On Thursday, the Baby Misdemeanor Prosecutors had a mandatory CLE (that's "Continuing Legal Education" for you folks not in the legal field) seminar on Ethics on the 20th Floor. In attendance was District Attorney 1st Assistant-Elect Jim Leitner.
At the end of the seminar, Leitner was given his first opportunity to address the "Troops" who were all there.
Now, keep in mind, this was a captive audience of more-or-less rookie prosecutors and it was two days after the mini-purge that had cost me my job on Tuesday. The Babies (which is the Office's affectionate term for the misdemeanor prosecutors) are probably the most shapeable, inspire-able, and potentially loyal employees that Lykos could get her claws on.
Setting aside the fact that Lykos herself didn't bother to attend the event (on Ethics, no less), this was a big moment folks, and Leitner stepped up to the plate to address them for the first time ever.
HERE IS WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE SAID
"Guys, I know it's been a crazy week and you have a lot of questions. Things are going to change around here, but Justice never changes. Your jobs are all safe on January 1 and Pat Lykos is excited about having you all work for her and looks forward to working with you in the years ahead. Guys, this is the greatest job in the world, and as well as I know Pat Lykos, the next four years are going to be some of the most rewarding of your life."
HERE IS WHAT HE DID SAY (PARAPHRASED)
"A lot of people have been asking me if Pat is going to let the women still wear pant suits. I had lunch with Pat yesterday and she was wearing pants. She said pantsuits will be fine. She is concerned with some of the short skirts she's seen."
The awe-inspired Baby Prosecutor's filed slowly out of the meeting to go do some Justice!
Good job, there, General Patton.
50 comments:
Ethics training?
Taught my Pam Derbyshire and Vivian King......(with all do respect to Halpert - who I have nothing negative to say about).
I was not there, but was told my numerous "babies" that it was nothing but a bitch session and no one from the office's executive staff did anything to stand up for the office. In fact, Donna Goode even sent an email to some of the people who were there:
Subject: TRAINING
It has come to my attention that some people may have felt that the ethics training was at times negative. That was never my intent. I am very proud of the hard work that all of you do. I was trying to get ethics for you all and wanted to include the defense and the judiciary. I hope in my efforts to be creative and inclusive, it did not seem demeaning or insulting. I know we all strive for professionalism and ethical behavior on a daily basis. I know we all love our jobs and want to make the community proud. Please feel free to vent to me if you took anything in a way not intended. Except for Peter Pan that is. Hope you guys have a great weekend and I will see you Monday!
Donna G.
Great start to the new administration.
And I will continue to wear pant suits.
Damn! I had no problem with some of the ladies' short skirts!
Why, why, why do we keep talking about the way women dress in this office?
And don't even anyone pretend we ever seriously address the way men dress - we don't.
All these years of education, professional experience, licenses, training - it keeps coming back to the way we dress.
Jeeze.
You have got to be kidding me. Over the last year, Leitner has progressed from someone who was respected around the courthouse to someone is a known liar, a suck up to someone he said was "crazy", and now this. Gee wiz, maybe he ought to grow his little porn stache back, it may give him a little more moxy.
I predict we are going to start to get admonitions about disclosing things on this blog. The thought police are coming.
Ok, now you are acting like a typical Harris County ADA. You didn't get your way, so now everything the opposition does is stupid and wrong. You just criticized Leitner for answering a question. Would you be satisfied if he refused to answer it? Should he have looked at the questioner and said shut up bitch? Look, your side lost in an election. You chose the wrong horse to back and its over for now. Lykos and crew aren't going to do things your way or probably anyone else's way. Accept that. Go out with some dignity instead of sniping at every little thing that Lykos does. Save your writing talent for something worth writing about, instead of harping on Leitner's answer to a question.
Anon 12:07,
Maybe you are right. Maybe some people found a great sense of morale and importance once the dreaded "pantsuit question" had been answered by their fearless leader. Maybe it was the PERFECT thing for Leitner to address the troops with for the first time he got to talk to them.
