All four Republican candidates for the D.A.'s Office were on Michael Berry's show tonight on 740 KTRH.
I think I'm starting to become exhausted with this campaign, because I swear I'm starting to hear the same thing over and over again from everybody. There were no real surprises.
Kelly had the benefit/curse of going first, so she got the first word in, but every candidate after her had the benefit of questioning what she said. All in all, it didn't go too badly for her.
Jim was next, and did a fine job. I was a little bit surprised listening to him, because he was very aggressive in alleging that the Office was racist.
Lykos started out by criticizing Michael Berry because he had previously had Kelly on the show, and not her. I was really going to try to be a little nicer to Pat this evening, but damn, she gives me so much material, that it's hard to walk away from. I mean, seriously, the first words out of your mouth and you're blasting your host?!
Lykos also said something that really ticked me off. She claimed that prosecutors wilfully sponsored "false witnesses". That's a load of horse-pucky. Every lawyer who litigates (which, by the way, Lykos is now referring to herself as a litigator. What did she litigate?) knows that we call expert witnesses because they have to explain to the jury things we don't easily understand. I've done DNA cases, but I'll be damned if I understood the work that the witnesses did behind them. Although I could understand the DNA report, I couldn't have looked at a DNA Analysis and questioned the science behind it. For God's sake, that's why we CALL expert witnesses.
As usual, her argument was disingenuous.
And finally, poor old Doug Perry came on. The first question Berry asked him was "what separates you from the rest of the candidates?"
I half-expected his answer to be: "On average, about forty IQ points."
I know, that's mean, but from what I've been hearing lately, Mr. Perry hasn't exactly been the nicest guy on the campaign trail when the cameras aren't rolling.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sorry Lloyd
Lloyd Kelley's lawsuit to remove Chuck Rosenthal and Sheriff Tommy Thomas got tossed out of court today.
Lloyd must have been really disappointed, too, since he made time to go to the hearing before going to attend HIS CLIENTS' case on the civil rights law suit.
Now, call me crazy, but if I was the Ibarra brothers, at some point I would be asking Lloyd what's more important to him, their case, or grand standing on behalf of his friend, Clarence Bradford.
Lloyd must have been really disappointed, too, since he made time to go to the hearing before going to attend HIS CLIENTS' case on the civil rights law suit.
Now, call me crazy, but if I was the Ibarra brothers, at some point I would be asking Lloyd what's more important to him, their case, or grand standing on behalf of his friend, Clarence Bradford.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Snookems
About two days ago, I got a post from an Anonymous poster who was very much pro-Lykos on my HCCLA Makes a Stand article. The writer signed their name off as "Snookems". Since I get so many Anonymous posters on this, I went ahead and began referring to her as Snookems, and I didn't really think much of it. I posted everything that Snookems was writing me.
Last night, I wrote another post entitled The Robert Eckels Question, and my buddy Snookems posts again insinuating that all the ADA's jobs are in jeopardy by stating "Employees at will". In other words, Lykos could fire whoever the hell she wanted to if she became DA, because Texas is an "at will" State, when it comes to employment.
I will freely admit to baiting Snookems, when I replied, asking her if she was speaking for the Lykos campaign and admitting that Lykos would, in fact, fire very experienced and talented ADAs for being political enemies. The response I got in response to my "baiting" was as follows:
Snookems doesn't speak on behalf of the Lykos campaign. Snookems has only met Lykos once, many years ago. Snookems did vote for Lykos over Chucky 8 years ago.Snookems was a big Kelly fan, until Snookems, who is fond of the pastor at Lakeside, read the Lakeside I and II transcripts, which really can't be explained away in terms of strategy. Snookems thought all prosecutors were officers of the court, and that when something was said in response to a batson hearing, those statements were under oath.Snookems got disappointed at this.Snookems is disappointed that Kelly cannot acknowledge the racism in the office. Who uses "code words" for things like a defense holdout on a jury? No one does.Snookems has concerns about arrogance and business as usual at the office. Snookems thinks a strong leader without the good old boy and girl ties is needed to straighten things up in that office.Sometimes, the best leader of a law enforcement organization is not liked, but is feared.
