Tuesday, January 3, 2012

In Re: Donald Hooper [UPDATED]

UPDATE NOTE:  Several posters have put up different things about Don Hooper's financial and court dealings in the comments section since I put this article up yesterday.  I have allowed those that I have posted because I think they illustrate to potential voters who meet Hooper that he is not who he holds himself out to be.  In my opinion, given the trash that Hooper seems to feel so free about spewing out regarding others, this will allow those who meet him to consider the source.  

Yesterday, Brian Rogers ran a story in the Houston Chronicle regarding the District Attorney's race "heating up."  In the early morning hours, this relatively benign story suddenly got a flood of comments on it from a "group" of Chronicle commenters who mostly seemed to have generated their profiles the day before. The names such as "Dinkit", "KevinPadrick", "Tort_king", "LibelLuci", "Mike420" and (my personal favorite) "BaldUglyDefenseAttorney"all preached a very similar message to those spewed out over on Big Jolly's Blog under the name of "JJones", "Snapped", "Ted's Conscience", oh, and the name Don Hooper.

Don Hooper, as you all know, is Rachel Palmer's husband, and he has had a very "interesting" storyline ever since he and Rachel first got together several years ago.  Per his recent testimony in Rachel's Motion to Recuse hearing against Judge Susan Brown, Don is a 50-year-old "energy trader" who is politically active along with his friend, Gary Polland, in the Republican Party.  As a matter of fact, he and Gary have been working very hard to find opponents to run against Judges Marc or Susan Brown.  (NOTE:  Gary, if it isn't really your policy to be rounding up opponents to run against incumbent Republicans, you might want to have a chat with Mr. Hooper.  He is throwing your name around.  Just FYI.)

Many people who work at or around the CJC are of the opinion that all of these different "identities" on the Chronicle blog, as well as those on Big Jolly's, all belong to the same poster -- Don Hooper.  The comments usually have the same trademarks that lead us to believe that.  They are usually crude and nasty, attacking those he perceives to be against Pat Lykos (and thus, by extension, Rachel Palmer).  The attacks are usually childish to the degree that he is openly accusing people of everything from alcoholism to adultery (which in the big scheme of things is kind of ironic).  The comments come in the mornings on the Chronicle blog and are usually deleted as soon soon as someone from the Chronicle reads them and sees how libelous they are.  His commenting identity is usually banned, and a new one or two springs up immediately thereafter.

All in all, it is a foolish and frustrating endeavor by the person doing it.

It is frustrating because there is probably no one more susceptible to some negative publicity than Don Hooper.  I know that he and Rachel think that I have attacked them both on a personal level, but I think if one were to go back and read what I have written about them, the themes have been based on things that are relevant to the jobs done.  Rachel's treatment of her subordinates and her lack of honesty and knowledge of the law are relevant in the job she does.  Don getting special treatment by the Pat Lykos Administration when he harasses his neighbors with Rachel's badge is very telling when one tries to figure out the abuses of power going on at the District Attorney's Office under this administration.

But, Don and Rachel (believe it or not) should be VERY thankful for those things that I don't put on this blog.

Trust me on this one.  I have been contacted by people who have known Don Hooper for a very long time.  I know things about him that would make Kitty Kelly blush.  Hell, I even had one person send me a copy of a booking photo.  My "Rejected Comments" box on the blog has many many things about both of them that I would never publish because they are truly personal and have nothing to do with the work at the CJC. I guess that is just my own definition of the Rules of Engagement when it comes to this blog and what I will or will not publish.

Sadly, Mr. Hooper seems to have no such rules.  The comments that were spewed on the Chronicle article yesterday were beyond vile and will not be repeated on this blog.  Suffice it to say that if you go to the Chronicle article and see where a comment has been removed or a commenter has been blocked, that was one of the many many things taken down by the staff at the Chronicle.  They were bad things with accusations of people who aren't even running for office but ones that Don and Rachel might perceive to be their enemies.

The author of those comments clearly had no Rules of Engagement, and in my opinion, no honor.

I give safe-harbor to commenters here who want to post their names anonymously, but I police the content of what is written.  It is true that sometimes the comments get more vulgar and more childish than I would prefer, but what happens in people's homes is off-limits.  Some may argue with my Rules, but I at least have some.