Nobody asked him that particular question during the training session. He brought it up on his own.
The point is that he had nothing over-arching to say about the direction the Office would be going, or perhaps motivating talented young prosecutors who need leadership.
And as for the issue of Dignity, let's review:
1. I support my friend who I believe to be the best qualified candidate for the job, and I do so loudly. I realize that unless my candidate wins, I will most likely get fired, but I do it anyway. I get fired and I leave knowing that was part of the game. I stood up for what I believed in. I suffered the consequences for it. And I have no regrets.
2. Leitner runs for D.A. and tells everyone a trial lawyer needs to be the leader. He tells everyone he would NEVER endorse Lykos if he gets knocked out of the race. He gets knocked out of the race and promptly endorses her, and is the first one standing there hugging on her TV when she wins. He then plays mindless hatchetman for her when she doesn't have the courage to do it herself.
Now, keep in mind, he USED to be a highly respected defense attorney. One of the most respected defense attorneys, actually. And he threw that respect away for a Republican promise to be their candidate in 2012?
You go ahead and make your own judgment calls on dignity. I'm pretty comfortable with my own.
Anon 12:07,
The "we won, you lost" so shut up response isn't going to work. One thing you guys will soon realize is that if you don't get the "troops" rallied in the right direction you are going to have a runaway train on your hands.
Anon 12:07
Last I checked this was Murray's blog, which gives him the right to talk about what ever the hell he wants.
And on a side note, Kelly was on CBS last night in the expose about the Temple murder. I thought it was well done, started off making Temple look innocent and then slammed down the fact he was having an affair.
And something my wife pointed out, Belinda was found with shoes on that had heels. When my wife was 8 months pregnant, she couldn't get her shoes off fast enough, let alone something with a heel - so if she was going to lay down, why did she still have her shoes on?
Even though I am sure Kelly pointed that out in the trial, she never missed anything that obvious.
ACHL,
Seeing as you are on your way out, what are your thoughts on changes that need to be made at the office - whether it be more ethics training (taught by people with ethics as opposed to this last training), or reorganizing divisions, etc.
I am interested in what you think needs to be changed.
Anon 1:41,
Can I assume an unlimited budget on these changes? Just kidding.
I would focus on stepping up the expansion and training of the specialized divisions, specifically Child Abuse, Vehicular Crimes, and White Collar/Major Fraud type crimes. These are the types of crimes that require specialized knowledge to be prosecuted effectively and need to be more than just a division that prosecutors regularly rotate through.
Lykos has indicated she was going to put some sort of emphasis on Human Trafficking. Not sure what exactly she means on that, but if we are talking about those few cases that fall OUTSIDE of Federal Jurisdiction, we usually aren't talking about a very complicated case. Of course, it does sound like a good talking point.
I would establish an Office where the Defense Bar could meet with a representative if they had concerns or complaints about a prosecutor so that they could voice their concerns without fear of being retaliated against.
I would continue to increase the more practical CLEs on the actual mechanics of how prosecutors should do things, and I would include a definite emergency number for rookie prosecutors to call when they desperately need advice. Lord knows there was a time or two that I needed that.
If I had a large bump in budget, I'd increase the number of prosecutors in the courts. The Felony Two is the most overworked player in the HCDA's Office. Under an ideal situation, there would be two in every court. I like where Magidson has taken us with having a Three and a Four in some courts. But ultimately, that needs to be the Rule, not the exception.
Also, I'd like to see prosecutors spending more time in Felony before heading back as Misdemeanor chiefs. The time in felony is where perspective is built, and sometimes more time is needed than just six months.
That's just to start.
I thought it was well done, started off making Temple look innocent and then slammed down the fact he was having an affair.
So? You'd be surprised at how many people sleep around. If they were all murderers, we'd have ten people left on the planet.
Convicted of murder for having an affair because the DA kept shopping warmed-over evidence to grand jury after grand jury, until the Scott Peterson case inflamed the third one enough that they finally indicted. Some justice. If Siegler were that great of a prosecutor she could have gotten him indicted on the first try.
