Fun with Kimbra (and the Hoopers)

Man, it has been a crazy day.  Where to begin?  I think I'll start with a certain tweet that I got mentioned in on Twitter (or X, or whatever they are calling it these days) by a certain disgruntled ex-District Attorney.

Now, before I give the backstory on this Tweet, I would like to be very clear that I found it to be absolutely hilarious.  I am keenly aware of how much I piss off certain people online and I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to the responses to things I say.  Kim calling me a cockroach, although not very inventive, was more than fair game.

That being said, in the space of one Tweet, our former District Attorney not only calls for my death, but, as per usual, she's trying to outsource the dirty work.

Do I think she was serious?  No.

Do I think she would be sad if I died?  Also no.

Do I think I would have had a bunch of cops at my door if I had posted anything remotely resembling a tweet like this about her? 100%

But there is a big difference between me and Kim.  The most profound one being that I'm not stupid.  I don't wish death on anyone and even if I did, I wouldn't put it in a tweet.  I don't care how frustrated I was with the person.  There are too many unstable people out there already to make pretending to be one of them seem like a good idea.  

The next difference between me and Kimbra is that I wouldn't try to waste the legal system's time and resources to help me satisfy a personal grudge.  It was suggested to me that I should file a police report.  That's not really my style.  Instead, I just responded to her tweet as follows:

Do I think that I'm funny?  Well, obviously.

But going back to that whole "not wasting legal system's time and resources to help me satisfy a personal grudge" thing, I think it is worth noting my original post that got Kim so riled up.   

Backstory time.

So, as many of you may remember during the Ogg Administration, Kim led a highly publicized "investigation" into Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo.  Although charges were never brought against Hidalgo, three staffers were ultimately charged with felonies.  Two of those staffers had their cases dismissed outright once the case was taken over by the Texas Attorney General's Office, and the third completed a very brief pre-trial diversion.   When all was said and done, Kim's "investigation" into Hidalgo cost Harris County hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more).

The recipient of lots of those thousands and thousands of dollar was none other than Kim's close personal friend and former-5th Amendment-invoking-prosecutor, Rachel Palmer Hooper, who had gone onto bigger and better things working for a big law firm and serving as General Counsel to the Texas GOP.  In her spare time, she was known for running the criminal history of black people she saw voting and other fun Right Wing activities.  Kim hired Rachel as a "special prosecutor" to investigate Hidalgo, but she did everything in her power to keep that a secret from the general public.  Since Kim was a Democrat trying to take out another Democrat, it wasn't a good idea to be using office funds to hire the general counsel for the Republicans to do the dirty work.   The story didn't end well for Kimbra.

Although Rachel blocks me on Twitter because I keep pointing out to the general public that I really don't feel that she is being the best version of herself that she can be, she has been very vocal lately.  That's probably because her beloved husband, Donald P. Hooper, is running to be the Party Chair for GOP in Harris County.  

Now, those of you who have followed this blog for a long time know that the Donner and I have a special relationship.  It's very much a love/hate relationship in the sense that he hates me and I love how much he hates me.  He would probably be very surprised to know that I think he would be perfect for the job of Harris County GOP Chair.  That's not a compliment.  It's just a testament to how badly the GOP has deteriorated.  If you are looking for a homophobic, shit talking, semi-literate, nimwit, Don is definitely the candidate for you.

But I digress . . . 

So, anyway, several days ago, Rachel posted on Twitter that she believed U.S. Senator John Cornyn needed to be investigated for something or other involving Senate Candidate Wesley Hunt's personal information.  Her solution to the problem?  They should just appoint Kim Ogg as the new, permanent U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas.

Now, I'm not entirely sure who the "Marxist DA" is that Rachel is referencing in this post, but I did find her advocating for Kim to be as predictable as it was shameless.  And I said so.

Little did I know that it would cause Kimbra's mind to turn to MURDER!

Obviously I don't feel particularly at risk after Kim's solicitation of murder upon me, but in all seriousness, what the hell?  

Kim Ogg is a vindictive child with the temperament of a slow-witted rattlesnake.  She abused her power as Harris County District Attorney and she doubtlessly would do so again if (God forbid) she were to become the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District.  She's as stupid as she is ruthless, and that's saying something.  

Regardless of whether or not her tweet was meant to be taken seriously, she has demonstrated yet again that she is not fit to hold public office.

The 2020 Race for District Attorney Heats Up, Already

Houston Chronicle reporter Zach Despart sent out a Tweet this evening that has Harris County prosecutors abuzz:

Despart noted that attorney Audia Jones has filed a Notice of Treasurer in the 2020 race for District Attorney.  Jones, who recently left the Harris County District Attorney's Office, has been very vocal on her Facebook page about her vision for the Criminal Justice System.  Her posts have also been critical of the D.A.'s Office's current administration.

Jones is married to 180th District Court Judge DaSean Jones, who just took office on January 1st of this year.  In the event that Jones were to win the race for District Attorney, there would probably be some question as to whether or not her husband could preside over cases prosecuted by the District Attorney's Office.  In all honesty, I'm not sure what the answer to that question would be.