Snookems has been doing this a whole lot longer than you.
Now, here's where things get interesting.
See, I know Pat Lykos from many years ago. I doubt she remembers me.
But I remember her.
More importantly, I remember the way she talks.
When I read the response written by "Snookems", the first thing that went through my mind was: "Holy cow, Snookems is Pat Lykos."
Fully realizing that I can tend to be a bit of a conspiracy addict, I didn't post anything accusing dear Snookems. I just pondered it. I spoke to a couple of people, and they agreed it sounded exactly like Lykos.
Before I could write anything, however, RonInHouston posted his comments stating that he thought that it was Lykos. For the record, I have no idea about who Ron is, and we have never met in person. Just in the blawgosphere, as Bennett calls it.
Is it Lykos writing as "Snookems"? I can't answer that definitively, but my gut instinct is telling me that it is. That's based on my prior dealings with her and, quite frankly, just the way she speaks.
So, assuming that Snookems is Lykos, I have a few things to say regarding her post:
#1 - It's Lakewood Church, not Lakeside. Kelly made a statement about them that she has subsequently apologized for. When is your apology coming for not allowing that poor attorney to wear his yarmulke in court? Or are apologies beneath you?
#2 - Congratulations on reading up on Machiavelli with your "better to be feared than loved" statement. That may have played well to the folks in Renaissance Italy, but in today's atmosphere, it seems rather, um, Stalin-esque.
#3 - talking about yourself in the 3rd person is kind of pathetic.
Last night, I wrote another post entitled The Robert Eckels Question, and my buddy Snookems posts again insinuating that all the ADA's jobs are in jeopardy by stating "Employees at will". In other words, Lykos could fire whoever the hell she wanted to if she became DA, because Texas is an "at will" State, when it comes to employment.
I will freely admit to baiting Snookems, when I replied, asking her if she was speaking for the Lykos campaign and admitting that Lykos would, in fact, fire very experienced and talented ADAs for being political enemies. The response I got in response to my "baiting" was as follows:
Snookems doesn't speak on behalf of the Lykos campaign. Snookems has only met Lykos once, many years ago. Snookems did vote for Lykos over Chucky 8 years ago.Snookems was a big Kelly fan, until Snookems, who is fond of the pastor at Lakeside, read the Lakeside I and II transcripts, which really can't be explained away in terms of strategy. Snookems thought all prosecutors were officers of the court, and that when something was said in response to a batson hearing, those statements were under oath.Snookems got disappointed at this.Snookems is disappointed that Kelly cannot acknowledge the racism in the office. Who uses "code words" for things like a defense holdout on a jury? No one does.Snookems has concerns about arrogance and business as usual at the office. Snookems thinks a strong leader without the good old boy and girl ties is needed to straighten things up in that office.Sometimes, the best leader of a law enforcement organization is not liked, but is feared.
Snookems has been doing this a whole lot longer than you.
Now, here's where things get interesting.
See, I know Pat Lykos from many years ago. I doubt she remembers me.
But I remember her.
More importantly, I remember the way she talks.
When I read the response written by "Snookems", the first thing that went through my mind was: "Holy cow, Snookems is Pat Lykos."
Fully realizing that I can tend to be a bit of a conspiracy addict, I didn't post anything accusing dear Snookems. I just pondered it. I spoke to a couple of people, and they agreed it sounded exactly like Lykos.
Before I could write anything, however, RonInHouston posted his comments stating that he thought that it was Lykos. For the record, I have no idea about who Ron is, and we have never met in person. Just in the blawgosphere, as Bennett calls it.
Is it Lykos writing as "Snookems"? I can't answer that definitively, but my gut instinct is telling me that it is. That's based on my prior dealings with her and, quite frankly, just the way she speaks.
