNEY PRO TEM AND RELATED DISQUALIFICATION DOCUMENTS" was filed Monday evening and assigned case number 401-03911-2010.

In the motion, which the Collin County Observer has seen and read, but does not yet have a copy to post here, Wooten's attorney, Peter Schulte lists a series of actions he and Judge Wooten have undertaken to try and find out if there were charges going to be filed against her and if so by whom.

In his motion, Schulte writes:

"It has now long been speculated and now confirmed by John R. Roach, Sr., District Attorney of Collin County, Texas, that Movant [Wooten] has been under investigation related to alleged violations of unnamed "campaign election laws" by the DA's office and by members of the Texas Attorney General's Office..."

"After a Hearing held on June 30, 2010, Judge Ray Wheless agreed that the Assistant Attorney General Harry E. White illegally tried to re-assemble a grand jury on his own without permission from the Court. In essence, White broke the law..."

"In addition, it was learned that White was evidently deputized as an Assistant District Attorney for the Collin County District Attorney's Office and was not acting as an "Attorney Pro Tem..."

"On September 12, 2010, Movant's attorney Peter A. Schulte filed a Public Information Act (PIA) Request with the Collin County District Clerk's Office requesting 'Any and all documents, records, memorandum, or Court Orders...currently in the possession of any member of Collin County District Clerk's Office appointing any member of the Texas Attorney General's Office an Attorney Pro Tem, or Special Prosecutor on any matter from March 4, 2008 to the date of this request.'..."

"On Thursday, September 16, 2010, John R. Roach, Sr. released a press release regarding an alleged "Attorney Pro Tem" appointment that had been made to investigate Roach or members of his office... This press release was released to the entire DA's office at 9:57am. The "Attorney Pro Tem" order referenced in this Press Release was not filed with the District Clerk until 1O:27am, exactly 30 minutes after this press release was issued..."

"In addition, Roach states in his press release that his 'office and the Attorney General of Texas have been investigating Judge Wooten, as she [sic] has publicly stated many times, and two other persons for allegedly violating campaign election laws and other alleged criminal conduct when she ran for election as [sic] as district judge in 2008.' The press release continues, 'My office has since recused itself from the investigation, as is appropriate in these circumstances, and the Criminal Justice Division of the Texas Attorney General's Office has
been appointed by a court to continue to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute any case against Judge Wooten and others as the law and the facts may dictate.'"

On Monday, September 20, 2010, Movant's attorney Peter A. Schulte spoke with Hon. Hannah Kunkle, District Clerk of Collin County, Texas, who communicated to Mr. Schulte that after a due diligence search no Attorney Pro Tem Order exists in relation to the investigation currently being conducted of the Movant."

And then the zinger:

"It has been discovered by Movant that the Honorable Judge of this Court may have signed an Order appointing an "Attorney Pro Tem" at some time in the recent past, but such Order has not been filed with the Collin County District Clerk's Office as required by law."

"This motion respectfully requests that Judge Rusch file any such order and to produce a copy of such Order to Movant's attorney, or in the alternative, confirm to Movant that such an Order does not exist."

As has been reported in The Collin County Observer, DA John Roach has investigated Judge Wooten for almost years. Several Grand Juries have heard testimony, but none have voted on a bill of indictment.

A simultaneous investigation by Roach against Judge Greg Willis (now the Republican candidate for DA) resulted in a 'no bill' and an exoneration by the grand jury.

Judge Rusch has not set a date for a hearing on the motion.

Bill

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

Collin County Observer coverage of the DA vs the Judge:

• Collin Judge and DA battle it out with dueling special prosecutors, CCO, Sept. 17, 2010
  
  
• "The DA vs. the Judge" or "In re: Grand Jury Proceedings" (UPDATED), CCO, June 29, 2010
  
  
• Court releases Willis Grand Jury report, CCO, Jan. 26, 2010
  
  
• Attorney General objects to Observer's request for Willis Grand Jury Report, CCO, Jan. 25, 2010
  
  
• Two local judges targets of grand jury investigations, CCO, Nov. 19, 2009
  
  

Last week, the Collin County Auditor sent the County Commissioners a report detailing $2,600 missing from Justice of the Peace Johnny Lewis' court.

The audit, which was conducted beginning on May 10th, uncovered several instances of 'missing' bank deposits. According to Judge Lewis' response to the Auditor, the incidents were 'referred to investigation'.

The Auditor's report details an almost comedic incompetence in the management of the Plano JP's office. During the audit, checks were found in a file on a shelf and in a receipt book. Money was left in a "red tote bag on the floor". Bank deposits, which are supposed to be made daily were almost alway made late - 20 days late in one case.

Escrow funds were deposited in the wrong account. Money bags were left unsecured, and bank account reconciliations were routinely not done.

From the auditors account of an on-site audit on June 8:

"Upon our request to review funds collected from previous days that were not deposited into the bank account:
a. The office administrator pulled the corresponding reports, funds and deposit bags from a red tote bag that was located on the floor beside her desk. The funds were not secured in the safe.
b. A deposit from June 2, 2010, in the amount of $2039 was on hand and not deposited; the cash total for that day was $638. $586 of the $638 received for that day was unaccounted for. The office administrator immediately stated that the cash was missing.
c. A deposit from June 4, 2010 in the amount of $821 was not deposited into the bank and the money and reports for that date could not be found. The total cash money received for that date was $720. The office administrator stated that she has no idea where the report or the money is for that date. The office administrator searched her desk, surrounding file cabinets, the safe, the office of Judge Lewis, and the desk of the back-up clerk who also makes deposits.
d.During the aforementioned search, a money order in the amount of $108.40 was found in a case file located on a shelf behind the office administrator. The money order was dated May 29, 2009. The total funds missing from the items described above consists of $1306 in cash and a $101 check.
"

"During the course of the audit the following discrepancy was identified:
a. On February 16th, 2010, funds were receipted totaling $8515. This consisted of $5277 in cash money, $1394 in check/money orders, and $1844 in credit card payments. $4000 of the $5277 was deposited into the escrow account on March8, 2010; fourteen business days after the funds were received. $1471 of the $5277 was deposited into the General Bank Account on March 8, 2010. This consisted of $77 cash and $1394 in checks/money orders. The remaining $1200 of the $5277 was not included on the deposit slip as part of the deposit. The $1200 was not located on the bank statements or in the office. As of June 8, 2010, $1200 cash is missing; the detail consists of sixteen cash receipts issued on February 16th, 2010. The total funds missing from the item described above is $1200 cash."

The report went on to note:

"During the course of the audit the following discrepancies were identified with receipts issued during the period under review:
a. Funds received and receipted are not being deposited by the next business day. Bank records show that funds are being deposited late. There were 234 working days for the period under review and 190 days (81%) were reviewed. Late deposits were identified on 170 of the 190 days reviewed; approximately 89% of the deposits were late. The lateness ranged from 3 days to 20 days late.
b.An observation of the daily close-out process of the office was conducted on May25 and May26 , 2010. The office administrator was observed placing the deposit from the previous day in an unlocked drawer in the front counter area until the armored car pickup was made for the day. The office administrator was immediately informed to place the funds in a secured location, such as the safe, until the deposit is picked up.
c. On December 9, 2009, $170 in cash was receipted but not deposited into the bank. When brought to the attention of the office administrator on May 13, 2010, she stated she would need to research the matter. Later that day, she stated that she found the money in the case file that was inside the safe. The money was then deposited into the bank account.
d. On May 25, 2010 a check in the amount of $108, attached to the yellow copy of the manual receipt, was found in the manual receipt book. The check was not deposited into the bank. On May 25, 2010 a letter was sent to the customer stating that a new payment was needed to be made. The AS400 system shows this payment as outstanding...."

The auditor's report then goes on to document other problems with cash handling, including not reconciling bank statements and depositing funds to the wrong accounts. The report notes that previous audits have shown that bank statements for the last two years have not been reconciled regularly.

Judge Lewis responded that he had taken steps to correct the deficiencies in his office, and that the missing funds were being investigated.

The Commissioners Court is scheduled to discuss the audit result at next Monday's court session in Melissa.

Bill

Link: The 2010 audit report of Justice of the Peace Court 3-1

The Collin County Observer has learned that Novaline Varner who is the District Attorney's Chief Investigator will retire on October 1, two months before DA John Roach's term ends.

Emails sent to Chief Varner are returned with the note, "Effective October 01, 2010 I will no longer be with the Collin County District Attorney's Office. Deputy Chief Chad Smith will assume my responsibilities along with his current duties. I have enjoyed my twenty-six years serving the citizens of Collin County, but look forward to my retirement. God Bless."

Chief Varner has led the District Attorney's Investigations Division since 2002. She started and led the county's "Cold Case" team which has been responsible for solving several old murder cases. More recently, Chief Varner found herself in the hot seat in defending the DA's proposed purchase of automatic weapons for a DA investigator's "Quick Response" team for courthouse security.

Chief Varner began her career in Collin County in 1984 as a jailer in the Sheriff's department. In 1989 she became the bailiff in then District Judge John Roach, Sr.'s 199th District Court.

In 2002, newly elected District Attorney John Roach appointed her the Chief of his Investigations Division.

I believe Chief Varner is the first of DA Roach's senior staff members who has announced they will be leaving the DA's Office before the new DA takes office on January 1. Republican Greg Willis and Democrat Rafael De La Garza will be on the November ballot seeking the District Attorney position.

Bill

Scott Becker Appointed to the 219th District Court

Posted on September 15, 2010 by Hunter Biederman
Frisco DWI Lawyer and Attorney Blog

Congratulations to Scott Becker on his appointment to the 219th District Court in Collin County. The appointment was announced on the Governor's website today.

Mr. Becker won the Republican Primary election and was set to take office (no democratic opponent) on January 1, 2011. However, current sitting Judge Henderson recently announced his retirement. Most people around the courthouse assumed he would be appointed to the bench, but until today nothing was official.

Mr. Becker's appointment is to begin on October 5, 2010, and expire at the end of the term January 1, 2011 (when he will become the elected Judge).

Mr. Becker is an assistant district attorney in the Collin County District Attorney’s Office. He is a member of the State Bar of Texas, Collin County Bar Association and Collin County Young Lawyers Association. Becker received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas and a law degree from Southern Methodist University School of Law.

The Collin County District Clerk's office began laying employees off today.

Reports I've heard is that 3 people, including at least one at the passport office were informed that their jobs would be going away.

Hannah Kunkle

None of the mid-level clerks let go today have been charged with any crimes - they were simply expendable.

However for the six who were indicted in July for theft by a public servant and falsifying government documents... their jobs appear to be quite safe.

On Monday, the Commissioners Court passed the fiscal year 2011 budget. The new budget called for the elimination of 3 mid-level Clerk 2 positions and one mid-level Passport Office clerk position. Today's lay-off actions by lame duck District Clerk Hannah Kunkle appear to be the result of the budget cuts.

The court approved the reduced staffing in the District Clerk's office after Texas Rangers raided the courthouse and a grand jury indicted Patricia Crigger, the new District Clerk- elect, and 5 deputy clerks for falsifying dozens of time sheets granting at least 160 days paid time-off to 20 Crigger campaign workers.

Bill

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

Fusing Fear and Data

August 25, 2010
PETER GORMAN / Fort Worth Weekly

In December 2008, State Rep. Lon Burnam had a one-car accident. The Fort Worth Democrat didn’t even get a ticket. Nonetheless, Burnam is convinced that the accident report was passed from local police to who knows what local, state, and federal agencies, via the Collin County North Central Texas Fusion System.

You may have thought fusion these days had mostly to do with cross-cultural cuisine, but in this case the Collin County fusion system is a “remotely accessed data-sharing and analysis system” that involves more than 170 agencies in 16 counties, including Tarrant and Dallas. It’s meant to provide policing agencies, the FBI, Homeland Security, first responders, and health providers with a wealth of information at the touch of a computer keyboard.

According to advocates, such information-sharing systems allow police to do a better job of tracking and apprehending dangerous criminals by giving them information covering a broad area rather than just their own backyard.

But critics aren’t sure that putting that much information — including some that has nothing to do with criminal activity — into the hands of law enforcement is really a good thing. They fear it will lead to racial profiling, the targeting of perfectly legal groups, and even harassment of individuals. One major concern is that information from various sources will be sent up the line to federal agencies, which will use it to target undocumented residents for deportation — and that the result will be a wedge driven between Latino communities and local police.

“When that happens, people often won’t even report criminal activity or come forward as witnesses to criminal activity,” said Aerin Toussaint, a policy analyst with Texas Impact, a grassroots network that includes Christian, Jewish, and Muslim individuals and institutions. The group works for public policies that enhance freedom and justice.

“I am tremendously concerned about the potential violation of privacy” with fusion systems, Burnam told Fort Worth Weekly. “I have been trying through the Open Records Act to discover what they have gathered on me. I know they gathered something in the context of my having been the director of the Dallas Peace Center for 10 years. And I want to know what it is.”

Fusion centers were started in 2004 as part of the post-9/11 anti-terrorist backlash. They are funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which developed the idea of creating multi-jurisdictional agencies that would share information in order to track and prevent terrorist and criminal activity. However, the federal government offered no strict guidelines on how the centers would be run, leaving that up to the local jurisdictions.

The first such center in Texas was opened in 2004 by the Department of Public Safety’s Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division. Since then several others have been created, including the one in Collin County that covers North Texas. All the participating agencies supply data to that “bank.” Dallas, which has its own center, provides only limited information to the Collin County center.

The result thus far has been the creation of overlapping data centers with different missions, each run independently — and some taking the kind of actions that civil libertarians have feared all along.

The Collin County fusion center, for instance, sent out a “prevention awareness bulletin” in February 2009, ordering law enforcement authorities to report on all civil rights meetings involving Muslims and to gather and pass along information on any anti-war groups in the 16-county jurisdiction. The ability to “order” local jurisdictions to supply information comes from the center’s federal mandate.

It turned out that the bulletin was not authorized by the Collin County head of Homeland Security, but was sent out by a computer worker in the center. [Bill notes: actually the 'computer worker' was Dr. bob Johnson, the prime contractor to the Fusion Center and the son of Congressman Sam Johnson]

In the months that followed, everyone from the ACLU to religious groups objected to it. In the wake of the scandal, center officials center limited the scope of their data collecting — but many of the agencies in its jurisdiction continued to pass along the information demanded.

