Saturday, December 3, 2011

The Legality of D.I.V.E.R.T.

There was an interesting ruling out of the 14th Court of Appeals this week that points out what many of us have been saying for awhile -- that Pat Lykos' DIVERT program is not a legal form of punishment for Driving While Intoxicated.

In State vs. Rhodes, the Defendant was charged with Driving While Intoxicated and his case landed in County Court at Law # 2 under Judge Bill Harmon.  Followers of the DIVERT controversy know that Judge Harmon has always maintained the position that DIVERT is illegal and he won't do it in his court.  The Defendant wanted to participate in DIVERT, but that wasn't going to happen on Judge Harmon's watch.

Rhodes' attorney then filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Harmon in the attempt to get a new judge that would allow him to have DIVERT.  A hearing occurred on the Motion to Recuse and the Administrative Judge chose NOT to remove Judge Harmon from the bench.  The defendant was ultimately found guilty and received 3 days and a $500 fine.

He then appealed his case, citing as error the Administrative Judge's ruling to NOT remove Judge Harmon as the error.

Now, before we go into the ruling, I'm kind of wondering what it was like for the D.A.'s Office to be arguing against the Defendant's appeal.  They were kind of in a Catch-22, weren't they?  On the one hand, they want the conviction to stand, but on the other they have to protect the validity of Lykos' pet project.  I haven't seen the State's response, but I'm curious how they argued it and kept it intellectually honest.

Additionally, how did they handle the Motion to Recuse?  Did they agree with the Defendant that Judge Harmon should be removed from the case?  I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

Ultimately, the Defendant and the DIVERT program both lost their arguments.

The 14th Court of Appeals ruled that the Defendant was not entitled to a different judge than Judge Harmon, because Judge Harmon was correctly following the law when he refused to participate in DIVERT's pre-trial diversion program.  They pointed out that Judge Harmon was, in fact, following the law and considering the full range of punishment because pre-trial diversion is not a legal form of punishment.

I wonder what will become of DIVERT in light of this ruling.  My guess is Lykos will keep on giving it out.   I guess she kind of backtracked off that whole "Rule of Law" thing she touted so highly in the 2008 election.

102 comments:

Anonymous said...

OMG Murray, do you know what this means? The court of appeals is now part of the conspiracy! First they rule that Judge Brown was correct in denying the prosecutors demands to be present in the grand jury and now this! Hey isn't there a Brown on the Court of Appeals? Wheels within wheels. Manoman.

Spunk said...

PART 1

Big Jolly,
Re: your blog posting "DA Pat Lykos announces re-election bid," December 1, 2011
Your assessment of Mike Anderson and your label of him as a "blatant liar" are flat wrong. After 3 attempts to comment directly to your blog, I have sought assistance though Murray since his blog is where I found your's. Thank you, Murray.

You quoted Mark Bennett, who with all due respect, is a career criminal defense attorney who lacks prosecutorial insight because he has never been one and hardly provides a "balanced" source of information at least when it comes to DIVERT or Mike Anderson. In so doing, you pointed out that Mike has stated, '[t]hat she [Lykos] has invented a program that ignores the intent of the legislature and essentially gives first-time drunk drivers a free pass. You go on to say, "Obviously, DA Lykos has done neither.' To the contrary, she has done both.

DA Lykos' DIVERT program is her personal creation which wholly ignores the intent of the Texas legislature. Read Chapter 49 of the Texas Penal Code and you will not find one single reference to DIVERT, and that is because she made it up herself. And she uses it liberally as you so pointed out in reference to all those so-called "guilty pleas" generated from it (more on that later). If the Texas Legislature wanted DIVERT to be the law in Texas, they would have codified it. Whether Lykos likes it or not, her job is to enforce the law, not to write it. She was a district court judge for years and insists today that she be referred to as "Judge" Pat Lykos despite the fact that she is now the elected DA (executive branch), so noone should be surprised that she gives herself the authority to write law as well. Egotistical and Tyrannical to boot. Where is Mike Anderson's blatant lie here?

Second, Mike's comment that DIVERT essentially gives a first-time drunk driver a free pass is also true. To understand this, however, you must look a lot further than Mark Bennett's blog:

Bennett says, '[i]f the goal of divert was to get people who otherwise fight their cases to instead accept responsiblity...' '[i]t appears to be a success....' he goes on to point out some 10,191 guilty pleas, DIVERT and non-DIVERT. Before we brand Mike Anderson a blatant liar, let us consider how DIVERT works and what a "guilty plea" really means on DIVERT.

Basically, if you are a first-offender DWI defendant you may qualify for the DIVERT program. You plead guilty, but if you follow the program's requirements for a specified period and pay fees and costs, your guilty plea is erased and your case is totally dismissed. If you are a first-offender DWI defendant not on the DIVERT program, you will be prosecuted pursuant to the Texas Penal Code. Non-DIVERT first offender defendants everywhere else in Texas are eligible for deferred adjudication community supervision (a fancy way of saying probation.) If those other defendant's live out their deferred-adjudications successfully, their plea of guilty is still a part of the record but the court does not actually make a finding of guilt and their probationary period is satisfactorily terminated.

Spunk said...

PART 2
What's the difference? The next time the DIVERT defendant is arrested for DWI the law enforcement computers will show him/her to be a first offender again. There will be no mention of the DIVERT program, just a DWI arrest and subsequent dismissal. However, the next time a non-DIVERT defendant is arrested for DWI, the law enforcement computer will correctly indicate he/she to be a second offender DWI defendant with a prior deferred adjudication for DWI which was satisfactorily terminated. The DIVERT defendant gets treated as a first offender again and the non-DIVERT defendant is treated as a second offender pursuant to state law and subject to higher bond amonts, higher penalties, and more punitive consquences. Again, where is the blatant lie in this. Mike
Anderson is correct, DIVERT is a free pass for first-offender drunk drivers.

Since it is clear that the end result of a guilty plea in a DIVERT case can result in restoring to a DWI defendant first-offender status on his next DWI arrest, a guilty plea to the DIVERT program is not "accepting responsibility" for the crime. It is not an act of remorse or contrition. No matter how DA Lykos wants to paint this picture, the reality is that these defendant's are not motivated to accept responsibility so much as they are motivated to dance to DIVERT's music long enough to emerge from the other end of the system with the reward of a clean rap sheet.

Big Jolly, maybe you should consider those fines and costs associated with the DIVERT program. The defendant is required to pay money as a condition of getting his case dismissed. Where does it go? Pat Lykos gets a chunk of it. They say it goes toward paying the salaries of the DIVERT prosecutors. If that is true, where did the funds which were already paying them go? Did the money go to pay for Pat Lykos' office's new hardwood floors? Did it go to purchase a state-of-the-art sound and recording system she installed in her "press" conference room? Did the money purchase the adjustible podium stand she installed so that she can artificially manipulate her height in relationship to whomever she is standing next to on TV?

