Tuesday, November 29, 2011

No Confidence in Pat Lykos

Channel 13 is reporting today that five police unions have held a press conference denouncing Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos.  Although the article does not specify all of the police unions, it is clear that the City of Houston Police Department's union and the Harris County Deputies Organization are two of them.

The article points out that five Unions denouncing the elected-District Attorney is unprecedented and serves as a testament to just how bad things have become under Lykos' brief tenure.  Although their aggravation with Lykos' policy of not filing crack pipe cases will certainly be up for debate, the fact that they describe the relationship between Lykos and law enforcement as "antagonistic" is huge.

As the District Attorney, it is absolutely critical that there be a good working relationship between the D.A.'s Office and the law enforcement agencies that file cases in the Harris County Jurisdiction.  This press conference has tremendous implications for a Republican candidate who doubtlessly will want to portray herself as pro-law enforcement to her Republican constituents.

It appears that Lykos' game plan of making the entire office's central job to be enhancing the glory of Pat Lykos is starting to cause some problems for her.

There have been rumblings that the Unions were going to make this announcement for several months now, so today's news wasn't a big surprise to those of us around the CJC.

What is very interesting, however, is the fact that the Unions are stating that they are not endorsing "anyone else at this time."

Although I have absolutely no inside knowledge of any candidates making any announcements any time soon, I do know that there are a lot of prosecutors and police officers right now who are dreaming of a Mike [Anderson] Christmas.

71 comments:

Deja Vu said...

Murray,

“Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”
-–Albert Einstein

Schizophrenics have great difficulty separating dreams, Christmas or otherwise, from reality--that's what makes them bat shit crazy.

Who has heard of your boy Mike Anderson outside of the CJC micro community?
Even Zach Fertitta has better name recognition by confusion and fund raising by family connections but still doesn't have a rat's ass chance in beating Judge Pat.

Have you read the Lykos press release that accompanied her filing? The CJC grunts might appreciate the manipulative misinformation contained therein but the general public doesn't have a clue---truth and silly dreams be damned it's perception that controls on election day.
I'm afraid the ADAs stockings will be stuffed with coal unless a high profile well funded powerhouse steps up to challenge the Lykos regime--and it ain't your boy Mikey.

Anonymous said...

I am surprised that law enforcement is turning on Pat Lykos. My experience with the DA's office tells me that the DA's office doesn't care if officers are engaged in misconduct, withhold evidence that hurts the prosecution or if officers perjure themselves as long as the prosecution's case stays intact.

Anonymous said...

I can tell from first hand experience that the has permanently burned bridges with HPD officers. I had charges of assault on a public servant rejected twice. once when a crook tried to push me into traffic on 59 and again when I was struck with a 2x4 across my back. I was told, "that is part of your job". I will not repeat my entire verbal bashing of the two ADA's that took those phone calls, but they repeated that they were only to take charges for that in limited circumstances.

FYI to Pat...nowhere in the job description for a policeman does it include tolerating assault. I also have met her in person and I found that her policies are an extension of the horrid self serving heart beating in her chest. She will not ever be respected by me or any of my colleagues.

Sad thing is that, per General Orders, officers can be fired for making derogatory statements against an elected official.

Rfdillon said...

This is totally bogus! As a fantastic D.A. who has made a lot of changes for the good, Pat's political enemies are pulling out all the stops to tarnish her brilliant record, but they will not be successful!

Anonymous said...

Rfdillon...what are you smoking? And can I have some?

Anonymous said...

Last time I checked, Mike Anderson was getting over 90% of the votes EVERY time he ran for office no matter who else was on the ballot. That can't have been just CJC insiders. The Republican Party and its powers that be will back Mike and the sheep will follow...watch it happen with me....

Anonymous said...

There's a great article here that further breaks down that narcissistic bitch's crazy brain: http://outraged-commomsense.blogspot.com/2011/11/pat-lykos-judge-cop-social-worker_28.html

Anonymous said...

A vote of no confidence in the DA is a vote of no confidence in all DA's.

Every DA needs to go.

Rage

Anonymous said...

Oh shit, Pasadena ISD union cops hate Pat!!!!! OH no!!!!! Not PISD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I do not want my being critical of 3 people in my comment to, in any way, be a judgement on everyone in the office. there are a lot of high quality people in The DA's office and overall they are a fantastic group of people.

Scott C. Pope said...

Sound and fury, signifying nothing. If cops are really dissatisfied with Lykos, harping on the trace case issue is the worst possible issue on which to grandstand.

I can't imagine that an R will go ahead and vote for someone else besides an incumbent just because some cops are angry. They certainly won't vote for a D just because of that. It's Harris County, after all, and straight ticket voters are still going to be straight ticket voters.

Anonymous said...

It seems that NOT arresting people for trace amounts of drugs is something both liberal and conservatives can agree on - it makes sense for a lot of reasons.

That wasn't a great issue to put out there.