“This memo is not a plea for legitimate intelligence, and seems to endorse discrimination against Muslims,” Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, said in a press release. “The idea that the tolerance advocated by the groups being targeted would be treated as a menace to American security demonstrates a disregard for civil liberties and a disdain for democracy itself.”

The Collin County fusion system hasn’t released another such bulletin since then.

According to Lt. Todd Thomasson of the Dallas Police Department, commander of that city’s fusion center, other centers have “passed out documents that suggest that if a person has a certain bumper sticker they might be a terrorist and other misleading things.” But he said the Dallas City Fusion Center — officially called Metro Operations Support and Analytical Intelligence Center, or MOSAIC — does not participate in that sort of grab-bag information gathering.

“Dallas is part of the NCTFS, but our center only provides the Collin County fusion center with information related to criminal activity,” he said. “A lot of fusion centers around the country are multi-agency. We’re not. We are a tactical fusion center, focused on crime. We share information as it relates to criminal activity and nothing else.”

Thomasson said that while his staff has the ability to gather data from the NCTFS, neither the Collin County center nor any other agency can look into the Dallas center’s computers. “Other agencies can call us for information, but there would have to be a criminal predicate before we would release information,” he said.

Asked whether he had run into any issues with the Dallas Hispanic community, so easily targeted because of the number of undocumented aliens, he said, “We view that as strictly a federal issue.”

The Fort Worth Police Department did not respond by deadline to questions about what information they pass along to the Collin County center.

Hector Carrillo, civil rights chair of the Fort Worth LULAC chapter, said, “We have not seen any upheaval with regard to the Fort Worth Latin community from the Collin County fusion program. Yet.”

“The reason that one fusion center might target a specific race or group of people and another won’t is that different fusion centers have different missions,” said Bill Baumbach, a printing company manager and reporter who writes for D Magazine’s FrontBurner blog and runs his own blog, the Collin County Observer. “They all have the same basic concept, which is to take information from different databases to make them relational. But what data they choose to collect and what data they send on to the FBI and Homeland Security is where they differ. The Department of Public Safety’s Texas Fusion System in Austin is one of the most frightening.”

The Texas Fusion Center shares information with the Texas prison system, Homeland Security, federal treasury and immigration agencies, the Air and Army National Guard, and a host of other police and non-police agencies.

Baumbach said the DPS center also collects personal information every time a police officer talks with someone, including drivers who are pulled over and issued nothing beyond a warning. “That is gathering information on people who were not only not convicted of a crime — they weren’t even charged with one. That’s very frightening to me,” he said.

“Think of what can go into those databases. The Collin County Sheriff’s Department has bought handheld license plate scanners, and they walk around certain parking lots recording those plates. And that information is fed into the fusion center. The question is, should the government collect that information — where your car was at 3 p.m. yesterday, for instance? I don’t think so. But these fusion databases have escaped scrutiny because they wave the flag of national security.”

Because there is so little federal oversight, he said, “They’re all mavericks. You can have a good one in Dallas but one that overreaches in Collin County and affects millions of people.”

Many groups have been calling for oversight and transparency regarding the centers, almost since they began operating in 2004. In a 2009 press release, the ACLU noted that it had predicted that the “complete lack of oversight over [fusion centers’] activity would lead to violations” of civil rights.

Part of the problem, Baumbach said, is that the Collin County fusion center’s top official reports to the county administrator, who is ultimately responsible to the county commissioners. “Are the county commissioners capable and willing to set constitutionally acceptable espionage-gathering guidelines? I don’t think so.”

read the rest of this article at Fort Worth Weekly....

Collin County Observer subpoenaed

Rebecca Littrell

Deric Walpole, the attorney for indicted deputy county district clerk Rebecca Littrell has issued "Subpoenas Duces Tecum" to local reporters including me.

A "Subpoenas Duces Tecum" requires the recipient to both appear in court and to bring with him named papers or documents. I have been ordered to appear before the 401st District Court on August 25 and to bring "articles regarding Rebecca Littrell... including but not limited to 'Blog' posts and responses".

The subpoena was signed by Sylvia Greer, a deputy district clerk who was mentioned in filings in this case as having been awarded at least 2 days "Blue Book" time off during the six months the Texas Rangers have investigated. Ms. Greer has not been charged with any crime.

The Collin County Observer will likely file a motion to quash the subpoena.

click on picture to download

In any event, I plan to attend the hearing, report on them, and while at the courthouse obtain more court documents that we will publish on the Observer.

As previously reported here, the August 25th hearing will be the "1st Appearance" hearing. All six defendants are expected to be required to appear. The judge will also hear arguments on several defense motions.

Two of those motions, filed by Deric Walpole, seek to restrict publicity of the trial.

The Collin County Observer believes that official corruption trials are the public's business, and we will continue to do our utmost to insure that the citizens are informed of the progress of these trials.

Also receiving Subpoenas Duces Tecum in this case were Ed Houseright of The Dallas Morning News and Danny Gallagher of the McKinney Courier-Gazette.

After The Texas Rangers raided the Collin County courthouse, Rebecca Littrell, along with 5 others in the District Clerk's office, were indicted for "Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity", including counts of "Theft by a Public Official" and "Falsifying Official Documents". They are accused of falsifying time records to grant hundreds of hours of paid time off to district clerk employees - much of it to recompense the employees time off working for the Patricia Crigger campaign.

Ms. Crigger, who was also indicted, is the District Clerk elect, and is scheduled to take office on January 1, 2011. A felony conviction would make her ineligible to hold the office.

Bill

Local reporters subpoenaed in district clerk case

August 19, 2010 6:05 PM CDT
McKinney Courier-Gazette

McKinney Courier-Gazette reporter Danny Gallagher has been subpoenaed by the defense in the case of Rebecca Littrell, one of the district clerk employees indicted for engaging in organized criminal activity.

The subpoena, which he received Thursday, instructs Gallagher to bring all articles he has written on Littrell and report to the 401st District Court on August 25.

Ed Housewright of the Dallas Morning News and Bill Baumbach of the Collin County Observer have also been subpoenaed.

link to this article at the McKinney Courier-Gazette....

13,000 pages of evidence filed in case against Collin County District Clerk supervisors


August 15, 2010
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT / The Dallas Morning News

Collin County prosecutors have filed a barrage of evidence – more than 13,000 pages – in their case against six district clerk supervisors indicted on felony charges of engaging in organized criminal activity.

"They're making a statement that they've got the goods."
Defense attorney Mitch Nolte

"The whole thing is kind of sad. You've got a bunch of grandmothers who have never been in trouble a day in their lives."
George Milner III, defense attorney for Lorrie Robertson

Patricia Crigger

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

Over the last few weeks, Plano, Frisco, Allen, McKinney and now Dallas have banned the sale of K-2 or "Spice", which has been billed by internet sites and the press as a marijuana substitute, or synthetic marijuana.

A March Newsweek article pointed out that, "Although the federal Drug Enforcement Agency has listed K2 as a "drug or chemical of concern," it isn't officially 'scheduled,' and that makes it legal."

The Newsweek article goes on to state:

"Is JWH-018 [K-2] dangerous? No one really knows. There's not a lot of research on what it does to mice and almost nothing on what it does to humans. Its effects shouldn't be that different from marijuana's, but then, we could argue all day about how dangerous marijuana is."

But as USA Today noted, "Clemson University chemist John Huffman, a research professor whose graduate students synthesized the substance in his lab 15 years ago, says the chemical may be harmful. 'It shouldn't be out there,' he says."

The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction released a paper last year, "Understanding the Spice Phenomenon", which seems to be the most detailed study of K-2 that I've been able to find. The EMCDDA explains:

"So far, little is known about metabolism and toxicology of the synthetic cannabinoid compounds. It cannot be assumed that the risks associated with the use of synthetic cannabinoids will be necessarily comparable to those seen with THC, and indeed there are some reasons for concerns that these drugs may have a greater potential to cause harm. Because the synthetic cannabinoids in the ‘Spice’ products have only been tested in the laboratory (in vitro or in animals), the health risk of the inhaled smoke is unknown. In the case of JWH-018, it can be speculated that, due to structural features, there may be a certain carcinogenic potential. Furthermore, accidental overdosing with a risk of severe psychiatric complications may be more likely to occur because the type and amount of cannabinoid may vary considerably from batch to batch even within the same product."

..."What is clear is that further studies are needed to assess these risks reliably."

With or without the science, Sen Florence Shapiro has promised to carry a bill banning K-2 in the next Texas Legislature.

The Dallas Morning New's editorial writer Todd Robberson wrote an article yesterday where he decries the passage of laws prohibiting K-2 without any scientific evidence that it is harmful. Also yesterday, the Morning News editorialized on the issue, calling the Dallas ban on K-2 "premature".

The News summed up its position by stating:

"By all means, let's address the dangers where they truly exist. But before instituting broad-brush bans, we should be guided by science and statistical evidence, not emotions."

The lack of action by the federal and state governments is the crux of the dilemma facing our local municipalities.

The regulation of drugs is usually accomplished at the state and federal levels. But neither the state nor Washington has acted, leaving local officials scrambling to protect their citizens. Data or no data, local elected officials are simply trying to respond to the fears of their constituents.

The lack of any real pharmacological data only heightens the fear and lends it more justification.

Bill

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

City Council's K-2 ban not well considered
August 11, 2010 | Tod Robberson / Editorial Writer
The Dallas Morning News Opinion Blog

I wish actual science had been used in today's City Council debate regarding K-2 and other cannabinoid substances that head shops are currently selling as an alternative to marijuana. Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway made an impassioned plea for approval of the ban that he and Mayor Tom Leppert proposed, arguing that K-2 poses a danger to children as the latest thrill-seeking way to evade marijuana prohibitions. He likened the danger to "cheese," as if heroin and pot are equivalent in terms of what they do to abusers physically.

The only voice of sanity in this debate was that of Councilwoman Angela Hunt, who calmly asked the city attorney and police chief for statistics about hospitalizations or deaths related to the use of K-2. The answer came back: none, save for one instance in which K-2 was one of many drugs used by a guy who also ingested PCP. Then Hunt asked about calls to poison control related to K-2. Statewide, there had been 119 calls and 6 in Dallas, City Attorney Tom Perkins stated. When asked about hospitalizations, deaths and calls to poison control related to alcohol, it was obvious that they far exceed those related to K-2.

So Hunt suggested amending the ban so it didn't go further than the ban on alcohol sales: if you're under 21, you can't buy it, possess it or use it. She also suggested waiting until either the state or federal governments had passed bans, reasoning that it didn't make sense for the city to pass a ban that is meaningless if you take two steps beyond the city limits into a jurisdiction where it remains legal. No luck.

With Hunt as the only dissenter, the cannabinoid ban passed. The worst that the Food and Drug Administration can say about K-2 is that it has not been approved for consumption. That's a far cry from declaring it "dangerous" as Caraway did. I'd like to see some real science on this. Plus, it's worth considering that there are probably a thousand cannabinoid derivatives, of which K-2 is one. Does the City Council propose to enact a ban each time a new product emerges containing one of these other derivatives?

Legal or not, I won't be trying K-2. But I really would prefer that such laws be based on actual scientific evidence of harm rather than anecdotal evidence and highly emotional appeals.

Link to this article at the Opinion Blog of The Dallas Morning News....

Judge John Ovard of the First Judicial Administrative Region has appointed Dallas retired District Judge John Nelms to preside over all six district clerkgate cases.

Two weeks ago, a Grand Jury indicted incoming District Clerk Patricia Crigger and 5 other deputy district clerks for theft and engaging in an organized criminal activity. They are charged with falsifying time records to reward clerks for their working on the Crigger campaign.

Judge Nelms is no stranger to public corruption cases. Some readers may remember that Nelms, a Republican, heard the theft trial against Rockwall County District Attorney Ray Sumrow.

Nelms sentenced Sumrow to 4 years in prison in the 2008 case where the Collin County District Attorney's office acted as special prosecutor.

A Dallas Morning News article written after the trial, quoted the judge, "Judge Nelms said he hoped the case would send a message that those holding elective office cannot be 'tempted to feed themselves at the public trough.'

'A public official, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion,' he said."

Judge Nelms also heard motions in Charles Dean Hood's attempts to get a new trial after being convicted of capital murder in a case heard by a Collin County Judge and DA who had been secret lovers. Nelms was assigned to the Hood case after Collin County judges removed themselves.

In July of last year, Judge Nelms presided over the trial of John Barry, sentencing him to 25 years for orchestrating mortgage fraud schemes in McKinney.

More recently, Judge Nelms presided over the trials of Alfred and Abneris Santiago, the Dallas couple who were convicted of starving thier children in a motel bathroom.

Judge Nelms is a graduate of Highland Park High School, Texas A & M, and the UT Law School. He retired from the Dallas 195th District Court in 2006.

All six defendants are due in court on August 25th for a "First Appearance Hearing".

Derek Walpole, who is defending accused deputy district clerk Rebecca Littrell filed a flurry of motions in court today, including requests to divulge the names of the informers who blew the whistle to the Texas Rangers, for grand jury testimony, and to restrict publicity.

No rulings on any of the 9 motions have been issued yet.

Bill

Pogue Construction founder faces sentencing in late August

By Danny Gallagher / The McKinney Courier-Gazette
August 12, 2010

The former president and found a major McKinney construction company will face sentencing for his federal tax charges later this month.

Paul Pogue is scheduled to enter the sentencing phase of his federal criminal trial on Aug. 27 in the U.S. Eastern District of Texas court, according to federal court records. Pogue accepted a plea deal and entered a guilty plea in the U.S. Eastern District of Texas court on a federal felony violation of making and subscribing a false tax return back in February. Pogue admitted that he "willfully made and subscribed a U.S. individual income tax return form...for calendar year 2003" that reflected his taxable income by a lesser margin of approximately $1 million, according to court documents.

His 1040 reflected he earned taxable income of $4,594,052 for his work as a consultant for a construction firm, but investigators discovered he actually earned $5,588,249 in the span of the calendar year.

