Roger Bridgwater and Regrettable Words

Every morning when I wake up, I grab my phone off the bedside table and immediately scroll through our Nation's most important news source:  Facebook.  I'm a little embarrassed to admit it, but that's pretty much how I start every day.  I consider it a quick debriefing on how everything is going in my friends' lives.

This morning, as I was scrolling through the morning feed, I saw one of those annoying ads in the midst of puppy photos and political rantings.  It was an ad for Roger Bridgwater's candidacy for Harris County Court at Law # 15.

I was drawn to the partial quote that appeared above the logo.  

"There was actually something very Judicial about Roger Bridgwater long before he became . . . "

Something sounded familiar about that quote -- especially the unnecessary use of the word "actually."

Oh yeah.  That quote came from me.

I did some quick research and sure enough, I had paid Roger that compliment back in October of 2008 when he was running for re-election against then-candidate-later-Judge David Mendoza for the 178th.

I'm not one to deny words that I've said in the past, but I was pretty taken aback to see old Roger using a ten-year-old quote from me as an implied current endorsement.  Anyone who has read this blog with any regularity over the past ten years knows that I'm not a fan of his any longer.  Although I said those words about him back then, my opinions of Bridgwater evolved as I watched him in action after he lost the bench.

By 2009, after his highly publicized attack on senior Bureau Chief Donna Goode, I wrote "the Roger Bridgwater I used to know ain't there anymore."  For a quick refresher on that incident, Roger bristled at Donna questioning his decision to revoke an invitation to speak for Rusty Hardin, and he subsequently had her investigated by the Disciplinary Committee for "insubordination."   He then had her locked out of her office computer, which ultimately led to her resigning from the Office.

Then there was the time that Roger gave advice to a friend of his who was on a capital murder jury panel, which led to the whole trial having to be started over.  That's when I realized that not only was Roger kind of a power-hungry narcissist, he was also kind of dumb.

Oh, and although I never blogged about it, I heard from a potential client one time that Roger was a family friend and he had counseled them against hiring me.

So, it should be no small wonder that in the multitude of times that Roger has attempted to be elected to a bench, I've supported his opponent -- in both the primary and the general election.  As a side note, I went on to become a tremendous fan of Judge David Mendoza, although I had not known him prior to his taking the bench in 2009.  He was a great judge and a great man.

I think that we've all stated opinions that later changed due to subsequent events, and this is certainly not the first time this has happened to me.  The phrases "playing high school football in the summer in Texas sounds fun," "I don't like the taste of beer," and "I do" come to mind.

But Roger utilizing something that I said in 2008 on his 2018 campaign website is misleading and dishonest.

He knows damn good and well that I don't support him or his candidacy, and he's deliberately misleading people to believe otherwise.  The Catch-22 of the situation is that if you know me well enough to think that who I endorse actually matters, then you probably know me well enough to know that I would never support Roger Bridgwater for Judge.

So, in case there is any questions about my feelings in the 2018 election, let me be clear:  I don't think Roger Bridgwater would make a good judge.  His actions since 2008 have led me to believe he is arrogant, dishonest, and not that bright.  Otherwise, he wouldn't be listing me as an endorser.

I'm voting for Tonya Jones in the race for County Court at Law # 15.  And I approve that message.

Stupid Is As Roger Does

Never let it be said that it is easy to keep Former Gang-Who-Couldn't-Shoot-Straight Team Leader Roger Bridgwater down.

Despite having his tenure as Bureau Chief cut short by the un-electing of Pat Lykos last year and being passed over for an appointment to a judicial bench this year, Mr. Bridgwater has still found a way to interfere with the smooth administration of justice.

Brian Rogers is reporting in this article tonight that a Capital Murder jury trial pending in the 339th District Court will have to start over from scratch due to advice given to a juror by Roger.  In his article, Brian reports that a selected juror was concerned about serving on such a serious case as a Capital Murder.  That juror decided to seek some wisdom from his friend -- former prosecutor and former judge Roger Bridgwater.

This isn't an unusual phenomenon, actually.  Our friends outside the legal world routinely give criminal law practitioners a call whenever our worlds collide.  Family members always mention it when they have jury duty.  It's kind of like when you meet somebody from out of state and you have to mention to them people that you know from their state.