So, assuming that Snookems is Lykos, I have a few things to say regarding her post:
#1 - It's Lakewood Church, not Lakeside. Kelly made a statement about them that she has subsequently apologized for. When is your apology coming for not allowing that poor attorney to wear his yarmulke in court? Or are apologies beneath you?
#2 - Congratulations on reading up on Machiavelli with your "better to be feared than loved" statement. That may have played well to the folks in Renaissance Italy, but in today's atmosphere, it seems rather, um, Stalin-esque.
#3 - talking about yourself in the 3rd person is kind of pathetic.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Speaking of the Lykos Campaign
I'm hearing more and more reports that the Lykos Camp is becoming more disorganized and desparate as we grow closer to March 4th.
I first noticed her signs of irritability at the Harris County Republicans meeting the Monday before last. She was clearly not amused when Kelly Siegler got a rousing ovation when introduced at the meeting.
At the debate on Tuesday, she seemed frustrated and angry every time other candidates spoke (although she managed to smile if the questions were posed to her).
After the meeting, she had a disasterous meeting with the organization of Parents of Murdered Children, where angry members confronted her about her plans to fire numerous experienced and veteran prosecutors. It resulted in her chewing out a member of the District Attorney's staff for "spreading that rumor" (which I find amusing, since she's been telling people on the campaign trail about all the firings she would do).
A group of Kelly Siegler signs in Baytown were recently taken down and replaced by Lykos signs by her supporters (which I've always considered to be one of the more silly and stupid of dirty campaign stunts).
At a recent political event, she refused to speak until after the representative of the Siegler campaign had gone first (even though that wasn't the agreed upon order). Apparently, she didn't want anyone to follow up after her speech and point out (yet again) that what she said lacked all substance.
And I hear that her money is running a little low.
Oh well, at least her appearance on HCCLA's Reasonable Doubt next week won't cost her anything. I wonder if she will have her supporters call in with pre-written questions like she did when she unsuccessfully ran for Texas Attorney General in 1994?
And yes, my Angry Posting Friend, I know you are going to blast me about how biased I am. However, I'm not making these stories up. If anyone would like to chime in with their favorite Lykos stories, the "Comments" area is wide open.
Hopefully, somebody out there will get the message about her.
I first noticed her signs of irritability at the Harris County Republicans meeting the Monday before last. She was clearly not amused when Kelly Siegler got a rousing ovation when introduced at the meeting.
At the debate on Tuesday, she seemed frustrated and angry every time other candidates spoke (although she managed to smile if the questions were posed to her).
After the meeting, she had a disasterous meeting with the organization of Parents of Murdered Children, where angry members confronted her about her plans to fire numerous experienced and veteran prosecutors. It resulted in her chewing out a member of the District Attorney's staff for "spreading that rumor" (which I find amusing, since she's been telling people on the campaign trail about all the firings she would do).
A group of Kelly Siegler signs in Baytown were recently taken down and replaced by Lykos signs by her supporters (which I've always considered to be one of the more silly and stupid of dirty campaign stunts).
At a recent political event, she refused to speak until after the representative of the Siegler campaign had gone first (even though that wasn't the agreed upon order). Apparently, she didn't want anyone to follow up after her speech and point out (yet again) that what she said lacked all substance.
And I hear that her money is running a little low.
Oh well, at least her appearance on HCCLA's Reasonable Doubt next week won't cost her anything. I wonder if she will have her supporters call in with pre-written questions like she did when she unsuccessfully ran for Texas Attorney General in 1994?
And yes, my Angry Posting Friend, I know you are going to blast me about how biased I am. However, I'm not making these stories up. If anyone would like to chime in with their favorite Lykos stories, the "Comments" area is wide open.
Hopefully, somebody out there will get the message about her.
The Robert Eckels Question
One of the questions I asked in a post below was whether or not the $25,000 donation from the "Robert Eckels Committee" meant that Eckels led a committee to raise money for Lykos or does it mean that people who donated their money to Eckels had it turned over to Pat Lykos (with or without their consent).