He then submitted two additional fraudulent tax returns in 2005 and 2006 that also contained significant deductions of actual taxable income. His 2004 return only reflected earnings of $3,111,715 when he actually earned $3,686,784 and his 2005 return only reported $2,908,235 when he knowingly earned $3,030,684.

Internal Revenue Service investigators said these fraudulent returns cost a tax loss of $473,680, according to a finding of fact document filed with the court.

Pogue entered a guilty plea last Thursday. A sentencing date has not yet been set.

Pogue faces a possible sentence of up to three years in a federal prison and a possible fine not to exceed $250,000 or "not more than the greater of twice the gross gain to the defendant or twice the gross loss of any victim," according to the notice of penalty.

Pogue helped found and served as president and chief executive officer of Pogue Construction, a McKinney based construction firm that has designed and built numerous local projects with the city of McKinney and the McKinney Independent School District including the McKinney Public Safety Building on Taylor-Burk Drive and several fire stations for the McKinney Fire Department, the McKinney ISD administration building and several McKinney ISD schools.

link to this article at The McKinney Courier-Gazette.....

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

Plano employees file suit; seek break, overtime pay

By Jon Vanderlaan / The Plano Star-Courier
August 9, 2010

Six Plano employees have filed a class-action lawsuit against the city seeking lunch break pay and overtime pay because of the work they had to do during those times.

According to the complaint filed July 27, the employees were promised pay during lunch breaks while they also monitored the radio for relevant calls. They also were promised overtime pay during on-call hours.

Billy Horton, Robert Morris, Robert Prunty, Alan Spurgin, David Ratcliff and Sam Bigham are the named plaintiffs in the case, which is presented on behalf of others in the same situation.

In the court filing, the plaintiffs argue they should be paid for breaks and on-call time because they must continuously listen for messages and adhere to company policy during the time.

It also alleged that employees were not paid for overtime work.

The city has since instituted a policy that pays its employees for such time, but has not compensated employees for past work, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs allege that the practices violated the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

“Plano showed reckless disregard for the fact that its failure to pay workers overtime compensation and minimum wages was in violation of these laws,” according to the lawsuit.

Even if the court does not grant full payment for breaks, the lawsuit requests payment for the time employees spent on their radios or doing work resulting from a radio call.

According to the document, the plaintiffs are bringing suit against the city for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, common law debt and the Texas Payday Act.

They are seeking unpaid wages, attorney fees, costs and interest.

read the rest of this article at The Plano Star-Courier.....

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....

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities - Panel Discussion

Tuesday, August 3rd – 7pm
Collin College McKinney Conference Center
2200 W. University Drive McKinney TX 75070

On Tuesday night, August 3rd at 7 pm, The Healthcare Committee of Collin County will host a Panel Discussion on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. This Educational Forum will provide some of the latest information and services for those needing support with Autism Spectrum Disorders (including Asperger’s Syndrome), intellectual disabilities and related conditions.

The panel includes:

• Gary Moore - President and Co-founder, nonPareil Institute
• Clay Boatright - President, ARC of Dallas and Vice President, ARC of Texas
• Nagla Moussa - President, Collin County Chapter of the National Autism Association (formerly Autism Society of Collin County)
• Charmaine Solomon - Chairman of the Board and Co-founder, My Possibilities
• Randy Routon - President, LifePath? Systems, MR Authority in Collin County

The Healthcare Committee of Collin County (HCCC) is a nonpartisan grassroots organization focused on ensuring access to quality healthcare for all residents in Collin County. Anyone with concerns about healthcare in this community is welcome to join and learn more about what services are available in Collin County and where we need to advocate for more.

This is the, I believe 4th in a series of panel discussions on the healthcare needs of Collin County residents. Previous discussions have focused on mental healthcare, mental illness in Collin County jails, and the role/future of the non-profit indigent clinics in the county. These discussions have all been very informative and have been well attended.

All meetings and presentations of the HCCC are free and open to the public.

Bill

Full disclosure: I am a member of the Leadership Team of the HCCC.

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

Last week, the District Judges, the County Auditor and the Purchasing agent presented 10 proposals to lower the fiscal year 2011 budget.

Proposal #3 was:

"Utilize the District Attorney's Office for Legal Advice-In FY2010 our budget line item for legal advice is $800,000. By hiring one or two attorneys in the DA's Office or, better yet, a restructuring of that office would allow the DA's Office to handle everyday legal matters for the county. Savings: $500,000."

Some members of the Commissioners Court noted that the next elected District Attorney would have to agree with the idea before the court could act on it. So The Collin County Observer asked Greg Willis, the Republican nominee and Ralph de la Garza, the Democratic nominee their position.

Specifically we asked both candidates:

"If elected, would you be willing to serve as the County’s attorney in civil matters? Would you support the concept of moving routine county legal business “in house”?"

I am pleased that both candidates replied with thoughtful comments. Below are their complete and unedited responses. (in alphabetical order)

Rafael de la Garza II, Democratic nominee for Collin County Criminal District Attorney --

"Last week, you posed a question "if elected, would you be willing to serve as the County's Attorney in Civil matter"? "Would you support the concept of moving routine legal business in house"?

"To both questions, the answer is Yes.

"We need to keep up with the times and it is now time to have a real Civil Division in the Collin County D.A.'s office to handle Advisory opinions, Tort Claims, "1983" issues, Asset Forfeiture and Bond Forfeiture issues. Collin County D.A.'s office would need at a minimum of two attorneys and one support staff. This could save the County as much as $500k per year. However, from time to time, outside counsel may still be needed to handle complex cases for which we do not have the expertize and areas where we have a conflict."

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

Greg Willis, Republican nominee for Collin County Criminal District Attorney --

"Generally speaking, yes to both questions.

"A couple of reasons come to mind. First, Texas law provides that the DA represent the county in court as well as render advice to county officials upon request. Second, it could potentially save taxpayer money.

"As to the first reason, Texas law requires that “the criminal district attorney of Collin County . . . . [s]hall represent the state in all criminal and civil cases in the courts in the county unless otherwise provided by law.” Tex. Gov’t Code 44.143(a). The law also vests the criminal district attorney with “all the powers, duties, and privileges in Collin County relating to criminal or civil matters involving the county or state that are conferred by law on county and district attorneys in the various counties and districts.” Tex. Gov’t Code 44.143(b). One such duty: “A district or county attorney, on request, shall give to a county or precinct official of his district or county a written opinion or written advice relating to the official duties of that official.” Tex. Gov’t Code 41.007.

"Texas law also sets out instances where the DA is to represent county officials and employees if they get sued by an entity other than the county. Tex. Local Gov’t Code 157.901(a) provides that any county official or employee sued for an action arising from the performance of a public duty is entitled to be represented by the district attorney or county attorney. Naturally, if an official or employee who is eligible to be provided legal counsel under Subsection (a) is accused of an act that may form the basis of a criminal charge against the official or employee, then under 157.901(b) that official or employee would be entitled to have the commissioners court employ and pay for private counsel and the District Attorney's office would not be representing such individual.

"As to the second reason, the concept is attractive. But because I’m not currently privy to all the matters for which the commissioners have hired outside counsel, I’m not in a position to guarantee any savings. The commissioners, as stewards of our taxpayer dollars, need top-flight legal advice. Sound advice, well-heeded, should save substantial taxpayer dollars over the long haul. To render timely and wise advice to any county official, I believe we would need to hire bright, experienced lawyers well-versed in governmental civil matters. So I’m hopeful we could realize savings for the taxpayer but I can’t be sure until I know exactly what matters the county has before it."

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

Bill

In what could be the local reportorial understatement of the year, The Dallas Morning News' Ed Housewright has noticed that DA John Roach seems to be getting rather unpopular with the local bar....

Bill

Collin DA John Roach, foes ready for his retirement

Saturday, July 10, 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.....

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

At about 2 PM yesterday, my phone and email started buzzing me with news that Texas Rangers and DPS Troopers were serving a search warrant on the District Clerk's office at the Collin County Courthouse.

According to unconfirmed reports, agents closed all the offices of the District Clerk for several hours. I have heard rumors (but I have not been able to get an official confirmation) that several county computers were seized.

WFAA, Channel 8 covered the raid on the evening news, but they only reported that there was a raid and that, "the investigation is focusing on some employees of the district clerk's office, but no other details were available."

The Observer was told by some courthouse sources that the search warrant was issued in Austin. I do not know if any investigation was initiated by the State Attorney General or by the Collin County District Attorney. There are many rumors as to the reasons for the raid, but as of now, none have been confirmed.

I have been unable to reach the District Clerk, Hannah Kunkle for comment.

The District Clerk's office serves the 9 Collin county District Courts, keeping all court records and filings. The Collin County district clerk's office also operates a passport service.

The District Clerk is an elected position. Ms. Hannah Kunkle has served as the District Clerk for over 20 years, but did not seek re-election this year. Her Chief Deputy Clerk, Patricia Crigger won the Republican Primary in March - since she does not have a Democratic opponent, Ms. Crigger will be the next District Clerk as of January 1, 2011.

While several of the current rumors link the election to the warrant and raid, I have to say that I have not been able to confirm.

As I find out more about the raid and any ongoing investigation, I will update the news on The Observer.

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.....

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from convicted murderer Charles Dean Hood. Hood's attorneys had asked the court to order a new trial based on the admission of the judge and District Attorney that they had previously been in an adulterous affair.

While the court's decision will mean Hood will not get a new trial on the facts of the case, a Texas Court has already ordered a new sentencing trial based on other technical issues.

Bill

===============================
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Charles Dean Hood in Case of Prosecutor and Judge Making Beast With Two Backs

Monday, April 19, 2010
From Bloomberg: By Greg Stohr

April 19 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a convicted double murderer who said his Texas trial was tainted because the judge and prosecutor previously had a sexual relationship.

The justices today left intact a Texas appeals court’s refusal to reopen Charles Dean Hood’s case.

Hood, 40, contended that the affair between Judge Verla Sue Holland and Thomas S. O’Connell Jr. had cast a “deep shadow” over the Texas criminal justice system and violated his constitutional rights. Dozens of ethicists and former judges, state officials and prosecutors -- including former FBI Director William S. Sessions -- urged the court to take up the case.

“We believe his case was marred by a fundamental misjustice,” said Andrea Keilen, the director of the Texas Defender Service, which represents Hood. She said in a statement that she was “disheartened” by the rejection.

Hood was convicted in 1990 of killing his boss and his boss’s girlfriend in the house the three shared. His lawyers say they didn’t have firm evidence of the long-rumored affair until 2008, shortly before he was scheduled to be executed.

Collin County Criminal District Attorney John R. Roach said that Hood’s lawyers had reason to suspect the affair years earlier and that they waited too long to raise the issue in court. Roach argued that Hood had previously filed seven so- called habeas corpus petitions seeking to overturn his conviction.

The issue “should have been raised, addressed and resolved many years ago,” Roach argued.

Holland and O’Connell eventually testified that they were involved in a relationship for several years in the 1980s and had been in love with one another. Both were married.

A Texas court threw out Hood’s death sentence on unrelated grounds earlier this year.
The case is Hood v. Texas, 09-8610.

Captain Rebecca "Becky" Borton, a twenty year veteran at the Collin County Sheriff's Department, passed away April 13 at her home in McKinney.

Captain Borton was born February 8, 1965, in Electra, Texas, to Robert Milton Borton and Judith Lea Braswell Borton. She graduated from Electra High School where she was an honor student, a member of the Bengal Staff, and One-Act Play.

She attended Midwestern State University and received a BA in Education. She then moved to McKinney and was employed as a Detention Officer for the Collin County Jail. She worked her way up to Captain and had served Collin County Jail for twenty years.

She was a member of the First Baptist Church of Electra and P.E.T.A.

Survivors include her parents, Robert and Judy Borton of Electra; two sisters, Lisa Borton and Jessica Barron and husband, Willie, all of Electra; one nephew, Austin Borton of Electra; two nieces, Raven Marie and Isabella Noveline Barren of Electra; several aunts, uncles and cousins; and numerous friends.

Sheriff Terry box said of Borton, "When you lose a 20 year dedicated employee it is like losing a member of your family. She will truly be missed by all."

Her obituary is online at the Wichita Falls Times Record News.

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

Sheriff Terry Box has asked the commissioners court to ratify a grant application for Bureau of Justice Assistance grant valued at up to $50,000.

The grant funds would be used by the Sheriff's Department, in collaboration with LifePath Systems, to design a "strategic collaberative plan to initiate systemic change for the identification and treatment of system-involved individuals with mental illness or co-occurring mental health or substance abuse problems."

According to Box, the end result of the planning process would be a "comprehensive jail diversion program that would include all facets of the criminal justice system and local mental healthcare providers".

The county would be expected to contribute $12,500 in matching funds.

The planning process is scheduled to be complete in September of 2011, and will allow the county to apply for and participate in another $450,000 of grant funds for implementation of a diversion system.

The costs of incarceration for mentally ill individuals is enormous. At any given time, a large percentage of the inmates in the county jail are receiving mental health medication or need to be. In fact, the Collin County jail is the largest provider of mental health service in the county.

LifePath Systems, the co-collaborator in the grant is a community-based, non-profit organization created specifically to help individuals and their families dealing with mental illnesses, intellectual disabilities and developmental delays. LifePath with funding from the NorthStar program provides much of the mental illness services to the county jail.

The Dallas Morning News published a story this weekend on Dallas' mental health diversion program. It's an interesting read.

The county is already funding a seperate study by the University of North Texas on the delivery of indigent mental healthcare services in Collin County.

Bill

The City of Plano and its Economic Development Corporation spend years stonewalling attempts by Jack Lagos, a citizen watchdog, to obtain EDC agendas, minutes and financial records.

Time and again they stall and raise appeals to the Texas Attorney General trying to keep the citizens of Plano from learning how their tax dollars are being spent. Time and again, the Texas Attorney General rules against the EDC.

They then file a restraining order against Mr. Lagos, charging him (frivolously) with making terrorist threats. They even cause a search warrant to be issued.

Then they go to court to try to keep him from hiring the attorney of his choice. They lose again.

Welcome to Open Government, Plano style.

Bill

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

Judge delays showdown between Plano officials, gadfly

Wednesday, April 7, 2010
By THEODORE KIM / The Dallas Morning News

A judge has put off a legal showdown between some Plano officials and a longtime gadfly.