Most lawyers know that other than saying "obey your jury summons," there isn't anything else that we should add to the advice we give a prospective juror.  That applies even more so if a person who has actually been elected to serve as a juror calls us.

So when Bridgwater's juror friend called him up to express his concerns about serving, what Roger should have said (to paraphrase Mike Birbiglia) . . . was nothing.

Instead, Roger apparently gave him some very detailed advice that resulted in the juror drafting a letter to the judge and then alarming his fellow jurors to the degree that they all signed the letter as well.  As a result, a mistrial had to be declared and the trial has to start over completely.

Good job, Roger.

At first glance, this would seemingly be something to just shrug off as poor decision-making on Bridgwater's part.  But let's look at it a little further.  Bridgwater is a former District Court judge.  Even though he only served briefly after being appointed by Governor Perry, he still knew the rules of evidence and the Code of Criminal Procedure.  One can only imagine what his reaction would have been if he had been the presiding judge over a Capital trial where some uninvolved lawyer tampered with one of his jurors.

Bridgwater isn't exactly known for his cool, judicial temperament and I feel pretty comfortable in guessing that there would have been hell to pay.

Furthermore, up until the end of 2012, Bridgwater was actually a party to this case as a representative of the Harris County District Attorney's Office.  His upper-administration role would have granted him knowledge of all pending Capital murder cases.  His giving instructions to a selected juror on the case should be regarded no differently than if an active prosecutor were to have given the advice.

Obviously, I don't have much respect for Roger Bridgwater, but his actions surprise even me.  Viewed under the most favorable of circumstances, he made a very stupid mistake that caused a Capital Murder case to have to be started over again from scratch.

In a less charitable view, he knowingly undermined the Criminal Justice process.

Brad Hart and the 248th Appointment

As I noted in my election recap last Wednesday, one of the worst kept secrets in the CJC at the moment is that Judge Joan Campbell is planning on retiring from the 248th District Court bench no later than the end of the year. Obviously, her retirement from the Bench necessitates that Governor Perry appoint a replacement.

The field of candidates that the Governor will select from depends on who puts in to be considered.  As of this morning, I understand that Brad Hart and Robert Summerlin have publicly stated they are going to put in for the 248th.  An e-mail that Roger Bridgwater sent to his fellow judicial candidates seemed to indicate that he would be putting in for it (and if you read between the lines, Roger seems to think he'll be getting the appointment easily).

Others may put in for it, as well; however, the three Republican candidates who ran in the 2012 election are probably the most prime candidates.  If I hear of others putting in their names, I'll let you know.

Of the three potential candidates now, here are my thoughts:

Roger Bridgwater
Bridgwater is the former Judge of the 178th District Court, where he was appointed by Governor Perry prior to the 2008 election.  As we all know, the 2008 election did not go well for him, and he lost his bench to Judge David Mendoza that November.

As a close personal friend of Pat Lykos, Bridgwater was hired as a Bureau Chief at the District Attorney's Office, where he proceeded to heavily damage his reputation with those who had known him previously.  He was notorious as the architect of the controversial (and not-so-legal) DIVERT program, and he alienated his co-workers with an ill-advised confrontation with highly-respected Bureau Chief Donna Goode.

ANALYSIS:  If part of the Republican mantra is that we don't like Judges who legislate from the Bench, then Bridgwater has got a lot of explaining to do about his DIVERT program.  Although the program was popular with members of the Defense Bar, it basically gave first time DWI offenders a chance for a "do over."  That can't sit well with Governor Perry, who is going to want a candidate that follows Republican ideals and hasn't done anything that has ticked off Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Additionally, his inexcusable attack on Donna Goode showed a lack of judicial temperament that should leave all attorneys hiding under their desks.  He abused his power in accusing her of insubordination and he did everything in his power to ruin her distinguished career at the Harris County District Attorney's Office.  Fortunately, Donna landed in a better place as First Assistant in Galveston County.

Also, I'm sure Governor Perry noticed that Bridgwater lost his election by 25,623 votes in 2012.  I believe that is the largest margin of defeat by any of the Republican Judicial candidates.

Roger Bridgwater doesn't appear to be electable -- and with good reason.