Maybe you should ask what happens to an otherwise eligible DIVERT defendant who is indigent and cannot afford those fees and costs. If you can't pay, you can't play DIVERT. Is that equal punishment under the law?

Maybe you should ask what happens when a defendant who is otherwise eligible opts out of the DIVERT program and elects to be prosecuted pursuant to the Texas Penal Code. Those first offender DWI defendants are given an offer of 30 days in jail, no probation, which is the standard minimum offer for a second offender according to the Texas Penal Code. Doesn't this seem more than a little coercive? And doesn't it stink since everytime someone pleads guilty to DIVERT, Pat Lykos gets paid for it?

Maybe you owe Mike Anderson an apology.

Anonymous said...

@Spunk: no deferred adjudication for DWI's, period. That is why Lykos' divert program is illegal. She is essentially giving them a deferred when the legislature specifically decided that DWI offenders should not receive a deferred.


I have this feeling that Big Jolly has never really been a REAL cop. If he were, he would have a myriad of examples of why Lykos is not the person for the job....

Mark W. Stephens said...

Spunk - Excellent explanation. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I am just an ordinary citizen reading this blog. I can't believe our elected District Attorney is so blatantly ignoring the DWI law. Also, if she is not a Judge anymore, no one should be referring to her as one.

Anonymous said...

Murray,

your lede (the first paragraph) is misleading and contradicted by your second to last paragraph in that the first implies that DIVERT is illegal.

Spunk is wrong. He should read Ex Parte Quintana and the other law cited by the DA' office in their pleadings in the McNutt case. The outcome of that appeal will, I expect, be to reverse Harmon because DIVERT is pre-trial intervention which gives DAs broad discretion.

Anonymous said...

I get it. I get it. Divert is like Pergatory....without the wine.


Old Dog

Anonymous said...

Murray - i read the opinion and cant find anything about divert being illegal. Divert is a plea bargain and Harmon rejected it.

Anonymous said...

There are about half a dozen bogus "programs" in the Harris County Probation system. All of which are required by the courts in order to successfully complete probation.
Most all are destined to fail and merely add to the financial debt that the probationer owes the county.
Why is anger management classes a requirement to do probation for murder? No different than DIVERT.

Anonymous said...

If DIVERT was being done legally what should happen is that the defendant signs an agreement to participate in the program as a condition of immediate dismissal and agreement not to refile if the program is satisfactorily completed.

What concerns me most about the program is that people who are alcohol dependent are excluded from the program yet many of the participants are required to go to AA and participate in outpatient programs. I can see educational awareness programs for non-dependent persons, but treating non-alcoholics, then using the low re-offense numbers to show that the "treatment" works is kind of like using rejuvenating skin creme on 18 year-olds and then saying look how young they look.

Anonymous said...

I see that the Chronicle is once again puffing Lykos using the crack cocaine issue. You can count on this liberal rag to do everything possible to get her re-elected so they can continue their illicit affair with each other.

Just wish they'd report all the facts about Lykos and not cherry-pick their issues to hide how bad she really is.

Anonymous said...

I see that the Chronicle is once again puffing Lykos using the crack cocaine issue. You can count on this liberal rag to do everything possible to get her re-elected so they can continue their illicit affair with each other.

Just wish they'd report all the facts about Lykos and not cherry-pick their issues to hide how bad she really is.

Anonymous said...

As a current student in College and a observer of this site. I try to keep up with current events. I voted for Mrs. Lykos and watched tru her first 3 yrs. To date, I will vote for her again. It's terrible how you people treat her and her employee's. I've come to find that this site is one sided and hateful. The day will come when you stand before the almighty and have to answer for your hate. Its just not right to treat people that way.

Anonymous said...

As a current student in College and a observer of this site. I try to keep up with current events. I voted for Mrs. Lykos and watched tru her first 3 yrs. To date, I will vote for her again. It's terrible how you people treat her and her employee's. I've come to find that this site is one sided and hateful. The day will come when you stand before the almighty and have to answer for your hate. Its just not right to treat people that way.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:38 there is nothing I could say that would change your mind about supporting Lykos so I would urge you to fully pronounce your position, "I support incompetence in government, I support Pat Lykos". Be proud of your position.

Anonymous said...

Dear College student,

Most of the people commenting on this site, work for Pat Satin Lykos. You just stick to learning what books have to offer. Leave the real world to the adults.

Tom said...

I normally don't comment here, but what the hell.
I'm neither a fan nor an "unfan" of our district attorney but jumping her for refusing to take felony charges on dirty crack pipes is barking up the wrong tree.
For years such liberal jurists as Mike McSpadden have urged making possession of less than a gram a misdemeanor. Many of you may not remember the late 80s and early 90s when prison overcrowding forced TDC to empty the prisons of parole-eligible inmates to make room for new inmates. Those released included serial killer Kenneth McDuff who, as soon as he got out, went back to his hobby of killing young women. I for one don't want to fill our prison beds with small time offenders again, forcing parole of truly dangerous people like McDuff.
Possession of personal use cocaine has been a misdemeanor in the federal system for as long as I can remember. I bet the prosecutors in the District of Columbia aren't filing a lot of dirty crack pipe cases.
As for the DIVERT program, all prosecutors have wide discretion in deciding what charges to pursue and which not to. They have wide discretion in entering pretrial diversion agreements ending in dismissals. With the exception of the required guilty plea with a 30-day recommendation, DIVERT is a pretrial diversion program for first offense DWI. The goal should be to keep people from driving drunk. If DIVERT or pretrail diversion does that, it is a success. I don't know the stats on DIVERT success but if it is working, it is preventing future crimes.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:02 you cannot get probation for murder. You must be Pat Lykos if you think you can.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:38

Dear young person:
Have you ever been forced to work in a hostile environment? Do you by any chance have a Professor that you just can't get on the good side of? One, who, no matter what, never thinks your right.

Just imagine working in a place where you are not allowed to do the job you were hired for. Your every move questioned. Your boss would rather throw any blame your way and never any credit. That is what the employee's of Pat Lycos have to look forward to every day. A massive number of top prosecutors have left because of that type of environment. Who suffers but us,in the end, the citizens pay the price. More criminals to walk free.

Ms. Lyco's sits on her throne making new laws. Hello, have you taken any government classes, simply not her job.

The D.I.V.E.R.T. program is illegal. There are many aspects to the stupid program that you must not have thought about.

Put your big girl panties on, join real life where this type of stuff occurs quite often. The one thing I learned in college was to think before you speak. Do a little research on your own about this. When you have all of the facts I feel sure you will have a different opinion on this subject.

I did research before I became a believer of this blog. It is amazing what you can find out.

Anonymous said...