Hooper's methodology in campaigning either for or against someone is devoid of morals, ethics, and any semblance of integrity, in my opinion.  Not to mention the fact that this 50-year-old "man" seems to be doing so much damage to the causes he purports to support.

Do you really think that you are helping Pat Lykos' campaign with your multiple personalities on the Chronicle?  You insulted numerous Republican Party leaders and supporters?  Your very actions are disgraceful to the minimal presumptions of dignity that come along with a democratic election.

With your wife under such scrutiny for taking the 5th Amendment to the 185th Grand Jury, is it really to her benefit that you write posts as if you were the foreperson of the Grand Jury?  Do you really lack such a mental capacity that you think that your behavior is in anyway prudent?

My hope would be that Pat Lykos or Jim Leitner or somebody would sit down with Hooper and Palmer and tell them that this juvenile behavior needs to stop.  It does nothing more than fuel the fires against an Office whose reputation is already in the toilet.  If the fake identity attacks don't stop, then the Office should terminate all contact with the Hooper-Palmer family immediately.

The Republican Party, especially its leader, Jared Woodfill, should disavow everything done in such a juvenile and hateful manner.  Otherwise, you are condoning politics by intimidation, blackmail, and extortion.

The voters who vote in the Republican Primary should know what is being done by one of their own, and do everything in their power to stop him -- starting with voting against every candidate he supports.

We all feel passionately about those issues that affect us at the CJC.  We can disagree and even dislike each other, if need be.  What is happening on the Chronicle blogs takes things to a level that humiliates us all.  Sadly, it becomes the perfect example of that old saying about never wrestling with a pig.  You both get covered in mud.

The only difference is that the pig likes it.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

People aren't that stupid. They know what Chronicle comments are worth.

However, I am SO excited that the Chron is actually covering (somewhat) the grad juries and all the issues with Her Majesty. I mean compare to the coverage a year ago, when she could do no wrong.

I really think that people will get it this time.

Anonymous said...

I read some of those posts. What an idiot. I wish he would just fall down the rabbit hole to never be seen or heard from again.

I to am excited by the coverage in the chronicle. However there is still a lot more to be done.

Maybe Lisa F. should do a story on Donald Hooper.

Anonymous said...

Oh Murray,

The last thing you need to do is give Patsy and Jimmy Bob advice. They have everything under control. Each is a politician with the backing of the Republican party. Our party.

You need to stick to blogging and let the professionals like Patsy, Palmer and Hoop handle the voters. They are the reformers.

Anonymous said...

Is the Republican Party seeking someone to run for Constable Pct.#1?
Since the retirement of Jack Abercia, Constable Pct. #1, who is going to be the interim constable?

Anonymous said...

Don Hooper has been acting like Rachel Palmer's cur dog that has been allowed to run wild with no leash.

I can't believe Lykos doesn't know this. She is likely promoting it since she's just as mean and nasty herself. Dirty politics are familiar tactics of her campaigns.

Anonymous said...

Oh, so it's "Hoop" now, and he is reforming something somehow.

How about "Hoop Daddy"? I bet voters would really like that reform.

Anonymous said...

On Big Jolly's latest posting "snapped" commented
December 28, 2011 at 8:37 am:

"David it sure sounds like DA Lykos has done a lot more than just clean house.
I may have been very wrong in my earlier criticism of her.
Thanks for the objective version based on fact instead of the subjective unsubstantiated anonymous vitriole found on some of the other blogs."

This poster surely doesn't sound like Hooper and makes a valid point as an outsider not privy to the inner workings of the CJC.

All opposing views are not hateful Murray even if they support a hateful person like Pat Lykos.

Love you like a brother man. Take a deep breath and exhale slowly

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:10, actually that post sounds very "hooperesque"

Oldtimer said...

To the person asking who is currently the intermim constable with Jack removing his name from the ballot. As I understand it, he's not actually leaving until the end of the year but word is that J. C. Mosier is actually "running" the office. Mosier was a republican candidate for sheriff some years back but I don't know as he will try to get elected in a democrat justice precinct.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:27, That's absolutely Hooperesque, the Hoop, the Hoopmeister, the Hoopster...where's a copy machine when you need one!