Robert Summerlin
Summerlin is a former prosecutor who started at the D.A.'s Office when I did.  As I've mentioned before we were once pretty good friends.  He left the Office shortly after becoming a Felony Two and went into private practice for a few civil firms.  He reappeared in the criminal realm a couple of years ago (as a defense attorney) and then almost immediately announced his candidacy for judge.  He has close ties to Jared Woodfill who unsuccessfully pushed forward Summerlin's candidacy. He lost to incumbent Ruben Guerrero by 8,919 votes.

ANALYSIS:  Summerlin can correctly point out that of the three candidates listed here, he had the most votes in the General Election.  However, that isn't saying much when you take into account the fact that his opponent wasn't all that popular to begin with.  If you couple that with the fact that all of the Jared Woodfill/Gary Polland-supported candidates faired extremely poorly in the criminal races, Summerlin's political influence tends to diminish.  From a practical standpoint, Summerlin never tried any serious cases as a prosecutor nor as a defense attorney that would give him the experience to be a Criminal District Court Judge. His recent return to the Criminal Law realm seems like a disingenuous attempt to merely gain some minor credentials before becoming a judge. Additionally, his demeanor as a prosecutor did not go over well with many of his female peers, who greatly question his potential judicial temperament.

Brad Hart
Brad Hart is a Felony District Court Chief prosecutor who is currently assigned to the elite Special Crimes Bureau of the District Attorney's Office.  Many moons ago, he actually served as one of my (and Robert Summerlin's) first supervising chiefs.  He has the well earned reputation of a prosecutor with the highest integrity and intelligence.  He was supported by not just prosecutors, but defense attorneys as well during his run for the 339th District Court.  He is known for his calm demeanor, open and fair-mindedness, and solid judgment by everyone he deals with.  He is a loyal member of the Republican Party who worked hard to do everything he could for the party during the 2012 races.

ANALYSIS:  Hart's loss to incumbent Judge Maria Jackson was devastating to his friends, family and supporters who knew what an outstanding judge he would make.  It was also stunning.  His hard work and devotion to his campaign had helped so many other Republican candidates who were running alongside him.  Unfortunately, Judge Jackson's groundswell of support from her days as a Municipal Court judge in Houston brought an unanticipated result in the General Election.  None of that reflects poorly on Hart.

While Bridgwater and Summerlin bring a significant amount of baggage to the table, Hart has nothing short of a sterling reputation.  Based on qualifications alone, he should be the clear choice for the appointment.  Additionally, he is an active and tireless campaigner who would work hard to make the Republican Party better in every way possible.

Brad Hart is the best choice for the appointment.  He needs to be a Judge.  The Criminal Justice System needs him to be a Judge.

If you would like to have your voice heard on the appointment process, take a few minutes out of your day and write an actual letter referencing the 248th District Court Judge Appointment.  You can send it to:

Governor Rick Perry
Appointments Staff
1100 San Jacinto
Austin, Texas 78701

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.

The Judges' Club

The Houston Chronicle is reporting this afternoon in this article that all charges have been dismissed against Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina's wife, Francisca Medina, in relation to arson charges which she was indicted on last year.

Now for those of you who don't recall, the indictment against Mrs. Medina stemmed out of the "Runaway Grand Jury" that had indicted both Mrs. Medina and Justice Medina despite the fact that prosecutors were not seeking an indictment at that time. If you recall, then-prosecutor Vic Wisner got lambasted (extremely unfairly) over the actions of the Grand Jurors (whom he could not control). I still believe that Vic's association with the Medina case (and the fact that Medina is a Republican) is what got him his walking papers from "rock solid" Republican "standard bearer" Pat Lykos when she took over in January.

Vic Wisner has got more integrity and trial talent in his little finger than the entirety of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight put together, so I can't see any other reason why Snookems and the Davidians wouldn't have kept him.

But I digress.

I'm not writing about the merits of Mrs. Medina's case, because I don't know anything about them. Cases get dismissed every day in Harris County with no newsworthy ramifications. I find nothing unusual about that whatsoever.

What I do find unusual, however, is the fact that Lykos and the Gang tried to slide one past the media and do the dismissal as quietly as possible. Charges against Mrs. Medina were dismissed yesterday, but it took the media until today to find out after somebody, somewhere apparently leaked the information.