In Rhodes v. State, -S.W.3d - (Tex. App. - Houston [14th] 2011, delivered 12/1/11) the Court held that Judge Olen Underwood (Administrative Judge, 2nd Dist.and former Houston Oiler linebacker) did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to recuse Judge Bill Harmon because he allegedly had a bias or prejudice against the DIVERT program (slip opinion at page 6). In reaching this conclusion the Court stated "The DIVERT Program, however, is not a part of the range of punishment for first-time DWI offenders." (Slip opinion at page 5). Although not an explicit statement that the DIVERT progam is illegal, and arguably dicta only vis-a-vis the issue, it can at least be fairly argued that this is an implicit rejection of the legality of the DIVERT progarm by the Court.
Calvin A. Hartmann

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:02 is right on the money. If the Legislature wants a DIVERT plan in place, all they have to do is make it the law. The same applies to making possession of crack cocaine a misdemeanor. They can simply pass that law. Lykos has usurped the powers of the Legislature by fiat. What's more, she's done it for purely political reasons.

Jigmeister said...

For those who voted for Lykos in the past, I hope you read this. Let me analgize. Just about everyone who has been in the work force remembers this kind of boss. They were brought in from the outside, but without the experience of having done your job before. They think that just because they have the sheepskin, they know how to do your job but make no attempt to try.

Every time you do something, the credit is stolen for the glorification of the boss, and every thing the boss does is for self glorification. No one gets training because the boss doesn't know what you do or how you do it. Directions from above don't come or when they do are confusing or are designed only to make the boss look good. You make slight mistakes, the boss publicly criticizes you. And even when you do nothing wrong, but something goes wrong, you get blamed. Finally, you have had enough so you quit, leaving someone without experience to do the job without direction. Eventually, all those who know how to do the job, except those scared they can't find another job to feed their families, quit. All the while, the boss says the right things and those who make the decisions to keep the boss are fooled. Well, have you ever had that kind of boss?

Now make that boss responsible for attempting to provide truth and justice to the citizens of the 4th largest city in the country through the actions of 250 or so employees. Perhaps you can see the problem. Frankly, I am just scratching the surface. Also our criticism is not all all directed to the employees in the trenches, but of those in positions of leadership, many of whom got the job without regard to qualifications and who have kissed the ring of the egocentric boss and care not for the consequences.

If you have an open mind, I'm sure you can find specifics, many of which are provided throughout Murray's blog by those who were once employees. Or in my case, as a prosecutor who spent a year and 1/2 in her court when she was a judge. If not the consequences to the citizens and victims are your own doing.

Anonymous said...

Old Dog here: I'll take Jigmeister's analysis even DEEPER than HER skin:

No doubt Ms. Lykos, Judge Lykos, D.A. Lykos has, will, and always will suffer from:

Narcissistic personality disorder:

This is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships and in other areas of their life, such as work or school.

Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

Believing that you're better than others;

Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness;

Exaggerating your achievements or talents;

Expecting constant praise and admiration;

Believing that you're special and acting accordingly;

Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings;

Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans;

Taking advantage of others
Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior;

Being jealous of others
Believing that others are jealous of you;

Trouble keeping healthy relationships;

Setting unrealistic goals;

Being easily hurt and rejected;

Having a fragile self-esteem;

Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional - UNABLE TO SHOW EMPATHY (FEEL YOUR PAIN);

Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal. In contrast, people who have healthy confidence and self-esteem don't value themselves more than they value others.

When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may have a sense of entitlement. And when you don't receive the special treatment to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or angry. You may insist on having "the best" of everything — the best car, athletic club, medical care or social circles, for instance.

But underneath all this behavior often lies a fragile self-esteem. You have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have a sense of secret shame and humiliation. And in order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better.

THIS: Is what is deep inside "scratching the surface" of "Judge" D.A. Patricia Lykos!

Like the time she kept a jury waiting for several hours during lunch and when she returned she blamed her own tardiness on the lawyers - right in front of the jurors!

Anonymous said...

anon 1:44---check your penal code. You can get probation for murder if it's your first felony and there are people on probation for murder right this moment in harris county.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

You could get probation for murder prior to 2007. You can't anymore.

Anonymous said...

So Anon 7:16 you would be incorrect. Maybe it is you that should read the current penal code

Mark W. Stephens said...

Helo Tom -

Question.

Did you just use the District of Columbia as an example of who Harris County should follow - with regard to trace cases?

I seem to recall Mayor Marion Barry getting caught on video tape smoking a crack pipe with a prostitute. THEN...he got re-elected. As Mayor and City Council.

Not only that, but their crime rate is outrageous. Apparently, a lot of crack heads running around robbing people. I could be wrong, but that COULD be because they don't put crack heads in jail there.

The last time I was there for a meeting at the State Department, everywhere you went, they would remind you to be vigil, because there was a good chance some crook would try to rob you.

D.C. is probably not the best analogy to use in support of banning trace cases. Its definitely NOT a place I would want Harris County to be like.

Thanks, but no thanks. We have too many elected officials here who ACT like they're on drugs. Don't need to make it legal for them.

Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree.

There does seem to be some common ground between trace cases and D.I.V.E.R.T. though.

IN one instance, it IS a State Law that Lykos chooses to ignore. And in the other, it is NOT a State Law that Lykos made up.

And in both instances...the bad guy is free to commit more crimes...

Anonymous said...

I think it is a stretch to say divert is illegal after reading Rhodes. The DAs office said Rhodes is a plea bargain and the COA bought that argument.

From Rhodes on the last page. "Therefore, in the absence of other evidence, a trial judge’s simple rejection of a plea agreement, even if the decision implicates an entire class of cases without regard to the merits of any particular case, would not be sufficient evidence of bias or partiality to necessitate recusal. In other words, evidence that Judge Harmon does not approve of plea agreements that include assignment of DWI offenders to the DIVERT Program does not, without more, establish that he should have been recused."

Jose said...

I still think pat lykos is a better choice than mike anderson for DA

Anonymous said...

Regarding trace crack pipe cases. Yes, absolutely they are a hastle and clog the system. But there's an old saying: " What to get rid of a law or rule? Then enforce it to the hilt. At some point something WILL have to give and that will be the legislature revamping the Penal code to adjust matters in the more practical direction. 1) Give County Courts control over DWI 3rd's. Would be like a capital murder down there; 2) Make 0-2 oz weed a class C issue tickets and up the Oz. amounts for an A to 4 or whatever oz.

I fully understand the REASON behind specialized programs if they are legal. Until this issue is settled, to have a blanket policy of not taking ANY charges on these trace cases is merely giving a bonus to those who can "toke fast":

Motley Crue Smokin' In The Boys Room Lyrics

Sittin' in the classroom thinkin' it's a drag
Listening to the teacher rap-just ain't my bag
When two bells ring you know it's my cue
Gonna meet the boys on floor number 2

Smokin' in the boys room
Smokin' in the boys room
Teacher don't you fill me up with your rule
Everybody knows that smokin' ain't allowed in school.