ANON 213,
FYI....Kelly got the Temple turd indicted the very 1st time she presented the case to the Grand Jury. Get your facts strait when you condemn someone behind their back, no less.....Let's see how your boy Jim "Lose at All Costs" Leitner and Crazy Pat "The Troll" Lykos fare in administrating ethics and justice in our county.
Thanks to Kelly, Wharton put more people on death row this year then Harris County....now that's a fact, Jack.
Trident 5,
You make a good point. Kelly did sentence more people to death than Harris County. Dick is going to have a field day with Kelly gone. Durst will happen here.
On another note, an officer was shot last night, who is going to try the case for the "New" DAO? Traditionally it is the DA. Snookems, are you up for it? Jim can carry your brief case but remember, since you aren't the judge, you can't take the those 3 hour lunch breaks during the trial and blame it on someone else. Little Jim, are you going to try it?
I think the emergency hotline is the appellate division. Unless you're talking about something 24 hours.
How about Pat's cell phone number. I am sure she can answer all those intake questions at 3 am.
Anon 4:09,
I completely agree that Appellate is the Emergency Hotline for all things legal. If I have three more kids, I think I'll name them Delmore, Curry, and Kugler!
But sometimes the advice needed can just be strategic or something along those lines that falls out of Appellate's scope.
I think the Misd chiefs should be felony #2's. There is so much "grooming" that goes on with young ADA's in the County Courts and I think you need prosecutors that have a little more experience. I would also like to see more training of young ADA's that includes the defense bar - but not a bitch session.
I concur with needing more ADA's. Isn't this what all that money was for years ago? Why is it Harris County can't hire enough people?
Dear Trident 5:
Below is a link to a news story about his indictment. I didn't link the whole story from the Katy Times, but bolded the important part for you.
You may notice than none of your DA buddies came to your aid when you said that the first grand jury indicted him. This is why:
Temple family defends murder suspect
By Mark Loyd Managing Editor
Published:
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 4:08 PM CST
The family of a former Katy resident accused of killing his pregnant wife six years ago spoke on the incident for the first time Sunday.
David Temple was arrested in December in connection with the Jan. 11, 1999 shooting death of his wife Belinda and their unborn child in their Katy home.
Two Harris County grand juries have failed to indict David Temple for murder. A third grand jury is expected to hear evidence in the coming weeks.
He said an over zealous Harris County District attorney office and the Scott Peterson trial, not hard evidence, behind his brother's arrest.
"There is no more evidence today than there was the night of Jan. 11, 199 and David is no more guilty today than he was six years ago," Darren Temple said.
"However, the district attorney's office has decided to choreograph its ill-fated prosecution against David around other high-profile national media cases. It is no conincidence David's arrest was only a few days after the Laci Peterson verdict," he said.
ANON 936,
Rather then quote media misinformation why don't you go directly to the source. Call the Harris County District Clerk's Office and ask them to look under J.I.M.S. They will confirm for you that the Temple case was presented to the Grand Jury for charges only one (1) time and that a true bill was rendered.
As for Kelly Siegler being over zealous.....an ADA's job is to zealously pursue justice. There is a difference between winning at all costs and pursuing justice at all costs. The Harris County tax payers deserve the later.....and those that deliver should not be condemned for those that only try whales.
Trident 5, you're busted. Give it up.
I don't fault her for being over zealous, a lawyer's obligation is to zealously represent their client within the bounds of the law. But justice isn't always the death penalty, especially when the wrong person can be convicted, meaning the right person stays free. If Harris County ever implements the safeguards and review of past convictions that Dallas County has, we're going to see an alarming number of exonerations. That's to be expected when the system is based on convictions and the deck is so stacked against defendants from arrest to appeal.
Anon 1035--You know why the deck is "stacked against" defendants? Because most of them are fu*king guilty, that's why. Not all of them, most of them.
ANON 1035,
The only thing busted is your judgment. It's obvious that truth, accuracy and thoroughness are not your strong suit. As for Temple....the only thing that saved the sorry bastard from the needle was the time of the crime.