Anonymous said...

I was wondering if Nick Lykos will announce his intentions to run for dog catcher?

Anonymous said...

If the voters only knew half of how Pat Lykos manipulates the facts and her public appearance (obviously not her physical one!)they would have already sought a recall election.

Deja Vu said...

Anon 3:19,

You're smoking stronger shit than Rfdillon if you really think Mike Anderson would have gotten 90% of the vote in 2008 running for a District Judge bench as a Republican?

Your boy Mike can only win the long shot if:
1. Kelly Siegler decides to support Mike instead of running herself.
2. Pat Lykos fails to have a Jim Leitner patsy or 2 file and force a run-off AND
3. Mike can raise a lot of money.

Thinking that the Republican Party leadership will actually support Mike over Lykos is bat shit crazy.

I wish him luck and hope for his sake it's just him and Lykos in the race--but Lykos isn't stupid when it comes to politics so get ready for the run-off of your life Devon and remember: money talks and bullshit walks.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:22,
But they never will and that's another reason why Mike Anderson will be licking his wounds after bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Ain't apathetic ignorance grand.

Anonymous said...

Lycos doesn't want to fill the jail with trace cases, yet they continue to fill it up with debt cases and probation violation cases. The DA and courts don't mind uses all 10,000 law enforcement officers in the greater Houston area as process servers and debt collectors.

Anonymous said...

3:43. High quality people at the DA's office just like that high quality joint you just smoked?

Anonymous said...

To those saying Mike doesn't stand a chance - do you know who else had virtually no name recognition outside the CJC before the 2008 election? Pat Lykos. Mike is supposedly very well funded. Ahead of the roughly $160k Lykos had at the last filing.

Mike has as good a shot as anyone who is likely to run for the Republican nomination.

And the fact that law enforcement so unanimously spoke against the DA is about a lot more than crack pipes. They, like most DA employees, have become quite tired of her bullying.

Frankly, Zach or Mike would be 100 times better than Lykos. They have at least both tried cases!

Anonymous said...

The don't-fill-up-the-jail-with-trace-cases crowd is suffering from Stage 1thinking.

Emotionally, it makes sense. Logically, it doesn't.

They aren't called crackheads for nothing. It's not gainfully employed productive citizens catching those cases. It's the car burglar, the their, the house burglar, the copper thief that has the crack pipe on them. Put these chimps in jail for three months, and they will not be ripping people off.

Anonymous said...

The defense bar HATES the idea of Mike becoming DA because they don't want to see a prosecutor as the elected DA. They have enjoyed the last few years, where EVERY policy enacted by Lykos and her self-proclaimed "Leadership Team" has been to assist defendants and their lawyers.
Here is what she has offered her ADAs: the opportunity to be called "negligent and incompetent" in the newspaper for the fourth largest city in the country before even getting their side of a story; the introduction of completely incompetent people into the office; an environment that is devastatingly hostile to ideas that are not her own; a “reign of terror” that strips the prosecutors actually charged with trying the cases of any real discretion, and so, so much more.
There is not a single person she brought in who brings anything positive to the table. In fact the people she brought in were either political hires or people hired to do personal favors.
Since she has neither tried a case nor ever been a prosecutor of any type, her ideas lack any touch with reality (e.g., all the talk about the work she has done to stop international criminal gangs - I'm sure the Zetas are shaking in their boots). Instead of pressuring the Commissioners for the man power the office needs, she has her driver take her to events in the County owned Escalade (that’s right), where she talks about terrorism. She is a stranger to reality. She provides the “Leadership Team” with raises, while telling her employees who actually do all the work and haven’t had a raise in three years, “Let them eat cake.”
She is the worst DA that we have ever had. She has turned this office from one of the best in the nation to just another big city DAs office.
Republicans, if you read this, please educate yourself on the candidates. Talk to people who are in the court house. If you still want to vote for her, that is certainly your prerogative. But if you listen, and think about what she had done versus what she has claimed to do, you will see a severe disappointment. Change this. This is the time. You have the ability. Act.

Anonymous said...

RFDillon....You're back on that crack pipe again, even after we gave you such a good deal on your case.

Pat learned last week about the "No" vote and met with the HPOU on Sunday. She listened to their complaints and then told them. "I didn't know anything about that. Jim Leitner did that." Are you serious Pat? Have you ever taken any responsibility for anything except for the good things that other people have done?

Not only did she throw Jimmy under the bus, she backed over him several times.

When leaving the meeting, Pat told Ray Hunt, president of the police union, "Don't you ruin my day."

Tomorrow, Mike Anderson will announce and all hell will break loose in the CJC.

Voters might not know the name Mike Anderson now, but I bet they will by March.

He's not getting in this because he's bored. He knows what's really going on down there. He's sick of it just like everyone else.

Bill Kneer said...

It really should be no surprise to anyone that a union does not support a strong Republican.