Notice Motley never says WHAT they are smokin in the Boys room, but I it were crack or more likely pot or tobacco, if the only thing left for an administrator or teacher to see upon entering is just a smell of trace pipe, or cig. butt by example only - strains common sense to not get a trip to the "Office".

_

Anonymous said...

Murray:

I doubt your Stat Counter has a category for this, so allow me:

Motley Crue Reference: 1


Fantastic!

Tom said...

Mark: I used DC as an example of application of federal law on possession of small amounts of cocaine because I couldn't think of too many other places other than Indian reservations where there is federal but no state criminal law.
And, I still believe that both prosecutors and judges have and should intelligently exercise discretion.
My example of prison bedspace being a limited resource is an example. I for one would much rather have the likes of Kenneth McDuff locked up than a crack user. Of course, if you disagree, I am sure you would be glad to explain to the relatives of the six women he killed how locking up addicts but having to relese McDuff serves the public interest. I suspect their relatives would rather prosecutors used some discretion in filling prison beds in the 80s.

Mark W. Stephens said...

Tom -

I'm glad you used D.C. as an example, becuase it helps me prove my point. Drug laws are minimized there, just as some on this forum have suggested it should be here.

And the result is a staggering crime rate and convicted crack heads holding public office. IT DOESN'T WORK.

As for McDUff, there are many reasons why the system failed. Like, maybe, having THREE Death Sentences commuted to Life in prison...and Life in prion at that time meaning only 9-10 years??

To blame his release on trace cases overcrowding the jails is factually inaccurate.

The jails were overcrowded yes, but because of poor planning and inadequate facilities available. Crack didn't take off in Houston until about the time McDuff was already paroled. It wasnt trace cases clogging the system.

I wouldn't want to face the relatives of McDuff's victims anymore than I would want to face the relatives of a victim who was brutally murdered by a crack head that SHOULD have been in jail, but was free to kill because he was released on a trace case.

Would you?

Anonymous said...

I agree with 9:36am - The only reason the legislature made it illegal to possess a drug (crack etc.)is to discourage people from using the drug. There is no harm in carrying or possessing a drug - the harm comes from using it. But you can't enforce a law making it illegal to use a drug since seldom could you catch someone in the act at the moment they used it. But you can catch people possessing it so the legislature made that illegal in order to prevent usage. If your purpose is to prevent usage, it doesn't matter how much one is caught with. If a person is caught with any, regardless of the amount, it indicates he/she is probably at least a user and someone the legislature intended to be punished in order to deter usage. It is the legislature's call whether or not to change it. Not D.A.'s from 254 different counties.

Anonymous said...

Newman, you lack objectivity and are masquerading as a defense lawyer.... Hopefully Mike Anderson will hire you if he wins so you can stop pretending.

Anonymous said...

Murray,now it looks like Newt will be leader of Republican ticket. We heard several Democratic Judges will be getting primary opponents.Who is the woman Judge we keep hearing about that is so bad?

Anonymous said...

So I'd like to see just one of you numbskulls arguing for the prosecution of residue cases show me the numbers on how Houston's crime rate has risen because of the current policy. It's one thing to argue that all of these crimes are being committed because of the policy, but it's quite another to back up your self-serving and alarmist BS with actual numbers.

Rage

Anonymous said...

Further, I hope all of you appreciate someone who knows who to correctly rite the englsh language and the way I put my words together to step into the breaaech and show you, well, all what I meant when I said before about:

It's one thing to argue that all of these crimes are - etc

What I meant to say was: "Arugue these crimes are committed because of the policy,

On this part: " but it's quite another to back up your self-serving and alarmist BS with actual numbers." I ment to say:

However, back up your self-serving and alarmist BS with actual numbers." This is what I ment to say. back later, my brerak is over.


Rage

Anonymous said...

Rage just ruptured a cerebral aneurysm.

Anonymous said...

Crime isn't down after all...

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/111205-houstons-murder-count-could-set-record

WTF said...

“Harris County citizens deserve an experienced prosecutor as Harris County District Attorney. The DA’s office is in turmoil. Mike Anderson brings thirty years of law enforcement in Harris County as a prosecutor and District Court Judge. I am humbled and honored to stand with many throughout Harris County in endorsing Mike Anderson to become the next Harris County District Attorney,” said Terry Lowry. Mr. Lowry is host of the What’s Up Radio Program on KKHT-FM 100.7 radio and Editor of The Link Letter

Murray, is this the same Terry Lowery who supported Judge Pat in 2008 and now he's supporting Judge Mike?
When did this sewer dwelling naked mole rat AKA Terry Lowery get an epiphany?

Scott C. Pope said...

"And the result is a staggering crime rate and convicted crack heads holding public office."

Crack heads is plural. Please cite another crack head who holds public office.

"I wouldn't want to face the relatives of McDuff's victims anymore than I would want to face the relatives of a victim who was brutally murdered by a crack head that SHOULD have been in jail, but was free to kill because he was released on a trace case."

Please cite a case where a crack head killed someone, but SHOULD have been in jail on a trace case, but was released.

thank you so much,
SCP

Scott C. Pope said...

RE: "staggering" crime rates in Washington D.C.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

Anonymous said...

OMG. Scott Pope lookin for another Stephens beatdown. What a goober!

Anonymous said...

What happened to the Chronicle blog? Is it gone?

Mark W. Stephens said...

Pope -

Ok. Since you quoted me, then posted a link to wikipedia regarding the crime rate in Washington D.C. I have to assume this is yet another attempt by you to prove me wrong.

So, I looked at the link (as if Wikipedia is known for their factual accuracy)just to amuse myself. And I honestly have to thank you. I had quite a laugh.

Your own fact source makes my point for me. I'm guessing you didn't read it entirely?? Or maybe its that reading comprehension problem you cited before?

To sum up the article, it says that since 1995 the crime rate has been reduced by 46%. I assume this is where you stopped reading.

It mentions that their high crime rate was a direct result of the crack epidemic (and ostensibly their minimal possession statutes - which is what I've been saying all along)and makes it very clear that the revitalization of the district and the gentrification taking place there has pushed the crack heads out of the district and further east, into Maryland.

Subsequently, the crime rate in that part of Maryland has now skyrocketed. BECAUSE...crack heads = CRIME.

Now, back to D.C. Here's the most important part that you either missed or purposely ommitted. I really don't care which.

Its says that although the crime rate is down about 46%...and I'll quote here..."However, violent crime is still more than three times the national average..."

Did you get that? Its still MORE than THREE TIMES the National Average.

Do you understand how high the crime rate there had to have been for it to be DOWN 46% and STILL be MORE than 3 times higher than the national average???

