Monday, April 9, 2012

Nasty

Brian Rogers posted an article on the Chronicle website that is already buried fairly deep on the site this morning, claiming that although the candidates in the District Attorney's race are being very civil on the campaign trail, the rest of us are being "nasty."

I'm glad he wrote the article, because it does highlight the complaints against Pat Lykos, even if they seem to minimize them by characterizing them as minor gripes.

What do you think of the article?

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

The article is exactly what one would come to expect from the Chronicle, a minimizing and or ignoring of any of the grossly negative impact that Lykos' has had on the HCDAO. One can only wonder if Rogers will be the next public relations employee to be hired by Lykos.
As to specific observations: the article gratutiously contains a "life-sized" campaign portrait of Lykos with thumb nails of Anderson and Lykos and refers to the successful "gang injunction" that was sought almost 1.5 years ago by a "special prosecutor" for the HCDAO(in my opinion the HCDAO had no legal authority to bring that action in the first place, it being the statutory responsibility of the county attorney - see 43.180,45.201 TEX.GOV'T CODE). This says volumes though if that is the most recent "success" that the Chronicle could come up with.
Although ascribing to the grand jury investigations the source of much vitriol, the real vitriol expressed among those in the know is 1)the utter destruction of the morale of the HCDAO employees and their mistreatment by Lykos and her henchpersons 2) the inconsistency in her policies, 3)and her lack of prosecutorial and trial experience. None of these are mentioned.
Although mentioning the "DIVERT" and crack cocaine issues essentially in passing the article disingenously neglects to mention the reason for these being campaign issues, namely that "DIVERT" is an illegal program (specifically in violation of statutes, it being in reality deferred adjudication) and the crack cocaine issue as a failure to support and follow the laws of this State by Lykos.
The bottom line - the Chronicle supports Lykos and the general public will receive no useful information from one more Lykos puff piece.
Calvin A. Hartmann

Anonymous said...

It's the usual Chronicle spin on downplaying any of Lykos faults and shortcomings. The Chronicle doesn't care if the citizens of Harris County are being short-changed by the Lykos mismanagement team. As long as she responds to any call from the Chronicle, they will likely endorse her. It's up to everyone who knows how badly Lykos needs to be replaced to get the word out to the uniformed voters.

Anonymous said...

The prospect of this sociopath getting re-elected is very frightening. Rumors are rampant that the "leadership team" as it now exists will be all but gone even if she is re-elected.

Anonymous said...

What I thought was odd was that there were almost 40 comments on it. Then I saw that RP's husband is busy at work posting about 1/2 of them.

Anonymous said...

I think he's spot-on, and I don't think he minimized a thing. All he said is that these issues aren't things the average voter understands--and he's right. Your average voter will look at very few real issues when it comes down to voting and do it primarily based on party politics. Mike may have a good message (I don't particularly think so), but even though Lykos sucks she has the Party's backing and Republican sheep (i.e., 99% of the Party) will go with the Party. The average Republican isn't a vitriolic holier-than-thou crusader--but the Party is, and uses wedge issues to get their followers in line. The average Republican voter, if they do anything at all, will see who the most Republican person they know is endorsing, and then vote the same way. This is despite the fact that the Republican Party platform is contrary to the interests of the average American.

Disclaimer (because I know the "But Democrats Suck Worse" crowd is blowing steam out of their ears by now): I'm not saying Democrats don't have similar problems--but this post and article aren't about a Democratic candidate, so I limited my comments to this one race and party.

Rage

Anonymous said...

If this Divert thing is illegal why is Ms Anderson getting it for her clients? Why is all this on the back page of paper?

Anonymous said...

Hey Brian Rogers -- how about doing some actual investigative work and ask Benizon why Lana has not been disciplined. Does this mean that lykos will allow other prosecutors running for judge to mail solicitation letters to fellow employees. Will someone in the media PLEASE pick this up. It goes right to the heart of a serious campaign issue: mismanagement of the office.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but any voter should understand a no confidence vote.

I mean, I'm not from Houston, but I would think any mouth-breathing idiot would understand a no confidence vote.