While Audia Jones is the first one to definitely throw her hat in the ring to run for District Attorney (I'm not sure that Kim Ogg has even formally announced that she is running again), there have been rumors that former prosecutor Rachel Palmer Hooper is mulling over a run as the Republican candidate.  That's largely based on this Tweet from last month:

Rachel is sounding like somebody who is getting ready to make a run.  She's been in the Civil World for some time now, but who knows?  Maybe she misses the excitement of the Criminal Justice System.

Quite frankly, I think that any candidate running for Harris County D.A. as a Republican in 2020 is just throwing his or her money in the toilet.  After the bashing that Republicans took in 2018, that's going to be a fool's errand if Trump is still at the top of the ballot in 2020.  Although straight-ticket voting is (fortunately) now a thing of the past in Texas, I don't know if the change will be enough to make up those margins.  I expect that the "protest turnout" of voters who show up just to vote against Trump will remain extremely high and that doesn't bode well for any candidate running as an R in 2020.

On the plus side, I think that most smart candidates know this.  I'm expecting a pretty quiet Republican Primary.  Hopefully, it will be so quiet that no one will feel all that compelled to "buy ads" from sleazy Slate producers like Terry Lowry and Steven Hotze. 

I think that if anyone has a chance to win as a Republican candidate for District Attorney in 2020, it would need to be someone that would appeal to Latino and Latina voters.  The Republican Party has been rather alienating to those voters in the Trump Era and if the Republicans were smart, they would start trying to build some bridges to that community instead of burning them.  A charismatic, qualified, and experienced Latina candidate would be ideal in that situation, and if I were leading the Harris County Republican Party, I would be working overtime to recruit someone that matched that description.

But where could they ever find a candidate like that?

Stay tuned, folks.  2020 is already getting interesting.

The Federal Lawsuit

In case you missed it, former-HPD chemists Amanda Culbertson and Jorge Wong filed a Federal lawsuit this morning, targeting both Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos and Assistant District Attorney Rachel Palmer.

I've briefly scanned over the petition and it is basically the allegation that Wong and Culbertson were punished and retaliated against for their roles as whistleblowers with the HPD B.A.T. Van scandals.  The petition lists numerous dates and meetings that specifically involve Rachel Palmer and it covers the cancellation of the County's contract with Lone Star College.

I don't know much about Federal Civil Law, but I would imagine that things will move fairly slowly.  It will be interesting to watch it develop.

Rachel Palmer's Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center

For those of you who keep up with the comments section of my posts, you may have noticed yesterday that someone brought up the fact that Assistant District Attorney Rachel Palmer had filed a DBA (Doing Business As) notice with the Harris County Clerk's Office sometime in January.  Now, keeping in mind that Rachel has a full-time job, it seems a little bit strange that she would be starting up her own business.

What is even more bizarre is the title of the business.

She apparently filed as "Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center."

Um, okay.

Most of you know that Rachel's beloved husband, Don Hooper, started a knock-off version of my blog a few months ago.  I'm not going to link to it, because it is grossly inaccurate to the point of being libelous and the spelling and grammar is mind-numbingly bad.  Seriously, I was going to sign him up for a Hooked on Phonics class as a peace offering.  That being said,  I have found that the best way to deal with an idiot is to ignore him.

Hooper had been making noises about "taking Murray's blog" for awhile.  I guess that he and Rachel decided to make it all official by getting the DBA.  I don't know what exactly their goal was.  Maybe Rachel just wanted to see if exercising her 1st Amendment Right felt as good as exercising her 5th?

Mark Bennett did a post this morning with his thoughts on Rachel's entrepreneurship.  Who knows what Rachel and Don are up to?

I sincerely doubt that Rachel is attempting to take credit for my blog.  We aren't exactly best friends, in case you haven't noticed.  She probably wouldn't want to explain to Pat Lykos why she would be so desperately trying to affiliate herself with a blog that is so critical of the Lykos' Administration.

More likely, she was just trying to pave the way for Don to create his knock-off blog.

What is interesting, however, is that Don's blog bashes not only me, but Rachel's fellow prosecutors and several sitting judges, as well.  It bashes them harshly.  It is my understanding that some of the half-assed attempts by the Upper-Administration of the D.A.'s Office to get Don to tone it down have been rebuffed by him.  He doesn't work for Pat Lykos, after all.

But the new business entity of "Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center" doesn't have Don Hooper's name on it.

It has the name of Harris County Assistant District Attorney Rachel Ann Palmer.

The Lykos Administration has been very clear that they don't like it when their prosecutors talk on blogs.  When Scott Pope was a prosecutor, he left a relatively innocent comment on Mark Bennett's blog that said nothing bad about the Administration.  He was called to the 6th Floor and admonished for daring to sign his name.  A few months ago, a prosecutor was disciplined for defending himself against a defense attorney's public criticisms on the Chronicle.  Even David Benzion was apparently told to stifle his comments on my blog after he posted something here a while back.

Yet here we have prosecutor Rachel Palmer affiliating herself with Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center in writing -- bashing judges and prosecutors with impunity.