Your assertion that Dallas County should be the benchmark for Texas justice...highlights your naivety. I do agree that Harris County defendants will get a reprieve for the next four years; based on incompetence not innocence.
Hey AHCL,
I heard a rumor that Jim Leitner was going to try the latest cop killer case. This could go a long way to provide much needed leadership in the gutted and floundering DA's office. However, if he does man up will he be more concerned with seeking justice or political correctness? Will he seek the death penalty? Will he abandon the State's peremptory strikes? Will his jury panel be diverse enough to satisfy the Houston Chronicle and the defense bar? What a quandary he will face! Therefore I find it impossible for Leitner to effectively prosecute yesterday's cop killer and he will be conflicted out. What is your take on this very important issue?
Anon 1035
Kelly was the only one that ever asked a grand jury for an indictment. Ted Wilson and Donna Goode presented witnesses to the grand jury for investigation purposes only. They both didn't think there was enough evidence to indict. Kelly was the one who decided that there was not only sufficient evidence to indict, but to try him for it.
HPD 101,
Little Jimmy won't be trying squat. Neither will the "Troll".
Who would have ever thought....
The Chuckster's ironic toll.
Law and order once stood strong;
now it's time to reap our wrong.
Law enforcement was for sale;
now justice will be short and pale.
If you don't stand for something, you will always be nothing....it's time for the remaining ADA's to grow some cojones and stand up for what is right. A leader is to be respected not feared....
Ted Wilson and Donna Goode presented witnesses to the grand jury for investigation purposes only.
I love it. And what investigation would the average grand jury do? For "investigative purposes only" is a ruse to allow a prosecutor more than one bite at the apple. The can not ask for a bill of they think it's not going their way because the grand jury is asking too many questions, or ask for one if the grand jury is buying it.
We all know it. Only the truly dishonest will deny that that's the reason the case was submitted so much. Ironic, huh? Prosecutors thrice submitting a case. I actually heard the cock crowing. A real kiss on the cheek for prosecutorial discretion and justice, made easier by a legal fiction giving the state a do-over at a time when a grand jury would be most inflamed by the news of th4e Peterson trial.
Little Jimmy will take on no such challenge. He is clearly a coward and a spineless one at best. The Lykos administration made some more interesting moves today. This administration is off to a helluva start.
This blog makes me appreciate working in the private sector.
I heard that the D.A.'s office still uses paper files. I've also heard that that they lack proper training materials. I've also heard that there are like zero perks. And the offices look about as decent as The Department of Health and Human Services offices.
When I need to make a sales presentation, I go in to my company's shared drive and find hundreds of other presentations to get ideas from. If I need help, the higher ups are happy to oblige. In fact, I usually don't have to ask, they volunteer. Why isn't it like this in the public sector? I suppose that money trumps justice when it comes to a bottom line.
Oh yeah, and our bosses always pick up the tab at lunch and our Christmas party rules. Not to mention the Christmas bonus we all receive.
I can't imagine going to school for as long as you did and having all that debt just to get shit on on a regular basis. For almost ten years? You deserve a medal. Even if you are a Republican.
Dear ANON 429,
So if Donna Goode and Ted Wilson are afraid to try a tough case and Kelly Siegler isn't that makes her dishonest and guilty of prosecutor misconduct?
Double Jeopardy has enough abuse without you adding this to the mix.
The DA's office should be about the pursuit of justice not political correctness.
Every reasonable and legal effort should be made to: not punish the truly innocent and to punish the truly guilty.
How ironic the argument "better to let 10 guilty men go then to punish 1 innocent man". What about the future innocent victims at the hands of the 10 guilty that are let go? How about if the ratio is 100:1? 1,000,000:1? How many is too many? When will common sense and integrity replace the abuses inherent in the political correct's agenda of deceit?
Murray is dead on about white collar and other specialized units. There are a lot of offenses that the feds simply can't take on in a huge jurisdiction like Harris County that sort of slip through the cracks.