Nobody answered the question on the blog, so I reluctantly did a little investigating (loosely read: I asked somebody smarter than me).
Here's the deal, the money given to Pat Lykos from Eckels was money collected for his campaign.
And that's perfectly legal. Apparently, a campaign can use its funds however it wants to - even for um, ahem, uh, legal fees.
So, if you were using the list of candidates "donations" as a gauge for their popularity with the voting masses, you may want to recalculate when it comes to Lykos. If you take out the $25,000 donation from him, Kelly Siegler is the leading Republican donation earner.
In other words, Lykos didn't garner $25 grand from a lot of people who liked her. She garned it from one man -- Robert Eckels, who apparently liked her enough to give her money that people had given him.
I wonder how that makes the people who gave the money to him feel.
Nobody answered the question on the blog, so I reluctantly did a little investigating (loosely read: I asked somebody smarter than me).
Here's the deal, the money given to Pat Lykos from Eckels was money collected for his campaign.
And that's perfectly legal. Apparently, a campaign can use its funds however it wants to - even for um, ahem, uh, legal fees.
So, if you were using the list of candidates "donations" as a gauge for their popularity with the voting masses, you may want to recalculate when it comes to Lykos. If you take out the $25,000 donation from him, Kelly Siegler is the leading Republican donation earner.
In other words, Lykos didn't garner $25 grand from a lot of people who liked her. She garned it from one man -- Robert Eckels, who apparently liked her enough to give her money that people had given him.
I wonder how that makes the people who gave the money to him feel.
Across Party Lines
I'm no political scientist, and I'm certainly not real big on researching statistics like GritsforBreakfast does on his website. That being said, I couldn't help but take notice of what Jim Leitner said at the debate on Tuesday, and what RonInHouston posted on an earlier post.
The Democratic early voters are out-voting the Republican early voters at a staggering pace.
There are several explanations as to why, and your guess is as good as mine as to which one (if not all of them) is a factor.
Here are some considerations:
1. The Democratic Presidential primary is hotly contested by two extremely dynamic candidates who have "rock star status". Amazingly, Texas has become a make-or-break state, which unusual for this late in the game on all the primaries. On the other hand, the Republican Presidential primary is all-but-decided, and John McCain isn't in any real danger of losing the State to Mike Huckabee. The bottom line is that Democrat voters are much more likely to feel both a sense of urgency and importance in their Presidential voting.
2. This week, the early voting has ended at 4:30 p.m. every day, and tomorrow is the first weekend day that it will be available. Perhaps more Republicans are waiting for off-work hours to vote? (NOTE: I predict that this weekend, the Republican voters are going to pick up A LOT of steam and get out there and vote. If they don't do it this weekend, the Republican candidates need to start REALLY sweating).
3. The Conspiracy Theory: I'm not advocating this one, but there is a possibility that some of the die hard Republicans are crossing party lines to vote in the Democrats' party in order to advocate for the weaker Democratic Candidate who will ultimately face McCain in November.
Either way, I don't think that our Republican Judges in the CJC should start packing up their offices just yet. We are only four days into early voting, and the peak times for it haven't gotten here quite yet.
It doesn't necesarrily mean a sweep in November.
Besides, if the Republicans can manage to get a good candidate on the ballot for District Attorney, Clarence Bradford will become the poster child for arguing that straight-ticket voting would be a really bad idea.
There are also a lot of Democratic candidates who are wildly unqualified for the judicial benches that they are seeking (loosely read "Lloyd Oliver"). Hopefully the faithful Dems will seriously consider what they are voting for if they vote straight-ticket in November.
The Democratic early voters are out-voting the Republican early voters at a staggering pace.
There are several explanations as to why, and your guess is as good as mine as to which one (if not all of them) is a factor.
