Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Huh?

Alan Bernstein let me know in the comments section of "Balls of Steel?" that after further reflection that Pat Lykos (hours later) decided to make a stand and state that Rosenthal should resign (like Jim said first, and Kelly did yesterday).

Here's the quote:

"It is interesting that Kelly Siegler has been part of the district attorney's office working side by side with Chuck Rosenthal for years, and now when Mr. Rosenthal is a political liability, she tries to separate herself from him and demand his resignation," Lykos said. "It is political theatrics and skilled tactics."

There are a couple of things funny about this statement.

Funny Thing # 1 - Does Lykos really think that Kelly just realized yesterday that Chuck was a political liability?!?!

Funny Thing # 2 - If Kelly's "demand" for Chuck's resignation was such a political no-brainer, then why did Lykos have to: a) leave the functiion after it was over, b) go meet with her political consultant; c) be told that denouncing Rosenthal would be a good thing with the voters; and then, and only then d) decide that she would agree?

Funny Thing # 3 - "It's political theatrics and skilled tactics." Um, did Kelly step onto your turf with that one Judge? You, of all people, calling somebody out for political theatrics?

You gotta be kidding me.

Again, Mr. Bernstein, thanks for the article, and thanks for letting me know about the change.

I'm still waiting on that yarmulke article on Judge Lykos, though.

10 comments:

Ron in Houston said...

AHCL

I've yet to hear any attorney who has dealt with Pat Lykos say anything positive.

She has done some visiting judge gigs in other courts and after her being there has not returned.

Somebody, somewhere supports her. I've yet to figure out "who" and "why."

The only candidate I've had personal experience with in the DA's race is Pat Lykos. My personal experience says not just "no" but "hell no."

What's a yarmulke?

advocat98 said...

You sure nailed it in this article.

Please keep up your blog going through the election. I appreciate reading the thoughts of someone who is or was in the DA's office, as well as the criminal defense attorneys who post comments on here. It is nice to read a substantive discussion of the issues without the wild conspiracy theories about Kay Bailey Hutchison, Judge Hoyt, Ronnie Earle and David Medina.

advocat98 said...

Ron in Houston, a yarmulke is the a thin rounded skullcap Orthodox Jews wear. (Reformed and Conservative Jews wear them at temple also.)

For more on Lykos' yarmulke-gate incident, here's a New York Times article.

JAGJO said...

I agree with you on this one, Ron. I am surprised over some of the endorsements Lykos is getting.
Aside of the reasons you mentioned and some of the lingering discussion here involving Lykos disciplinarian tactics,some unethical court room manuevers and her stale toast personality, I still think that she is pushing it in the age category to assume a 4 yr position. I recently posted the following here under a different topic and just wonder if anyone else feels the same as I do about the potential downfall of someone taking on this monumental task of reformation at the age of 67?
Previously wrote:
Is it just me or..... while there has been much discussion over the contenders in the DA race and most recently Lykos... no one has mentioned anything in regard to Lykos age ability. She is the oldest candidate running. I know I am going to take a hit on this and be called discriminatory BUT HEAR ME OUT, please. Lykos is going to turn 66 in a few wks which means if she were to make it to and through November's race, she would be 67 when she assumed title of Harris County District Attorney and she would thus be close to 71 when her 4yr term expired. Just for the record and it is always about "the record", is it not ?(lol)...I am pro senior citizen. I am all for senior citizens being and remaining an active productive voice in our community indefinitely but, it occurred to me that Lykos ( if she were even able to pull off the DA stint to a level that would merit being elected to another 4 year term, would not in all likelihood) be able to run as incumbent in 2012. She would be starting her second term at the ripe age of 72 and ending at the age of 76. I am sorry-but I just do not see this as being a positive aspect (investment) for the HCDAO. There are certain demands, physically and mentally, that accompany this position (and this specific term beginning in 2009 is going to be even more grueling with the added demand for reformation of the entire office) and I do not feel that a person in her age group would be at the top of the game. If anyone would consider her to be a viable candidate, they surely cannot have the best interest of HCDA office at heart or of logical mind for that matter. I have seen several endorsements for Lykos. Could it be that some of her affiliated PAC's are just picking the lesser of evils (so to speak and meaning lesser of controversy evils)? Other candidates ages at the inception of office would be : Siegler 46, Lietner 58, Perry(sorry, not applicable lol) , Bradford 53. I agree with several posters opinions that Lykos is (my terminology) a cotton candy candidate (all fluff) and as far as I am concerned, she might as well stand up and sing Somewhere Over the Rainbow to keep in theme( metaphorically) with what she has said thus far about what she plans to do if elected. Saying there is change needed is merely stating a public fact and saying that you are the best person to enact that change is par for the course with.... Candidates that do not have a specific theorized implementation plan. There are many occupations that are curtained for specific age categories and without going into a boring and even longer diatribe listing those because common sense can offer up many, I feel this is one of those jobs that require a person under 67 yrs of age and one that requires atleast some degree of prosecutorial experience. And while it may not be P.C. this is after all, my opinion ~JAGJO

January 30, 2008 2:54 PM

bubbajoe6pack said...