A perfect example of how a specialized DA unit can take on the role missed by the feds is the great work done by the environmental crimes unit at the DA's office. If it wasn't for Haseman, Bily and the rest of the crew there would, literally, be almost no environmental prosecutions in Houston. I think the feds have taken up less than a half dozen cases in the last couple of years. One year (2006?) the US Atty had one environmental case (don't be too hard on ex-US Atty DeGabrielle, he had bona fide resource issues).
While the US Atty does have a special fraud unit and does file a fair share of "white collar" cases, it barely scratches the surface of what could be prosecuted in Harris County. Because Texas relies on local DA's to initiate all prosecutions (rather than have an active AG prosecution function), a lot of things that are too small for the feds but plenty big enough for the state just don't get prosecuted. Houston is a great place to be a mortgage fraudster, an ID thief, or one of a number of different types of fraudfeasor charlatans because of this prosecution gap -- and now that Marvin Zindler is dead, what are honest Houstonians to do?!? :)
While human trafficking, child porn, and other hot button issues get electorate all up in arms, when it's a question of resources allocated to make the most positive impact on crime that actually effects a large portion of the public, cooler heads should prevail.
-Eric M-
So if Donna Goode and Ted Wilson are afraid to try a tough case and Kelly Siegler isn't that makes her dishonest and guilty of prosecutor misconduct?
I think she took shoddy evidence and used an emotional story from California to taint the grand jury. Once it's in trial in Texas, anyone can get a conviction. So misconduct? No, but only because the deck is so stacked against Defendants. It was definitely an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Not that'd you'd give two &$%#* about that.
Double Jeopardy has enough abuse without you adding this to the mix.
Prosecutors get several grand jury do-overs and you think that Defendants have it too easy on double jeopardy?
The DA's office should be about the pursuit of justice not political correctness.
And is justice always filing charges? Especially when two grand juries already indicated that there wasn't enough evidence to indict? If you convict the wrong guy, the right one goes free. That happens a small percentage of the time, but all too often, primarily as a result of prosecutorial misconduct through Brady violations, witness misidentification based on poor witness vetting procedures, and the like. Those all stem from the prosecutorial side.
Every reasonable and legal effort should be made to: not punish the truly innocent and to punish the truly guilty.
You're 100% right about that. Now tell me what "reasonable" means to you.
How ironic the argument "better to let 10 guilty men go then to punish 1 innocent man".
I agree. Why don't you ask Thomas Jefferson, or Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said that if a guilty man goes free it is the law that sets him free. This is a big picture thing, because when you allow tyranny on a small level, it will creep into the larger picture.
What about the future innocent victims at the hands of the 10 guilty that are let go? How about if the ratio is 100:1? 1,000,000:1? How many is too many?
One is too many. But remember, this discussion is about convicting the wrong man, which lets the right man go. In this scenario, you are the one advocating for the release of the real murderer, just because you closed one file.
Follow the rules, and the bad guy won't be released. And, even breaking the rules in Texas won't result in his release, because of the appellate courts.
When will common sense and integrity replace the abuses inherent in the political correct's agenda of deceit?
Here it is--your absurd bias is showing. What does this have to do with political correctness? Why is making sure the state follows the rules a PC notion? Did I ever mention anything about race, gender, or belief system?
It might surprise you to know that I support the death penalty (even for child molestors, by the way), and am more conservative than you will ever be. Your version of conservatism is that of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's--that the government is always right and should always win.
The founding fathers would be ashamed of you. After all, they believed that the tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. We are founded on a system of beliefs that the government must follow the rules largely because of the inordinate amount of power the state holds when compared to one man--they faced this directly at the hands of the British. Your beliefs are directly contrary to that.
You are the liberal here.
ANON 1101,
The last cop killer in Harris County who was spared the needle would gladly disagree with your inaccurate assessment as would the prosecutors on that miscarriage of justice. Notwithstanding, I hope you're correct with the most recent cop killer....we'll see how the stacked deck pans out on that one.
Your reference as to Grand Jury do-overs again is inaccurate in the Temple case....but facts apparently are meaningless to you on this issue.
