Wednesday, December 16, 2009

The Race for County Court at Law # 13

With Denise Bradley's departure from the Republican Primary for County Court at Law #13, controversial Assistant District Attorney Rachel Palmer now sits alone as the only candidate in the Republican Primary.

The fact that this is happening is not sitting well with a lot of readers of this blog, including the poster known as Black Ink, who has posted his own commentary on his blog known as Stealth.

As I've said before, Rachel has never done anything to me personally, but I do have my concerns about her. One of which is her description of herself as the "Deputy Chief of the District Attorney's Office".


This seems to imply that 1) there is a singular "Chief" of the D.A.'s Office [there isn't]; and 2) therefore there is a singular "Deputy Chief" which is her [there isn't and she certainly isn't].


Rachel is a Felony Two who is on the cusp of being promoted to a District Court Chief. She is the Deputy Chief of the Misdemeanor Division, but that is in no way near the level of importance that she is implying on her campaign literature.


That's kind of like when Dwight Schrute claims to be the Assistant Regional Manager of Dunder-Mifflin, when, in fact, he's just the Assistant to the Regional Manager of Dunder-Mifflin.


41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rachel is every bit as qualified to be a judge as Lykos is qualified to be DA. Both have an R next to their name. Doesn't that mean they are qualified?

Anonymous said...

Her level of importance, is of course, a figment of her imagination. Her lack of experience however, is a fact that can't be overlooked. She must be delusional to think that she is qualified to be a judge. Someone please run against her!! This isn't a sorority election.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea who Rachel is or why she shouldn't be a judge. Why don't you tell us?

Anonymous said...

Rachel has more experience than any of the democrats that were elected. Hazel Jones, Maria Jackson, Fine, Guerrero, et al. Rachel has seen what kind of destruction democrats on the bench can do. The Republican party is lucky to have a go getter like Rachel. She has more trial experience than anyone her level and more than most Chiefs in the DA's Office. You, my friend, are just JEALOUS.

Anonymous said...

Her website has a bunch of pictures of her and a dizzy socialite. Ringing endorsement.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 6:53 p.m.,
God bless your little Die Hard Republican heart, you got me. I am totally jealous of Rachel. Clearly since being licensed as an attorney a whopping six years ago, she has accumulated so much more experience than any candidate EVER.

And she certainly has more experience than most of her fellow prosecutors, regardless of what level they are in the office.

And although I've tried well over fifty felony cases, around fifteen murders (including 2 capitals), more sexual assaults than I care to remember and plenty of others, you would be shocked to know that it only took me watching two episodes of Law & Order to know that polygraphs weren't admissible during trial.

And I am also still seething over never being a debutant or a member of the Junior League, too.

I feel so much better now.

Anonymous said...

Well said Murray. We are not jealous of Rachel Palmer, we are frightened by her obvious lack of judgement and the lack of humanity she has shown in the meager 6 years she has held a law license.

She may not have been rotten to you Murray but she is know to be snotty and petty with many down at the courthouse. She has a reputation for using her position to exact revenge. That is not a quality well suited for the bench. If each person who is familiar with the candidates takes the time to email Harris County voters in his email address book informing them about the various candidates, it could actually make a difference. Friends don't let friends vote blind. The bench should have nothing to do with party affiliation but everything to do with the individual candidate.

Anonymous said...

With only 6 years experience I would be a little more comfortable if the girl had atleast some real life experience. This is a must for any Judge.

Anonymous said...

Hazel Jones, Maria Jackson, Fine, Guerrero, et al, like Palmer are all "go-getters." The bench doesn't need any more go-getters, young, inexperienced lawyers adding feathers to their caps. It's not a Republican/Democrat thing. The candidate needs to have a level of intellect and professional maturity that all of the above-mentioned are lacking.

Anonymous said...

Rachel has 100 percent support of her division which happens to be the largest division in the office. Kate Dolan, roger, Hanna, and the DA to name a few. It is not surprising to see someone who was fired blasting her.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Rachel has the 100% of her Division? Does that include the young ones that felt pressure to attend her fund raiser because they got their invite delivered at the Office?

And I got fired twice, not just once, since you mentioned it. In light of what the Office has become since I've left, I've become more and more proud of that.

Anonymous said...

Don't pretend you don't have an ax to grind. Your comments clearly show your true feeling. Rachel did not have an easy up bringing. She fought to get her job and will fight for rights when she win. She will win by the way.

Anonymous said...

She is mean, arrogant and rude. Please someone run against her.

Anonymous said...

Having 100 percent of her division support is enough reason she should not be a judge. that is a scary thought.

Anonymous said...

Ummm, this division-member DOES NOT support her. And I'm not the only one. Unfortunately, the current administration has created an environment in which I don't feel comfortable using my real name.

Anonymous said...

Earl has 100% support of many groups. Can someone get Earl to run?