I'm also amazed how quickly everyone forgot about that little Nigerian mess. In my experience people far removed from politics understood that -- and they totally understood Lykos's nasty, snide blame-shifting response with a complete disregard for those families. Any woman who drops her kids off at a home daycare thinks about that story every. single. morning.

Anonymous said...

I was wondering if Joe the Investigator was mentioned in the article?

Anonymous said...

Few if any ADAs are privy to: the core issues at Metro, the HISD meltdown, the dynamics of the US Senate race in Texas, who is most qualified to serve in the Harris County civil judiciary races, their own Congressional District races,etc.etc.
YET these same ADAs expect the non CJC world to be well versed in the "plight" at 1201 Franklin and be in total agreement with their position or be scorned. Brutha puhleeze if that ain't the height of political arrogance.
The Houston Chronicle nailed it like it or not.
No indictment no scandal.
No scandal no Anderson.
The ADAs need to grow the F up and put their titty baby issues in perspective.

Anonymous said...

The no confidence vote weighs in favor of Lykos, if you ask me--and a lot of other voters. HPD is a mess from the top down. It has been for decades. The opinion of HPD and especially its unions that can't police their own (Hell, they argue for the reinstatement of dirty cops) mean absolutely nothing. Screw HPD, in its entirety, and their cry baby opinions on who we should vote for.

And before any of you ask who I'm going to go to if I'm ever in trouble--the answer is my .45. A cop, if he shows up, will only be there after the fact. If he wants to he can draw a chalk line around the guy who broke into my house, but I'll be damned if I wait for one of them to take the time to leave the donut shop before defending my family, property, or myself.

Rage

Anonymous said...

Joe is on a secret mission.Brian rogers knows about it

Anonymous said...

So apparently Pat Lykos is "civil" in her discourse regarding Mike Anderson, but not regarding former (and current) prosecutors like Rifi and Nathan.

Keepin' Harris County Justice classy since, well, uh, never mind.

Anonymous said...

It is beyond peradventure that the "DIVERT" program (deferred adjudication Lykos style)is illegal - see art. 42.12, sec.5 (d)(1)(A, TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. If one's client is offered the program, however, and any defense lawyer refused the opportunity for his or her "guilty" client to enroll in the program (after advising of the possible consequences of that illegality) that lawyer has rendered ineffective assistance of counsel regardless of the identity of the lawyer. If the prosecutor (Lykos) is either being too stupid, disingenous, unethical, stubborn or some combination thereof in offering the program, ostensibly as a tax saver, no defense attorney should be subject to criticism for availing their client of the program. Unfortunately the vast majority of voters, whether R or D, are too lazy to educate themselves on the candidates and as the lack of the recent vetting of candidates by the press/media (both at the national and local levels) has demonstrated it takes several years to discern what a disaster that voters' malaise/ignorance will wrought. Both the Rs and the Ds are much like the rats and children of Hamelin,however, led by their respective Pied Pipers.
Calvin A. Hartmann

Anonymous said...

If a lawyer knows something is illegal and helps a client is the lawyer committing an illegal act? Is that not the same as allowing a client to file a motion for probation knowing client has a felony conviction?

Anonymous said...

As to a general proposition as to whether a lawyer knowing something is illegal and helps a client, does the lawyer commit an illegal act,assuming TEX.P.C. 7.02 is satisfied and there are no Chapter 8 defenses, the answer would probably be in the affirmative, but it is impossible to precisely answer that question not knowing the violating act or the possible consequence of the act in question. However, allowing a client to file a motion for probation knowing the person has a felony conviction might be described as an "illegal" act, but without more, it would at least be a violation of the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.03(a)(1)(2)(b)(c). As to the "DIVERT" issue, so long as the defense lawyer advises his client that he or she is receiving an "illegal sentence" which could be set aside if challenged the "illegality" is originating with the State and the trial court - no fraud or dishonesty is being committed by either the defendant or his or her lawyer so long as the paperwork filed is truthful. I see no harm in the defendant receiving the benefit from what might be fairly described as a misguided prosecution and judicial system. The harm is to the public as the result of whom they have entrusted with the responsibility with following, supporting, and defending the laws of Texas pursuant to their oaths of office, a responsibility apparently being neglected in but all but one of the county courts vis-a-vis the "DIVERT" issue.
Calvin A. Hartmann

Anonymous said...