We have many laws that HPD refuses to enforce and maybe they should start doing the jobs that they need to do before they start in on the DA.

Lets start with enforcing our laws on illegal immigration in the city....and stop using the Unions to promote a political agenda.

Pat has been a great DA and she will continue to be in her next term.

Anonymous said...

We all know who Mike Anderson is, even those of us who won't set foot in the CJC

Scott C. Pope said...

Man that website and blog that that Bill Kneer guy posted is hilarious! Satire like that puts The onion to shame.

Oh wait--it's serious? Holy crap.

Anonymous said...

News flash Republicans are anti union. Unless you have worked around politics or run for office it is hard for most people to understand. Politics and real life are in no way related. If you have relationships with the right people, qualifications don't matter. If Mike Anderson is attend the republican party club meetings and donating to the party then he has a chance, if he is not then he does not. Political die hards care about your contributions to the party not qualifications. I know that is not what we learned in history class but that is the way it is. If I were a betting man I would say Lykos will win again unless Obama starts campaigning and Harris county goes dem. Then we will have DA Lloyd Oliver!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Thanks Scott, I was thinking the same thing.

I would invite anybody who thinks Lykos has done a good job to give some empirical evidence of their position. They really can't.

Those who believe Lykos has destroyed what was once one of the best prosecuting offices in the nation can easily provide such evidence. The talent that has left the office, the turn over rate, the dismissals, the lack of training, the lack of leadership, the failure to provide written guidance to the ADAs, the cronyism and so much more. Talk with elected and ADAs from any other jurisdiction and you will know.

I just read Lykos response to Channel 13 and find it interesting that she takes the position she can not prove trace cases beyond a reasonable doubt. All prior DAs in Harris County could prove trace cases. Other DA offices seem to have no problem proving those cases. Regardless of how you feel about trace cases, Lykos appears to have adopted a can't do attitude rather than a can do attitude. I much rather have a can do District Attorney. Lykos and her minions need to go.

Anonymous said...

This urinating contest between law enforcement and Pat Lykos is nothing new, only official now that the unions have made their concerns public, as a citizen all I see is a bunch of politicians who are put in charge of our safety battling and not working together, our tax dollars being wasted and it speaks volumes to me when I see those who work for these politicians so disgruntled with their bosses, so I'm all for voting them all out, especially Lykos, seems theres a lot of grumbling from employees over under the sheriff as well.

Mark W. Stephens said...

The Case for Trace Cases

I’m so tired of hearing these liberal idiots take up for Pat Lykos and her horrendous decision to ban trace cases. Any police officer who works the street can tell you there is no “thrill” associated with popping some crack head for a trace case. But that doesn’t make it any less important. It’s not just an easy felony duck, nor is it lazy police work. It’s all about crime prevention.

Typically, crack heads don’t work. Yet, they have to find enough money on a daily basis to buy enough dope to keep them satisfied, not to mention food, shelter, and any of life’s other needs or wants. Not putting crack heads in jail, even on trace cases, allows them to remain free to commit other crimes. Burglary, Theft, Auto Theft, BMV, Robbery, Rape, Murder. And they do. No question about it.

But it’s not JUST their propensity to commit other crimes that explains why trace cases are important.

In preventing future crimes and solving past crimes, police officers and detectives need information. Crack heads were always a good source of information. They’re constantly roaming the streets and hanging out with other convicted felons. They hear things. They see things. Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, they are a valuable source of information. A valuable tool for law enforcement. Pop them on a trace case and they would flip their own mother. That is a valuable tool that has been lost.

That means less fugitives being caught, less cases solved, less crime prevention.

That’s a HUGE deal. Not as petty as the naysayers would have you believe.

So please. Stop the whining about how trace cases are unfair. About how they “needlessly” fill our jails. About how trace cases do no good for anyone. It’s all nonsense.

Because at the end of the day, possession of a trace amount of crack is STILL a crime. And crack heads are still criminals who, if not arrested for trace cases, WILL go on to commit other crimes. Guaranteed.

And for anyone who believes a trace case can’t be successfully prosecuted, don’t. I filed many during my time with HPD and we never lost a case.

In fact, in one particular case…I stopped a car with three crooks. They had a sawed-off shotgun and other paraphernalia that suggested they were about to commit an armed robbery. The suspect in the back seat tried to shove a rather large crack pipe, more like a bong, between the back seats. Since my stopping them prevented them from committing the robbery, all I had was a trace case on the crook in the back seat. So I filed it. A simple trace case.

The crook pled not guilty and we went to trial. The jury saw that it wasn’t just a matter of slapping the crook’s wrist for possessing a trace amount of cocaine. They saw it for what it was. Prevention of future crimes.

Their verdict?

Guilty and sentenced to 50 years TDC.

So please. Don’t tell me it can’t be done. Because it can. And don’t tell me it’s a waste of time. Because it’s not. And don’t tell me that juries won’t get it. Because they do. And don’t tell me that trace cases are worthless. Because they’re not.