Now, keep in mind that the Lykos Administration is so enthusiastic about tooting their own horn that they make Louis Armstrong look like a tone-deaf asthmatic. If past behavior were to be any indicator, it would seem that this would be a prime opportunity to the Republicans' favorite Golden Girl to be proudly announcing how she had "righted yet another wrong of the Rosenthal Administration".

But not so with this case. Perhaps Lykos wanted to keep it quiet so that there wouldn't be too much attention to the fact that she was dismissing a case against a fellow Republican judge's wife. Whether the dismissal be completely justified or complete cronyism, it certainly would violate Prong One of the Office's motto of "Look Good, Think Smart, and Win".

Lykos' fondness for judges and doing them solids is nothing unusual. Hell, just from her upper echelons of former-judges Hannah Chow and Roger Bridgwater, you could tell that she was fostering her own de facto Judicial Retirement system for herself and her buddies.

Additionally, she has been showing some extreme deference to the cases of judges accused of crimes under her Administration.

Again, while I'm not commenting on the facts of either the case against Judges Woody Densen or Don Jackson, I again find it interesting that the Gang didn't file charges on either one of them directly -- they presented the cases to Grand Juries to make them do the dirty work.

NOTE: For those of you out of the Criminal Justice System, the vast vast vast majority of all criminal cases in Harris County are filed when the crimes are alleged to have been committed. A person can be charged with the finding of Probable Cause by a Magistrate. It is only a very rare minority of cases that are actually taken "Direct to Grand Jury". Sometimes it is because of the fact that cases need some research with witnesses brought before them. Other times, it is because the case is such a toss up that prosecutors really aren't sure if the case would survive at trial.

But other times it is because a prosecutor (or elected D.A.) doesn't want to be the one directly responsible for the Indictment, or lack thereof. It's kind of the legal equivalent of avoiding getting any blood on your hands.

In the case of Judge Densen, my understanding is that the complaint of Criminal Mischief had been made against him a long time before there was any action on the case. It was only after the Complainants in the case had turned over their surveillance video of the crime to the media that Lykos had her prosecutors take the case into Grand Jury.

Republicans have often been accused of being the champions of the Good Old Boy Network, and Lykos has certainly lived up to that billing in her eight months at the helm.

But apparently, there's something even better than being a member of the Good Old Boy Network when it comes to Patsy.

That's being a member of Pat Lykos' Judges' Club.

Bad Boys Breaking Bad

In the wake of Pat Lykos' election, Harris County prosecutors were nervously waiting to see how the Office would be structured on January 1st, 2009. Obviously the first thought on most people's minds was whether or not their job was safe. The next thought was curiosity over who she would be bringing in as her upper-administration.

Jim Leitner was obviously going to be the First Assistant. Although he had lost the trust and respect of many of the ADAs when he endorsed Lykos (after he and Clint Greenwood had sworn up and down that would never happen), there was actually a little relief to hear that Jim would be in the Upper Admin. The thought being that he would provide some calm advice and stability during those moments where Lykos was letting her infamous temper flare up.

When Roger Bridgwater lost the election for the 178th bench, and was named as part of Team Lykos, I was glad to hear it. I had always liked Roger as a defense attorney and had been very happy for him when he had been appointed judge. I thought Lykos was making a great call by bringing him on.

I (and a lot of others) thought that if anything was going to make the next four years survivable with a crazy political hack, it would be having the calm and guiding force of these two men.

Good God, did we miss the mark on that prediction.'

Over the past six months, Jim Leitner and Roger Bridgwater have transitioned from the spineless hatchetmen to Official Administration Apologists to downright Grade-A Bullies.

Jim was the first to fully embrace his Napoleonic complex, as he first decided he would break bad and just verbally eviscerate Rifi Newaz and Mark Donnelly after the Batson debacle. Some would think that a good administrator might have actually given them the benefit of letting them explain themselves, but not Big Jimmy Leitner. Of course, in all fairness, I guess he was under a deadline to chew them out since Lykos was in the next room calling the Chronicle about what was happening.

He's continued his "tough guy" image by doing a lot of shooting first and asking questions later. Demanding explanations on perceived wrongs rather than asking what happened from his troops. As one prosecutor mentioned to me, "there's a presumption that you have done something wrong and he acts like he is looking for any reason to fire you."