Anonymous said...

I doubt she has the support of the entire division but even if she did, why would that indicate she is at all qualified? We need independent thinkers not office "yes men" on the bench. I don't know any criminal judge with 6 years legal experience. I will make sure my friends and family know what I learned here. Thanks Murray!

Anonymous said...

From reading these posts it appears this woman would just be an extension of the HCDAO. This is totally wrong and with your influence in the community please get someone competent to run and keep her off the bench.Murray, you have done a lot to keep us informed and you know a lot of people. Please help.

Anonymous said...

There are PLENTY of Felony 2s with more knowledge and trial experience than Rachel. She is not a great trial attorney. She is generally not well-liked.

Anonymous said...

I have no ax to grind. I was not fired by the DA's office, nor was I supervised by Palmer. She will be a terrible Judge because she has terrible judgment. She is another Don Jackson or Regan Helm waiting to happen. That is NOT what the Republican party needs, nor is it what voters would want if they knew the truth.

Anonymous said...

So who can we find to run against Rachel on short notice? God knows someone needs to run against.

Anonymous said...

I've got SEVERAL buddies who say that Rachel is not unfriendly at all. In fact, these guys say she is OVERLY friendly.

Anonymous said...

What a collection of legal hacks and mental misfits.
This has nothing to do with this Rachel Palmer or anyone else running for judge. It has nothing to do with the so-called "concerns" our embittered host has about judicial qualifications.
It's revenge time.
According to my information, anyone not part of "the folks" or one of the many groupies who trailed along behind the cool kids who once got government checks is not qualified to do anything.
No, Murray, this isn't "Patsy" or someone part of the legal or political establishment.
It's just someone who likes to read entertaining blogs. And, there have been times when you've shown flashes and humor and insight mixed in with your bitterness.
And, in fairness, this isn't about jealously either.
What it's about is a terrible transformation.
Many of you, including our bitter host, cried foul when a certain campaign attacked your champion last year. They lied and made up things. You objected, as you should have. You were right to speak out and fight back. Murray, it cost you your job but you stood up and were counted.
Now, the tables are turned and it's your turn to lie and adopt the tactics you so passionately spoke out against. You have become what you say you hated.
I could care less about a misdemeanor court race. I don't know this Palmer woman, or for that matter this Denise Bradley.
But I know this - It's not rocket science. It's a misdemeanor court. Being a lawyer isn't rocket science, nor is being a prosecutor or defense attorney.
You can romanticize it all you want and talk about all the incredible work down at the Criminal Justice Center. Sure, great. But there's no magic there. There's only HOW someone does their thing. Do they do it with honor and dignity?
There can be nobility and honor in whatever you do but it seems such notions have been abandoned on these pages. Again, you have become what you claimed to hate. You are now the smear merchant, Murray. How does that feel? How does it feel to tear a page out of the Lykos playbook?
A friend of mine in law enforcement says you guys are so bitter because "the beer runs to the ninth floor" and the" wild nights at the homicide Christmas party" are behind you and many of your cronies. I don't know about all that.
But you have to now survey the shattered landscape of your professional and personal lives and decide what you will be.
That's tough.
But, unfortunately, it seems you have decided. You have opted to go the way of your so-called enemies. That's too bad, and sad.
So, Murray, from your previous writings and your passion for being a prosecutor, you once seemed like someone who was big into responsibility and accountability. Has that died also?
Has bitterness killed your character? Are you just the mouthpiece for a bunch of bitter lawyers and is this just a forum for smear merchants?
Do you take NO responsibility for smears, lies and untruths put forward on these pages? Have you become so angry at anyone not part of the old regime or in its favor that you stoop to low attacks without checking facts. I say that because I see no facts here.
It seems that's where you've gone with this. That's too bad, Murray. And, it's very sad.
I voted for Kelly Siegler. I followed her on TV and in the news for years. She was fantastic. I'd vote for her again and again. She protected this community, and did so honorably. She seemed to be the victim of the same attacks you're carrying out now on someone else.
And you know what, I don't know what this Palmer lady did to deserve your ire. Maybe you have good reason for being so vicious, along with your readers. Is there ever a good reason to be vicious?
But there is no reason for you of all people to be the smear guy. I know you could care less but my husband and I won't be reading any longer.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 4:17 p.m.,

Name one thing I've lied about or misrepresented. Just one.

I challenge you to find it.

I'm a big believer in good and qualified candidates running for positions that they actually deserve to hold. If you disagree with that proposition, then perhaps you SHOULD find another blog to read.