Anonymous said...

Has anyone actually researched whether Hooper has an energy company or anything else? Most people say he's chronically unemployed and owns nothing. Other people say he and Rachel have an expensive place to live, he gave her a huge rock for an engagement ring, he owns his own energy company with a private jet, and that they fly to fabulous places on the private jet.

Which is it? Does one of them have family money?

Looking up campaign donations online shows almost none that could be him. Why would a "rich" Republican "bigwig" donate almost nothing?

Rachel's campaign reports only show that he gave her $200 in her judicial race. However, her reports online are suspiciously incomplete. What is up with that?

Did she break the law with incomplete campaign reports? Another thing to take the 5th about?

Anonymous said...

Anon5:46, Don owns NOTHING. His brother David Hooper is the VP Business Development for Empressa Energy. As far as anyone knows, other than "running" a few minor campaigns a few years ago, he's never been gainfully employed...thus all the free time to post, repost, change names, etc.

Anonymous said...

oops, I forgot to add that David is his identical twin whick could account for some of the confusion.

Anonymous said...

I was wondering if Joe the Investigatior is running for Precinct One Constable? How do you log on to JIMS again.

Anonymous said...

Hooper probably sells Ignite (Stream Energy). It's basically a legal pyramid scheme where one can make a few dollars, if you've been doing it for a few years.

Joe, the investigator, lives in Pct. 7 (another constable who's under investigation, along with Pct. 6, and Pct. 1). We'll have to wait for a new DA or the Feds to do something because Pat's not going to do anthing.

I think to "word" is finally getting out about Patsy because a lot of non CJC people are talking about her actions and non actions.

I bet Oberg is still feeling pretty ill from sitting across from Pat while she sitting like Sharon Stone. Now, that's scary.....

Anonymous said...

I heard Hooper became interested in runnng campaigns while in junior high, he would roam the halls and draw mustaches on campaign posters for popular student council candidates.

On another note, Murray, this family seems to have a vengeful side, do you wear a fire retardant suit when starting your car?

Anonymous said...

Hooper has NO family money, NO jet, NO real estate, NO energy company. He hands out business cards with the name "SOAR" - the company only exists in Hooper's mine and is worth the printing costs of the cards! Hooper does have a twin brother as indicated by a previous poster. They have been estranged for years - can anyone guess why? The twin is successful, charming and everything Don would like to be - oh did I mention his brother is married to a VERY successful (and beautiful) attorney!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:06 and 6:10,

Thanks for the info on Don Hooper. That was very interesting.

What about their apparent ability to live above her income? Do they really have an expensive place? Does she really have a huge rock of an engagement ring? What about all her Junior League activities and events--are those really expensive? Do they really take fabulous trips on a private jet? If so, who does it belong to? Does Rachel have family money?

Thanks for any info you can give me.

Just Curious

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:46: said "he gave her a huge rock for an engagement ring"...although I haven't seen the ring, I guess he paid for diamonds and not JADE!!!

Anonymous said...

I am not a doctor but from what I read about Rachel's husband I believe he is unstable and needs medicated. It seems as if he is in a mania mode and has a personality disorder of some type.

Anonymous said...

@ 8:09 PM - although a nice building, their apartment is like 500 sq ft...jeez, my closet is almost bigger than their apartment!

Anonymous said...

People!!! Did no one see the memo???

It's "Hoop" now. He has so much voter street cred. And "Hoop" will make him Google-proof.

Anonymous said...

You know, after reading the Family Court records on Donald Paul Hooper, I was first appalled at his background history, then I thought about Rachel's behavior and now I'm not so sure who has gotten the worst end of the deal. These are a couple of folks who have serious judgement issues and I'm thinking it was pure luck that they found each other.

Thank goodness she was defeated in her bid for a Judicial bench. She would have tried to emulate Pat Lykos. Just my opinion...

Anonymous said...

Palmer invokeded God at the GJ. So, what does the Good Book say about FOOLS, I mean her Hoop-

Proverbs- 26:4, 11: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to everyone who answered my questions on Don Hooper. It sounds like they really are living only on her income.