Doesn't it seem like there is something wrong with this picture?

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.

Rachel Palmer moved to Appellate

So, after spending her first three years in the Lykos Administration at the reward position of Deputy Dawg of the Misdemeanor Division, Rachel Palmer has finally been unseated from her throne.  I guess the Lykos Administration finally decided to "punish" her for making the Office look bad by pleading the 5th.

Today, according to the Office's moves memo, Rachel is being moved to the Appellate Division.

She won't have to pull a docket or try a case.  She can have relatively flexible hours.  I wonder if they will be more flexible for Rachel than they were for Shirley Cornelius.

Perhaps she can do some legal research on when the 5th Amendment applies and when it doesn't and the admissibility of polygraph evidence.

Oh, and I've got $5 that says they use her move to Appellate as justification to give her Chief's salary in the weeks to come.

Thoughts from a Guest Poster

I got the following comments from a previous poster who goes by the street name of "Spunk."  The points in the comment are excellent, so I decided to make it a post on its own rather than put it in the comments section.  This is the comment in its entirety:

Before we get too far away from that matter of Rachel Palmer taking the 5th, I would like to address Rachel directly regarding her commentary, behavior and specifically her appearance with her attorneys on Channel 11 after having taken the 5th. Let us review and reflect upon the following:

1.  Rachel Palmer, this is not "about" you! In your testimony and selective interview with channel 11 you continually reference yourself, how long you have endured attacks from people on the blogs and Murray Newman himself and how tired you are of it, and blah blah blah-- it's all about you, you, you.  Do not flatter yourself, Rachel, the only reason anyone pays attention to you is because you have continued to inject yourself in controversy in your ongoing attempt to ingratiate yourself to Pat Lykos and to cover up your criminal conduct contributing to the official oppression of Amanda Culbertson, and because your husband seems hellbent on showing his backside every time he gets a chance.      

2.  Dear Media, please stop calling Rachel Palmer a "top prosecutor."  That's like calling a substitute kindergarten teacher among a bunch of college professors a 'top educator.'  In the last 3 years since Lykos took over the office Rachel has not tried a single felony, and the few she did try before then did not go very well. She is a marginal trial lawyer at best.  She has now found a comfortable place making more money than she is worth and all she does is supervise MISDEMEANORS.  She probably wouldn't have a job at all at the office if Lykos had lost.  As a victim of a violent crime, trust me, you wouldn't want Rachel Palmer advocating on your behalf.

3.  Rachel testified  that she was "scared" of Judge Susan Brown because of the way she treats her, and her only specific example was because of the way Judge Brown says "Hi, Rachel." Are you kidding me?? It has been a well known fact for a long time that from the standpoint of the prosecutor, Judge S. Brown's court is one of the best assignments in the trial bureau. She is fair, she knows the law, she is pleasant, and she is willing to go to trial on any type of case.  Clearly Rachel Palmer was not around to try cases in front of notorious hard-assed judges such as Jimmy James, Joe Keagans, and ironically, PAT LYKOS who couldn't keep a consistent staff in her court from the district clerk's office because she was so damned mean.  If all it takes to scare Rachel Palmer is the tone of one's voice when saying hello to her, she wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes in Judge Pat Lykos' court. I am embarrassed to have ever been in the same occupational class with someone so soft and weak as Rachel Palmer.

4. What is Rachel Palmer (or anyone else) really saying when she asserts the 5th Amendment? Rachel is saying this: I am refusing to answer the questions because if I do, either I will have to admit I that have already committed a crime, OR the truthful answer I am required to give will itself contitute a crime (Aggravated Perjury).  Whether there is a vast conspiracy or not to unseat Pat Lykos, the fact remains that Rachel Palmer is telling the world that either she has committed a crime for which she may yet be indicted or she has already committed or will commit perjury if she answers the questions.  DOESN'T THAT BOTHER ANYONE IN THE LYKOS ADMINISTRATION AND WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THEM IF IT DOESN'T?   What has Rachel said or done that constitutes a crime, and who is she covering for besides herself?  I hope the media and the public understands this about Rachel and Lykos.

5. What's in those emails, Rachel?  I hope everyone noticed that during the interview with channel 11, Rachel's attorney Clay Rawlins had a stack of some "2000" emails of Rachel's subpoenaed by the grand jury, and he said something to the effect that with so many emails it is understandable that she might have made a mistake in them.  WHAT MISTAKE??  Why didn't you read it to us?   And Clay, maybe you ought to ask Chuck Rosenthal how well the 'mistake' defense works when emails are subpoenaed and used against you.    