Today, Tuesday, there was a DA Candidate forum at the Houston Pachyderm Club.

Leitner, Lykos, and Perry visited this hotbed of blue haired mavens, Kelly was a no show, which was commented upon by the CLub leadership.

Lykos, giving the lesser Satan her due, gave a good speech. She is the candidate for change, because chnage is good, and she is all about good changes that make changes that are good. The blue hairs applauded wildly.

Leitner was his normal calm, precise self.

Perry was a good man, but had no clue as to what the DA's Office did.

After the speeches, questions were fielded from Club members, answered in alternating order.

The first question, obviously from a plant, asked what each candidate's position was on pre-trial diversion and deferred.

Lykos started off and informed the audience that pre-trial BONDS were a valuable tool that allowed the JUDGE to decide if a defendant was a good candidate for probation or deferred. She informed the audience that a pre-trial bond made the defendant report regularly and take UAs, which the JUDGE could then use to determine if the defendant deserved probation and deferred. Lykos was all for pre-trial bonds.

The blue hairs thought this was a capital idea and applauded wildly.

Leitner correctly said that a pre-trial diversion was a contract between the DA and the defendant. He opined that it was a valuable tool to keep young, non-violent offenders from becoming permanent drags on society, as might happen if they had a felony conviction.

The mavens applauded politely.

Perry thought Leitner had fine ideas.

SO ends another day in Republican politics.....

bubbajoe6pack said...

Today, Tuesday, there was a DA Candidate forum at the Houston Pachyderm Club.

Leitner, Lykos, and Perry visited this hotbed of blue haired mavens, Kelly was a no show, which was commented upon by the CLub leadership.

Lykos, giving the lesser Satan her due, gave a good speech. She is the candidate for change, because chnage is good, and she is all about good changes that make changes that are good. The blue hairs applauded wildly.

Leitner was his normal calm, precise self.

Perry was a good man, but had no clue as to what the DA's Office did.

After the speeches, questions were fielded from Club members, answered in alternating order.

The first question, obviously from a plant, asked what each candidate's position was on pre-trial diversion and deferred.

Lykos started off and informed the audience that pre-trial BONDS were a valuable tool that allowed the JUDGE to decide if a defendant was a good candidate for probation or deferred. She informed the audience that a pre-trial bond made the defendant report regularly and take UAs, which the JUDGE could then use to determine if the defendant deserved probation and deferred. Lykos was all for pre-trial bonds.

The blue hairs thought this was a capital idea and applauded wildly.

Leitner correctly said that a pre-trial diversion was a contract between the DA and the defendant. He opined that it was a valuable tool to keep young, non-violent offenders from becoming permanent drags on society, as might happen if they had a felony conviction.

The mavens applauded politely.

Perry thought Leitner had fine ideas.

SO ends another day in Republican politics.....

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Advocate98, I am so glad that you found this website. I've been watching you rally against the insantiy on the Chronicle blog for weeks now, and I look forward to your future posts. You've been a voice of reason in a sea of insantiy over there for some time. I wish you a very sincere welcome. Even if Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Judge Hoyt, and Ronnie Earle probably sent you.
Just kidding.

BubbaJoe, welcome to you as well. Love the name. Thank you for being present and reporting back on how some of the less-publicized meetings are going. It's nice to have a person who understands the issue pointing out what is going. I'm very glad that you let us know what Jim Leitner is up to on the campaign trail. I haven't had a lot to post about Jim, because the media isn't giving him much attention. Please let us know how he is doing on the trail. It's too bad that the media isn't recognizing him as a REAL CANDIDATE like they should.

As for Kelly's absence at today's function, my understanding is that she missed it with great reluctance, but had another matter that she had to attend to. That matter will come to light in the very near future. And no, it's nothing negative.

toggleblog said...

So what if Lykos was late to the party in calling on Chuck to resign? Was Chuck actually going to listen to her if she had said he should resign? Calling on Chuck to resign is a pointless act. These days calling on Chuck to resign puts you right up there with Quanell X. He doesn't listen to his own staff, why would he listen to Lykos? This whole calling on Chuck to resign business is a non-issue. Everybody was late to the party on this one. So what does it matter? When a candidate calls on Chuck to resign it's only because they feel it's politically expedient to do so. Period.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

TogBlog (like your new nickname?),
What I was pointing out was that Lykos can even make the easy calls without first analyzing the political value of them. She punted on an easy question, only to answer the question too late. The fact that she's jumping on the bandwagon so late just shows that she is an empty-suit politician who knows everything about campaigning, and not a damn thing about the job she seeks to hold.

JAGJO said...

AMEN, AHCL! If only there were cameras rolling at the PAC's events... so people could witness her lameness first hand and see/hear just how ineffectual her barren campaign speeches are. At first I thought she just needed some " No Doze" but not even a case of Red Bull can fix this! LOL

Coming forth now and not sooner with a call for CR resignation,is part being politically fashionable and part anticipating what is about to come down the pike.

My hat's off to ya.... playing ref with all the bloggers is a job unto itself! :-)