The Plano Economic Development Board and its executive director, Sally Bane, have accused resident Jack Lagos of harassment and threats. Lagos says the board is trying to stop him from questioning its activities.

A trial was slated to start Tuesday. But state District Judge Cynthia Wheless pushed the date back to May 4, citing a busy court workload.

Not often does a quasi-public agency seek an injunction against a local resident. But the court action illustrates the depth of the sour relationship between the board and Lagos, a frequent critic of City Hall and its economic development efforts.

The claims stem from a dispute in which Lagos demanded to see certain documents at the board's West Plano headquarters in August.

Bane and administrative assistant Linda Thomason contend that Lagos' behavior became erratic and confrontational. They also allege that he threatened to set off a grenade in the board meeting room.

At the request of Bane and the board, the court later granted a temporary injunction forbidding Lagos from interacting with them and other top city officials.

Lagos has said his accusers are overreacting and taking his words out of context.

No criminal charges were filed. He said authorities subjected his house to a search but later apologized.

Central to the dispute is how much of the board's activities and documents are public. The agency, tasked with luring businesses to Plano and retaining them, is funded by city property taxes. But it operates as an independent nonprofit corporation.

City officials contend it is not subject to the same scrutiny or open meetings laws as a public agency. Lagos has fervently disputed that logic.

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

Early voting starts Monday in the 2010 Republican Party run-off. Election day is April 13.

• Early voting locations are here
• Election day poll locations are here

The Collin County Courts at Law are courts of general jurisdiction handling misdemeanor cases, appeals from Justice of the Peace and municipal courts, and civil suits under $100,000.

The Primary results were:

• Terri Green 11,574 (32.36%)
• Jay Bender 11,231 (31.40%)
• Don High 10,560 (29.53%)
• Shawn Ismail 2,399 (6.71%)

Terri Green

• Her campaign website is here
• Her Collin County Observer judicial questionnaire is here
• Her campaign finance reports are here

Jay Bender

• His campaign website is here
• His Collin County Observer judicial questionnaire is here
• His campaign finance reports are here

Collin County Observer profiles for the 2010 Primary run-off:

• Collin County Commissioners Court, Precinct 2 - Williams / Hoagland

• 219th District Court, Becker / Tucker

• Collin County Court at Law #3, Baxter / Matthews

• Collin County Court at Law #4, Goeller / Ripple

• Collin County Court at Law #6, Green / Bender

Bill

Early voting starts Monday in the 2010 Republican Party run-off. Election day is April 13.

• Early voting locations are here
• Election day poll locations are here

The Collin County Courts at Law are courts of general jurisdiction handling misdemeanor cases, appeals from Justice of the Peace and municipal courts, and civil suits under $100,000.

The Primary results were:

• Matthew Goeller 9,719 (28.09%)
• David Rippel 9,494 (27.44%)
• Linda Wynn Drain 8,267 (23.89%)
• Chrysti Bryant 7,121 (20.58%)

Matthew Goeller

• His campaign website is here
• His Collin County Observer judicial questionnaire is here
• His campaign finance reports are here

David Rippel

• His campaign website is here
• His Collin County Observer judicial questionnaire is here
• His campaign finance reports are here

Collin County Observer profiles for the 2010 Primary run-off:

• Collin County Commissioners Court, Precinct 2 - Williams / Hoagland

• 219th District Court, Becker / Tucker

• Collin County Court at Law #3, Baxter / Matthews

• Collin County Court at Law #4, Goeller / Ripple

• Collin County Court at Law #6, Green / Bender

Bill

Early voting starts Monday in the 2010 Republican Party run-off. Election day is April 13.

• Early voting locations are here
• Election day poll locations are here

The Collin County Courts at Law are courts of general jurisdiction handling misdemeanor cases, appeals from Justice of the Peace and municipal courts, and civil suits under $100,000.

The Primary results were:

• Lance S. Baxter 12,301 (36.83%)
• Stewart Matthews 10,577 (31.67%)
• Barnett Walker 10,524 (31.51%)

Lance Baxter

• His campaign website is here
• His Collin County Observer judicial questionnaire is here
• His campaign finance reports are here

Stewart Matthews

• His campaign website is here
• His Collin County Observer judicial questionnaire is http://www.baumbach.org/2010/qa/matthews.pdf
• His campaign finance reports are here

Collin County Observer profiles for the 2010 Primary run-off:

• Collin County Commissioners Court, Precinct 2 - Williams / Hoagland

• 219th District Court, Becker / Tucker

• Collin County Court at Law #3, Baxter / Matthews

• Collin County Court at Law #4, Goeller / Ripple

• Collin County Court at Law #6, Green / Bender

Bill

Early voting starts Monday in the 2010 Republican Party run-off. Election day is April 13.

• Early voting locations are here
• Election day poll locations are here

The 219th District Court is a court of general jurisdiction handling felony cases, up to and including death penalty cases, family law cases and large civil suits over $100,000.

The Primary results were:

• Scott J. Becker 18,014 (48.43%)
• Angela Tucker 12,434 (33.43%)
• Wendy McMillon 6,753 (18.15%)

Scott Becker

• His campaign website is here
• His Collin County Observer judicial questionnaire is here
• His campaign finance reports are here

Angela Tucker

• Her campaign website is here
• Her Collin County Observer judicial questionnaire is here
• Her campaign finance reports are here

Collin County Observer profiles for the 2010 Primary run-off:

• Collin County Commissioners Court, Precinct 2 - Williams / Hoagland

• 219th District Court, Becker / Tucker

• Collin County Court at Law #3, Baxter / Matthews

• Collin County Court at Law #4, Goeller / Ripple

• Collin County Court at Law #6, Green / Bender

Bill

Published today in the National Law Journal:

Death penalty process must be fair
The high court should right the wrong in the Hood case, stemming from the judge's and prosecutor's affair.

Mark White
Published in The National Law Journal, March 29, 2010

I'm a longtime supporter of the death penalty, but what's happening in Charles Hood's case in Texas isn't right. If we are going to have the death penalty, we need to make sure that the process is fair and accurate.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's high court for criminal cases) recently granted a new sentencing hearing for Hood on a technical issue related to jury instructions but has refused to address the central issue in this case: The judge and the prosecutor at Hood's trial had a long-term secret affair prior to the trial and concealed the relationship for 20 years. This was a secret that the pair kept even when they knew Hood was on the brink of execution and was trying to verify the rumors of the relationship.

The trial judge and the prosecutor did not come forward voluntarily or abide by their ethical or constitutional duties to divulge this information. Indeed, they denied it or refused to cooperate when asked directly about the affair by Hood's counsel five years ago. Their admissions came only when they were forced by a Texas trial court to testify under oath in 2008.

Now that the world knows the truth and the state courts have failed to correct this injustice, it's imperative that the U.S. Supreme Court intervene in Hood's case and grant him a new trial with an impartial judge and an ethical prosecutor.

The trial judge and the prosecuting attorney's affair breaches every standard of fairness that you would expect a defendant to receive during a capital case or, for that matter, a noncapital case. Hood could not have gotten a fair trial under these circumstances. His trial was infected with an incurable conflict of interest.

The judge and the prosecutor kept the affair secret for their own personal reasons, but they also concealed it from the people who were entitled to the information. If Hood's counsel had known about or had proof of the affair at the time of trial, he could have moved the judge to recuse herself.

The Court of Criminal Appeals, rather than setting things right, issued a two-­sentence boilerplate denial of Hood's judicial bias claim. We all want justice to be blind, but the whole world can see the Texas court's foolishness in turning its back on the egregious breach of ethics in this case.

The passage of time doesn't make it any less of a breach. The only thing for which we can be thankful is that an execution has not already occurred.

As governor of Texas, I oversaw 19 executions. This was a grave responsibility. I have seen frailties in the criminal justice system first-hand as a practicing lawyer and as an attorney general of Texas. Thus, before each execution, I reviewed in agonizing detail each individual's case to be as certain as humanly possible that he had received a fair trial.

Hood was convicted of killing the couple with whom lived in Plano, Texas. I'm not saying he is innocent or guilty. I'm saying that the way we determine guilt or innocence in this country is with a fair trial, and defendant Hood did not receive one.

A BLOW TO PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

The harm to Hood is obvious, but the damage does not stop there. If the system fails to correct itself, it will deliver a blow to public confidence that cannot be easily remedied. Citizens can rightfully wonder how many other defendants were denied their right to a fair trial because the presiding judge and the prosecuting attorney concealed the true nature of their relationship.

People often mistake criticism of death penalty procedures for opposition to the death penalty across the board. I believe that the death penalty is appropriate for the most heinous crimes, those in which 21st ­century forensics or other probative evidence prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and after constitutional safeguards have been carefully observed.

During the past 20 years, DNA and other advances have gone a long way to hold criminals accountable, but modern science does not address every failing of the criminal justice system. Hood's case shows, at the most basic level, that there are huge flaws in our procedures and human frailties in the people who administer them.

The U.S. Supreme Court should take Hood's case to reinforce not only the standards that are to be applied in Texas courts, but in courts across the country, and strengthen the faith that the American people have in their judicial system. There's only one thing that can cure an unfair trial. That's a new trial. This time, it should be a fair one.

Mark White served as governor of Texas from 1983 to 1987 and as attorney general of Texas from 1979 to 1983. In February, along with 20 former judges and former prosecutors, he filed an amicus brief in support of Hood's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

link to article at The National Law Journal.....

----------------------
For prior Collin County Observer coverage of the Charles Dean Hood case click here

The Dallas Morning News' Diane Jennings retells the story, extensively covered here, of the Open Plea decision by the 5th Court of Appeals in ruling against visiting Judge McCraw in a Collin County case.

The DA's office seems to be begging the question of forum shopping, first denying it, then stating that it doesn't make any difference what their motive was.

Michael Curran, the defense attorney in the case told Ms. Jennings that he was appealing the ruling by the 5th COA. My guess is that he will lose. To correct this problem, the law needs to be changed.

Hunter Biederman at the Frisco DWI Lawyer's Blog adds his own commentary today, stating, "The point the article and I sought to make is that the DA cant stop a judge from sentencing a person. They jury serves no purpose, and is not needed to make a determination of guilt -- because the defendant conceded to his guilt."

Hunter's right -- all the State can do is waste taxpayer money and a jury's time.

For what?

Bill

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

Defendant's bid to plead guilty before judge not an open-and-shut case in Collin County

Monday, March 22, 2010
By DIANE JENNINGS / The Dallas Morning News

Robert Blackburn wants to tell a judge that he's guilty. But the people charged with punishing him – the prosecution – won't let him.

When visiting Judge John McCraw tried to allow Blackburn to plead guilty to drug possession charges, saying taxpayers should not have to pay for unnecessary trials, the ruling set off a flurry of legal maneuvers in which the Collin County district attorney's office asserted its right to demand that a jury hear the case rather than let him plead guilty to the judge.

"We're not up here just going through the motions," District Attorney John Roach said. "We have reasons for everything we do – our reason has to do with the promotion of justice."

The spat between judge and district attorney has created a stir in legal circles and the blogosphere. But Roach says the brouhaha over forced jury trials in Collin County, which has arisen occasionally in other counties, is due to "defense lawyers that don't like being made to go to trial."

Roach declined to discuss the Blackburn case, citing pending litigation. But in a peculiar twist due to Texas law, if Blackburn goes to trial, he can demand to be sentenced by the judge, putting the case back where it started after considerable taxpayer expense. Blackburn's attorney is promising to take the issue to the Supreme Court to allow his client to plead guilty to a judge.

Roach said his office doesn't think it is an "honest process" to accept open pleas in which the accused pleads guilty to the judge and the judge decides the punishment without approval by the prosecution.

"A lot of time the defendant and the state, it's just a wink and nod and forcing the judge to decide what the punishment should be," said Roach, who also is a former judge.

Few cases go to jury

Despite the hallowed American right of defendants to face a jury of their peers, 99 percent of criminal cases in Texas never go to trial. Guilty pleas are the grease that keeps the system moving, because it would break down if everyone entitled to a jury trial demanded one.

Texas is one of a handful of states that allow jury sentencing; most leave that task to a judge. But in the few states that do, if you demand a jury trial, you get jury sentencing. Texas is the only state that allows the defendant to choose who sentences the guilty – judge or jury. Only if a Texas defendant pleads guilty to a jury must he or she be sentenced by the jury.

Juries generally are considered less predictable than judges when it comes to punishment.

And in Texas, like many other states, prosecutors must agree to a defendant's decision to waive a jury trial and go before a judge.

Though it is unusual for prosecutors to demand trial when the defendant wants to plead guilty, it's not unheard of.

"It's costly, but it might serve some educational purpose for the public to air the facts," said Nancy King, law professor at Vanderbilt University. "It's a way to test the proof, if there's some doubt about whether the offense actually occurred."

Shannon Edmonds, government liaison for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, said a trial also might \enable the judge to "learn something new in that trial he wouldn't have learned otherwise," and give the victim "their day in court, which they don't get to do if there's a plea."

But judge shopping – by the defense or the prosecution – is always a possibility.

In Blackburn's case, McCraw thought he saw just that. In his December ruling, McCraw accused the district attorney's office of "forum shopping for a particular judge to fix the punishment."

Assistant District Attorney John Rolater, who is handling the Blackburn case, denied it in court.

Attorneys cannot request that a case be assigned to a specific judge, but they can try to gauge a judge's calendar to see when he or she will be presiding.

Hunter Biederman, a Collin County defense attorney who was in court the day McCraw accepted Blackburn's plea, said efforts by prosecutors to avoid certain judges are outrageous.

"If we're going to elect our judges, who are supposed to be neutral magistrates, why are we going to take that [sentencing] power away from them?"

Roach said his office does not target specific judges as some allege. "That's an ignorant statement," he said. The law says prosecutors are entitled to demand a jury trial "and it doesn't make any difference what our motives are."

Rolater also pointed out in court that without a trial, a judge could give Blackburn deferred adjudication in which the accused's record is wiped clean if he or she completes this special probation. Authorities said Blackburn, 27, tried to swallow the evidence and scuffled with an officer. He faces four felony counts.