When you can bring yourselves to look past the all the politically correct crap of trying to justify not filing trace cases, you will realize that trace cases are a valuable tool for law enforcement...certainly not something to just dismiss willy nilly as a minor infraction not worth pursuing. The ramifications of not filing trace cases are long and distinguished.

Anonymous said...

Trace case....b.s. Do you know how many homeless people would be put behind bars for that b.s. felony? I say jack up the sentences for crimes against persons...bmv should be a felony...you are invading a person's personal space. Anyway who actually likes Lykos? According to previous posts on this blog not even her own employees...big deal. Everyone just get out there and vote and have your voices heard. P.S. I agree that law enforcement and ada's should work together better...when a police officer calls they think the ada's are dumb and the ada's think the officers are dumb....both are half right. Honestly the organizations need to train together to make each other better and be on the same page about things and then transactions will be better. Better training=better productivity and more productivity.

Anonymous said...

We heard yesterday that Judicial races heating up. One white female elected in Obama landslide is getting opponent in primary.They say she is worse than the judge she replaced.

Anonymous said...

No less than 16 local judges lobbied legislators for a change in the laws to make trace amounts a misdemeanor instead of a felony. For HPD to make this their case against Lykos is drawing at straws, and will not be successful. In fact, I believe it just cemented Lykos' reelection. I'm voting for her, but wasn't going to until now. HPD, et. al. should focus on performing their job and not the DA's or the judge's. I predict Lykos will now begin prosecuting police officers with a vengeance to further erode what little remains of the public confidence in area law enforcement. Ray Hunt should learn to pick his battles more carefully, sometimes they backfire and help your opponent more than hurt, and this is a perfect example of that.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:43,

In 2008 no-name Patsy Lykos had the Rosenthal scandal to play with and still only garnered in the high 20s% amoung the 4 man Republican Primary while big-name Kelly Siegler received almost 48%. It begs the question as to what the results would have been had Kelly and Patsy gone head to head in the Republican Primary without Leitner and the other guy forcing a runoff.
Devon needs to ask herself,"careful what you wish for".

Anonymous said...

Mark W. Stevens--you should submit what you posted here as a letter to the editor at the Chronicle today. I was making the case for crack pipe cases to my husband just this morning to defend the police union position, but you've said it best and others need to see it. Please consider sending it in.
Thanks

Anonymous said...

Wait, wait! You mean only officers should have the discretion to determine who does or doesn't get arrested and prosecuted? Now I understand. The DA is actually holding them accountable - unlike their police officer supervisors who also don't like their own discretionary decisions questioned.

Jigmeister said...

Ten months is a long time to gain name recognition. There are a lot more issues to campaign on besides trace cases.
Besides, the issue with police is much deeper. Cops feel a basic lack of respect and support from the Office. Many of my heros are cops and they felt that when we worked together. They don't feel that anymore. They know they will with Mike as DA.


Mike has trial lawyer experience, leadership abilities, knowledge of what's been going on in the office, prior successful campaign experience, good appearance and public speaking abilities, friends on both sides of the aisle,
and backing of law enforcement. I also predict that both Holmes and Seigler will endorse him. He has lots of work to do to get the support of the gray hair republicans, but time and Lykos' continued incompetence will help that.

I have expressed concern that a sham candidate put up by Lykos may try to throw it into a primary runoff. Should be interesting and bring some smiles to the besieged staff. I know some of those that have been in hiding will support Mike because they know they cant survive four more years of bad management and beratement. Whether they do it openly at great risk will be a matter of personal conscience and courage. Some will just wait to see how the wind blows.

Rage doesn't know what he's talking about. There are still many good people at the office and with the proper training, leadership, support, and guidance, the youth in the office will start doing a better job.

Anonymous said...

Ask any DA that served under Mike, he hates trace cases; in fact, he hates all less than a gram cases and would routinely plead them without a rec to time served.

Mike can't pull the primary votes.

Dumb ass unions, come up with something better to bitch about - like her outing HPD in the bat ban interview.

Anonymous said...

You should be really, really proud of being involved in a crack pipe case where a guy got 50 years for for possessing drug paraphenalia. So, so proud. I mean, you made sure that guy who was ABOUT to commit a crime got a sentence that one might get for ACTUALLY committing one.

I sure hope you aren't a cop any more.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to Pat Lykos for her brilliant response to the poorly orchestrated police union debacle.
The disgruntled ADAs and po po may whine that Pat is not worth a shit as a prosecutor, boss or human being but she is a master politician.
To wit:
1. it was the union leadership not the rank and file officers who rebuked her
2. Her office filed over 300,000 cases last year alone and over 1/3 of which were felonies
3. the police union spokesmen couldn't site any specific egregious misteps by Lykos
4. the realities of trace cases can't be made in a 10 second sound bite and Anderson would be a hypocrite to agree with the cops on this one anyway.
5. did I mention unions dislike Judge Pat?