6.  Under ANY other previous administration, Rachel, a prosecutor like you taking the 5th amendment would have been swiftly and unceremoniously FIRED.  It was a policy of Mr. Holmes that, even if you are factually 'innocent'/or not guilty or not culpable or whatever, you as an employee of the Harris County  District Attorney's Office could expect to be fired for failing to cooperate in any way with a law enforcement investigation of any kind, constitutional rights be damned! Before Lykos, prosecutors were very aware, up front, that they are not mere citizens who possess those basic constitutional rights like everyone else.  We were held to a higher standard of conduct.  For example, if an Asst. DA got stopped for suspicion of DWI but was in fact not intoxicated, that Asst. DA would still be fired if the investigating officer asked him/her to take a breath test and he/she refused, despite the fact that any other ordinary citizen has a right to refuse a breath test.  Why?  Because prosecutors are an arm of law enforcement and as such, seekers of the truth, not hiders of it. Surely the public does not want a DA's Office with prosecutors who strutinize ordinary citizens everyday who are hiding facts which will incriminate them while simultaneously those same prosecutors are taking the 5th amendment any time they themselves want to avoid answering incriminating questions.

7.  More to the point, Rachel, if you have nothing to hide, then why can't you answer the questions?  Jim Leitner said to the media that he would be "hard pressed" to discipline an employee for exercising a constitutional right.  Despite whatever experience he may have, it is clear that Mr. Leitner is first and foremost still a criminal defense attorney at heart and in practice.  Rachel Palmer does have a right to take the 5th, but she doesn't have a constitutional right to do so and remain employed at the DA's Office. She remains employed at the will and pleasure of Pat Lykos.  Keeping her so employed has rendered the Harris County DA's Office the Harris County Hypocritical DA's Office.  Rachel, why don't you and your constitutional rights take a hike?

The level of hypocrisy is ridiculous.  Wasn't Jim Leitner one of the same set of prosecutors who decided to get a copy of the transcript of witness testimony in grand jury despite his knowledge that Judge Brown and a court of appeals had ruled that grand jury may proceed without a member of the District Attorney's Office present, and despite his knowledge and understanding that Judge Brown did not grant him permission to get that transcript and in fact had told him not to do so?  Yet a couple weeks later, apparently with Jim Leitner and the DA's Offices blessings, when Rachel Palmer gets herself cornered by incriminating questions, she refuses to answer media's questions and attempts to school Ted Oberg by stating, "You know that's not an appropriate question...grand jury proceedings are secret."  Nauseating.

There is no vast conspiracy to unseat Pat Lykos (she brought this all on herself) but boy there ought to be because she has no respect for the law or anyone besides herself.  There was a rumor that on the day Rachel spoke to Channel 11 with her attorneys and Leitner spoke to Ted Oberg that Pat Lykos told certain staff members that there was 'going to be a press conference,' and she was 'going to make everything right.' When are you going to speak to the media yourself, Pat? You can't hide forever.  And putting Rachel and Leitner out there sure didn't make anything 'right.'  

-Spunk

A New Voir Dire Question

One of the things that we should be thankful to Rachel Palmer for (as well as the Lykos Administration for not firing or demoting her) is the gift of a very strong and effective way to voir dire potential jurors on the issue of the 5th Amendment.

For instance, you could pose the questions as follows:

DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  There could be a lot of reasons that my client does not take the stand during this Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child case.  What are some of the reasons?

JUROR # 1:  His attorney told him not to?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Yes, or perhaps he works for Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

JUROR # 2:  He's a bad speaker?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Yes, or perhaps he works for Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

JUROR # 3:  He would really screw up on the stand if faced with cross-examination?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Yes, or perhaps he works for Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

JUROR #4:  He has a lot of prior convictions and doesn't want to talk about them?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Yes, or perhaps he works for Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

JUROR # 5:  He's guilty as hell?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Yes, or perhaps he works for Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

JUROR #6:  Wait a second, if your client didn't do anything wrong and has nothing to hide, why wouldn't he WANT to take the stand and clear all of this up for us?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Why don't you ask Pat Lykos' Harris County District Attorney's Office.

Rachel Palmer talks . . . to the Media

Fresh on the heels of being told that she can invoke her Fifth Amendment Right not to testify in front of the Grand Jury, Rachel Palmer and her defense team wasted no time in getting themselves in front of a camera to do some of that thinking smart, looking good and winning that she goes on and on about.  In an interview with Channel 11, Rachel noted that there was "nothing wrong" with her as a person or a prosecutor.

To me, the fact that she did so pretty much crystalizes what the Harris County District Attorney's Office is now all about.

After days of trying to stall out a Grand Jury investigation and refusing to talk to Grand Jurors, all the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight seems to care about is their image.  We ignore those folks provided for under the Rule of Law and prefer to just go do a little on-air campaigning for the boss.

One of the things I failed to mention from Monday's hearing was a new face in the D.A.'s Roster -- David Benzion, formerly of the Lone Star Times.  For those of you who don't remember, Lone Star Times used to be a very politically active Republican website and news outlet.  I've known David for several years and he's a nice guy.

Monday was his first day on the job working for Pat Lykos.

His job?  Work on media relations.  His first assignment?  Go hang out in the Rachel Palmer hearing on the Motion to Recuse.

I find it interesting that in the middle of the whole Grand Jury debacle that Pat Lykos won't make a public appearance, but did apparently take time out of her hiding place to hire someone designed to improve HER public image.

At taxpayer expense, of course.