Prosecutors opposed deferred adjudication in Blackburn's case. But McCraw called that argument a "straw man" because Blackburn did not request deferred adjudication.

"The state wants to control who sets the punishment hearing," McCraw said. "Is that what the fight is about here?"

DA's reasons debated

Biederman, who wrote about the twists and turns of the Blackburn case extensively on his blog, mentioned other reasons the district attorney's office might insist on trials in cases in which defendants want to plead guilty, including giving rookie prosecutors courtroom experience or inflating the district attorney's conviction rate for political purposes.

Roach dismissed those ideas as well, pointing out that young attorneys cut their teeth in misdemeanor court, not felony court, and saying his office doesn't need to "pump up" its conviction rate.

"I'm hired by the people of Texas to try criminal trials – that's what we do," he said. "Who wants an idiot for the district attorney who won't work to try a case?"

When McCraw allowed Blackburn to plead guilty over prosecutor's objections, he said, "I would submit the United States Constitution allows a defendant the right to enter a plea based on the court's request."

McCraw cited "judicial economy" in his ruling, saying the county should not have to pay for up to four jury trials at a cost of about $5,000 per trial when the defendant is willing to plead guilty.

Other costs related to any trial – attorney fees, costs to jurors' time – also would be incurred.

An appellate court overruled McCraw, citing the state law that says the case must go to trial because the prosecutor and judge must consent to the waiver of a jury trial and saying Blackburn failed to "specifically raise a constitutional argument for this court to address."

Blackburn's attorney, Michael Curran, said he is filing a motion asking the appellate court to rehear the issue. If he loses in state courts, as others challenging the law have done, "This thing can go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "I intend to take this as far as I can."

Roach stands by his policy to adhere to the law that allows him to refuse to let judges accept pleas without his consent. Even though the law allows Blackburn to be sentenced by a judge after a jury trial.

"I don't think it's a waste of taxpayer money for fellow citizens to make a determination about whether a person is guilty of a criminal offense."

###

From a press release by John M. Bales, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
United States Attorney John M. Bales
Eastern District of Texas

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010

FORTY INDICTED IN EAST TEXAS MAJOR MORTGAGE FRAUD SCHEME

PLANO, Texas – U.S. Attorney John M. Bales announced today that 40 individuals have been arrested and charged in connection with a major mortgage fraud scheme in the Eastern District of Texas.

The 16 count indictment was returned by a federal grand jury on Mar. 10, 2010, and includes one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, 12 counts of mail fraud and 3 counts of money laundering. All 40 defendants, from Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Georgia, are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. Many of the defendants are also charged with various counts of mail fraud and money laundering.

According to the indictment, beginning in 2004, John Barry, 41, of Windemere, Florida, owned and operated, TKI Group, Inc. and JAB Consulting, businesses out of Florida through which he solicited real estate agents, property finders, mortgage brokers, title company attorneys or escrow officers, property appraisers, and straw buyers to facilitate this scheme. The purpose of the scheme was to defraud lending institutions by convincing them to approve mortgage loans for residential properties for which the property values had been fraudulently inflated. The indictment specifically lists 114 residential properties located in the Texas cities of Allen, Arlington, Cedar Hill, Coppell, Corinth, Cypress, Dallas, Flower Mound, Fort Worth, Frisco, Granbury, Heath, Highland Village, Houston, Keller, Lantana, Lewisville, Little Elm, Lubbock, Magnolia, McKinney?, Plano, Roanoke, Southlake, Spring, The Woodlands, and Willis.

In announcing the indictment, U.S. Attorney Bales specifically noted the breadth of the financial scheme, “This Indictment brings to light a criminal scheme that is quite breathtaking in its scope and beyond disturbing as far as the boldness of the fraud. The agents have done a remarkable job putting together this investigation and we look forward to presenting all of the evidence in court. Hopefully, others involved in mortgage fraud will be taking notice – we will be relentless in discovering, exposing and holding accountable those who have committed similar crimes.

If convicted, the defendants face up to 20 years in federal prison for the conspiracy charge, up to 20 years in federal prison for each count of mail fraud charge, and up to 10 years in federal prison for each count of money laundering.

"Mortgage fraud creates so much harm to individuals, businesses and our economy, but today's indictment is a strong reminder how serious our system considers this criminal activity," said Erick Martinez, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, IRS-Criminal Investigation, Dallas Field office. "Those who line their pockets with profits from these schemes should know they will not go undetected and will be held accountable."

"Evidence collected by the FBI to support today's indictments proves that financial crime conspiracies, particularly mortgage fraud, still threaten our economic stability," said Robert E. Casey, Jr., the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Office in Dallas. "This investigation illustrates the North Texas law enforcement community's commitment to root out those who perpetrate mortgage fraud. Although increased prosecutions alone will not solve the mortgage crisis, we hope these prosecutions will help deter future fraud."

This case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Shamoil Shipchandler.

This law enforcement action is part of President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.

President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

An indictment is not evidence of guilt. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

###

UPDATE (3/17/10 11:00 AM)

The Observer adds:

The US Attorney has released the names of those indicted individuals. Among the 40 were five from Collin County:

1. Joy Beckner, of McKinney, charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and one count of mail fraud.
2. Sheri Brower of McKinney, charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and one count of mail fraud.
3. Allison Ridgeway a/k/a Allison Raymond a/k/a Allison Hutsell of Plano, charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud.
4. Daniel Ayers, of McKinney, charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and ten counts of mail fraud.
5. Brett Relander of Plano, charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

The indictments list fraudulent transactions and representations involving homes all over the eastern part of Texas including 2 in Allen, 4 in Frisco, 47 in McKinney, and 2 in Plano.

Bill

NOTES:

The Indictment by the US Grand Jury, Barry et al - Indictment, March 10, 2010, including a listing of the affected properties.

List of those indicted

Press Release from The US Attorney dated March 16, 2010

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

Eric Lynn Moore has been appealing his conviction of the 1990 murder of Helen Ayers of Prosper.

Today, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the State of Texas, who was asking that his death sentence be reinstated.

Moore will now spend the rest of his natural life in prison.

Moore and three accomplices went to the Ayers' home and complained of having car trouble. Invited inside the home by Ayers' husband Robert, 53, the men pulled guns and robbed the couple of money and jewelry. The couple was forced into their bedroom, where they were both shot twice. Mrs. Ayers, shot in the head and leg, died. Her husband was shot twice in the back, but survived.

Moore and his accomplice, Kenneth Eugene Bruce were convicted in the 219th Collin County District Court and sentenced to die in 1991. Bruce was executed for Ayers' murder in 2004.

Moore's attorneys argued for years that he was mentally impaired, with an IQ below 70.

In 2002, the United Supreme Court declared the execution of mentally retarded persons unconstitutional, declaring it cruel and unusual punishment.

In 2003 Moore's lawyers sought a stay of execution while appealing his conviction on the grounds that he was mentally retarded. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected his claim and Moore appealed to the US District Court.

U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis gave him a hearing and found he should not be executed.

Texas appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. A panel of that court reversed Judge Davis, but later the full court reversed the panel and set aside the death sentence, the court wrote, "After considering the evidence, the district court found Moore to be mentally retarded, and enjoyed the State from executing him."

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the Texas appeal, thereby affirming the Circuit Court's decision sparing Moore's life.

Bill

See also Sherman Lawyer Gets a Man off Death Row, KTEN, March 8, 2010

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

Texas death row inmate set to die for murder of Brazilian couple in Plano

Monday, March 1, 2010
The Dallas Morning News / Associated Press

HUNTSVILLE, Texas – Michael Sigala was on probation for robbery and allowed to leave a Dallas-area substance abuse treatment center for the day to look for a job. Instead, he violently ended the lives of a newlywed Brazilian couple and ended up on death row.

Sigala, 32, was set for execution Tuesday evening for the death of Kleber Santos, 28, a Brazilian engineer whose wife also was killed in an attack nearly a decade ago at their Plano apartment

Sigala would be the third Texas inmate to receive lethal injection this year and the first of four scheduled to die this month in the nation's most active death penalty state.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week refused to review his case and no new appeals were in the courts Monday.

Sigala, of Plano, was condemned for the fatal shooting of Santos, whose job brought him to Texas in January 2000, a month after he was married. His wife, Lilian, remained in Brazil to continue her veterinary studies at the University of Sao Paulo and was visiting her husband during a school break that August.

Evidence showed the 25-year-old woman was raped and also fatally shot several hours after her husband was killed. Their wedding rings were among items taken in the attack. Sigala also was charged with her slaying but was not tried.

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

UPDATE (March 2):

The Associated Press reported that Michael Sigala was executed in Huntsville at 6:20 PM CST. He is the third person executed in Texas this year.

From the AP story in the Houston Chronicle:

"During his final statement, Sigala asked for forgiveness from the slain couple's relatives who attended the execution."

"'I have no reason for why I did it,' Sigala said. 'I don't understand why I did it. I hope that you can live the rest of your lives without hate.'

"Relatives of Kleber Santos and his wife, Lilian, did not speak with reporters afterward, but the parents of both victims issued statements saying they were grateful justice had been done.

"'For many people facing such tragedy, life would be worthless. For us, however, we have faith and we find meaning in an eternal life that our merciful God will provide us. We really believe that we will meet our dear son and daughter-in-law one day in heaven,' Jonas and Lizete Santos, Kleber Santos' parents, said in their statement."

Bill

It was the day after Christmas in 2007 when police were called to a house just south of downtown Frisco.

A woman who had been shot had run to a neighbor's house and called for help. Upstairs in the house next door, the police found the body of 36 year old Craig Nail. He died of gunshot wounds before the police arrived. The woman who was shot was his girlfriend, Therisa Hofman. She was Care Flighted to a hospital, and later recovered.

Mark Lyle Bell

Vera Elizabeth Guthrie-Nail

Thomas Edward Grace

Two weeks later, the Frisco police announced they had made an arrest in the murder/shooting case. Arrested was Craig Nail's ex-wife, Vera Elizabeth Guthrie-Nail.

Later a Collin County Grand Jury indicted Guthrie-Nail, Thomas Edward Grace, and Mark Lyle Bell -- all on charges of capital murder. Guthrie-Nail was accused of using Thomas Grace as an intermediary to contract a murder for hire with Mark Bell, the triggerman.

During the grand jury investigation, prosecutors learned that Mark Bell's wife had given his attorney, Keith Gore, some letters and a sealed shoe box, which she told Gore contained evidence crucial to his defense, but which prosecutors allege contained evidence that would tie Bell to the murder.

The District Attorney's office then went to Judge Robert Dry, who was supervising the Grand Jury and asked for a subpoena for the box, letters and a pair of boots they believed were also given to Gore by Mrs. Bell. Dry scheduled a hearing on the request for 5 days later.

However later that same day, the DA and a Frisco police detective also filed a request for a search warrant on Keith Gore's office with a different judge. Judge Mark Rusch issued the warrant, and detectives seized some letters, a multi-page, stapled document, and a sealed shoe box. No boots were found.

The seized items were taken by police to Judge Rusch, who was at home at the time, and later to the Frisco police evidence room.

What happened next is in dispute.

The Collin County District Attorney's office and the Frisco police allege that Judge Rusch used a knife to open the seals of the shoe box and inspect its contents. Judge Rusch denies this and says he gave the box back to the prosecution team still sealed.

According to a motion filed with the appeals court by the defense, at a later court hearing officers involved in the search stated that the contents of the box had been switched out. They said the box originally contained a Wal Mart receipt, but later the receipt was missing and a business card from a Wal Mart security officer was substituted. The defense claims that the receipt was exculpatory evidence - that it would prove that the boots sought by police were purchased after the murder.

But the receipt is gone. Who done it?

Claiming that by inspecting the seized evidence, Judge Mark Rusch became a material witness, the defense team sought to have Judge Rusch recused. A hearing was held before an assigned judge who ordered that Rusch recuse himself from the case -- to be replaced by Judge Chris Oldner.

The defense also accused the Collin County District Attorney's office of prosecutorial misconduct and sought to question the First Assistant District Attorney, Greg Davis. Judge Oldner denied the request.

Oldner also denied a defense motion to disqualify the District Attorney's Office from the case.

Bell's attorneys appealed Oldner's decisions to the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas, which also refused to force the DA off the case. Bell has now appealed again, this time to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which earlier this month agreed to hear the case and has ordered that arguments be submitted.

So who is lying - The judge? The DA? The police?

Perhaps we'll never know who opened the shoe box, and what happened to the evidence. It does seem possible that misconduct and mishandling of evidence could make prosecution of Mr. Bell difficult if not impossible.

This 2 year old case is starting to look like something from a television detective story plot. Unfortunately it's unlikely that a super detective is going to come on the scene with his scientific tool kit and tell us who done it.

CSI:Frisco? Not hardly.

Bill

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

Notes:

IN RE MARK LYLE BELL, Order holding in abeyance, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, February 5, 2010

Appeals Court refuses to recuse DA in Bell case, CCO, December 9, 2009

Mark Bell's attorneys ask appeals court to force DA off the case, CCO - November 23, 2009

Application for Writs of Mandamus and/or Prohibition with Incorporated Brief in Support and Motion for Stay of Proceedings Below, by Steven Miears and Keith Gore before the Texas 5th Court of Appeals, November 20, 2009

Case 401-80353-08 Texas vs. Mark Bell, case history -- Collin County 401st District Court

Judge Rusch recused from Bell murder trial, McKinney Courier-Gazette, August 27, 2008

Hearing on "raid" of attorney office rescheduled CCO - August 7, 2008

Amicus Curiae brief of the TCDA, August 5, 2008

Defense attorney search warrant motion hearing moved - McKinney Courier-Gazette, Aug. 6, 2008

One of these days these boots are going to walk all over your attorney-client privilege - Grits for Breakfast, Aug. 3, 2008

Where are the boots?: Details from the Gore warrant, affidavit and return - CCO, July 31, 2008

The Warrant, affidavit and return and more

The Defense motion in Response to the State's Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel

MCG - AG opposes subpoenas of Rusch and Dry - CCO, July 23, 2008

Not Judge Rusch's first controversial warrant - CCO, July 21, 2008

NBC5 - Detectives Seize Documents From Murder-For-Hire Suspect's Attorney - CCO, July 18, 2008

Editorial: Three capital cases illustrate how tactics trump truth

Friday, February 26, 2010
The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board

Convicted killer Charles Dean Hood is getting a new day in court, but not for all the right reasons. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has granted him a new sentencing hearing, but that's beside the point.