Is his supposed "energy company" named "SOAR" or "SOLAR"? I have now heard it both ways. He claims to have interests in oil fields.

Just Curious

Anonymous said...

Are any of you great researchers at 1201 Franklin up to wandering across the street to the county clerk's office to look at Rachel Palmer's campaign finance reports? On the internet, it seems like the early reports are not there and some reports do not list out her donations and expenses, merely giving totals. Others do list out individual donations.

If you find out anything, please let us all know. Thanks.

Just Curious

Anonymous said...

Harris County Civil Filings: Imaginary Oil Company is Sustainable Options and Resources (SOAR) - It existed as a business between Lynne Bentsen trust (87%) and Terry Pierce of "ONE NATION ENERGY SOLUTIONS" (13%) Hoop had convinced them he should be the operating officer; but within six months they realized their mistake & wanted to dissolve the company; however, Hoop did not agree and so there was a civil suit to dissolve the company. Final judgment is online @ CD's district Clerk cause No.2007-64455 and it say...all parties agree to dissolve the company..."EXCEPT DEFENDENT DON HOOPER DOES NOT AGREE". Company was dissolved by court order and money returned to Lynne and Terry. Hoop never requested new dba; Hoop never got the message that the company was dissolved.
Louisiana Appeals Court: 2:89-cv-01962-EBC Palmer v. Prentice shows Rachel's fights over so-called Palmer family money.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about Hooper, and I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but the picture with the Roger's article from Sunday shows a Mike Anderson who looks to have aged A LOT recently.

We all get older, but he looks like Devon's dad in the picture.

I haven't seen Mike in several years, and the photos released with his campaign announcement are obviously from a few years ago.
I was a bit shook to see the difference between his current appearance and the promo photos used with his campaign.

And his skin color doesn't look that good either. Lycos looks like the picture of health in the same display, despire being much older.

Time for a tanning bed, Mike. And maybe start hitting up those Camel non-filters.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so Lykos's press release to the media regarding blood search warrants (in connection with DWIs) states "No excuses, no refusals". Come on! Really? You didn't see the absolute irony in that? The most egregious thing about it is that we hired ANOTHER media person and this still made it through.

Anonymous said...

1994 Lunar Rendezvous Queen=Rachel Palmer. I would like to see that picture.

A friend thought to google Hooper and Palmer. My my what a surprise. I know now why RP did not get fired. She has the hook up and is Lycos connection.

I will not name names here but do google these two, Palmer hangs with some weight. She will always have a spot with Lycos. No wonder she was not thrown under the bus.

More proof of Lycos lack of integrity.

Sue

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:35 sounds like Hooper. Mean and nasty and surprise, surprise taking digs at Lykos's competition.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:55 am and others,

Thanks for all the Hooper info. You all are a wealth of information. I can't imagine marrying someone like that. How would she ever know when he is telling the truth?

Can anyone look up these cases, or do we need Lexis or Westlaw?

Does Don's twin brother ever come to political events, or is it safe to assume it's Don each time we see him?

Just Curious

Anonymous said...

Can anyone look up these cases, or do we need Lexis or Westlaw?


The best thing to ever happen to the Harris County District Clerk's office, Loren Jackson (who you straight-ticket assholes voted out of office), put them all on line. Go to the district clerk's site, create an account, and do a search for his name.

If you want to know whether or not Donald Paul Hooper makes a load of money, a Title4 case filed in Harris County (where the attorney general had to chase him down for child support) resulted in him being ordered to pay $284.00 a month in child support. To get an idea what that means on an income basis, if you're unemployed, you pay $250.00 a month.

I am assuming there is only one Donald Paul Hooper. Other cases for that name are as follows:

2009-13593; Michelle Hightower v. Donald Paul Hooper (the Title 4 case, above);

2006-76685; Donald Hooper v. David Rodriguez (a case in which he sued two people and a business for false improsonment, alleging that they wrongfully accused him of committing assault with a deadly weapon--I'm assuming this is where the mugshot that Murray talked about came from).

2001-63569; Karen Hooper v. Donald Paul Hooper; divorce with children.