I can't wait to get my peanuts and popcorn and watch the Lykos campaign unleash its fury. And remember kids, no one respects a whiner.

Jigmeister,
1. 10 months might be a long time but the Republican Primary is March 6 and it'll be December 1st on Friday.
2. If only truth and reality mattered more than perception--but it hasn't for a very long time.
3. Kelly and Johnny are class acts and will both support Mike if Kelly decides not to run herself.
4. Mike is going to be slaughtered, regardless.

Anonymous said...

Someone please tell me where all the CARTEL cases are? Her comment on Ch.2 was a blatant fabrication. There are no CARTEL cases here.

That is unless our leader is going to get some of her Leadership Team members to claim that any case with more than three defendants (organized crime) in a robbery are considered a CARTEL.

This woman makes me want to vomit.

Jigmeister said...

Your right about the amount of time available anon 9:16. My bad. And I guess you will be very happy in the spectator section fiddling away while Rome burns, apathetic while a "horrible human being" gets a free ride.

Anonymous said...

This is political BS! She is trying to stop the jailing of small time drug users. Our country is filled with people in jail! Why aren't the criminal defense lawyers trying to stop all this nonsense - well they make a living at it. It's all just the cops, lawyers, and system ensnarled together like a Roman Orgy!

Anonymous said...

Re: Cartel cases
When's the last time any state DA brought down a cartel? It's the feds that topple cartels with authority and resources to bring down operations that are never just in one county. She's simply ridiculous....

Anonymous said...

For a bunch of prosecutors and defense attorneys, I am surprised at the lack of insight into the importance of trace cases.

1. Most dealers do not stand on the street corner and peddle their wares anymore.

2. catch users coming out of a crack house, charging them, and putting them in jail helps us to build probable cause.

3. We need Probable Cause to get a search warrant for the crack house, which is where the dealer is.

4. trace cases help law enforcement get the warrants that we need to get the dealers and their thugs.

5. I think that it goes without saying that we understand how the exclusionary rule works and we want to make our cases as airtight as possible, so that even a rookie ADA can win them.

I hope that outline helps give some of you an idea about how law enforcement works. just like chess, it is about the end game.

I, and most of my colleagues, do not care if the ADA's drop these casss or plead them to time served. Addiction is a disease not a crime, but for now possession of drugs still is. If politicians do not want officers to target drug crimes, then legalize them. We don't care. we enforce the laws on the books and bring the suspects to jail. We don't determine punishment or guilt, nor do we want to.

Anonymous said...

Pat Lykos has repeatedly refused to meet with Police Union leaders to discuss numerous issues while in office. Not just the crack pipe cases. She would not return calls, cancelled meetings, sent her subordinates. Then she throws J. Leitner completely under the bus when confronted, saying that she had no idea that anyone wanted to meet with her! The media clips may have made it seem like the crack pipe issue was the sole reason, but she has been ignoring the concerns of the police ever since she took office. When the Union calls, you pick up the phone. You might not be able to agree on everything, but at least give them an audience. THAT is why the unions have no confidence in her.

Mark W. Stephens said...

To Anonymous November 30, 2011 8:33 AM

Very courageous of you to criticize me while hiding behind an anonymous moniker.

And thank you, yes I'm actually VERY proud of my record. Over 40 commendations, including a Chief of Police Commendation, a Chief of Police Unit Citation, a Mayor's Meritorious Service Award, 100 Club Officer of the Year, and a nomination for the Lifetime Achievement Award. And ZERO sustained complaints or disciplinary action.

So...yeah...I'm proud of that.

And I need to correct you on some of your idiotic claims.

1. It was NOT an arrest for possession of Narcotics Paraphernalia.
That's a Class C Misdemeanor. It WAS an arrest for felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. You should probably learn the difference before you make stupid comments.

2. He wasn't "about to commit a crime." He was already committing a crime. THe point was, he was about to commit an additional VIOLENT crime, which was prevented because I was able to file the trace case.

Given that same scenario today, I would have had to let them go. And, in all probability, they would have commited a much more serious violent crime where someone could have been hurt or killed.

And if I had let that crook go, and he went on to hurt you or someone you love, then YOU would have still been first in line to criticize me.

Funny thing about good cops. They even protect the morons...and they do it with no expectation that the morons will appreciate anything they do.

Its just what we do...

Scott C. Pope said...

Stephens--

You inadvertently make the anon commenter's point. You may indeed have many things to be proud of as an officer of the law. Getting a guy 50 years for a trace amount that should have been a paraphenalia case is not anything to be proud of. Getting a conviction becuase you THINK he was about to committ a crime is damn sure nothing to be proud of.

If, could, would have, was about to--none of these words are acceptable to convict someone, and you know that. Your self percieved ability to predict the future is not only ridiculous, but dangerous. But if you haven't seen it in yourself thus far, you never will.

Mark W. Stephens said...