The point is that Hood was convicted of murder in a scenario right out of Desperate Housewives. The Collin County judge who gazed out over the courtroom during the trial in 1990 would see a district attorney who had been in her bed. Their secret tryst – even though they had broken it off by trial time – represents such an obvious possibility of bias that any reasonable mind would tell the court to try the whole case again and keep it clean.

Appellate attorneys for Hood outed the affair in 2008, putting former District Attorney Tom O'Connell and former Judge Verla Sue Holland under oath. The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, refused on procedural grounds to grant a new trial based on complaints of corrupted justice.

The court did halt Hood's execution to take another look at the fairness of sentencing, and last week, judges ordered prosecutors back in court to re-do those proceedings.

Where does that leave the question of whether former lovers should have tried a case with a man's life at stake? The U.S. Supreme Court now is considering that, and fortunately so. Texans who care about justice can hope that a court well insulated from the political stickiness of the Hood case will finally take a clear-eyed view of what was going on in that courtroom.

No one is suggesting that the Hood jury got the question of guilt wrong; the evidence against him was overwhelming. But the courtroom is no place to tolerate little secrets when a life-and-death question hangs in the balance.

That position is supported in a petition to the Supreme Court by 21 former judges, prosecutors and other officials, including former FBI Director William Sessions and former Texas Gov. Mark White.

The Hood trial is one of three Texas capital murder cases lined up before the Supreme Court – all revealing how legal jousting has become more important than pure justice. All increasing our resolve that the death penalty should be abolished.

Earlier this month, a judge held up the execution of Hank Skinner in a 1993 triple murder out of the Panhandle. Again, procedure was at issue, this time the death warrant. The Supreme Court is being asked to take on the far more important issue of whether testing should be ordered on evidence that hasn't undergone DNA analysis. Facts in the case indicate that the answer is yes.

Finally, there's the case of Delma Banks, convicted in a 30-year-old murder near Texarkana. He awaits word from the Supreme Court on complaints that authorities hid the fact they used testimony from a paid police snitch and a shaky witness who was intensively coached.

The chess game continues, more a matter of tactics than truth-finding. That's no way for Texas to determine who lives and who dies.

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

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....

Charles Dean Hood

Judge Verla Sue Holland

Tom O'Connell

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a sharply split decision remanded the death sentence of convicted Collin County murderer Charles Dean Hood for a new punishment hearing.

The remand is based on a 2005 motion by the defense complaining of "Penry" instructions given to the jury. The defense argued that the jury was not given the proper instruction on how to consider mitigating circumstances of childhood injury and mental incapacity.

The court noted that since Hood's conviction in 1990, the US Supreme Court has substantially changed and enhanced the requirements of what death penalty juries must consider before giving the death sentence.

Scott at the Grits for Breakfast blog offers his perspective on the opinion, writing:

"Though it doesn't mention at all the now-admitted affair between the trial judge and prosecutor in Hood's case, this is a major decision which basically amounts to a mea culpa by the CCA majority about its past rulings in an array of similar cases. From Judge Cochran's majority opinion:

'This is all very awkward. To grant a Texas death-row inmate relief on his subsequent Penry I and Penry II claim under the recently decided Tennard, Smith, et al. cases, we must find that those decisions announced new law, but the federal courts cannot grant relief on those very same claims unless they find that Texas courts misapplied clearly established law at the time of the relevant state-court decision. Hence, a death-row inmate must argue in this Court that Tennard, Smith, et al. announced new law, but, once he arrives in federal court, he must argue that those same cases simply reiterated clearly established law. There is no logical way in which Tennard, Smith, et al. can simultaneously be both "newly available law" for state-court purposes and "clearly established law" for federal-court purposes.'

'This conundrum has produced starkly different descriptions and versions of the historical development of Penry law. In each of the five most recent cases, the United States Supreme Court majority has been at pains to emphasize that "well before our decision in Penry I, our cases had firmly established that sentencing juries must be able to give meaningful consideration and effect to all mitigating evidence that might provide a basis for refusing to impose the death penalty[.]" Thus, Penry itself did not announce new law, nor did the five most recent cases, Tennard, Smith I, Abdul-Kabir, Brewer, and Smith II. Under the majority's reasoning, this Court (along with the Fifth Circuit) completely misunderstood the scope and applicability of Penry for almost twenty years and reached "'decision[s] that [were] contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States'" in virtually all of our Penry cases. Had the Supreme Court concluded otherwise, it could not have granted relief to any of the habeas corpus applicants in Tennard, Smith I, Abdul-Kabir, Brewer, or Smith II.'

"Judge Keasler's dissent sounded downright furious at this 180 degree reversal in course."

Hood was convicted in a Collin County court in 1990 of the double homicide of Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace. Hood was working as a bouncer at a topless club in 1989 where Tracie Lynn Wallace was a dancer. He met Ronald Williamson at the club and began doing odd jobs for Williamson, who owned a computer software firm and he was living at Williamson's Plano home.

Hood's defense attorneys have tried to gain a new trial for him based on allegations that the judge, Verla Sue Holland had kept secret from defense attorneys her sexual relationship to the county's District Attorney, Tom O'Connell. O'Connell personally tried part of the case and appeared in court against Hood.

The Court of Criminal Appeals did not address the Holland/O'Connell issue in its opinion.

Recently, 21 jurists and legal experts petitioned The United States Supreme Court to take up the issue of the fairness of the 1990 trial given the relationship between the prosecutor and judge.

Hood has faced at least 7 execution dates. Twice in 2008 he came within hours of being executed.

Bill

UPDATE 3PM 2/24/10

John Roach, the Collin County Criminal District Attorney released the following statement:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Feb. 24, 2010

(McKINNEY, Texas) -- Today the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a new punishment trial to death row inmate Charles Dean Hood.

Hood was convicted of the 1990 capital murder of Ronald Williamson and Traci Wallace. Today’s ruling does not raise any issue as to Hood’s guilt of this heinous crime, and the courts have previously described the evidence of his guilt as “conclusive.”

Today’s ruling is based on a defect in the Texas capital punishment statute identified by the Supreme Court in 1989 and corrected by the Texas Legislature in 1991. Hood’s trial was between these two events, and the trial judge, as was common practice at that time, tried to remedy the defect with an instruction to the jury. In 2001, the Supreme Court cast doubt on the jury instruction practice used in Hood’s case. In 2005, Hood challenged the instruction used in his case just prior to a scheduled execution. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed his challenge in early 2007, ruling that he was required to raise the claim in an earlier challenge to his conviction and sentence. Today, the Court reconsidered its 2007 decision, determined that Hood was not required to raise the claim in an earlier challenge, and awarded him a new punishment trial.

Our office will continue to evaluate today’s opinion. We will also begin evaluating the case to determine what punishment to seek in a new punishment trial. As we currently understand the case, however, it is likely we will again seek the death penalty.

A separate claim challenging Hood’s conviction is currently pending in the Supreme Court. The State’s response in that litigation is due next month, and we have no comment on that litigation at this time.

###

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

NOTES:

EX PARTE CHARLES DEAN HOOD, Majority Opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge Cathy Cochran, February 24, 2010

EX PARTE CHARLES DEAN HOOD, Dissenting Opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge Michael E. Keasler, February 24, 2010

Charles Hood death sentence thrown out: Texas CCA admits it
'completely misunderstood' SCOTUS for past 20 years, Grits for Breakfast, February 24, 2010

New punishment hearing ordered for Texas death row inmate Charles Dean Hood, The Dallas Morning News, February 24, 2010

Questions Of an Affair Tainting A Trial, The New York Times, February 19, 2010

BRIEF OF FORMER JUDGES, STATE OFFICIALS, AND PROSECUTORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

NLJ - When procedure trumps justice, CCO, Nov. 3, 2009

Sex, lies and lethal injections, CCO, Sept. 18, 2009

Hood gets his appeal (maybe), CCO, May 5, 2009

Charles Dean Hood gets another 60 days to live, CCO, Jan. 28, 2009

AG questions 1/3 of Collin death sentences, CCO, Sept. 22, 2008

Collin County needs to review capital cases, CCO, Sept. 18, 2008

Crossing the line: Sex and justice, Collin County style, CCO, Sept. 8, 2008

Atlantic Monthly - Travesty in Texas, CCO, Sept. 8, 2008

Attorney General files for possible stay in Hood case, CCO, Sept. 4, 2008

Pervasiveness, prosecution of white-collar crime rising
State securities board sees activity increase fivefold since 2005

Dallas Business Journal - by Chad Eric Watt Staff writer
Friday, February 19, 2010

The retired couple living in Murphy really didn’t have any need for a credit card terminal.

But after a salesman explained how they could buy the machine and lease it back to merchants in exchange for interest payments, they signed up.

Bruce and Barbara Ellsworth invested $125,000 in order to get back $1,000 a month for five years in addition to the return of their original investment.

The payments came for a year, maybe 13 months, and stopped.

“For a while, we got interest, and then it just quit,” Barbara Ellsworth said. “We called the man that sold it to us, and he told us they were having trouble. He was as surprised as we were.”

The Ellsworths were some of the 140 Texans who bought into what prosecutors describe as a $15 million Ponzi scheme run by Edward S. Digges Jr., a disbarred lawyer and convicted felon from Maryland who had been sanctioned by securities boards in several Atlantic states.

Digges was convicted by a Collin County jury on Feb. 10 and in sentencing hearings at presstime. Prosecutors were seeking a life sentence for Digges, 63. Attempts to reach Digges were unsuccessful.

Securities fraud has been perpetrated more and uncovered more frequently since the start of the financial crisis for a confluence of reasons, said Joe Rotunda, enforcement director at the Texas State Securities Board. The state securities board counted five times more criminal, civil and administrative actions tied to securities misdoings in 2009 as it did in 2005, up to 2,318 from 449.

‘A horrible, ripe environment’

As the economy soured, operating schemes suddenly couldn’t find new investors to pay off older investors. This is why headline-grabbing swindles, including Bernard Madoff’s bogus hedge fund and the Stanford Financial Group’s too-good-to-be-true Antiguan CDs, fell apart in the wake of the September 2008 financial crisis.

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith, writing about the 1929 stock market crash, described such schemes that grew in good economic times as “the bezzle,” which only come to light in the wake of a crash or downturn. As investors sought better and safer returns than they could find in bank deposits, stocks and bonds, they also became easy marks for new “guaranteed return” schemes.

The credit card terminal scheme for which Digges was convicted preys upon investors’ desire for safety and big returns.

“This created a fertile environment for people to steal things — a horrible, ripe environment,” Rotunda said.

Digges lived in Cambridge, Md., but more than a third of all the money taken from investors came from Texas, Rotunda said. That’s because Digges used a network of insurance agents to market the program to senior citizens in Texas.

Did the agents know they were selling a bogus investment pitched by a felon?

“Depends on who you ask,” Rotunda said. “You attract people with really high commissions. When the price is high, they don’t ask questions they should.”

One San Antonio salesman has been convicted, and others have entered guilty pleas, Rotunda said.

Collin County prosecutions

In response to a rich environment for fraud, the Texas State Securities Board has crafted a partnership with the Collin County District Attorney’s Office to investigate and prosecute large fraud cases, including Digges’ case.

In spite of an initial Securities and Exchange Commission complaint filed in Florida in February 2006 and a receivership for the alleged Ponzi scheme, Digges hadn’t been brought up on federal criminal charges, so the securities board and Collin County DA stepped in.

“Witnesses started to die. There was a big question whether these investors would see justice,” Rotunda said.

Of the $15 million placed with the Digges’ scheme, the receivership returned just more than $1 million to all its investors.

The Digges conviction comes six months after the securities board and Collin County won a big fraud conviction tied to oil and gas investments.

Last May, a Collin County jury convicted William Lester Seelye of McKinney? and sentenced him to 99 years in prison for stealing from oil and gas investment projects, laundering money and committing securities fraud. Seelye allegedly took more than $400,000 from investors.

link to this story at The Dallas Business Journal....

Questions Of an Affair Tainting A Trial


By ADAM LIPTAK / Columnist, The New York Times Sidebar
The New York Times / Published: February 22, 2010

WASHINGTON - Charles Dean Hood was sentenced to death in 1990 by a Texas judge who had been sleeping with the prosecutor in his case. It took Mr. Hood almost 20 years to establish that fact.

But he finally managed to force the two officials to testify about their rumored affair in the fall of 2008. They admitted it.

Texas’s highest court for criminal matters, its Court of Criminal Appeals, considered all of this and concluded that Mr. Hood should be executed anyway. In a 6-to-3 decision in September, the court told Mr. Hood that he had taken too long to raise the issue of whether a love affair between a judge and a prosecutor amounted to a conflict of interest.

Mr. Hood has asked the United States Supreme Court to hear his case. On Thursday, 21 former judges and prosecutors filed a brief supporting him. So did 30 experts in legal ethics.

“A judge who has engaged in an intimate, extramarital, sexual relationship with the prosecutor trying a capital murder case before her has a conflict of interest and must recuse herself,” the brief from the ethics experts said. “Of all the courts to have considered the issue, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in this case failed to recognize this imperative.”

The affair itself, as described in the depositions of the two former lovers, sounded tawdry and sad.

Judge Verla Sue Holland, who presided over Mr. Hood’s case in a district court in Collin County, Tex., testified that she and the prosecutor, Thomas S. O’Connell Jr., had had sex at each other's homes when their spouses were away. This happened, she said, seven or eight times.

Mr. O’Connell did not seem especially romantic. Judge Holland testified that he once gave her a picture of a polar bear with a matching cup. Another time he gave her a chafing dish.

He never stayed the night. “I had a truck that everybody recognized,” Mr. O’Connell explained.

And he might have been more sympathetic when Judge Holland’s mother died.

“Tom didn’t send a card,” the judge testified. “He didn’t send flowers. He didn’t come by. He didn’t call. You know, I think that’s pretty callous.”

Asked if they had professed their love to each other, Judge Holland sounded wistful. “Yeah,” she said. “Yes. I loved him.”