One of the funniest things, ever: In the Title 4 case there is an order enjoining him from taking photographs inside the testing facility. (Guess it's not just Newman he wants to add to his spank bank.) He was also ordered to submit to fingerprinting (unusual!) and blood tests (because he's a baby daddy).

Rage

Anonymous said...

Wow. Someone please check the temperature of hell.

Excellent post, Rage. Well done.

Anonymous said...

If only the family court docs had been online before our poor heroine made her tragic choice.

I love those family court documents, I recommend them to anyone who does any kind of hiring/dating/prosecuting/defending/marrying/political commentary.

Anonymous said...

...unfortunately they don't show that Hooper has not made a single payment to his daughter. $284 isn't much but zero is better when you know that Lykos won't accept charges against Hooper. If any of you legalese can help resolve this - it wold be appreciated!

Anonymous said...

To Rage,
Thanks for all the well-researched info. It was very helpful. I had heard some of it but didn't know how to verify it.

I agree with Murray's post update that people need this information in order to evaluate who they are dealing with.

Just Curious

Anonymous said...

All of my posts are that good, beyotch. It just so happens that you agree with this one, while you're not smart enough to agree with the others.

Rage

Anonymous said...

Murray - Re: Your Update Note:...if Hooper provides a courteous response or documentation (eg w-2s, energy contracts, venice hotel & restaurant receipts, deed to 1 jet, etc) to rebuff any misinformation then I assume you would post his response or delete incorrect posts?

Anonymous said...

Can't the attorney general's office force Hooper to pay child support?

Does he still owe child support for his kids from his marriage, or are they grown? If he does still owe it, does he pay?

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 3:25,

I will post whatever Hooper wants as long as he does it under his own identity.

Anonymous said...

#anon 3:25, his children from his first marraige are 15 and 11ish (so both under 18)and no he does pay even the minimal amount he's been ordered. See 2001-63569 dated 2-3-2011 where his ex is trying to get him to pay

Anonymous said...

Thanks for all the well-researched info.

That was just two minutes and knowing where to go. I didn't even look into that criminal case with the mug shot or looked at all the documents from the cases I cited, much less start googling him. I'm sure there's a lot more out there.

Can't the attorney general's office force Hooper to pay child support?

Absolutely. By putting him in jail, if necessary. It's the last remaining debtor's prison. Looks to me like there is no final order in his case though, and the AG is unlikely to jail someone unless they are years behind and a final order is in place.

Does he still owe child support for his kids from his marriage, or are they grown? If he does still owe it, does he pay?

I've done all the work on this I'm going to do. You can go get print outs of child support obligations in the basement of the family law court house. Just take the name and cause number. I'm not sure if you can get a third party's without representing them, so be prepared to be asked why you want it. I didn't look closely, but I don't remember any contempt hearings for failure to pay child support.

to rebuff any misinformation then I assume you would post his response or delete incorrect posts?

Like to see him rebuff public documents. I never said he did anything other than father a child out of wedlock for which he had to be forced to: 1. be fingerprinted, 2. not take pictures of the inside of a clinic (sounds like that's his schtick), 3. submit to a DNA test, and 4. pay a certain amount of child support that is extremely low and not indicative of a high roller.

That information is all in the documents.

If you're his buddy, you'd be serving him much better if you advised him to take his ball and go home. He can't "rebuff" the above like he rebuffed his biological child.

Rage

Ron Pooper said...

Don is a great man. He loves Jesus, his wife, some of his kids, his reflection and, most importantly, the steady check that his lovely bride brings home every month. He is desperate to hold onto his meal ticket (on an aside, how sad is it that a man old enough to be her father depends on the salary of a public servant to finance his lifestyle). Should Judge Anderson win, RP will have to find another way to support her gigolo. I can't see any criminal defendants banging on her door for representation. I also can't see Donny's connections getting her a nice cushy job at a large firm.

Anonymous said...

Murray, Though I enjoy the gouge that Rage is putting out there on the Hoopster, isn't it against your policy to publish personal stuff. What does it have to do with the CJC, even though the guy clearly sounds like a complete d-bag?

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 4:54 p.m.,

Normally, I would agree with you that it would have no relevance. Unfortunately, Hooper has insisted on bringing a very personal attack on people who have done absolutely nothing to him. What was done on the Chronicle blogs was nothing short of sadistic and involved people who aren't even running for office.