So, yeah. STAGGERING.

Thanks for proving my point. I appreciate your input.

Anonymous said...

From the linked article:

"One is there are just normal fluctuations in crime overtime. Another explanation would be the baby boom generation aging out of crime prone age ranges which is 15-29. Also the drug of choice from the 1980s and 1990s changed from crack to marijuana, and it's stated that's a less violent type of drug," said Berthelot."

Anonymous said...

Political campaigns tend to reveal one's character.
What a candidate does, not says, is determinate as to how he will perform in office.
It is one thing for Mike Anderson to have received an email blast endorsement from Chuck Rosenthal and not posted it on his website for obvious reasons.
However, to seek and applaud the endorsment of a political whore by the name of Terry Lowry and brag about it on his campaign website is enough for this voter to withdraw his support of Mike Anderson.
As the Harris County DA campaign begins, Mike Anderson's conduct reminds me of Hugo Chavez critisizing the behavior of Fidel Castro–I really thought Mike Anderson was better than that.

Scott C. Pope said...

Sigh. I really can't believe I'm bothering to spell this out, but here it goes:

You said the following: "Not only that, but their crime rate is outrageous. Apparently, a lot of crack heads running around robbing people. I could be wrong, but that COULD be because they don't put crack heads in jail there. "

Based on the stats we have both recently read, we know this to be untrue. Crime is down 46%, for various reasons, as the article notes.

You then said this: "And the result is a staggering crime rate and convicted crack heads holding public office."

The crime rate, as you can see, is not "staggering". A reduction of nearly half may indeed be staggering, but not in the way you mean it.

Additionaly, it's funny how you ignore that fact that the violent crime rate is down--way, way down. The fact that it is three times the national average isn't really "staggering," in light of the massive drop off in violent crimes in D.C. is it?

So to recap, there isn't a "staggering" crime rate in Washington D.C. because of crack. There simply isn't.

Anonymous said...

The violence comes from the drug dealers killing each other for turf and goods and opportunists who know who sell the drugs. Crackheads contribute more to property theft. Just my opinion. Dealers are the ones who should do the major time. Side note as much as class b marijuana gets plead down it should be as class c with a habitual offender enhancement like pi.

Anonymous said...

Logistically speaking, jails are overcrowded, and due to economic times funds are down. I give Lykos credit for attempting to think of creative ways to keep the overcrowding down; however, keep it within law. Trace case=good. Divert=bad(unless you yourself are getting your first dwi) heehee. I would like to hear how people think we can work on this jail population thing and balance proper punishment. (ankle monitors and home restrictions will not do as good answers=slap on wrist)

Anonymous said...

As evidenced by the almost 150 comments posted on the Chronicle's article, most citizens in this county are beginning to feel the drug war in its entirety has been a failure. I noticed that many of them pointed out that arresting someone for what they MIGHT do is a little insane and akin to arresting a shopper for DWI who is inside a liquor store lined up to purchase a fifth of whiskey. Regardless of how the police unions feel on this issue, the fact is it made Lykos appear to have made the correct decision. Add to that that all of the judges supported her on this, well, I think it just cinched the election for her. Note to police unions: Pick your battles more intelligently. Sometimes they have the opposite affect than those which you desire.

Anonymous said...

As evidenced by the almost 150 comments posted on the Chronicle's article, most citizens in this county are beginning to feel the drug war in its entirety has been a failure. I noticed that many of them pointed out that arresting someone for what they MIGHT do is a little insane and akin to arresting a shopper for DWI who is inside a liquor store lined up to purchase a fifth of whiskey. Regardless of how the police unions feel on this issue, the fact is it made Lykos appear to have made the correct decision. Add to that that all of the judges supported her on this, well, I think it just cinched the election for her.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 12:42 p.m.,

Really? You are using the comments section of the Chronicle as a barometer for rational public opinion?

I mean half of those comments are left by the same guy masquerading under different identities. Hell, there was even a Fake Murray Newman posting the other day.

When it comes to the crack pipe issue, there are rational arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. There are no absolutes.

But if you think that is going to be the issue that ultimately sways the voters, you are overlooking so many additional factors.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:42. May I reference you to the case last holidsays in NY, a national case, where a heroin addict shot up a pharmacy and killed 4 people all to get 200 oxy pills. May I also reference you to the crime statistics of the Governors office showing a 50% increase in drug crime in the last 5 years, pointed out btw on the blog of a victim here in Harris County who tore up the drug court quite publically after the drug addicted daughter of a rehab owner which works with our very own court system committed a number of crimes against him and many other people and he claims got off nearly scott free. This new rehab based philosophy in my opinion is worse. Working in the DAs office, I can assure you drug crime has NOT been dropping in the past few years as we have moved away from the war on drugs. Those pushing for a rehabilitative approach have strong lobbies and media platforms. In general, I would say public opinion in Texas and Harris County is also for stronger-tougher sentencing, at least among the victims of drug related theft I encounter.

flip flop for DA said...

Murray, you mean factors such as:

1a. Mr. Mike Anderson asserts DIVERT is illegal
1b. Mrs. Mike Anderson argues her defendants should get DIVERT

2a. Judge Mike Anderson agrees trace cases shouldn't be felonies
2b. Candidate Anderson asserts trace cases should be felonies

Mike Anderson even flip flopped his damn moustache--have some freakin' character boy and stand by a principle.

Anonymous said...

Murray - I can't find it but didn't you write a piece about Lowry some time ago?

Anonymous said...

Brownsville Station first rocked Smoking in the Boy's room. They did the song justice and they performed it live on the Larry Kane show. Dick Clark wasn't aired in Houston and this was Houston's Dick Clark show. It was great. The drums were literally shaking and the interview of the band afterwards was memorable because the Brownsville Statio was about the music and having a good time.
It's important to note that this was also before Houston had cable TV. Come to think of it we only had channels 2,8,11,13 and 39.

Some of you might think this must be ancient. You may be right but I'm a candidate's primary voter.
One that has a memory like an elephant and can remember when Louie Welsh was mayor. Yes that far back.

I compare candidates using my memory of previously elected DAs to measure how well the current DA is doing.

By the way, VH1's rockumentary Metal Evolution is great and worth watching.

Anonymous said...

Anon3:40 man up and go post under a new alias on Chron.com. Nobody here cares about what you have to say.

Mark W. Stephens said...

To Anonymous December 7, 2011 2:32 PM

Excellent points. Thanks for sharing that.

To Pope -
The profoundness of your stupidity amazes me. I didn't "ignore the fact that the crime rate is down." I mentioned it several times.

That D.C. STILL has a VIOLENT CRIME rate THREE TIMES HIGHER than the national average, AFTER the crime reduction is factored, is NOT a good thing, no matter how you try to spin it.

And its certainly NOT what I want for Harris County.