There have been at least two occasions that I'm aware of where Leitner has tried to play a diminutive Clint Eastwood tough guy on younger prosecutors for actions that they had carried out because he told them to.

But the bottom line is that Leitner has become little more than Lykos' chief thug.

What was more surprising to me, personally, was that former-judge Roger Bridgwater has now apparently decided to get into the act.

I will freely admit that I used to be a big fan of Roger's. I thought better of him.

I was wrong.

His behavior has become as bizarre and erratic as the rest of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight. Whether it be his officially revoking an invitation to Rusty Hardin to speak at an in-house CLE (yeah, that Rusty Hardin guy. What the hell does he know about trying a case?), or trying to push the moronic DWI Diversion Program off on the general public, the Roger Bridgwater I used to know ain't there anymore.

But Roger hit his all-time low yesterday.

During yesterday morning's weekly "Show and Tell" meeting (which is a regular update meeting attended by all Division chiefs, Bureau Chiefs and the Elected D.A.), he apparently went completely off the deep end. After being questioned on his rationale on decisions about Rusty Hardin, the diversion program, and the fact that more people learn about their Administration decisions from the paper than from the administrators, Bridgwater lashed out at none other than Donna Goode.

Now, before reading on, keep in mind that Donna Goode and I aren't exactly best friends. Although I liked her and respected her during my time at the Office, we were never particularly close nor did we work on any cases together. Earlier this year, she referred to the blog as being "toxic" (which actually cracked me up). I don't dislike her, but I doubt we will be going bowling any time soon.

But whether I'm friends with Donna or not, I respect her. She's a good lawyer and prosecutor who has devoted somewhere in the ballpark of 30 years to the Harris County District Attorney's Office. She was a Division Chief when I started with the Office, and prior to this morning, she was the Bureau Chief of Special Crimes (the position held by Kelly Siegler when Kelly left the Office).

After having the audacity to question Roger on some very valid questions regarding how he was running his Division, Roger blew up on her and some others in the room. He completely lost his cool and went after a lady who has worked there, literally, over 50 times longer than he has. He did his best to humiliate her in front of everyone in the room.

But he didn't stop there.

When the meeting was over, he decided to file a complaint against Donna with the Disciplinary Committee for her remarks during "Show and Tell".

The complaint he made against her? Insubordination.

Now, if you are keeping score at home, two questions should be coming to mind.

1. Um, when did the Office get a Disciplinary Committee? I thought if somebody did something bad that Lykos just called the Chronicle.
2. How exactly could Donna be "insubordinate" to Bridgwater when they are both Bureau Chiefs?

Well, I don't know the answer to Question # 2, but apparently since Lykos shot her mouth off on the Batson debacle, they have developed a Disciplinary Committee.

Guess who is on it! Well, that would be Patsy Lykos, Jim Leitner, Hannah Chow, John Barnhill, and um, oh yeah, Roger Bridgwater. Yes, the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight has their own hit squad, and it is pretty much the entirety of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight.

As an added insult, somebody within the Gang decided to have Donna remotely locked out of utilizing her county computer. Jimmy Leitner was kind enough to offer Donna his computer if she would like to type a response to Bridgwater's complaint. She declined.

So this morning, Donna Goode, a career prosecutor took her retirement and left the building as a prosecutor for one last time. It was pretty much the only move left to her by the incestuous and low-rent Gang.

She was able to walk out of the CJC with class and with her head held high. I know she and I didn't always see eye to eye, but I wish her well, and I respect the hell out of her for leaving because of her principles.

Perhaps the D.A.'s Office could bring her back to give a CLE on character. Nah, Roger would rescind the invite.

So, today my opinion of Donna Goode has skyrocketed, while my opinion of Leitner and Bridgwater has pretty much bottomed out.

They are both, unquestionably bullies.

When Craig Goodhart got his notice of termination from Leitner and Bridgwater, he told them he was ashamed of them both. I think Craig was just slightly off on that assessment. Jim and Roger are who they are. They only have to answer to themselves at the end of the day, I suppose. They are more than welcome to be the bad guys.

I'm more ashamed of myself for ever thinking that either one of them were ever good guys.