Otherwise, save the guilt trips.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:17 p.m., Wow. Feel good to get that off your chest? I have no idea what you are talking about, but the comments on this page are in response to the race for County Court at Law #13. And many of the comments were made by people who personally know and work with Rachel. I haven't seen any evidence of revenge on Murray's part. Or jealousy by anyone else.
Murray's post stated that she inflated her resume on her campaign website. And she has. She is misrepresenting her role in the D.A.'s office. And I, like many others who know her personally and professionally, feel that her 6 years of experience as an assistant D.A. leave her unqualified to be a judge in that court. We're merely stating our opinions based on personal knowledge.
I have no idea what the rest of your post was about, but it was way oof mark.

Anonymous said...

Murray--You are right on with most of you material.Dont be deterred by someone who does not know what is going on at the courthouse. You should run for the bench. you would be outstanding.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:17,

You don't know Rachel Palmer? Really! You are concerned about the lies? Really? You wouldn't be lying as you type that would you? You are a liar my friend. You know Rachel or you wouldn't care. That is the longest post I have seen in a while. Therefore, I am sure you have no personal interest in this...

Although you "don't care about the misdemeanor races", are you at least willing to admit that she isn't qualified? Don't be a blind liar Wonder Boy.

Anonymous said...

Anon Long Wind,

You are out of touch with who Rachel Palmer is and why Murray and most lawyers down at CJC are disgusted at the thought of her being on the bench. Why don't you and the 17 people who support Rachel start your own blog?

Anonymous said...

You make Rachel sound like the type of person who would take role in her law school classes and tell on her classmates who missed more than they should have. Anon 4 17, I wasn't one of the "folks" nor do I drink, I just no Rachel. And no, she wasn't overly nice to me.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:17

The Lady doth protest too much Methinks...

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:17, I wish someone had told me how much science and math I would have to keep up with while practicing law. I might have stayed in engineering. Last time I was in the presence of a rocket scientist (he works for the US government and could not tell me what projects he works on) I held my own with him. We were discussing rockets. But then again law is not rocket science. It is about knowledge of the law and sound judgement. I have seen too many unqualified persons elected to the bench based on their party affiliation. I do know Rachel and she currently does not have the qualifications to be a judge. I understand to you misdemeanor court appears to be a joke but to those who are charged and appear before judges it is not. Most are concerned about what is going to happen to them, about their freedom, about fines and fees and about their license. It might be good if they are before a qualified judge. Give Rachel a few more years, more life experience, more legal experience and she may well be qualified.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:17,

Are you affilaited with that Palmer lady's campaign?

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:33:
You make some very valid points about life experience.

Anonymous said...

So why did Denise Bradley withdraw from the race against Rachel Palmer? Was it because she thought she'd lose despite Rachel Palmer being so disliked and unqualified? Does anyone know the reasoning behind her decision?

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Denise withdrew from the race to run for a Felony District Court bench in the 262nd where Judge Mike Anderson is not running again.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:20pm,

Good lord. How in the world did you get the comments page without reading the original post? Do not take this personally, but that is a perfect example of how we end with comments like Anon Long Wind (stole that name from commenter above).

Anonymous said...

Murray,

Around election time would you mind listing the potential candidates at CJC and your take on each? That way I can just send the folks I know who don't have a clue about what goes on down there your link.

Anonymous said...

But why the 262nd and not the 13th? Because it would be easier to win? Or are there other reasons for running in a specific district? I'd like to know what factors are involved in one choosing a district to run for judge in or if it's all just strategy.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:30 AM,

"Do not take this personally" - Nice touch. I don't recall any reasoning for the change beyond there being some opening in another court. Further, that was in a previous post and not this one. With all the big talk on how much more qualified Denise Bradley is, I found her decision to withdraw from the race curious. It seemed like a fiercely passionate competition, for one to abandon it simply for "other opportunities" is a bit of a let-down. Forgive me for wanting more details.

Feel free to critique this comment as well, I'm not checking for grammatical errors so you just might get lucky. Best wishes!

Anonymous said...

Denise Bradley is running for a district court (felony) bench because quite frankly a misdemeanor bench would have been a waste of her experience and legal knowledge. She is a District Court chief and very familiar with the kinds of issues that come up in a felony case. Considering that most of the new judges we have no idea about the law or procedures in a felony case, Denise would be an excellent judge. She has a reputation on both sides of the bar as someone who is approachable and willing to listen. There is nothing insidious behind her switch to a different bench - simply and opening that fits better with her background. She would have made a great misdemeanor judge, but she is much needed as a felony judge.

Oh, and Rachel Palmer as a judge is a complete and total joke. And it isn't even very funny. Four years from now I would love to hear what her current supporters have to say. Unless she is a friend of yours, I suspect your commentary will not be positive. I would love to vote for someone in the court 13 race who has compassion, a strong work-ethic, sound judgment, and excellent character. Now,if only someone with those character traits would run...

Anonymous said...

I think Dennis Slate possesses those very traits you speak about. He has criminal law experience and real life experience. He seems to have an even temperament as well. He will easily win my vote if he makes it on to the ballot.