To Anonymous December 5, 2011 7:05 PM

If Anderson wins and Murray goes back to the DAs office, it definitely would be a win/win. Cross your fingers.

Mark W. Stephens said...

To Anonymous December 7, 2011 8:44 AM

I agree with the general sentiment, but comparing Anderson to Hugo Chavez just because he accepted a political endorsement is more than a bit dramatic, don't you think?

Speaking in purely political terms, taking Terry Lowery's endorsement away from Lykos is a huge deal.

Like Lowery or not, the voting guide he publishes is widely used among Conservative voters and many of them carry those guides into the voting booth.

That Anderson got Lykos bumped off that guide and his name on there instead is a major political coup.

I was as mad as anyone when Lowery endorsed Lykos over Kelly, especially for the reason he offered, and I had some heated exchanges with him over that. But despite the bad taste it leaves in your mouth, in the world of politics, this was a good move for Anderson.

Most people don't know anything about Terry Lowery, but a LOT of people depend on his voting guide.

But I completely understand your sentiment, because I still struggle with supporting anyone who accepts the endorsement of State Rep Allen Fletcher. He's a retired HPD Sergeant and Dan Patrick's puppet boy. And anyone who knows him, knows he's a crook in my opinion.

But the reality is, if I don't vote for the best candidate based solely on whether or not he/she is the best candidate, regardless of who endorses them, then the lesser candidate has a better chance to win.

I think its safe to say whoever wins the Republican primary will be the next DA. So anyone who wants Lykos out of office will have to put those peripheral feelings aside.

So, I'm supporting Mike Anderson because he's clearly the best candidate.

And for those who aren't familiar with Allen Fletcher, here's a little article that sums him up accurately:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2009-06-01/letterfromtomball.php

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with you Mark.

Scott C. Pope said...

"The profoundness of your stupidity amazes me. "

I tried to play nice with you, for no real reason other than the fact that I thought maybe you had enough integrity to have an honest discussion. What you've proven is what I already surmised from day one however--that you're a political hack, a thin skinned little whiner, and a typical right wing know it all. So take this opportunity to shove it right up your

Anonymous said...

Pope vs. Stevens on reasonable doubt please. Their comments to one another are hilarious. I'm on Pope's side.

Anonymous said...

Messrs Stephens and Pope,

Although your sword duel has been as enjoyable as an UFC match, lets call it a draw and move on. Please put your swords back in your pants and thongs.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:49

Perhaps we could make the criminals do volunteer work to pay back society. There are many pros & cons for this thought but here goes.

Certain criteria would have to be met, such as the crime commited must not have harmed a person.

For instance someone who committed a crime could be made to do community service work at many different places. Charity hospitals, city or state projects, non-profit organizations are just a few that come to mind. In these tough economic times there are more than enough organizations that could utilize the help.

Imagine a drunk driver having to work the morgue or hospital ER. The shoplifter having to work at a homeless shelter. The list goes on and on. Handled properly, a program like this could benefit everyone in many different ways.

The downside would be having to keep track of the individuals and the hours of work performed.

Some states have programs like this for welfare, food stamps and any other type of help the government gives. Each person must perform so many hours of community service in order to get government help. Wish we had that in Texas.

Sorry, got off task here, my point is community service works. It could be a viable solution to the jail over crowding issue.

Anonymous said...

Old Dog here and proud sponsor of the Motley Crew post.

Let’s cut through all the bullshit and get personal on a very basic level:

1) To Mr. Waffling Juror with lawyers playing "Wimbledon" with him/her - BOTTOM LINE SIR: " If you were sitting right here at "this" table (defense) or as the case might be (being represented as a complainant over there at the State's table would you want YOU sitting over THERE - pointing to the jury box? YES or NO!

2) To Mr. Victim: YOU and your family have been brutally violated by a home invasion. Your wife raped, daughter tied up and gang raped and then made to have sex with mother and you made to watch (Dumachet for you old timers I. Jones got death on him) then all are shot, but hubby lives and hubby is the one being talked to. BOTTOM LINE: Let’s quit talking about policy this, management that - whoever is DISTRICT FUCKING ATTORNEY OF HARRIS COUNTY SHOULD BE READY WILLING AND ABLE TO TAKE FIRST CHAIR LIKE HOLMES DID MANY TIMES -So: Sir, Whom do you want sitting at the prosecution's table That candidate or That one?

3) To Mr. wrongfully accused: Who do you see as being able to truly seek justice and not instill in his or her prosecutors a sense that "Hey people - you are professionals. Fuck the elephant. Fuck the Donkey. When it comes to sizing up a case I give YOU the authority and confidence to make the right decisions, with maybe a few basic common sense guidelines that don't result in a damn fool result (Holmes quote) and YES allow you to nolle on trial day etc., or do you want a person who before thinking about the trenches of courtroom battle, is ALWAYS thinking of how this or that may affect that politician’s image and thus the prosecutor sizing up you case if afraid to dismiss?

4) To the veterans out there who are true to their hearts R or D. Remembering basic training - especially Airborne - and using Patton as an example. Who do you want "packing your chute" when that door opens? Who do you want leading you into battle? Someone not afraid to get in the dirt with you, or, a detached arrogant office manager: Office-err - NOT leader?

Let’s all take a cold shower and get down to basics. Fuck politics and vote for the right person period! YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART WHO THAT PERSON IS! Do you want a Leona Helmsley type, Or, Clint Eastwood - figuratively speaking? Come on let’s get REAL – REAL FAST. This ain’t rocket science. Quit the paralysis of analysis!

Good day!
Old Dog

Anon 8:44 said...

Mark Stephens @ 3:37,

I agree that:
Mike Anderson is better suited to be DA than bat shit crazy Pat Lykos.
Politically speaking Mike Anderson getting Lowry's endorsement hurts Pat Lykos.

However, I do not support the premise that the end justifies the means and that is why I would make a poor politician in your circle of friends.

Brady violations, as well intended as the ADA may be, are wrong. The 4th Ammendment is not just an option for law enforcement, etc.

Lowry's endoresment of Anderson begs the question: to what level will Mike Anderson stoop to obtain a conviction and conduct business at the HCDAO. Lykos sought and received the same endorsement in 2008 and we all know how that turned out.
Zach Fertitta might be a better alternative.

Anon 8:44

Anonymous said...

http://blog.chron.com/pattihart/2011/12/lykos-accuses-police-unions-of-slander/

Anonymous said...

You can debate the current level of crime and the reasons for the decline or rise all you want. I doubt you could get sociologists, criminologists, the FBI, Pope or Stevenson to agree why the patterns exist or how they impact the rate of crime.

