Pat Lykos is going to be on HCCLA's Reasonable Doubt on Thursday night, February 28th at 8 p.m. And I'm not sure if it is on Channel 17 or 19 (Mark, can you help me out on this?)
Its a call-in show (although the number changes from show to show for some reason, so I don't have the number available at the moment), so feel free to call in and ask her the tough questions. For example:
1. During Eldridge v. State, 731 sw2d 618, you revoked a Defendant's probation without a hearing and without his attorney being present. Could you explain how this is somehow not a massive civil rights violation?
2. Would you care to explain why you didn't let a witness wear a yarmulke in your court?
3. Did you ever apologize for it?
4. What's your criteria for deciding which of the Assistant District Attorneys you are going to fire?
5. Why were your Bar Poll Ratings always so low? (NOTE: When she says because she "didn't play favorites, proceed to Question # 6)
6. Then why were Judge Poe's ratings always so high?
7. Why is a 60 year old woman still getting written up on her evaluation because she can't get along with others (much like a grade schooler)?
8. If you observed the ADAs striking so many jurors based on race when you were on the bench, why is there no record anywhere of you ever calling them out on it?
9. Why do you refer to yourself as a "litigator" when you've never tried a case?
10. Have you ever gone by the street name of "Snookems"?
By the way, good luck getting a call in on the show. Lykos typically arranges for her friends to call in and throw her softball questions that she can answer in a politically stunning manner.
9 comments:
And a Bonus Question: "Why don't any of the Criminal District Court Judges in Harris County ever let you serve as a visting judge in their courts?"
I believe it's channel 17.
I also believe the number will be 713.807.1794.
Incidentally, it's not like Kelly was getting tough questions when she was on the show.
Sounds like Judge Jan Krocker got her bench lessons from Lykos.
Out of fairness to Lykos (not that I see that as one of your goals), number 1 deals with a misdemeanor deferred adjusication that she hastily revoked within a short time of sentencing because she found out the defendant lied about his precent drug use.
Given the clarity of sight you have (and wish others would have) regarding Kelly's "youthful indicretions," is this really the best shot you can take?
BTW, number 2 has been asked and answered, although I'll confess I'm equally skeptical of her response to that and Kelly's response to the similarly distant "jew" remark.
I do see some value in numbers 4, 7, 8, and 9.
XOXO
Mark,
Speaking of the show that Kelly was on, are you still planning on posting it?
this is a huge opportunity to get serious about this election. she needs to answer questions with specifics......
most important........
She needs to be on record regarding the "snookems" allegation.
anon c, yes. I got the DVD today, ripped it to MP4, and uploaded it to Google Videos, which for some reason didn't accept it. I'm exporting it to MOV now to try again.
I do have other things going on, y'know . . . defending people, running a business, feeding a family, blogging . . .
7:09, while everyone here is dying to know that Lykos is snookems, I very much doubt that anyone who isn't reading this gives a damn.
Questions 7 and 8 are my favorites, but everyone knows that "litigators" are people who don't try cases.
No biggie, Mark! Don’t rush.
It’s not like the show aired over a week ago, Kelly was her usual, stellar self, it would help her campaign and the election is in four days or anything.
Post a Comment