Perhaps if Lykos spent so much time actually doing the right thing, rather than spending Office money to make it appear as if she were doing so, none of this would be happening.

A "Must Read" from Mark Bennett

Anyone with even a passing interest in the hearing on the Motion to Compel Rachel Palmer's testimony today in the 185th really needs to read Bennett's post today.  Go there by clicking here.

This means you media types, too.

Thoughts from Thursday's Events

Although the actual hearing for the Motion to Compel filed by Special Prosecutors Jim Mount and Stephen St. Martin was reset until Monday morning, December 19th, there were some interesting and noteworthy events that happened on Thursday.  Here are a couple of the highlights:

1.  Although Rachel Palmer was escorted from the Grand Jury room up to the 185th for the Motion to Compel, she wasn't in custody.  I heard that rumors were running rampant through the CJC that Rachel had been placed in handcuffs and brought to the 185th.  That was absolutely NOT the case.  At some point, her attorney Clay Rawlings, who was angry with Mount and St. Martin about the Motion to Compel, announced to the court that his client was being mistreated and brought up "in custody."  Rachel appeared mortified at her attorney's assertion and both Mount and St. Martin made a point of letting the court know that wasn't the case.

2.  Over the lunch hour, David Mitcham was apparently added to the Defense Team.  In the time between the original morning meeting on Thursday and when the Court reconvened at 1:00 p.m., I heard from several sources that Rachel was trying to hire new counsel (or at least additional counsel).  Sure enough, Mitcham showed up with everyone at 1:00.  Smart move by Rachel.  David is a great lawyer.

3.  Immunity is not on the table.  The basis for which St. Martin and Mount are asking the Court to compel Rachel to testify is that their questions are not incriminating.  The questions are sealed and nobody but the parties know what they are at the moment.  Under the Special Prosecutors' position, there is no need for immunity to be offered if the questions wouldn't require anything for there to be immunity from.  At some point during the hearing, Judge Brown made mention of the possibility of Immunity being offered to Rachel, and both Mount and St. Martin were seen shaking their heads in unison.

4.  If Immunity had actually been offered, would it be worthless, anyway?  This turns into an interesting legal question that Mark Bennett has touched on over at his blog with this post (specifically in the comments section).  Commenters Mike Trent, Mike Paar and Bennett aptly point out that Immunity covers everything EXCEPT perjury.  So, let's say in a hypothetical-theoretical situation that when Rachel testified before the Grand Jury last month she stated a set of facts that have now been contradicted by testimony from the other witnesses who were called after her (i.e., Ed Emmett, Steve Raddack, El Franco Lee).  Now the Grand Jury has called her, Leitner, and Bridgwater back to explain themselves for their earlier answers and they want to invoke their 5th Amendment rather than risk getting caught in a lie from their previous testimony.  Even if given Immunity, would it cover possible perjury from their previous testimony?  Mark seems to think it would.  Mike Trent points out that it isn't specifically spelled out.

5.  Will it all be pointless in 2012?  No, I'm not talking about the Mayan Calendar predicting that the world will end next year and that we will all be progressing into the next Astral Plane (known to some as a land called "Ho Ha.")  Recent legislation has indicated that the power of all existing Grand Juries across the State will cease at the end of the year and all new ones must be empaneled at the beginning of the New Year.  Word on the street is that Lykos and Crew are eagerly anticipating all this Grand Jury work to be for nothing, but there is disagreement amongst the legal scholars over whether or not a previously authorized hold-over Grand Jury can continue.  Either way, I think it is totally awesome of the Upper Admin to be relying on a technicality to bail their asses out of hot water.

6.  Bridgwater and Leitner did not testify in Grand Jury on Thursday.  Although the 1st Assistant and Bureau Chief did receive subpoenas to come back to the 185th Grand Jury, they weren't actually called in on Thursday, most likely because they were having to deal with Rachel pleading the 5th.  I'm curious as to whether or not they will be pleading the 5th, as well.

7.  Bridgwater has Campaign Implications.  Unlike Leitner and Palmer, Roger Bridgwater is running for Judge in 2012.  Currently, he is unopposed in the Republican Primary.  If he pleads the 5th and creates the debacle that Rachel has, or if any of these folks end up indicted, is the Republican Party going to be running a candidate who is under indictment?  Or would they ask him to withdraw and just cede the race?  If Jared Woodfill was smart (don't worry, Roger, he isn't), he would be getting a back-up candidate in that race by the end of Monday's filing deadline.

8.  Jim Leitner is starting to fall apart at the seams.  We had a preview of how the 1st Assistant reacts when he doesn't know the answer to the tough questions back in 2009.  On Thursday, in the hallway immediately after the hearing, Leitner really lost his composure when pressed by Ted Oberg as to whether or not he found it "offensive" that an Assistant District Attorney had taken her 5th Amendment right.  Instead of doing the smart thing and saying, "This is an on-going Grand Jury investigation and our Office has no comment," he ended up shrieking at the crowd of cameras that what he found offensive was being backed up against the wall and forced to answer questions.  However, his response was probably more understandable than Rachel's dismissive "God is good" statements to the media.