To Anonymous November 30, 2011 2:13 AM

You asked how many "homeless people" would be put behind bars for this "b.s. felony."

Well, the short answer is...No more than are caught in possession of trace amounts of a controlled substance. And no more than were arrested before Lykos banned it.

But I'm really amazed that you seem to insinuate all or at least a good amount of "homeless people" are crack heads...while at the same time seemingly espousing a belief that "homeless people" should not be arrested for possession of a controlled substance.

So, according to you..."homeless people" are crack heads that should be allowed to break the law. Does that about sum it up?

Geez...

Mark W. Stephens said...

To Anonymous November 30, 2011 8:14 AM

Thank you for the kind words. I am in regular contact with many different reporters. Including some at the Chronicle.

I have mentioned this as a possible story for them on several occasions. However, the media doesn't see this as a "story." Or at least they don't see the opposition to Lykos' banning of trace cases as a story.

Imagine that...

Mark W. Stephens said...

Pope -

No, I really didn't make his point.

Its a shame I have to point this out to you. But here we go, so please pay close attention.

"Getting a guy 50 years for a trace amount that should have been a paraphenalia case is not anything to be proud of."

I didn't "get a guy 50 years for a trace amount." A jury heard all of the evidence, found the man guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance, and sentenced him to 50 years. I just made the arrest. Please note the distinction.

"Getting a conviction because you THINK he was about to committ a crime is damn sure nothing to be proud of."

Once again, I didn't convict him of anything...a jury did. And he was NOT convicted because he was ABOUT to commit a crime. He was convicted for the crime he ACTUALLY committed.

Can you really NOT differentiate between the two?? I'm seeing a distinct pattern here...

"Your self percieved ability to predict the future is not only ridiculous, but dangerous."

Sigh. Really? Personal attacks because I arrested a crack head who was about to commit an armed robbery?

There was no "self percieved ability to predict the future" on my part, nor did I indicate there ever was. That big 'ol assumption was all yours. And you know what they say about assuming, right??

For your information, one of the crooks confessed that they were looking to rob someone. That, coupled with the sawed off shotgun and ski mask...and well...it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they were up to.

But, I'm sure no one has ever accused you of being a genius.

Please don't tell me they let you practice law...

Scott C. Pope said...

Good job Stephens. you've really managed to jam many negative personality traits into one package. Condescending? Check. Insulting? Check. Still waaaaaay to proud that a guy with a crack pipe got 50? Check. I never really expected you to see your many, many logical and intellectual fallacies, and certainly never expected you to be able to hold a cogent conversation about the utility of throwing crackheads into the county jail. You did a fabulous job confirming what I suspected.

Practice law? Nah not really. I did try a lot of crack cases though, which isn't so much practicing law as shooting fish in a barrel.

Mark W. Stephens said...

Pope -

OH…you’re one of THOSE guys.

I get it now. Makes much more sense. You’re the wannabe bully in grade school who thinks he can say and do whatever he wants, but gets his feelings hurt and goes crying to the teacher when someone stands up to him.

Really one of the most childish responses I’ve read in quite a while. But hey, I guess you can only bring what you’ve got, right? It does however bring to mind the old adage, “You can dish it out, but you can’t take it,” along with visions of Pee Wee Herman crying, “I know you are, but what am I.”

Because, if you look back at the posts here, you’ll realize that you first addressed me. I wasn’t even talking to you. And you did so in a…well…condescending and insulting manner. I guess you expected me to just say thank you and quietly go away. Talk about negative personality traits. Wow. Maybe throw in a little inferiority complex there, huh? The good news is…there’s help for that.

And since you seem to be so fixated on me arresting crack heads…like that’s a BAD thing…I’ll let you in on a little secret. I put a LOT of crack heads in jail. TONS. Not all for trace cases, mind you. Most were for Murder, Rape, Robbery, Burglary, Theft, and of course possession and other crimes. You know, the other crimes crack heads commit so they can keep financing their habit?

But the point is, by doing so, I made the streets a lot safer for everyone…including those like you who like to bad mouth cops.

By the way, I also arrested a Harris County Assistant District Attorney for possession of cocaine. SO, no…they weren’t all homeless crack heads. But they were all breaking the law.

So, am I proud of that? YOU BET.

Fact is, if I could start all over and do it again I’d do it in a heartbeat.

In fact, looking back at some of my cases…50 years was really nothing out of the ordinary. Some of my cases have resulted in Death penalties, Life sentences, 80 years for Auto Theft, 50 years for Burglary, 40 years for Aggravated Sexual Assault, 40 years for Auto Theft, 30 years for Possession…and they go on and on.

But the point wasn’t to brag about anything, I only bring this up in response to your unnecessary and undue attack on me. The point I was making, was in response to someone else who insinuated you can’t make a case in court for a trace amount of cocaine. I gave that one case as an example that…YES YOU CAN.