Here are some considerations:
1. The Democratic Presidential primary is hotly contested by two extremely dynamic candidates who have "rock star status". Amazingly, Texas has become a make-or-break state, which unusual for this late in the game on all the primaries. On the other hand, the Republican Presidential primary is all-but-decided, and John McCain isn't in any real danger of losing the State to Mike Huckabee. The bottom line is that Democrat voters are much more likely to feel both a sense of urgency and importance in their Presidential voting.
2. This week, the early voting has ended at 4:30 p.m. every day, and tomorrow is the first weekend day that it will be available. Perhaps more Republicans are waiting for off-work hours to vote? (NOTE: I predict that this weekend, the Republican voters are going to pick up A LOT of steam and get out there and vote. If they don't do it this weekend, the Republican candidates need to start REALLY sweating).
3. The Conspiracy Theory: I'm not advocating this one, but there is a possibility that some of the die hard Republicans are crossing party lines to vote in the Democrats' party in order to advocate for the weaker Democratic Candidate who will ultimately face McCain in November.
Either way, I don't think that our Republican Judges in the CJC should start packing up their offices just yet. We are only four days into early voting, and the peak times for it haven't gotten here quite yet.
It doesn't necesarrily mean a sweep in November.
Besides, if the Republicans can manage to get a good candidate on the ballot for District Attorney, Clarence Bradford will become the poster child for arguing that straight-ticket voting would be a really bad idea.
There are also a lot of Democratic candidates who are wildly unqualified for the judicial benches that they are seeking (loosely read "Lloyd Oliver"). Hopefully the faithful Dems will seriously consider what they are voting for if they vote straight-ticket in November.
Commentating
I still haven't figured out what the issue is with my comments coming through. I'm supposed to get e-mail notifications every time I get a new comment on a page. I can approve the comment over the e-mail. In addition to that, I can also approve the comments if I log onto the "Comment Moderation" Page of the website.
For some reason, there are e-mails showing up in the Comment Moderation page that I'm not getting e-mail notifications for.
What does this mean to you? Probably nothing.
Just consider it my long-winded explanation of why some of the comments you are posting are taking a long time to show up on the website.
Sorry about that.
For some reason, there are e-mails showing up in the Comment Moderation page that I'm not getting e-mail notifications for.
What does this mean to you? Probably nothing.
Just consider it my long-winded explanation of why some of the comments you are posting are taking a long time to show up on the website.
Sorry about that.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Deputy Harry Thielepape
Harris County Constable Precinct 6 Deputy Harry Thielepape died yesterday from injuries he sustained during a gunbattle with a suspect several weeks ago.
I had met Deputy Thielepape at D.A. intake on several occasions, although I can't say that I knew him well. In my opinion, he was a dedicated and very active police officer who was doing every thing he could to help his community.
My heart goes out to his family, friends, and his fellow Deputy Constables at Precinct Six.
I had met Deputy Thielepape at D.A. intake on several occasions, although I can't say that I knew him well. In my opinion, he was a dedicated and very active police officer who was doing every thing he could to help his community.
My heart goes out to his family, friends, and his fellow Deputy Constables at Precinct Six.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
HCCLA Makes a Stand
The Chronicle is reporting that the Harris County Criminal Lawyer's Association has sent a letter to Governor Perry requesting that a Special Prosecutor be assigned to investigate Chuck Rosenthal; and that he go ahead and appoint Chuck's replacement.
Although I like the principled ideals behind the request, I'm not too optimistic about Perry paying any attention to it. Especially not in regards to a quick appointment for the replacement.
My prediction is that Perry will ultimately appoint the winner of the Republican Primary after it is decided, so that person can run against Clarence Bradford, as an incumbant. There's no political incentive for him to do otherwise, actually. It doesn't benefit him. It doesn't benefit the Republican Party.
And Bert has been the "acting D.A." for three days now, and he has still yet to accidentally burn down the building. He's a steady hand who can hold things together until the governor gets around to making an appointment.