The philosophical semantics that fuel your logic should be reserved for the ivory tower; society should not be your playground.
Justice is not beating the system or winning a game of chess. Crimes involve real victims, real loss and real tragedy. To trivialize them with your mental masturbation is a mockery of our judiciary and our founding fathers.
A prosecutor and a defense attorney each have an obligation and duty to use every legal avenue available to him/her in their pursuit of justice. Justice ought to mean that society promotes whatever safeguards are necessary to assure to the best of societal ability that the real crook is punished in an appropriate and proportionate manner. I completely agree that if a prosecutor knowingly places winning above justice it is paramount to a defense attorney putting exoneration above justice.....neither result bodes well for any society. However, just because certain prosecutors excel at their jobs does not in and of itself impute impropriety. I say this in spite of your anticipatory argument that only the defense attorney is charged with a duty to zealously represent his client. I took the liberty to exercise common sense as a victim's advocate and as a human being.
The philosophical semantics that fuel your logic should be reserved for the ivory tower; society should not be your playground.
Semantics. The Constitution is semantics, to you. Congratulations, you are officially the worst American.
Justice is not beating the system or winning a game of chess. Crimes involve real victims, real loss and real tragedy. To trivialize them with your mental masturbation is a mockery of our judiciary and our founding fathers.
The Constitution is trivial?
ANON 655,
The drafters of our Constitution would shutter at the bastardization and overreaching rewriting you and your ilk espouse at the expense of their intended interpretation.
Well said, HPD 101. Lord! I admire your patience! :-)
The drafters of our Constitution would shutter at the bastardization and overreaching rewriting you and your ilk espouse at the expense of their intended interpretation.
What have I re-written? It's the state that has continually pushed the boundaries and created exceptions to the Bill of Rights.
I suggest you take your own class.
ANON 1134,
My comments were directed not only to you but to your ilk as well. Whether or not you personally have actually written anything of significance is not the issue. Your adherence to those over reaching misrepresentations written by others, per your own admission, either out of ignorance of Constitutional law or with malfeasance, seek to defraud her drafters intent.
The Troll & Co.'s impending anarchy should give you much solace.
What have I admittedly adhered to? Just the Constitution. Sorry of that's too hard for you to follow.
Look, I know even you have to understand that you've brought a knife to a gun fight, but you're just making it worse for yourself. When you start using big words and odd phrases that you think sound smart, the rest of us are just realizing that you probably got a law enforcement degree at some JuCo and think you know all there is to know about the law and the Constitution. When in reality you think the state should always win, no matter what rules were broken, because anyone who sees differently is a liberal PC'er who just wants anarchy. It's already clear that in a few weeks when Murray starts giving the state hell you're going to turn on him as having gone over to the dark side, or maybe even as being of my ilk. It's too bad that you have an utter inability to understand that it is defense lawyers who uphold the Constitution by preventing, to the extent possible, abuses by government actors in criminal trials. And that thos ewho work for the state are bound to serve the Constitution, yet they get busted all the time in violating it. And no doubt you were happy as a clam at knowing that your hero Rosenthal was banging his secretary every night, and just fine with her getting a county car and grossly disproportionate salary for whatever favors used to be, and may still have been, exchanged. Because he's Chuck, put here by almighty God to prosecute murderers. SO it's OK if he's abusing his office, because on top of everything else he's a Republican, so he can do no wrong. Yet it's defense lawyers who are the dirty ones.
Your profound ignorance is no longer amusing, now it's just sad.
ANON 211,
Whew!!! Looks like I hit a nerve. I know you're really smart and all but I think at the very least you need to invest in spell check.
I'll try not to use such big words when I address you if that will keep your panties out of a wad.
Too bad the world is not as concrete black and white as you seem to perceive it. That sure would make issues a whole lot easier for you to grasp.
You show your ass when you say all of any thing or group is universally good or evil.
A professor at Amherst once told our class "you just can't fix stupid"...so I guess you're on your own from now on, Bubba.
but I think at the very least you need to invest in spell check.