Ultimately, he left me the choice to sit by and idly watch him viciously attack people, or give me the option of letting people know just who exactly was the source of all that vile material he likes to spew. I ignored him for a very very long time, but he finally crossed the line on Monday.

There are still plenty of things left out of it, but these things go to his credibility. People need to know who it is saying the things he says.

My hope is that any time another one of those fake identities pops up on the Chronicle comments section, a quick cut and paste of this article will say all that needs to be said.

Anonymous said...

Wow, thanks Rage for posting that info. It is very helpful for us non lawyer types.

Sue

Anonymous said...

When is the primary..what date..??

Anonymous said...

The primary is currently set for Tuesday, April 3rd. It got postponed to that date due to redistricting court fights. It could possibly be postponed again, but plan on April 3rd for now.

The deadline to register to vote will be approximately 30 days before that.

Republican Activist

Gary POLLAND said...

Murray heard today you were telling others I was recruiting candidates to run against incumbent republicans generally and the Judge Browns specifically. This misinformation has circulated ever since I served as chair and was not and is not true. And by the way no body speaks for me but me. Gary Polland

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Gary,
Although I seriously questioned your bizarre endorsement of Janice Law in 2010 and don't know what would inspire you to endorse Lana Shadwick over someone who is infinitely more qualified (Kristin Guiney), I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the issue of the Judges Brown.

However, Don Hooper said (in sworn testimony) that he was working with you to unseat them. I reported what he said and you are free to check the transcript if you doubt my accuracy. My issue on that particular issue is with him, not you. If what he testified to was untrue, it would appear he perjured himself and I think you should let the public know that.

Murray

Anonymous said...

Don Hooper would tell a lie? On the witness stand?? That is just shocking!

You would think he'd consider how being a liar might reflect on his wife, Rachel Palmer. Oh....never mind. What was I thinking.

Anonymous said...

Chronic liars have a very difficult time stopping themselves from lying. It is such an established pattern, that they do it automatically without thinking. They don't even use logic to consider how easily they can be caught in a particular lie or what the consequences might be.

That certainly seems to apply to the subject of this post.

Anonymous said...

Citizen Kane here Re: True Necessity of a G.J. Report if no Indictments returned:

Contrary to the following comment made by "Blind Mind Reader" 8:16:

" A G.J. report will mean nothing to the general voting public and come across as sour grapes from a failed conspiracy."

Unprecedented Grand Jury action for all-reasons already spoken of ad museum, demand unprecedented action by the Grand Jury id NO indictments are handed "up". (notice how the media always says Federal G.J.'s hand Down and State G.J. hand down? (no always but I digress).

Listen - seriously - The last thing anyone wants is for the "books" on this deal to quietly close and just leave a bunch of wondering and political innuendo. Precisely as a NON-Political activist This report could cut either way. In any case i would expect the G.J. to bend over backwards to be fair in any manner they take based on past attempts to rec-use them. What is there to be afraid of? When 8:16 says a formal G.J. Report would mean: "nothing to the general voting public but sour grapes"

What the hell do you know that the rest do not. Very apparent YOU are a political "whatever" for Lykos and - yes - in a vacuum - would mean nothing. But in the hands of Lykos OR Anderson's political Consultants it could no doubt be sliced and diced to make a very nice political commercial - reality of modern day politics.

From P.L. stand point the lack of any indictments plus $ spend is political fodder no matter how you cut it. Objectively, depending on what it says, any criticisms of management at the D.A.'s Office or lack of cooperation (which I doubt they would say in response to a citizen "prosecutor" taking the 5th) could also be used.

Either way there needs to be closure for the public no just an extended Grand Jury Investigating the Harris County District Attorney's Office quietly going home. If no indictments are given (which I predict will not) in my humble opinion I think the public needs to know SOMETHING! Grand Jurors - your credibility is at stake here in terms of NOT indicting or indicting but rather some formal report under all reasons already stated. Findings of fact and conclusions in a general form. Bunko? Really? I'm a guy and don't even like wine dude. "Rosebud Out" (bet 8:16 has NO idea what that means).