The real question is, when did the DA get the authority to ignore the law of the land. Like it or not, it is against the law to have trace amounts of cocaine in your possession. The current DA has said she does not believe she can prove intent in a trace case. When the person is found with trace amounts in a burnt stem, I think a first year lawyer could ably argue that case. So the current DA has unilaterally chosen to ignore the law. When the legislature decides to change the law, as urged by those docket conscious judges, then I would expect the DAs in all other counties who currently prosecute drugs cases as mandated by the law, will continue to prosecute drug cases as mandated by the law. I would hope our DA would also follow the law.

The DA clearly has the power to handle cases through a pre-trial diversion disposition. When I handled those cases there was no stipulation of guilt, the case was simply put off while the defendant complied with certain conditions. As I understand the DIVERT program, the only thing removed from a deferred adjudication is the involvement of a judge. So DIVERT appears to be some hybrid between pre-trial diversion and deferred adjudication. I guess you can argue the current DA has changed the rules for pre-trial diversion but it does smell of deferred adjudication.

Aside from the fact that the current DA is a terrible administrator, makes terrible decisions on cases, ignores the advice of seasoned prosecutors and quite frankly has run off some of the best in the US, the current DA does not appear to follow the law. For all the above reasons I will support Judge Anderson and have done so with a contribution and by volunteering to work for him.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:13am

Thank you for pointing out that blog. Murray, you should write about Pat's "slander" letter to us Republicans. I am sure many would love to comment on it.

Just Sayin' said...

Old Dog,

Where were you in 2008?

Just Sayin'

Anonymous said...

The comments in that blog link are great. I like this one:

Patricia Kilday Hart says:
December 7, 2011 at 4:04 pm
I just received this comment from a HPOU official:

Harris County District Attorney and former Harris County Criminal District Court Judge Pat Lykos is at it again. In an effort to detract conservatives from her staunch support of criminal defendants over the interest of hard working law abiding citizens she attacks law enforcement officers and marginalizes their very legitimate issues by claiming it’s the attacks of union bosses.

What’s honestly at issue is the HPOU and other professional law enforcement organizations have come forward to say the “Empress is Naked.”

As distasteful as that analogy is, it’s true.

District Attorney Pat Lykos like the leopard, doesn’t change its spots. As a sitting Harris County Criminal District Judge she was a hard-working street officers worst nightmare. Her courtroom demeanor was rude and embarrassing. She was weak on crime as a judge and is now in the cat bird’s seat as our District Attorney with her hand on the wheel regarding who gets criminally charged.

Since Lykos was sworn in, top shelf career prosecutors have been forced to jump ship because the unprofessional criminal defendant friendly environment of the DA’s office was too much to stomach.

It is our contention that Lykos is not only an ineffective and weak prosecutor of criminals she is a world class hypocrite In her screed to Republicans on her website, she outright lies about her offer to establish a liaison with HPOU. If she were honest and not a career politician she would have said, I offered to establish a liaison with HPOU so long as they cancelled a news conference advising of a no confidence vote.

In order to elevate her standing with conservatives she used bold type to highlight that the three criminal cases involving former HPOU board members in their official capacities were successfully prosecuted during her watch. Lykos is correct that three of our former board members violated our organizations and memberships’ trust and committed criminal acts. What she failed to clarify is that HPOU was the complainant and brought the case to the D.A.’s office for prosecution. Further, the HPOU praised the prosecutors working the cases at 2 different meetings and planned to present awards to them in December, but their schedules did not permit it.

Interestingly enough, Lykos in her zeal to beat up law enforcement’s opposition to her via her shot regarding prosecuting three former board members, must have forgotten that a former trusted employee of hers was also prosecuted for stealing tens of thousands of dollars during her watch and received probation, not jail.

Make no mistake, the criminal defense bar and the defendants they represent are solidly in Pat Lykos re-election corner.

Lykos is a long time politician who is out of touch with conservatives who believe that the District Attorney needs to be a true believer in justice and a strong advocate for those who are victims of crime. Lykos is neither.

Anonymous said...

Old Dog to Just Sayin:

With no disrespect. In response to "Where were you in 2008". By analogy I give you this: Standing once near Jackson Square N.O., La.. Cute little boy came up to me and said: " Sir, for Five dollare I betch I can tell you where you got them shoes you have on". I replied, OK, I'll take your bet but lets make it 2 dollars - knowing somehow I was going to lose. His reply: You got them shoes right here in Jackson Square right now.

So, in this same vein: In 2008 I was in Harris County Texas.

Old Dog

Anonymous said...

Under Mike Anderson, prosecutors will be able to make logical decisions and do their work with confidence instead of having to be in constant fear of being thrown under the bus by Lykos.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:30,
Really? Stop whining already and act like a grown up.
BTW, where will the anointed one find these brave new ADAs?
LOL.

Anonymous said...

Murray and Readers,

I am a Republican, non-attorney who finds this blog quite informative.

I am interested to know who the employee was (name and position)that the earlier commenter was referring to when he said,"a former trusted employee of hers was also prosecuted for stealing tens of thousands of dollars during her watch and received probation, not jail."

If you are not allowed to tell me the name on this blog, please tell me the person's position, the approximate date, and whether receiving only probation was unusually lenient. This is all quite interesting. Thanks.

Mark W. Stephens said...

TO Anon 8:44

We're more on the same page than you think.

You said
"However, I do not support the premise that the end justifies the means and that is why I would make a poor politician in your circle of friends."

I agree and neither do I support the premise that the end justifies the means. And they certainly are not my circle of friends. I wouldn't make a good politician either.

BUT...what is the answer? TO not vote? I don't think so.

This is where we differ. I can't see a correlation between Anderson accepting a political endorsement and your insinuation that this would somehow automatically make him corrupt in how he would run the DAs office.

Apples and oranges.

Accepting Lowery's endorsement didn't change Lykos' character. It was what it was before she ran. I'm confident that accepting Lowery's endorsement won't change Anderson's character either. He was a great prosecutor. He was a great Judge. And he will be a great District Attorney.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 5:11

Mike Anderson will find these "brave new ADA's" in the DAO. The ones who are currently there will be allowed to function like they should be able to--in a positive environment, using the great minds and judgment they are not allowed to use fully now.

Also, hopefully a few experienced ADA's will be willing return once the office is under new management.

Anonymous said...

Mike Anderson will be a tremendous improvement over Pat Lykos. Too bad his term won't start till Jan. 2013. Hang on ADA's. I know it's tough, but Harris County citizens are counting on you.

Mark W. Stephens said...

To Anonymous December 8, 2011 11:33 AM

You hit the nail on the head, and eloquently so. Excellent

Mark W. Stephens said...

Pope -

I wish you all the best with your delusions of adequacy. I have faith you will make it there...someday. :)

Just Sayin' said...

Old Dog,

Your respose highlights my point preciseley--yap yap yap nada mas.

Just Sayin'

Anonymous said...

I hear Mike Anderson is getting great support among Republicans (except for the County Chair). Jan. 2013 can't come soon enough. Hello, District Attorney Mike Anderson.

