In today's Chronicle, Lloyd Kelley (in referring to his role in the Rosenthal contempt hearing yesterday) made the unfortunate comment "I'm in the passenger seat in this."
Now, I'm sure that those of us who are aware of Kelley's history would sleep much easier at night knowing that he was in the passenger seat and not driving, but the statement he makes is disingenuous.
Is there anybody out there who really believes that he is anything close to wide-eyed, crusading attorney for two poor innocent kids that were victimized by the brutal sheriff's office? But God bless him, it doesn't slow him down one bit and making himself look like a babe-in-the-woods who is just shocked and stunned at the way the proceedings are going.
Give it a rest, Lloyd.
We all know that you and Clarence Bradford are former police officers and best friends.
We all know that you want him to be the D.A. come November 2008, even though he isn't remotely qualified.
We all know that Clarence Bradford needs somebody else to have some mud slung on them so that the voters will overlook the DNA scandal, the K-Mart scandal, the perjury scandal, the pay raise scandal . . .
We all know that you hate the District Attorney's Office because of a run-in you had years back.
We all know that the DA's Office has nothing to do with your clients' lawsuit against the Sheriff's Office.
We all know that you went on a fishing expedition through Chuck's e-mails that yielded things beyond your wildest dreams.
We all know you did the Dance of Joy when you handed all those e-mails over to the media before Judge Hoyt could reseal them.
We all know that you subpoenaed Kelly Siegler to court because she is a DA candidate (NOTE TO LYKOS: watch your e-mails. Lloyd will turn his attention to you the first time he can think of a remote link you might have with the case).
Look Lloyd, you've gotten everything you wanted and more out of this lawsuit. Clarence should be hugging you and thanking you with all kind of expunctions further down the road.
But seriously, you in the passenger seat? I think not.
You're driving, Buddy. And you've got a lot of road rage still in you.
23 comments:
"Road-rage" ha-ha-ha-ha
God, Lloyd is annoying. Those who recall his poor public service, like me, are shaking their heads. How sad that he hit the jackpot on this one.
That goes right along with Quannell and Wice being right for the first time in their friggin' lives. Normally, when you see Wice on TV, you're going "stfu and if you make another bad baseball analogy I'm gonna puke". But yesterday, even I had to give him a perfect 10. Even the East German judge would have given him a perfect 10. Too bad that insight doesn't carry over to his practice.
I can see it now. A new reality show. "Quannell, Lloyd and Me: The Brian Wice Hour".
What is that old saying? Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn?
AHCL, I agree with you. Kelley's statements are a bunch of BS.
However, the statement, "Clarence should be hugging you and thanking you with all kind of expunctions further down the road," is just the kind of stuff that got the DA's office in trouble in the first place.
Tip my hat off to Kelly, this guy has provided invaluable service to all the punblic and especially defense attorneys(like him or not) wonder when the deleted emails will surface and provide an invaluable insight into what the DA's office is really all about....
To my boy "Anonymous" who took me to task for never being right in my legal analysis, using bad baseball analogies on the air, and whose "insight" does not carry over into my practice:
1. If you have such a monopoly on wisdom, taste, and insight, how come you don't have the nut sack to post under your real name instead of being a punk who insists on anonymity like some lame-ass snitch in a 20 kilo drug case?
2. With your breath-taking insight into TV legal analysis, tell me exactly where I was wrong on any story you can think of. I am sure your only connection to the world of TV is that you probably own one.
3. And if you think my insight does not carry over into my practice, why don't you ask the judges and ADAs who I have appeared against and in front of, and the clients whom I have represented ably since you were in middle school as they will certainly have a different opinion than your tired-ass "anonymous" take. The only thing worse than being anonymous on this post is being anonymous in real life.
Way to go Brian I'm tired of reading posts where everybody on this blog is kissing everyone's ass especially al the DA's...is that what this blog is about nothing but ex-DA's or wannebe DA's?
Welcome to Ron and Brian to the Blog,
I'm sorry to see that Brian's first appearance here brings him in such a pissed off state, but I guess it's understandable under the circumstances.
I would be glad to see Brian and Ron both posting their thoughts here more often in the future.
Brian, I wouldn't get too mad about what people post. Your job on the television is to provide your thoughts on the cases at hand. Of course there is going to be another side to it.