9.  Don Hooper is out of control.
Hooper has been very busy during this Grand Jury investigation.  There have been a variety of posts on the Chronicle comments section that he has been accused of authoring under pseudonyms.  Those comments typically attack Mike and Devon Anderson for their positions on the DIVERT program.  Although my favorite pseudonym used was "Fake Murray Newman" (which I actually thought was pretty funny), another comment bore the name of the 185th Grand Jury's foreperson.  That one isn't quite as amusing.
Last week, Hooper signed his name to a blog comment on David Jenning's Big Jolly blog, a comment that oozed the exact same bilge that these pseudonym commenters have been using on the Chron blog.

Can I prove that Hooper is posting as Fake Murray Newman and as the foreperson of the Grand Jury?  Nope.  Would I be willing to bet my lunch money that he is?  In a heartbeat.

I don't know why this knucklehead thinks that he is helping out his wife with this type of behavior.  I further don't understand why members of the Republican Party seem to think he has some sort of influence with them.

10.  Where in the World is Patricia Lykos?  With all of this going down, there has been no sign of the elected D.A.  There are complaints of personnel moves and promotions being put on hold because Lykos won't sign off on them.  She sure as hell hasn't stood with her people in court.  Even her proposed move to make Rachel Palmer the public spokesperson for the Office hasn't been approved.  I can't imagine why.

Also notably absent from the 185th courtroom on Thursday were any other prosecutors outside of the Upper Administration.  No rank and file prosecutor in their right mind would have showed up to watch the fireworks.  If they were perceived as coming to gawk at Palmer in the hugely embarrassing situation, they would have been labeled as enemies of Lykos on the spot.  Not to mention Hooper would have been snapping photographs of them, as well.

So, that's why I started doing the live tweeting from the hearing.

And I'll be back doing it again on Monday.

Motion to Compel

Interesting developments today from the 185th District Court Grand Jury as Assistant District Attorney and Deputy Division Chief of Misdemeanor Rachel Palmer was escorted from the Grand Jury to the 185th District Court in response to a Motion to Compel Testimony.

Special Prosecutors Jim Mount and Stephen St. Martin approached the bench with Palmer's defense attorney Clay Rawlins for a hearing on the record where Mount and St. Martin filed a Motion to Compel Testimony from Palmer. Per the conversation at the bench, Palmer invoked her Fifth Amendment right against Self-Incrimination in front of the Grand Jury. The Special Prosecutors' position was that she did not have a right to invoke the 5th, since she was not the target of the investigation and no questions would be asked that would incriminate her.

Rawlins had apparently contacted the Special Prosecutors yesterday after Palmer was subpoenaed to testify this morning. Rawlins informed them that Palmer would be taking a "blanket Fifth," meaning she would state her name for the record and then invoke the Fifth on all following questions. In response to Rawlins' representation to them, the prosecutors drafted a Motion to Compel.

All parties were ordered to return for a hearing on the Motion to Compel at 1:00 pm this afternoon.

Keeping in mind that a Harris County Assistant District Attorney invoking her Fifth Amendment right just looks terrible, it begs the question: who is the target of the investigation that she is trying to protect?

I will keep you posted as events develop.

Lisa Falkenberg's Column on Transparency and Retaliation

There's a good article from Lisa Falkenberg in today's print edition of the Chronicle regarding the ongoing dispute between the Harris County District Attorney's Office and Amanda Culbertson, formerly of the HPD Crime Lab.  I will link to it when it comes online.

The long-story-short is that Harris County has apparently had a contract for twenty years with Lone Star College for the testing and maintenance of the instruments used to test breath test results.  Earlier this year, Amanda Culbertson told officials that the Mobile "B.A.T. vans" that have intoxilyzers in them were not reliable, thus jeopardizing numerous DWI cases where they were used.  Her findings were documented in e-mails within HPD, and defense counsel Brent Mayr had filed a Writ in March of this year alleging Brady violations for withholding that information.

Fast forward to July, when defense attorneys Dane Johnson and Jordan Lewis find themselves in trial on another B.A.T. van case, where a trial case had to be continued mid-trial when prosecutors claim that this is the first time they've heard of these allegations.  As noted in the article by the Chronicle's Brian Rogers and Anita Hassan, Amanda Culbertson stated she left the HPD Crime Lab over her reports of the B.A.T. van problems and moved to Lone Star College, where she continued in her duties for a different agency.  Rather than being the chemist for HPD, she is now doing it for Lone Star, which does the supervising of those intoxilyzers used by the Harris County Sheriff's Office and other county agencies.

Apparently incensed that Culbertson had called into question the H.P.D. cases, the County is now trying to suddenly cancel that contract with Lone Star.  You can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not that move was in response to their new employee -- Amanda Culbertson.

As Lisa points out in the article, Lykos and Crew over at the D.A.'s Office are attempting to play the "who me?" card on what has inspired the termination of the contract, acting as if this was a move made by County Commissioners without the Office's involvement.  However, this seems to fly in the face of logic under the circumstances.  At the last Commissioners' Court meeting on the subject, ADA Rachel Palmer, who is the Deputy Chief of the Misdemeanor Division (which handles the vast majority of DWI cases for the Office) was in attendance when the matter was addressed.