Anonymous said...

And all this time I thought this blog post was about DIVERT.....

Anonymous said...

Mark Stephens,

"Accepting Lowery's endorsement didn't change Lykos' character. It was what it was before she ran. I'm confident that accepting Lowery's endorsement won't change Anderson's character either. He was a great prosecutor. He was a great Judge. And he will be a great District Attorney."

Who one chooses to associate themselves with is a reflection of one's character. Pat Lykos makes virtually anyone look good but a rational perspective would demand not letting that cloud the issue. Wrong is wrong even if it's your best friend and current behavior is a predictive indicator of future behvior.

8:44

Anonymous said...

11:40,

You mean the ADAs that have been cowering under the radar afraid of their own shadows will magically grow balls under the guidance of his high holyness Mike Anderson? When will these big bad brave ADAs openly campaign for Mr. Mike? I'm guessing only when and if Mike wins the primary and they have no risk.
I can only imagine how the ADAs will project their anger if Mr. Mike sets them free.

Anonymous said...

This is about DIVERT and hopefully diverting Lykos from a second term.

Mark W. Stephens said...

To Anonymous December 9, 2011 1:33 PM

I agree with you. Wrong is wrong.

But I'm not sure accepting a political endorsement can be viewed in the specific context of "right vs. wrong." A more accurate context would probably be "like vs. dislike."

Unless, of course, the person giving the endorsement was a convicted felon, serial killer, pedophile, etc.

But as far as I can tell, and I don't know him beyond the Voting Guide he puts out every season, Terry Lowery is none of those. He's just a guy that you and I dislike and disagree with.

And if its just that we disagree with him or dislike him, then I don't think that is enough to conclude definitively that Anderson's acceptance of his endorsement was "wrong."

Its not so much a sense of "wrong" as it is, "we just don't like it."

In that perspective, I don't think its a deal that will "cloud the issue" with most voters.

And again, we're talking about a political endorsement. Its not like they're hanging out together on the weekends and texting the world about their new BFF.

I don't like it. Its not what I would have done. But its not enough to dissaude me from supporting Anderson over Lykos.

Anonymous said...

Lykos goes to Lowry too. She got it last time and desperately wanted it this time. All the Republican candidates go to him and to all the other slates. You would go, too, if you were running for office. Fortunately, Lowry was informed about how bad Patsy is doing, so he made the right choice for Anderson. That's a good thing.

Anonymous said...

I am asking everyone who lives in Houston to vote today in the run-off election.
The polls close at 7 pm and you can find out where to vote at

lwvhouston.org

Anonymous said...

As for today's voting,

Vote for Jack Christie



Jolanda is a disaster of the first degree.
She has made so many enemies on the council she can't get anything done. And it's never a good sign when Mayor Bill White endorses your opponent.
As for Kristi and Andrew, I don't know. I know who I'm going to vote for and why but I won't go into it.

Mark W. Stephens said...

Agreed. Jolanda should have been indicted in my opinion. She's very fortunate. Hopefully, voters will respond accordingly...

Anonymous said...

Yep! Now after 95 "squeeze-posts" This "Tit" (I mean Blog's Original Post) has definitely been milked dry.

Hell, even a couple of extra cows were milked as well with the added bonus of a few Anon. Parana posters playing Marco Polo and feeding on each other….so now it’s boiled down to just:

"The Legality of D.I.V.E.R.T in my rear view mirror"

By: Mac Davis:

I was just fifteen and outta control, Lost to James Dean and rock and roll, I knew down deep in my country soul, That I had to get away, Hollywood was a lady in red, Who danced in my dreams
As I tossed in bed I knew I'd wind up In jail or dead If I had to stay I thought happiness Was "The Legality of D.I.V.E.R.T in my rear view mirror….”

Old Dog….“Just Sayin’”

Anonymous said...

Here are the Texas crime statistics from that victims post on the STAR court. It shows a 50 percent INCREASE in drug crime between 2003 and 2008 and are the official statistics in the State of Texas crime report. Perhaps its high time to go back to the war on drugs... The numbers dont lie and according to these numbers something is going horribly wrong in Texas...

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/pages/crimestatistics

Anonymous said...

Re: these Statistics...so to just try and "put the cookies on the bottom shelf":

1) Can't count a fish if it ain't caught AND KEPT;

2) No reason to go fishin anyway if the game Warden is gonna give you a zero limit on the very fish that seems to be over populating the waters - even though State law says the "sky" is the limit;

3) Fish over populate causing boat motors to churn up fish blood even in the shallows. Water looks like a hot tub churning year round with nothing but the fish in the water;

4) Need a new Game Warden.


Old Dog

Anonymous said...

To Anon 11:31 on Dec 8th: Here is the link to a member of Lykos' staff caught stealing-

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7177568

Eloise and Danny Mireles

Anonymous said...

First let me say I am a mike anderson supporter 100 percent. But everyone needs to stay a laser focused on what's important in terms of opposition research. This employee problem began long before JPL took office.. it involved years of embezzlement from victim witness division but merelly got caught shortly after p l took office. This is a non starter and a rabbit trail.

In the long run trace cases will also be a non starter.

The kryptonite that will truly dog pl campaign: possibility of grand jury action on the bat vans. Even if the contempt actions do not stick.... which I predicted no 1 will be held in contempt due to lack of specific notice.

However, who ordered the "code red".? Ahem... Sorry I mean transcript?

Carl hobbs is a straight shooter Who's own father was a district judge in a small town.
Carl follows orders and covers his ass if he makes orders.

Either way it's gonna smell bad to be told by the foreman to stay out of the grand jury
Wilst a witness is about to testify
But then later order presumably a transcript of that very testimony they did not want you to hear in the first place.
I mean you sure don't need the testimonial a witness you were present with.

The Carll I knew would not unilaterallybe order this transcript.

Either way this will not end quickly and will be a occurring rightn in the middle of primary season.

I challenge the chronicle to be fairc since you know dl went to austin to lobby for a journalist privilege....unlike all the other da's in texas.

Old Dog

Anonymous said...

100.

Anonymous said...

To Anon December 12, 12:39 PM,
From: Anon 11:31 on Dec 8th

Thanks for the link on the embezzlement story.

Anonymous said...

re: 12/13/2011 7:50

Don't count on the Chronicle being fair in the DA race. They didn't even report the newest Special Prosecutor being appointed by the 232nd. Can you imagine what would have been on the front page if such a thing had happened to Chuck Rosenthal? I am no supporter of Rosenthal but even his administration never was the target of a Grand Jury. This is just a fraction of what the voters don't realize about how bad Lykos is. You won't being reading anything negative about Lykos in the Chronicle. There is a menage-a-trois going on between Lykos, the Chronicle, and Jared Woodfil.