Frankly, I hadn't thought about the idea that the recess was for Chuck to review what he had said thus far, so I appreciated the insight. I've disagreed with you before, but you've been pretty much on the money lately, in my opinion.
Anon 2:53 p.m., I'm guessing by your tone that you aren't interested in a blog that illustrates the point of view of people who still think the vast majority of the Office does a good job.
I will gladly admit that there is a lot of positive vibes going out to the ADAs on this website.
If it bothers you that much, I hear that there are a couple of other websites on this World Wibe Web thing.
You are absolutely right AHCLA, here is hoping that your blog becomes irrelevent and as immaterial as CR's administration and becomes a historical footnote on the what happens when ex-DA's pretend to defend the rights of innocent people under pretense, of being unbiased defense attorneys, when they actually have an incestous relationship with the DA's attempting to prosecute said clients. Why dont you rename your Blog the EX-DA blog which would be more appropriate... I will leave you with this AHCLA "times they are achanging" if you are open minded as you seem to think don't let yourself and your blog go the way of the Vikings.....
I would submit that you can't blame Kelley for what happened. If Rosenthal weren't behaving like a boorish schmuck on the job and using county resources for his campaign, the emails wouldn't have existed to find.
Questioning the motives of one's critics is a diversion from the issues about the DA's behavior that clearly concerned the public when they learned about them, to the point that the head of Rosenthal's own county party asked him to resign. But Lloyd Kelley is to blame?
Maybe instead of focusing exclusively on sending out "good vibes" to ADAs, you might ask some of the top folks in the office why they knowingly tolerated clearly unprofessional behavior from their top boss for the last eight years. Why did Kelley have to find it out through discovery? Where were the ADAs saying, "This behavior is embarrassing to the office and must not stand." At the end of the day there were not a one. And that's not Lloyd Kelley's fault.
Anon 3:50 p.m., take care of yourself, dude. We'll miss you around here.
Grits, I don't blame Lloyd Kelley for Chuck's behavior any more than I would blame the iceberg that the Titanic ran into. I'm just saying that it is down-right silly that he acts like he didn't do this with a political agenda. There are plenty of D.A.'s who, although upset about the reputation of the Office, are excited about a change of leadership. They just hope that it is somebody who actually knows what they are doing. In my opinion, Leitner and Siegler are the only two realistic candidates.
Adios, Anon 3:50pm.
Don't let the door hit your a** on the way out.
Hey boys save your cliches for your boss CR....
I thought you were leaving.
Annon 350... either too much crack or not enough! Loosen the belt, have sex, drink a martini, play with puppies, blow spit bubbles... whatever you gotta do to get the blood circulating back into your brain. LOL
Thanks to blogHouston I found this one and it's like a breath of fresh air. I'm going to just sit back, read and learn. The Comical is killing me over my coffee every a.m. and I sure could use some balance in my day!
Welcome to the Blog, TxGoodie,
Feel free to drop by any time!
The Harris County DA's office has seen better days before Rosenthal but you'd think he was Manson's tutor, juggled kittens over a cliff, and beat little old ladies given some of the comments by the lynch mob online at the Chronicle. The anti-death penalty types have long sought a chink in the armor of the office as have the groups representing those who are convicted of the crimes they committed (often claiming racial biases that they foolishly over play). The GOP dropped Chuck as much because he would NOT do their bidding and allow the office to mirror the crazy antics by a Democratic prosecutor in Austin but you'd only know that if you were involved in their inner circle.
As far as Lloyd Kelley is concerned, his past speaks quite loudly as to his character. At HPD, he was said to study for promotional exams and his college work "on duty" to the scale that yellow journalist Wayne D. at Channel 13 would kill to have caught on tape (later catching enough to warrant a scandal when Kelley was Controller). Kelley was widely known as "The Phantom Lieutenant" on the department because he was so rarely available at work (his poor work habits made tolerable only by the fact that so many thought he was an idiot and it was always better to simply let him stay as far away from work as possible).
As a Councilman, he had a reputation for being a whiny, petulant child that thought he could run the show even as senior council members showed him up continuously; Mayor Lanier routinely patting him on the head (figuratively speaking) as the idiot that rode the short bus to City Hall. A quick review of Kelley's record at the yearly budget hearings will show anyone interested how shallow and ineffective he was.