Rage,
As a cop, I agree with your point, but not the hostility. When seconds count, we are but a couple of minutes away.

Shoot straight.

Anonymous said...

Why not call and leave these comments with the Chron? The read representation line is:      

    To comment on coverage:
          Call: 713-362-6303 Fax: 713-362-6373
          Email: readerrep@chron.com

Might do a little to counter act all of the comments from RP's husband.

Anon at 2:30 pm call the Chron and ask them the question.

Anonymous said...

Just VOTE! Get others to do likewise. The courthouse crowd has NEVER elected or unelected a criminal justice candidate. All of this is truly not known to the citizens of harris County.

Seriously get as many people OUSIDE the system to regester, like I've said before till I'm blue in the face: Do you have your 25 votors that you will stay on their ass to regester, votes etc and vote early?

4 million people in this town and how many are regestered to vote and will vote R?

If each person who has had a gripe on this blog doesn't commit to at least 25 votes and then some then if Lykos wins you have only yourselves to blame.

Anonymous said...

The "nastiest" blog that I've read in a while is Mark Bennet's recent post from April 7th, "Dissapointment." it's too small of a courthouse to not know exactly who he is calling out. Once again, he reminds us that no one is as smart and ethcsl as him. [Insert large eye roll here.] Some things are best left un-blogged, but Mark can't help but stir the pot.

Anonymous said...

If he is such a great lawyer,why did the judge not rule for him? Why did the lawyer not talk to him? Always 2 sides to every story.

Anonymous said...

You know 5:37, Bennett has a history of doing that. He loves to blog about indiscretions and ethical violations, and then does nothing about it. This isn't the first time he's blown hard about a lawyer doing the wrong thing. Maybe this time he will hold himself to the same standard he holds others, and report the ethical violations--as he is bound to do.

Just Sayin' said...

Anon 1:28,

And where were you in 2008?
Yapping and napping, no doubt.

Don't you dare blame or guilt others now.

Just Sayin'

ZACK FERTITTA FOR DA said...

Rick Santorum is out of the primary race and with him are the 2nd Baptist hard core right wing zealots (Steve Hotze, Terry Lowry and Alan Blakemore are soooooooo not happy).
Voter turnout in the almost irrelevant May 29th primary will be marginal and dominated by the moderates outside the CJC world of malcontents.
Moderates are not intolerant bitter extremists so Mikey needs to consider his campaign tactics accordingly if he plans on having any chance defeating Patsy "Troll" Lykos in next month's republican primary.
Alan Blakemore won't allow that so the Troll will prevail.

ZACK FERTITTA FOR DA--THE MODERATES CHOICE FOR CHANGE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE IN NOVEMBER!!!

Anonymous said...

In Texas they call people like that -all hat and no cow---talk the talk ,but do not walk the walk--

Anonymous said...

What are the rules for lawyers if they see behavior that is unethical on a blog or elsewhere.Talk here today about a blogger talking bad about another lawyer.Is that unprofessional or just poor taste?

Anonymous said...

Some days I wish you would all just shut up. Damn.

Anonymous said...

In Texas they call people like that -all hat and no cow---talk the talk ,but do not walk the walk--

Uhh, it's "all hat and no cattle" there, slick. It was Ann Richards' favorite saying about Bush--that and that he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

In any event, talk to Murray about that hat of his and how many cattle he has...

What are the rules for lawyers if they see behavior that is unethical on a blog or elsewhere.

Lawyers are bound to report unethical conduct, wherever it occurs. Most don't do it, but they don't also get on a high horse about it. A few claim to be righteous, and still don't do it--that's where Bennett falls.

Rage

Anonymous said...

ANON @ 12:06. I too noticed the massive postings. I continue to wonder who is paid to post on the Chronicles comments section. Whomever it may be is a rabid.