If that, in some way, offended you…well…tough. GET OVER IT. If it makes you feel bigger or better to continue insulting me, then have at it. Hope it brings a little sunshine into your sad little world.

I noticed you didn’t criticize the prosecutor who tried the case and secure that sentence. Again, I wonder why that is? I can tell you the prosecutor was very proud of this case too. As they should be.

Because to sum it up at the end of the day:

Bad guy commits a crime.
Bad guy gets caught.
Bad guy gets convicted.
Bad guy goes away for a long time. Prosecutor happy.
Officer happy.
Bad guy sad.
Defense attorney sad.
And most of all...Public SAFE.

All the makings of a perfect day :)

Anonymous said...

Ugh. I hope we can't look forward to seeing the drivel of this Mark guy on here all the time. He makes Rage look sociable.

Anonymous said...

I love how the ex cop wants to tell everyone how he's not bragging---and then bragas and brags. Wow.

Scott C. Pope said...

you are a peice of work, I'll give you that. I shouldn't have expected much from the guy who wrote this:

http://www.amazon.com/Democrats-Are-Dumb-Childrens-Guide/dp/1432725173

"Barack Obama likes to say,
if we're nice to terrorists...they'll just go away."

"Our soldiers fight in sun and snow,
then Democrats let the terrorists go."

"America is a Christian nation.
It needs no further explanation."


I now feel foolish for attempting to engage you in conversation at all. Take a look at Bill Kneer's websites--I'm sure they are much mroe up your alley than wasting your time here.

Mark W. Stephens said...

Pope -

Don't know why you chose to attack me. I don't know you and you certainly don't know me.

I understand your disappointments in life and how that can make you pretty bitter. We'll just leave it at that.

Hope you and your have a great Christmas holiday.

p.s.
Thanks for pointing out my fun little book. Its selling well, but I'll take the free advertisement. :)

Mark W. Stephens said...

Anonymous at December 1, 2011 2:13 PM

IF I'm going to be criticized for my record, then I think he needs to know a little about my record. Especially since he had no idea what he was talking about. Not bragging, just stating verifiable facts. Take it as you will.

Anonymous said...

Mark and Scott: You both sound like Rage. What is up with that crap? The both of you make valid points on the issues.

Scott do you just hate cops or what? I always look for your comments as you always seem so fair and unbiased. A voice of reason. What happened?

Mark I thank you for your service. I would perfer all crack heads be in a program or jail. Just that simple. I have grandkids that I worry about. If those shits are off the street one less worry for me. 50 years seem a little extreme to me, but it sounds like everyone did their job.

Rfdillion: You have a right to your opinion, even if it is wrong. Do you work for that troll?

Mark W. Stephens said...

Anonymous at December 1, 2011 5:30 PM

Thank you. And I apologize to Murray and the board for the conversation getting off topic. Certainly not my intent.

But sounding like Rage??? Ouch, that was harsh! LOL

I'll try harder next time to keep it on topic. Thanks again.

Anonymous said...

From anon 2:13 to mark stephens: when I made the comment about homeless people I was not addressing you or your point, however since you addressed me I will respond. When I mentioned homeless people I was suggesting that these are people who are unneccessarily filling the jail. The ones that you put in jail for providing the crack are the ones who should be in jail for 50 years. Trace cases are really what I consider "untraceable" because they can only be tested once in the field...it's like putting someone in jail for possession of marihuana because their blood tested positive for it. If you would have been thinking outside of the box you could have gotten a charge for conspiracy to commit robbery instead of what you got. Drug parapharnelia is still pc to find something else and they still could have been questioned about the ski mask...been arrested for the prohibited weapon...etc. Think man...which is why I said ada's and officers need to work better together and train together.

Scott C. Pope said...

What I've learned from commenting this week:

People are really, really thin skinned.
People have no reading comprehension skills.
People have no sense of self awareness whatsoever.
People have a limitless capacity for rationalizing their own actions.
People tend to be intellectually dishonest.

I'm not saying I never display these traits, but holy mackerel. My general idea that no good can ever come of commenting is well founded.

Anonymous said...

I read through the comments here and then I read them again because i kept thinking I missed something.

I can't understand the attacks on Mr. Stephens. All he did was post some very good information and he was attacked for it. Then he defended himself, and was attacked for that. Then he apologized...and was still attacked.

I understand disagreeing with with his position if that's what you believe, but why all the vicious personal attacks? My goodness.

What on earth did he do that was so wrong? I couldn't find it in any of his posts? And then Mr. Pope, who seems to be the one who started it all, wants to talk about "intellectual dishonesty" as if he was somehow above it all? That is pretty despicable. Some of you people need to get a life.

Police officers should be applauded for their efforts to keep us all safe. Its bad enough that they're attacked on the streets, kicked, punched and spit upon. But to come here and watch the verbal assault as well is really disgusting.

You should really be ashamed of yourselves.

Scott C. Pope said...