Judge Holland was elected to the Court of Criminal Appeals in 1996, served for five years and sat with eight of the nine judges who considered her conduct last September. The exception was Judge Cathy Cochran, one of four women on the court and the author of the dissenting opinion.

Judge Cochran took a stab at characterizing the relationship in a footnote. It was misleading, Judge Cochran wrote, to say that Judge Holland and Mr. O’Connell had “an intimate sexual relationship,” though she conceded that the phrase was “literally true.”

“Theirs was hardly the torrid relationship of romance novels,” Judge Cochran clarified. It was, rather, “a close personal relationship that, on a few rare occasions, dipped into intimacy.”

Whatever the precise contours and intensity of the affair, Judge Holland did testify that she would have disqualified herself from Mr. Hood’s case had his lawyers asked. But she also said she and Mr. O’Connell had kept their extramarital affair secret. She said it ended in 1987, three years before Mr. Hood’s trial.

In her deposition, Judge Holland said she had lately become angry with Mr. Hood’s lawyers for “annihilating my reputation.” She said she had asked the attorney general’s office to represent her in Mr. Hood’s challenge to her conduct because she thought she needed to fight back. She was “tired of laying over,” she said, and “getting licked without any input.”

Mr. Hood was convicted of murdering a couple he had been living with, Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace, in Plano, Tex., in 1989.

The district attorney in Collin County, John R. Roach, has said that the case should not be reopened in light of the gravity of those crimes and Mr. Hood’s delay in pursuing rumors of the affair. Mr. Roach added that there was no need for a categorical rule against a little romance.

“The existence of a prior sexual relationship between a judge and a prosecutor is not cause to absolutely disqualify a judge,” Mr. Roach told the appeals court last year. “At some point, the past romantic relationships, of even public figures, become a matter that is entitled to some privacy.”

John R. Rolater Jr., a lawyer in Mr. Roach’s office, declined to elaborate. “We have no comment at this time because of the pending litigation,” Mr. Rolater said Friday in an e-mail message.

The Supreme Court has lately taken some interest in the integrity of the judicial system.

Last year, it ruled that millions of dollars in campaign spending on behalf of a West Virginia judge was reason enough to require his disqualification from a case involving his supporter.

“The probability of actual bias on the part of the judge,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, was “too high to be constitutionally tolerable.”

And last month, the Supreme Court ordered the federal appeals court in Atlanta to have another look at a case in which jurors in a capital trial gave a trial judge an odd gift — a penis made of chocolate.

“From beginning to end,” the unsigned majority decision said, “judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect.”

To review the bidding: Campaign spending may undermine the integrity of the judicial system. The same goes for a gag gift of confectionary genitalia. But a love affair between the judge and prosecutor in a death penalty case is, in Texas, at least, another matter.

link to this column in The New York Times....

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

Also see commentary from Grits for Breakfast.

And BRIEF OF FORMER JUDGES, STATE OFFICIALS, AND PROSECUTORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER filed before the US Supreme Court. (Bill notes, this is worth reading. Look at who signed it.)

Picture this -- a man is arrested for let's say burglary and is brought before a judge who asks him if he understands the charges. "Yes, your honor and I want to plead guilty", replies the accused.

But then the District Attorney jumps up with, "We object. The people demand a jury trial".

"But I'm guilty. I did it and I'll accept my sentence.", replies the accused. "No matter, the State demands a jury trial, and we will have one", the prosecutor declares.

In Texas and especially in Collin County this actually happens. The judge is then forced to send out jury summons to 100 or more citizens, who take time off of work to come to court. A jury is chosen, sworn in and seated. The man is brought back into court and once again says, "your honor, I plead guilty, and I ask that you, the judge, set punishment." The Jury is sent home, and the man sentenced.

Not a very efficient way to run a court, is it?

Last week, in a Collin County case, the Texas 5th Court of Appeals overturned a visiting judge who refused to allow the DA to force a jury trial, when the defendant asked to plead guilty.

Visiting Judge John McCraw had accepted 4 guilty pleas from a defendant, when the prosecution objected and demanded jury trials.

Judge McCraw replied, "I'm accepting his constitutional right to enter a plea before the Court. I would submit the United States Constitution allows a defendant the right to enter a plea based on the Court's request and to avoid needless four jury trials and have at least a couple of hundred county citizens come forward [as potential jurors] and waive their right to make any type of living that day and costing the county some $5,000 per trial. I don't understand why the State is refusing to allow the defendant... to enter a plea of guilty."

In its opinion, Judge Douglas Lang, writing for the majority of the 5th Court of Appeals noted, "the Court of Criminal Appeals long ago concluded that defendants accused of felony offenses have a constitutional right to trial by jury, but do not have a constitutional protected right to waive trial by jury." Citing an earlier case opinion that said, "“As a matter of Texas constitutional law, an accused has an absolute right to trial by jury...but neither a historical nor express right to have a felony accusation tried by the court, sitting without a jury can be found.”.

The appeals court then found that, "The trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Blackburn to enter guilty pleas and waive jury trial without the prosecuting attorney's consent."

The court then issued its order, "The Court ORDERS the Honorable John McCraw, Presiding Judge by Assignment of the 429th District Court, Collin County, to set aside the guilty pleas entered for Cause Numbers 199- 80283-08, 199-80284-08, 199-80285-08, and 199-80286-08, set aside the jury trial waiver form not consented to by the State, and schedule these cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Bill

Notes:

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

The opinion of the Texas 5th Court of Appeals, IN RE JOHN ROACH, No. 05-09-01451-CV, February 17, 2010

The Observer's notes from the campaign trail --

Visual and air pollution

Even to a political junkie like me, the mess of political signs on virtually every street corner has become tiresome. While most empty lots are not scenic Meccas, the ranks of yard signs, 4 X 4's and 4 X 8's constitute little more than visual pollution.

Now I really do sympathize with any judicial candidate running in this year's GOP primary. Good grief, how does a candidate get name recognition?

There are upwards 30 candidates vying for what appears to be a myriad of courts few have ever heard of, much less understand. Stuck down at the bottom of an endless ballot, these talented attorneys need to find any way they can to draw a voter's attention to their name.

Case in point, District Court Judge candidate Scott Becker sought to find a novel way to gain name recognition by hiring a mobile billboard to carry his ad on a route across Plano, McKinney and Frisco.

I hope this isn't the start of a trend. To this writer, there is something a little offensive in wasting energy and spewing smoke driving a truck around in great big circles in order to get votes.

Novel and non-polluting.

One way the candidates try to gain the voters' attention is by campaigning at the polling places. Depending on the location, voters may have to run a gauntlet of signs, candidates and their supporters.

One supporter of District Judge candidate Keith Gore is getting his candidate's name in front of the voters in a more novel way. Local lawyer Tony Vitz has been spotted riding his unicycle around at a McKinney polling place while exhorting citizens to "Vote for Gore".

On a related note, Court at Law #3 candidate Lance Baxter noted on his questionnaire that he was a juggler. If they teamed up, Vitz and Baxter could probably draw some real crowds to the polls.

Where is the shame?

The Observer was dismayed to see that Court at Law #4 Candidate Linda Wynn Drain sent out a mailer with an endorsement by former DA Tom O'Connell. A campaign press release carries a similar endorsement from him.

O'Connell was the former DA who engaged in a sexual affair with then District Judge Verla Sue Holland. Their affair only came to the public's attention last year after both were forced to testify under oath in an ongoing attempt by attorneys for Charles Dean Hood. Hood is on death row, convicted in a trial where Holland and O'Connell hid their extra-marital relationship from the defense.

Their tryst may now prompt a review of the Hood case by the United States Supreme Court.

Extracting confessions from these two secret lovers has already cost the citizens of Collin County tens of thousands of dollars. Both O'Connell and Holland violated their oath as officers of the law. Both destroyed their marriages. Both thought their dirty little secret more important than allowing a capital defendant a fair trial.

Instead of being contrite or ashamed, O'Connell is endorsing a new generation of judges. Where is the outrage? Where is the shame?

Grand Theft Auto

Most elections are marred by reports of folks stealing campaign signs. Sadly this is a common occurrence in Collin County.

But this year tops all. It's not only yard signs that are being stolen, but the candidates' cars and trucks.

A few weeks ago, a local blog reported that Democratic Party District Attorney candidate Raphael de la Garza had a truck sporting his campaign signs stolen from a Garland lot. The large panel truck had de la Garza's pitch for District Attorney prominently displayed.

And then last week, Court at Law #6 Candidate Don High had his wife's car stolen from their Plano driveway. The car was, according to High, emblazoned with his campaign message and loaded with yard signs.

Grand theft auto, another campaign trend I hope never takes hold.

Bill

As part of our effort to reduce pollution, The Collin County Observer has posted for each judicial candidate:

• Videos of their 'stump speech'
• Campaign finance reports
• Questionnaires on judicial philosophy and temperament

Typing any candidates name or any court into the Observer's "SEARCH" box will yield, I hope, enough information for an interested voter to make an informed decision.

For example entering "Scott Becker" into the search box gets you his questionnaire, a video speech, a video interview, his campaign finance reports, a listing of major donors, and a bio.

Sex Parte Redux: SCOTUS should "remedy appalling acts by a judge and officer of the court" in Charles Hood case, since Texas CCA won't

Grits for Breakfast
February 19, 2010

Bully for the Constitution Project and the former federal judges and other officials who signed an amicus brief requesting the Supreme Court of the United States hear the Charles Dean Hood case, in which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied a habeas petition without giving a reason after the trial judge and the prosecutor admitted an affair before and possibly during his trial, then lied about or concealed their misconduct. Reports the Dallas News Crime Blog:

A former governor, a former district attorney, a former U.S. attorney from North Texas, and the former director of the FBI are among a group of 21 lawyers who have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a controversial Texas death penalty case.

The group, which was organized by the Constitution Project, is asking the court to hear the case of Charles Dean Hood, who was sentenced to death for killing two people in Collin County in 1989. Hood's case has garnered national attention not for the horrific crime, but because the prosecutor in the case had an intimate relationship with the judge.

See the Constitution Project's press release. According to the petition, "Amici are deeply concerned that, if the judgment [by the Texas CCA] is allowed to stand, the Due Process Clause’s guarantee of fundamental fairness—especially in death penalty cases— will be imperiled, and public confidence in the courts will suffer."

The brief asserts that "the Due Process Clause forbids a trial judge from presiding over a criminal proceeding in the circumstances presented here." SCOTUS should intervene, they said, because it "has an extraordinarily strong interest in preserving the reputation of the judiciary—in particular affirming the courts’ willingness to recognize and remedy appalling acts by a judge and officer of the court that violate fundamental fairness."

It's worth mentioning that all but one of the sitting members of the Texas CCA served on Texas' high criminal court with the judge in question - Verla Sue Holland - so there's an appearance that they declined to correct this obvious error out of an excess of collegial deference (read: cronyism). Only three CCA judges - Cochran, Price, and Holcomb - dissented to that embarrassing ruling. (Good for them, btw - I'm sure there was pressure to do otherwise.) So whether or not SCOTUS reviews the case, the majority of judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals have already affirmed their un-willingness to "recognize and remedy appalling acts by a judge and officer of the court that violate fundamental fairness."

This is perhaps an even more embarrassing, despicable spectacle than Presiding Judge Sharon Keller's defiant insistence that she'd repeat her behavior from the "We close at 5" imbroglio. Keller, at least, is just one vote on the court. But here, five others joined her in shirking their responsibilities to protect their ex-colleague, and not on the spur of the moment, as in Keller's infamous decision that got her into trouble, but in a deliberative setting when they had full power to right the wrong.

One bad apple could perhaps be overlooked, but in this case the barrel's spoiled. Hopefully SCOTUS will take the case and clean up the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' mess, again.

See related Grits coverage:

Disgrace! CCA lets stand egregious misconduct in capital murder case

Sex Parte: Coverup of judicial tryst tests CCA's ethical mettle

CCA Follies: They who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness

link to entire article on Grits for Breakfast....

Observer coverage of Charles Dean Hood case:

NLJ - When procedure trumps justice, Nov. 3, 2009

Sex, lies and lethal injections, Sept. 18, 2009

Hood gets his appeal (maybe), May 5, 2009

Charles Dean Hood gets another 60 days to live, Jan. 28, 2009

AG questions 1/3 of Collin death sentences, Sept. 22, 2008

Collin County needs to review capital cases, Sept. 18, 2008

Crossing the line: Sex and justice, Collin County style, Sept. 8, 2008

Atlantic - Travesty in Texas, Sept. 8, 2008

Attorney General files for possible stay in Hood case, Sept. 4, 2008

Collin County - County Court Q&A Answers

Posted on February 17, 2010 by Hunter Biederman
Frisco DWI Lawyer and Attorney Blog

Recently, a questionnaire was sent out to the candidates for Collin County Court at Law Judges along with the Justice of the Peace candidates. The questions were put together by myself, the Collin County Observer, and McKinneynews.net. Most candidates answered and below is their responses which all came in within the deadline we gave (one week). If others return their answers, I will update this post to add them at that time. I already know of one candidate, Shawn Ismail who we got mixed up with through email (sorry Shawn), and is planning on completing the questionnaire soon.

Collin County Courts at Law hear criminal and civil cases. A County Court at Law is court of general jurisdiction, hearing both civil and criminal law cases with a heavy emphasis on criminal cases. The criminal cases filed in a county court at law are misdemeanors -- those criminal offenses that carry a maximum punishment, upon conviction, of not more than 1 year confinement in jail.

Civil jurisdiction in a County Court at Law is generally invoked in lawsuits that involve controversies up to $100,000. A County Court at Law also has appellate jurisdiction over cases appealed from justice of the peace and municipal courts.

Justice of the Peace courts hear Class C Misdemeanors (traffic citations, toll violations, truancy cases, public intox, bad checks, etc),and civil cases with a maximum of $10,000 in controversy.

The questions posed are below:

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.