Well, I have to tell you that your stinging rebuttal wounded me deeply. So I re-read my post and was surprised to see nary a misspelling. Admittedly I re-read it quickly, and sure, I misplaced an 'e' on the other side of a space between words. But I don't see that as counting toward a lack of understanding as to how to spell.
But I tell you what, I will closely edit all posts in the future. And to show my good faith, I'll start by editing a few of your gems:
in the gutted and floundering DA's office
A flounder is a fish. To founder means to stumble. I can see that you tried to mix metaphors with 'gutted and floundering,' (I like to fish myself, after all) but it would only have worked had 'floundering' been proper in the first place. Unless you believe that the entire DA's office is now out fishing for flounder? Because in that case, they would indeed be floundering.
guilty of prosecutor misconduct?
While it would be the prosecutor committing the misconduct, the proper term is 'prosecutorial misconduct.' I know, that's another multiple-syllable word, and they're tough! Buck up lil' camper, you'll get there.
inherent in the political correct's agenda
This was another tough one. Think of this like the plural of 'passer by.' It's not passer bys', it's 'passers-by.' So your incorrect use of 'political correct's' should instead be 'politically correct's.' But that's not only a whole lot of syllables, it's two whole words so it's even harder! Next time though, you'll get it down.
The drafters of our Constitution would shutter at...
Shutter what? Am I a storm? Surely Jefferson wouldn't close his windows. He may shudder, which means 'to shake,' but he wouldn't close his windows, which is what shutters cover. Actually, he wouldn't do either because I'm the one saying that we should return to a time where the Constitution had more meaning than exceptions.
Thus endeth the lesson... for now.
You show your ass when you say all of any thing or group is universally good or evil.
I guess you also need to work on your reading comprehension, because I'm not the one doing this--you are.
Uh-oh, HPD 101, take a look at this article and tell me how only the guilty get convicted:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6159775.html
I hope your head didn't just explode.
A flounder is a fish. To founder means to stumble. I can see that you tried to mix metaphors with 'gutted and floundering,' (I like to fish myself, after all) but it would only have worked had 'floundering' been proper in the first place. Unless you believe that the entire DA's office is now out fishing for flounder? Because in that case, they would indeed be floundering.
Actually, to flounder is to stumble or struggle mightily. A founder is one who founds or establishes. You might want to research your insults a bit more carefully before you fling them
Hugs!
ANON 330,
I'll take a few misspellings over misstatements of fact anytime. Check your little diatribes more carefully when you're not so angry and you'll find quite a few writing errors as well.....BTW, someone of your great skill level sure has a lot of down time. You must be retired as well? If not, maybe you can win a few cases after the Troll levels the playing field.
I have to agree with whatever poster in the other thread said this has gotten retarded.
By the way 4:18, some words can be nouns or verbs. You might want to check more than one usage before you post. As should 3:30, but his point was made a bit more clearly than yours.
Both founder and flounder can be used as a verb. Either can be appropriate in the context used by HPD 101. HPD 101 chose "floundering" which is more commonly used and accepted then "foundering"; especially in the South. Maybe ANON 330 is from the East Coast which would explain his condescending attitude.....who really cares whether or not a "post" uses the proper "word choice" or grammar. We're not in grade school. This blog is supposed to be a forum to exchange ideas so that we can constructively vent and improve the fair and equitable administration of justice in Harris County.
who really cares whether or not a "post" uses the proper "word choice" or grammar.
I believe your hero HPD 101 brought it up, so him.
You might also criticize his condescending attitude, as long as we're being fair and balanced.
ANON 828,
Grow some beans at Walden Pond...and some balls while you're at it. Geeze!!
and some balls while you're at it. Geeze!!
Some of you cry because I'm being too mean, and others tell me I'm not mean enough.
Get a clue, morans.
Get a clue, morans.
Learn to spell "moron", moron.
2:54, this is for you:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=get+a+brain+moran&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
I knew I'd have to explain it to you.
Post a Comment