To top things off, there have been rumblings and threats from the D.A.'s Office about looking into whether or not they could indict Culbertson for perjury.

Lisa's column is a great one, but I think we are just hitting the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this story.

Sound a little retaliatory yet?

My friend and fellow blogger, Paul Kennedy, pointed out yesterday in his blog that he was somewhat perturbed at the rush to defend Amanda Culbertson and other members of Lone Star College by the defense bar, arguing that it gave them credibility on future cases in advance.  I understand his position, but I think at some point there may need to be a weighing of the evils involved here.

Defense attorneys standing up for a whistleblower witness that is risking her livelihood to testify about faulty evidence that affects hundreds of cases is the right thing to do, even if it means having to begrudgingly admit that you find her credible down the road.

The dangers of a District Attorney's Office that will literally go after that same whistleblowing witness like John Gotti after Sammy "the Bull" Gravano is a much more alarming proposition, in my opinion.

The Vileness of Terry Lowry

In case you haven't noticed by now, I'm not a fan of Terry Lowry.

In the Harris County political system filled with people you love to hate, Lowry has distinguished himself as an almost cartoonish caricature of all that is wrong with the system, and the Republican Party seems to have no qualms about embracing him as their own.

Lowry publishes his FOR PROFIT crappy little LINKLetter that goes out to all Republican voters and he also buys time on a radio slot where he can spew out his "values" on a program called "What's UP".

And of course, under the 1st Amendment, I support his right to do so, even though I recognize the fact that he is a schmuck.

Lowry sprinkles in "articles" in his endorsement-laden "LINKLetter" which should offend even the most conservative of Republicans.

In his latest issue, he opens up addressing Pat Robertson's idiotic statement last month that the Haitian Earthquake was "the manifestation of God's punishment".

Does Lowry condemn what Robertson said?

Nope. He discusses it though, pointing out that "Back in 1791 some Haitians banded together and made a 'pack with the Devil' promising him their souls if he would help drive out the French". He never disagrees with it.

Are there really Republicans out there that believe publishing this crap is somehow helpful to their Party?

But the more amusing part of the LINKLetter is Lowry's article on "How are Endorsements Made?". The reality on how Lowry's endorsements are made is that Lowry opens a bidding war for ads in the mailer. Whoever buys the biggest ad wins his endorsement (for what it's worth).

But Lowry's "explanation" of how he makes his endorsements gives him a real chance to shine as the hate-mongering biggot that he is. He begins the article by lamenting how it more difficult to make endorsements now than it was 20 years ago when all you had to do was figure out if a candidates was "Pro-life vs. Pro-choice, Pro-family vs. Pro-homosexual, and liberal vs. conservative".

He continues on:

"Some candidates even sought and received endorsements from gay and lesbian organizations. This cycle has a practicing gay seeking to represent the Republican Party. He has even brought his partner to various functions. I will defend his right to run, but I will never endorse him nor encourage you to vote for him."

And his definition of a "Wise" candidate? "They avoid even answering Pro-homosexual questionnaires."

He also is kind enough to publish his suggestions for resolutions to take to your Precinct Chairman such as "We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and natural woman."

Okey dokey, then. Are y'all getting the picture on why I said I wouldn't be endorsing anyone who bought advertising with Lowry?

So congratulations to Rachel Palmer, Danny Dexter, Glenn Devlin, Natalie Flemming, Jared Woodfill and others for your full page ads and your financial support to a rodent like Lowry and his hateful beliefs. (NOTE: And don't forget Pat Lykos' ad from 2008!) I didn't give any money to any of your campaigns, but if I had, I'd be demanding it back right about now.

And by the way, members of the Harris County Republican Party, you might want to be taking note of the fact that you got slammed in November 2008 because the Democrats schooled you on Public Relations and the Power of Inclusion.

If you want to make a significant step in the right direction for your party and keep some excellent candidates on the bench in the future, you could make a great statement by disavowing Terry Lowry and all that he stands for.

Just a thought.

The Ghost of Bernstein Lingers

Okay, so apparently the offense report regarding Rachel Palmer's fiancee, Don Hooper, and Rachel's badge is out and about, now. The question now becomes is the media going to ask Lykos and crew why something wasn't done about Hooper and/or Palmer following the incident. Is it because Hooper is a big Republican backer and buddy of Lykos?

I'm hoping that one of the journalists (hint, hint Brian Rogers) is going to step up with the story and not follow in the footsteps of journalistic hack Alan Bernstein who hid from the Pat Lykos yarmulke story like a scared kitten for months and months.

At least we can't blame Bernstein for not doing this story -- he finally stepped down from pretending to be a journalist so that he could go work for the HCSO as Chief Apologist.