Another reason I'm not optimistic about the Governor moving too quickly on an appointment is my memory of how long the 228th, the 183rd, and the 178th sat open without him appointing anyone.
As to the issue of the Special Prosecutor to look into Rosenthal's actions, that's a little different. I'm not certain that the governor was the right person to send that particular request to.
It seems to me (if memory serves me), that the District Court judges have always been the one who appointed a special prosecutor if an Assistant District Attorney was accused of criminal wrongdoing. Why would that be different if it was the elected?
I'm just curious.
Although I like the principled ideals behind the request, I'm not too optimistic about Perry paying any attention to it. Especially not in regards to a quick appointment for the replacement.
My prediction is that Perry will ultimately appoint the winner of the Republican Primary after it is decided, so that person can run against Clarence Bradford, as an incumbant. There's no political incentive for him to do otherwise, actually. It doesn't benefit him. It doesn't benefit the Republican Party.
And Bert has been the "acting D.A." for three days now, and he has still yet to accidentally burn down the building. He's a steady hand who can hold things together until the governor gets around to making an appointment.
Another reason I'm not optimistic about the Governor moving too quickly on an appointment is my memory of how long the 228th, the 183rd, and the 178th sat open without him appointing anyone.
As to the issue of the Special Prosecutor to look into Rosenthal's actions, that's a little different. I'm not certain that the governor was the right person to send that particular request to.
It seems to me (if memory serves me), that the District Court judges have always been the one who appointed a special prosecutor if an Assistant District Attorney was accused of criminal wrongdoing. Why would that be different if it was the elected?
I'm just curious.
Lykos and Law Enforcement
Alan Bernstein reminded me in his article covering the debate this morning about how Lykos shunned the endorsement of Law Enforcement so she could say that justice plays no favorites (or some similar sounding political blah-blah slogan).
And yet, she then turns around and continuously refers to the District Attorney's position as the "Top Law Enforcement Position in the County". If you didn't watch the debate, trust me, she made that reference repeatedly.
Is there a gap in logic here? She doesn't want the backing of law enforcement because she doesn't want to have the appearance of favoring law enforcement, yet she refers to the position she seeks as the Top Law Enforcement Position. Well, if that's the case, wouldn't she want the endorsement of the police agencies that she will, uh, be "on top of"? (NOTE: Yes, I know the use of the phrase "on top of" will open the door to comments about Kelly Siegler's demonstration during the Susan Wright trial. Go ahead.)
Pat Lykos worked for HPD and thus in law enforcement.
Their lack of endorsements for her might just illustrate that cops liked her in law enforcement about as well as attorneys liked her around the courthouse.
And as to her "not wanting their endorsement"?
Ever heard the fable about the sour grapes?
And yet, she then turns around and continuously refers to the District Attorney's position as the "Top Law Enforcement Position in the County". If you didn't watch the debate, trust me, she made that reference repeatedly.
Is there a gap in logic here? She doesn't want the backing of law enforcement because she doesn't want to have the appearance of favoring law enforcement, yet she refers to the position she seeks as the Top Law Enforcement Position. Well, if that's the case, wouldn't she want the endorsement of the police agencies that she will, uh, be "on top of"? (NOTE: Yes, I know the use of the phrase "on top of" will open the door to comments about Kelly Siegler's demonstration during the Susan Wright trial. Go ahead.)
Pat Lykos worked for HPD and thus in law enforcement.
Their lack of endorsements for her might just illustrate that cops liked her in law enforcement about as well as attorneys liked her around the courthouse.
And as to her "not wanting their endorsement"?
Ever heard the fable about the sour grapes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
I have been extremely fortunate in my 54 years of life to have never suddenly and unexpectedly lost a person I was close with. That all cha... -
One of the types of cases that bothered me tremendously when I was a Prosecutor and continues to bother me as a Defense Attorney is what are...
-
True confession time. I voted for Kim Ogg. It wasn't an easy decision. I had a few reservations about some of Kim's portrayals ...