Kelley then was given the nod to become Controller not because he had any intelligence or ability but because he would serve well as a "yes man" that George G. could never be. The term "puppet" was bandied about regularly as was the phrase "sell out" and much worse. Kelley has always been cold and calculating though so this latest drama is nothing new. If he's now the puppet of Bradford's campaign or as part of a deal to secure another payoff political position, so be it, but don't think for a moment that he isn't doing everything in his power to look as described in the blog.
Anon 7:37 AM, thanks for your post. I agree with you whole-heartedly.
But just to make sure that I understand you, you think that Kelley is Bradford's puppet? I always thought it was the other way around. Although incredibly devious, Kelley at least seems pretty smart. Bradford, uh, well, doesn't.
You're welcome. Without splitting too many hairs, notice I believe Kelley is the puppet of Bradford's campaign, not Bradford himself (a meaningful distinction that is easy to overlook). Bradford isn't an evil man, quite the opposite, but he was a sergeant promoted beyond his ability to Assistant Chief and then onto Chief (missing those important ranks in between).
The politics behind his rise to power include all the usual factors but his problem is that he is not a leader and he always relied too heavily on advisor's that would screen the information he received and/or manipulate him. As a result, he had serious issues with getting anything done unless it was personally approved by Craig Ferrell and a small group of others behind the scenes.
Bradford's failures as a result of this personal dynamic include all the aforementioned "scandals" and a lot more that were swept under the rug but his charisma aside, he has no business running for DA. Keep in mind that I like the guy too but I'm not going to downplay his lack of credentials or inadequacy for the position as so many others are doing.
Kelley, on the other hand, is a manipulative believer in "royalty" principles; his elitist thinking permeating everything he does. His "I know it all, just ask me" attitude in everything he did irritated staffers in HPD, Council, and the Controllers office for years. He wanted blind followers and equated differing opinions with disloyalty; not the kind of guy he is being portrayed as (for the record, on some topics he is quite bright but he translates that to mean he is bright in everything; unable to see that this is not the case).
PS: These are personal opinions based on years of personal experience and discussions with scores of people. Should Kelley ever be bold enough to credibly run for office, I know a LOT of people that will provide every reporter in town with copious amounts of "dirt" that will be verifiable, extremely revealing, and enough that he'd want to move out of the area. ;)
Another disturbing facet to this situation is blasts from the past like the Aldape Guerra case. That case, as I recall, hinged upon Chuck's good word that he had not seen the exculpatory ballistics report.
That event was enough to turn Lorraine Parker into an anti-death penalty activist. We all know how chummy Chuck was with the police...I wonder if Lorraine is wondering whether Chuck actually knew about the report and hid it, because that's what I am wondering.
Great website but how come the blogmistress never posts from 8-5 m-f if she is an ex-ada?
Another interesting coincidence: Judge Hoyt was the judge who freed Aldape Guerra, obviously he heard Chuck's testimony under oath in that matter as well. Wonder if he has some thoughts on Chuck's veracity?
These are the questions Houstonians are asking. They are not asking "will it be Kelly or Jim?" or "should we 12.44 residue cases?"
If we really had an investigative media in this town, they would resurrect every allegation of failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and look for all of the other "yesterday's news" that never made it to the disciplinary committee.
There are big questions that need to be asked, and more importantly, that need some really valid answers.
Anon 5:21,
You are confusing the Aldape Guerra case with another one that Chuck handled at trial time. I know what you are talking about, but I forget the name of the Defendant. Aldape Guerra was handled by two other ADAs who are long gone from the Office. Guerra's case certainly had it's issues, but Chuck wasn't one of them.
As to me failing to post between 8-5, I stated in one of my first blogs that I wasn't going to let this blog interfere with my regular work (and that is a tough temptation to resist). And I have never hidden the fact that I've got a deep affection for the Office. I'm very dismayed by the state it is in, and that's why I started writing.
Anon 6:25, you are very correct that the general public isn't asking the specifics about 12.44(a) which is a little frightening to those of us who deal with criminal cases on a daily basis. The person in charge NEEDS to know about those issues and how to articulate them to the people who are going to deal with it, namely the prosecution and the defense bar. Glib and political answers are nice for the electorate, but have some faith in the defense bar for recognizing the substantive things that mean REAL change within a System that needs help right now. Although the defense bar and the prosecution may not agree between Leitner and Siegler, I think that they can agree that Lykos, Perry and Bradford are not the answer.
Post a Comment