The Race for County Court at Law # 13 (Republican)

Unquestionably the most heated primary race this Spring is the Republican Primary in County Court at Law # 13 to replace Judge Mark Atkinson, who is not running for re-election. Before the field was even finalized, there was mass confusion as Felony Division Chief Denise Bradley (who was originally in the CCL # 13 race) switched to the 262nd race, leaving controversial Deputy Misdemeanor Chief Rachel Palmer seemingly unopposed in the primary.

That changed on December 23rd, when Division Chief Don Smyth announced his candidacy. Don's decision to run was a principled and gutsy call considering the fact that Palmer had about a year headstart on him in campaigning. Nevertheless, Don and his supporters were able to raise over 700 signatures in slightly over a week (when only 250 were required) and Don is now at the top of the ballot.

The differences between the two candidates could not be more pronounced.

Rachel has been practicing law less than 7 years. Don has been doing criminal law for over 32.

Rachel hasn't risen to the level of Felony Chief in the Office, although she claims (in an extremely misleading manner) to be the Deputy Chief of the Office. Don is a Division Chief and Former Bureau Chief.

Don has tried every type of case that the District Attorney's Office has handled, while Rachel seems to be cooling her heels as a Lykos loyalist in Misdemeanor.

Don is loved by the prosecutors working under him, while Rachel's misdemeanor prosecutors have complained about feeling pressured to support her when they have found her campaign literature placed on their desks. Don is also known for backing up his people when they need it, while Palmer is more known for her willingness to tattle to Lykos.

Rachel's knowledge of the law has been questionable as her judgment during her history with the Office. During an Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child case, she caused a mistrial by asking the police officer whether or not the defendant had refused to take a polygraph exam -- a very basic question that even a regular viewer of Law and Order would recognize as inadmissible. Because the mistrial had been based on the prosecution's question, the Defense argued the case was barred from retrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Fortunately, the Court ultimately ruled against prosecutorial misconduct and the case was allowed to proceed. Prosecutor Brent Mayr ultimately retried it and the Defendant went to prison. (NOTE: For more information, check out State of Texas v. Daniel Lee Sandifer.)

In addition, Rachel's attitude both in and away from the Office has been very off-putting for many. She is clearly a Lykos Insider who enjoys her position of power, but word of her exerting her influence as Deputy Dawg of Misdemeanor and a prosecutor, in general, are concerning. She is known as a bully to those people that aren't in HER inner circle.

Don, on the other hand, has never been accused of playing favorites. He is, quite literally, a Boy Scout -- having been active in the Organization since 1986 as a Scout Master and Scout Master Emeritus. He served for years and years as the Division Chief of the Civil Rights Division before becoming the Bureau Chief of the Governmental Affairs Bureau (which encompassed the Civil Rights and Public Integrity Divisions). He had to take the unpopular job of being the prosecutor that investigated police officers accused of wrong-doing. It may not have made him entirely popular with some police officers, but it takes a man of high integrity to hold the position for as long as he did.

He held the position of Bureau Chief until the Lykos Circus came to town and demoted him to Division Chief (because apparently in a Lykos world, they need more Rachel Palmers and less Don Smyths -- go figure.)

Don is unquestionably more qualified and would be the better judge, but he has an uphill battle due to Rachel's head start. She has the support of wealthy benefactor Carolyn Farb (has she ever even been to the CJC?) and Pat Lykos. Don's campaign is more of a Grassroots Movement from people who know the difference between a good candidate and a bad one. He needs all the help he can to win this campaign.

That being said, there is a Fundraiser for Don Smyth tomorrow (Wednesday, February 3rd) from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Armadillo Palace on Kirby in the Rice Village Area.

For those of us interested in good government, it's a "Can't Miss" Event.

Don Smyth is far and away the best candidate in this race.

Don Smyth runs for County Court at Law # 13

As mentioned in the comments section of my last post, there was a lot of excitement generated on Wednesday by the announcement of Division Chief Don Smyth's candidacy for Judge of County Court at Law # 13.

Don is currently the Division Chief of Division A in the Trial Bureau of the District Attorney's Office, and he has been a prosecutor with the Office for over 32 years. He has held pretty much every position that the Office has to offer, from Misdemeanor Three all the way to Bureau Chief. He was the former Division Chief of the Civil Rights Division, before becoming the Bureau Chief of the Governmental Affairs Bureau (which encompassed the Civil Rights and Public Integrity Divisions). He served as a Bureau Chief for 8 years. During his tenure as an Assistant District Attorney, he also served as the Division Chief of the Misdemeanor Division.

Don is a graduate of the University of Texas Law School, and also got his undergraduate degree from UT, as well. He has been married to his wife Lydia for 25 years, and they have 3 grown children. He has been active in the Boy Scouts since 1986, serving as a Scout Master and Scout Master Emeritus. He is also a long-time volunteer with the Emergency Aid Coalition, which he works on through his church.

Don is currently working on getting his petitions together for the race, and is trying to organize a get-together some time next week after work.

Anyone interested in helping out with Don's campaign, especially with the Petition Drive (they are due on January 4th), should contact Don's wife, Lydia, at l_smyth@att.net.

The Race for County Court at Law # 13

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

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

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

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

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

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