Below are the candidates answers:

County Court at Law #2
Jerry Lewis
Sharon Ramage

County Court at Law #3
Lance Baxter
Shajeel Khaleel
Stewart Matthews
Barnett Walker

County Court at Law #4
Chrysti Bryant
Linda Drain
Matthew Goeller
David Rippel

County Court at Law #6
Jay Bender
Terri Green
Don High
Shawn Ismail

Justice of the Peace, Prec. 3
Rey Flores
John Payton [did not respond]

Justice of the Peace, Prec. 4
Kelley Adley
Doug Reeves [did not respond]
Mike Yarbrough

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

The Collin County Observer can't help but note that while a sitting District Court Judge and an incumbent Court at Law Judge answered the questions put to them, neither sitting Justice of the Peace found it worth their while to respond on time.

I guess they have their own priorities; one of them is not responding to voters questions.

Bill

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

The Collin County Observer, in a collaboration with the Frisco DWI Lawyer's Blog recently sent all four District Attorney candidates a 10 question form designed to give the voters an insight both into the plans each candidate has for operating the DAs office and their approach to criminal justice.

The Collin County District Attorney is responsible for prosecution of all criminal cases in the county. The DA runs a large operation, divided into ten divisions. These divisions are: Intake/Grand Jury, Misdemeanor Trial, Felony Trial, Family Justice (crimes against children section, domestic violence section), Special Crimes, Appellate, Hot Checks, Investigations, Operations and Victim/Witness Assistance. The DA also may represent the County in civil cases.

The DA's office has 116 employees and its 2010 budget is $10,775,827.

The questionnaire contained 10 questions. The first 5 involved the organization and operation of the department:

1. What do you think about the current structure/staffing of the ADAs? Would you shift attorneys around?

2. What do you think about the criminal special crimes section? Would you make changes in that section, and if so, specifically how?

3. Will you get in the courtroom and actually try cases? Why or Why Not?

4. In general, what changes would you be making if you became District Attorney?

5. Right now, only three people in the District Attorney’s office have authority to dismiss a case. The misdemeanor division chief for misdemeanor cases, the first assistant for felony cases, and of course, the elected District Attorney. What do you think of this policy? Would you allow misdemeanor court chiefs and or felony court chiefs to dismiss cases they feel should be dismissed?

The next question addressed the recent attempt by DA John Roach to arm a "Rapid Response Team" with automatic weapons and riot gear:

6. Current DA John Roach recently proposed using funds to purchase weapons and body armor for the Investigators in the office. What do you plan on doing with these weapons, and will your investigators continue to train to be a emergency security staff for the court?

And the last 4 questions with policies affecting the administration of justice:

7. Do you have any plans to expand or develop alternative/deferred sentencing programs? What programs have you seen or heard of that you would implement?

8. What lessons should the Collin County District Attorney learn (if any) from Dallas County’s experience with their Innocence Commission?

9. Do you believe our indigents are well served and fairly treated in our “Indigent Defense Plans”? What changes to the plans might you recommend to the Board of Judges?

10. Would you bar defendants from open pleas before a judge if a plea agreement can not be reached, or would you reserve the right to object if you thought the judge might be more lenient than your plea offer was? Which level of prosecutors in the office would be allowed to make this decision?

As of the deadline at midnight on Sunday 3 of the candidates had returned their completed questionnaires:

James Angelino's responses are here

Jeff Bray's responses are here

Raphael de la Garza's responses are here

Greg Willis' responses are here

The questions are specific and so the responses are long. The Observer offers this in-depth look at each of these candidates in the hope that the discerning voter will gain valuable insight into the plans and philosophy of each of these well qualified candidates.

The Observer thanks each of these gentlemen for taking the time to submit thoughtful answers to our questions. Our readers can look forward to further analysis and discussion of these issues in both The Collin County Observer and the Frisco DWI Lawyer's Blog.

Bill

UPDATE (2/15/10) I received Mr. De La Garza's response and posted it.

The Collin County Observer, in collaboration with McKinneyNews.net and the Frisco DWI Lawyer's blog has sent all Collin County local judicial candidates, from District Court to Justice of the Peace, a questionnaire designed to give the voters a real opportunity to understand the character, motivation and philosophy of all those who ask us to elect them as our judges.

The questionnaires will be completed by Tuesday night, and we hope to start publishing them very shortly thereafter.

Bill

The County Observer and The Frisco DWI Lawyer blogs have teamed up to prepare a 10 question Q & A with the 4 candidates for Collin County District Attorney.

The questions have been sent to each of the candidates. We have promised to post their unedited responses (or lack of) and we hope their answers will give voters a better understanding of the approach each one of these gentlemen plan to bring to the DAs office.

Bill

After watching the Collin County District Attorney use his Drug Forfeiture Fund for new furniture and then for automatic weapons and ammo, it is refreshing to see a notice that he intends to use $11,115 of the fund to fight crime.

The DA has notified the Commissioners Court of his intent to use the funds to pay an invoice for lab work for "additional evidence analysis needed in a Cold Case".

This type of expenditure is what the Drug Forfeiture Fund should have been used for all along.

Bill

County In Need Of Advocates For Abused Children

February 4, 2010
Stephanie Lucero -- CBS 11 / TXA 21


COLLIN COUNTY (CBS 11 / TXA 21) - Virginia Barrett says the intimate details of child abuse appalled her when she served on the Collin County Grand Jury. It was the gruesome details behind a number of cases that led Barrett to become a Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) volunteer.

"People say, 'How can you do this?' and I think my response is 'How can you not?'" Barrett asked. "If you see a need, you just have to put aside all those heartbreaking things and think 'What can I do to make it better?"

There is a shortage of CASA volunteers across North Texas. CASA of Collin County is currently serving 250 children who have been removed from their parent's home. The agency serviced 460 children last year.

"CASA gets involved with a case once Child Protective Services (CPS) has done its initial investigation and determined the child cannot be safe at home," explained Susan Etheridge, the Executive Director of CASA Collin County.

David Shevlin adopted twin brothers, Alex and Andrew, when they were 14 years old. The twins were adopted after their parents lost custody of them in Florida. Shevlin says his entire family, of eight, has bonded with the teenagers and that experience led him to become a CASA volunteer.

"There was quite a bit of abuse in the past," Shevlin said of his adopted sons' experience. Alex and Andrew were severely malnourished and weighed only 38 and 40 pounds when they were adopted.

Shevlin was one of 28 men and women trained to be CASA volunteers last week. "It's a hard job to hear about the horrific abuse that these children have suffered," Etheridge said of those who step up to help.

Volunteers go through a week of training and report to a CASA Supervisor. The volunteers interview children, advocate for their best interests, and investigate each case. During their investigation they talk to the parents, family members, teachers, therapists and anyone who has knowledge of what is taking place in the home.

The CASA volunteer then recommends, to the judge overseeing the case, whether the child should be returned to the parents or be removed from the home permanently. Etheridge says, "The volunteer forms a strong relationship with the child", and visits with him or her at least twice a month.

There is a shortage of CASA volunteers in Collin County, with the more experienced advocates handle multiple cases.

Virginia Barrett says she stays in contact with many of the children she has advocated for over the past 11 years. "In some cases the parents, who have been drug abusers, they get their act together and the family gets back together and that's happily ever after too," she said.

Find out more about possibly becoming a CASA volunteer in Collin County.

Link to article and more on CBS-11....

In the latest development over the equipping of District Attorney investigators as a "Rapid Response Team" complete with automatic weapons, the DA has notified the courts that until they "revise" their Mission, these "courthouse commandos" will not deploy.

In her memo addressed to the Courthouse Security Committee, DA Chief Investigator Novaline Varner wrote:

"The Collin County District Attorney's Office is in the process of revising our Mission concerning First Responders. Effective immediately the Collin County District Attorney's Office will not deploy a First Responders Team from our Office for any courthouse emergency or security matter. We will advise you when our mission study and any revisions have been completed.

"We will continue to support the Collin County Courthouse Security Committee and of course abide by Art. 2.13 Code of Criminal Procedure, Duties and Powers of a Peace Officer."

The lack of a clearly defined mission and agreements between the DA Team and Bailiffs and other Law enforcement agencies was highlighted by the Commissioners Court in their discussion of the purchase of SWAT Team equipment last month. When asked by commissioners about the apparent lack of procedures, Varner responded ",We are working on an SOP, so everybody will know what they're doing. but all of that takes time. While we're wasting time getting through the red tape, we're still training. I don't want us to come across that we're some kind of "Three Stooges" type [operation]."

It is not known if the District Attorney will proceed with the purchase of $25,306.46 in SWAT Team guns and equipment utilizing his Drug Forfeiture Fund.

Bill

Area cities spending millions on IT projects

Sunday, January 31, 2010
By IAN McCANN / The Dallas Morning News

Even as the ongoing recession squeezes municipal budgets, several cities in North Texas are spending millions on major technology projects.

Frisco, Irving, McKinney, Plano and Richardson are replacing police and fire radio systems, to the tune of $8 million to $25 million apiece.

For most, the technology spending is an absolute need. Mowing schedules can be cut, and staff hires can be frozen, but police officers, firefighters and dispatchers must be able to communicate.

"We can't lose dial tone. We can't lose data," said Steve Graves, Richardson's chief technology officer. "The radio system, that's a crucial part of doing business."

Cities usually try to space out major projects so large expenditures can be spread out over time. But Richardson and Irving are planning to install several new technology systems at once.

Graves said some of his city's project was delayed, including buying $376,000 in new hardware and software for a public safety dispatch and records management system.

"Last year, we were ready to pull the trigger on it," Graves said. "But with a new chief coming in, we wanted to give him input. We don't want to say, 'Here's the system we're giving you. Work your needs around it.' "

At the same time, during a change to the city's radio frequency, the city found that its 18-year-old communications system was in dire need of replacement. That work will cost up to $10 million. Replacing an 11-year-old phone and data network will cost about $1.7 million.

Irving's two-year, $25 million project involves replacing its 13-year-old radio system, retrofitting the city with a fiber optics network and adding a wireless network.

Shane Burton, who oversees Irving's IT infrastructure, said the wireless network will cover the entire city but will not be available to the public. Instead, it will be reserved for water meter reading and other city uses.

Like Irving and Richardson, cities that hit their growth stride years ago, Plano also needs to replace an aging radio system. Bruce Glasscock, a Plano deputy city manager, said Motorola no longer supports his city's 15-year-old system.

Plano's situation is compounded in that growing areas including Frisco, Wylie and Murphy also use its radio system. Frisco in coming months will start using its own system, further changing the area Plano's radios must cover. Plano and its partners will spend about $25 million on the new system.

"It's a major project," Glasscock said. "We've been working with council the last three to five budget years, so we've been ready for it."

On the other end of the spectrum from the landlocked inner-ring cities are Frisco and McKinney?.

"Our system was designed for a 1999 city of McKinney," McKinney Assistant Police Chief Rex Redden said. "In some areas, our officers can't get a signal. Our department has tripled in size, and our land mass has pretty much quadrupled."

McKinney's $8.3 million radio system purchase comes on the heels of a $2 million public safety software and hardware replacement last year.

Scale can magnify even seemingly small purchases. Garland is proposing to spend about $2 million to replace video units in each of its 200 patrol cars.

The department is moving from VHS systems to digital recorders, equipment that Officer Joe Harn, a police spokesman, said hadn't been perfected when Garland first installed recorders in 2005.

A key for all the cities is to use advanced equipment but not to get too far ahead of the curve, especially on critical infrastructure like police and fire radios. Buy equipment that's too advanced, and it may still have bugs to work out. Technology that's too old has a shorter life cycle. So IT directors make purchasing decisions carefully.

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

When Judge Curt Henderson announced his retirement, a three person race to replace him on the 219th District Court was underway. The 219th is a court of general jurisdiction, meaning it handles felony criminal trials as well as family law and civil cases.

The three candidates or the Republican nomination appeared at a forum held last night and sponsored by the Collin County Conservative Club. Here are their opening statements.

Bill

Scott Becker

Wendy McMillon

Angela Tucker

The Collin County Observer believes that the District Attorney's race is one of the most important election contests in recent county history.

I have tried on several occasions to record speeches by the three Republican candidates, but unfortunately I have not been able to get a good recording because these guys wander all over the stage and auditorium - delivering their talks "on the hoof". It's impossible to film them with a hand-held camera.

I am grateful to the Collin County Conservative Republican Club who super glued these gentlemen's shoes to the floor long enough for me to record their opening remarks. I hope you find the effort worthwhile and are able to learn something about these contenders who want to be your next District Attorney.

Bill

Jimmy Angelino

Jeff Bray

Greg Willis

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

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

The Court at Law #6 bench became vacant when Judge Greg Willis stepped down to pursue a run for Collin County District Attorney. There are 4 candidates who have filed for the Republican Primary to replace Judge Willis.

JAY BENDER

TERRI GREEN

DON H. HIGH

SHAWN ISMAIL

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

The elected Judge of the Court at Law #4, Ray Wheless was appointed to the 366th District Court by Governor Perry, leaving an open bench. A 4 way race has ensued for the Republican nomination.

CHRYSTI BRYANT

LINDA WYNN DRAIN

MATTHEW GOELLER

DAVID RIPPEL

Bill

LANCE S. BAXTER

www.baxterforjudge.com

Contributions July - Dec. $15,199
Expenditures July - Dec. $10,600
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $8,065
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Baxter, Dorothy - $2,500
Curran, Michael - $1,000
Dillard, Wynn - $1,000
Gibbs, Gregg - $2,500
Rich, Jack - $2,500

STEWART MATTHEWS

www.stewartmatthewsforjudge.com

Contributions July - Dec. $0
Expenditures July - Dec. $7,403
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $0
Loans - $10,000

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Stewart Matthews - $10,000 (loan)

BARNETT WALKER

www.walkerforjudge.com

Contributions July - Dec. $12,300
Expenditures July - Dec. $0
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $12,268
Loans - $0

Major contributors (+- $1,000):
Troy Burleson - $2,500
Hunter Biederman - $1,500
Kyle Shaw - $1,000
Roger & Judy Jahnel - $1,000
John & Joyce Webb - $1,000
Sharon Curtis - $2,000
Tyler Stewart - $1,200 (in-kind)
Barnett Walker - $7,437

SAJEEL KHALEEL

www.khaleelforjudge.com/

Contributions July - Dec. $169
Expenditures July - Dec. $0
Campaign account balance Dec. 31 - $863
Loans - $0

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

Bill