Alright you morons. Please tell me how--specifically--I "attacked" Stephens. What is wrong with you people?

Anonymous said...

That Stephens apologized for something he didn't have to apologize for shows his character and integrity.

That Pope keeps on attacking Stephens after he apologized for something he didn't have to apolgize for, shows Pope's lack of character and integrity.

I can't tell if Pope is a liar and a hyprocrite or just a jerk.

Probably a combination of all the above.

Anonymous said...

This is pretty funny. Scott, if you go back and look at what you said its pretty evident. You called him ridiculous, dangerous, insinuated he was stupid or lacking intelligence, among other insults. And it looks like you even went as far as to research him on the internet trying to find negative information to post about him. Who the hell does crap like that??? Its kind of disturbing when you think about it.

And maybe its just me but I think calling everyone else morons probably won't win you many points either. LOL

Mark W. Stephens said...

TO Anonymous at December 2, 2011 12:37 AM

My apologies. I thought you were talking to me. Nevertheless, I'm still trying to understand your point.

You said:
"When I mentioned homeless people I was suggesting that these are people who are unneccessarily filling the jail."

Since being homeless is not a crime, I don't understand how they are unnecessarily filling the jail. Unless, you are associating homeless people with crack heads. If that is the case, then I repsectfully disagree.

All homeless people are not crack heads, and all homeless people don't get arrested for trace cases, or anything else of that matter.

And I understand that you think trace cases are "untraceable" but that is incorrect. Trace cases are successfully prosecuted every day. Just not in Harris County, because Lykos banned it.

That is why I posted here anyway. To dispute the claims that trace cases are not prosecutable. THEY ARE. That's why I provided the 50 year example, not only to prove that trace cases can be won in court, but to show that sometimes its really important to file a trace case.

You said:
"If you would have been thinking outside of the box you could have gotten a charge for conspiracy to commit robbery instead of what you got."

I don't know how to say this without sounding rude, so please don't take it that way. BUT...with all due respect...my crook was sentenced to 50 YEARS. And you think there was a better charge???

And I've seen my example described a few times now as a "paraphernalia case." ITS NOT. It was a possession case.

A paraphernalia case consists of possession of a device that can be used to ingest a drug or narcotic into a person's system. But when that paraphernalia is used to ingest a controlled substance into the system AND there is residue presence of the controlled substance, THEN is is NO LONGER a paraphernalia case. It is a Possession of a Controlled Substance case.

I didn't write the law, but that's it.

And because I don't know your background, you need to understand that police officers don't get to choose what charges are filed or prosecuted. ADAs do. Police officers simply present the case.

I can think outside the box all day long, but if the ADA won't take the charge, then its just not going to happen.

In my example, the crook that was charged with Possession also had the sawed-off shotgun. He was originally charged with Possession of a Prohibited Weapon too, but the DAs office later dropped that charge.

Hope I addressed any questions or concerns. Thanks

Anonymous said...

I can't tell if Pope is a liar and a hyprocrite or just a jerk.
Probably a combination of all the above.

He's none of the above. As you would know if you had ever had to try a difficult case against him.
The epithets actually apply far better to Mark Stephens and his zeal to fill TDC with people doing 50 for trace cases.

Anonymous said...

"I can't tell if Pope is a liar and a hyprocrite or just a jerk.
Probably a combination of all the above."


He's none of the above. As you would know if you ever had to try a case against him.
The epithets work better for Mark Stephens and his glee at packing people off to do 50 in TDCJ for trace cases.

PDS said...

Mark W. Stephens vs. Scott C. Pope

I have Mark with a TKO. Scott, may God bless you and your opinion. Mark I know God has blessed you and your opinion. Turkish cigaretts ar not illegal and apparently a glass rod with cocaine residue in it are not either!

Let's legalize all drugs and tax them and clear the national debt with the proceed..........just kidding.

Jason said...

The media makes it sound like the whole issue is the "trace case" scenarios. I know many lawyers and judges like this decision because it lightens their work load. However to these I pose a question. If the cops stop a guy in your neighborhood with a 20 year record of burglary and robbery and all they find on him is a pipe with trace residue of cocaine would you want that person arrested and removed from your neighborhood? I'd guess so. No disrespect to anyone but I love how people stand on stages saying trace cases should be left alone when it's not their neighborhoods these people are hitting.

Anonymous said...

As a retired 25 year officer I want to give my opinion. I think the crack pipe issue should be no issue at all. In the past, Officers had been filing on local addicts who are in possession of a crack pipe that has an unusable trace residue of crack cocaine inside the pipe, left after usage as an after-product. These charges are a felony for the mere possession of this unusable residue. The thing that used to really tick me off is when officers are making these arrest and filing a felony charge on this crap, they are taken off the streets and "out-of-service" for hours on end to file the big felony charge leaving the rest of us out there answering their calls for them. They should be filing class c possession of paraphernalia and get back on the streets. I'll vote for Pat again unless much more important issues surface.