Looks like the 185th Grand Jury is not letting go of their investigation any time soon. Today, multiple subpoenas went out to both current and former-Harris County Assistant District Attorneys, ordering their appearance before the Grand Jury.
Yes, I do have the names of who got subpoenaed, but I'm not publishing them. If you name them in the comments, I'm not publishing them, either.
It is worth pointing out that just because they were subpoenaed in no way means that they are targets of the investigation. But the information they may or may not have could prove to be very interesting.
I do hope that those ADAs who are getting subpoenaed know better than to rely on HCDA General Counsel to represent them. Lykos and her Gang don't exactly have the best track record of standing by their people if it conflicts with their own interests.
51 comments:
you hear is a cadre of Lykosites simultaneously deucing their drawers.....
Interesting listing in the October 25th Commissioners Court's agenda under travel and training out of state: one employee of the HCDA Office for the National District Attorney's Drug Summit in Honolulu, Hawaii October 26 through October 31 for the very reasonable cost of $1770. After watching her on Channel 13 Lykos clearly needs a vacation. You would think she should attend baby prosecutor's school instead of wasting money on attending a drug summit in Hawaii.....oh I am sorry I just realized what I was saying. Maybe people will now pay attention to what the current DA does and we can say aloha/goodbye to Lykos.
Hawaii????????????
I want to go!
Love,
Roger
Murray-----Many current and former prosecutors have and are lawyering up.Murray-----you know most of them=There are some major problems floating at 1201.The State bar is also investigating actions of some of the people.
Anonymous 12:28, you are very observant. However, I watched Commissioner's Court this morning and that item was withdrawn. So, no vacation in Hawaii.
What would be nice is if Harris County had to extradite her from Hawaii...
The item you mention was withdrawn at Court today. Maybe the person planning the trip received a subpeona? Not sure
Yall need to leave Roger alone. He is trying to work on his campaign for Judge. He cant be bothered with prosecutor business.
Hawaii????????????
Patsy: Get your tan on, girl!
If something goes down while you are gone, we got your back.
P.S. Urban Retreat is offering a special on bikini waxes.
In true fashion, she will circle her wagons behind closed doors and gather together her "employees" (including those who were called to grand Jury) to put together a story that will dilute the truth. Any bets on who her scapegoat / fall guy (or gal) will be?
Harris County GOP needs a new face for this position before December 31, the deadline to file for the primary.
Well, now that there are real problems, she'll lay off on those well-meaning ADAs who are just doing their jobs, right? Right? Right???
I can't even express how happy I am that someone finally pushed back on this woman. I almost want to cry. For us in the trenches, this is amazing.
I believe the final date to file has been moved up and may be December 2.
I was out of town when news broke of Chuck Rosenthal's fall. I remember the feelings I had at the time. I'm wondering if Pat Lykos, and her penchant for sticking it to those she doesn't like (and her extreme cronyism, on the flip side), are going to be her fall?
Maybe the grand jury should investigate how she's spent the county budget and to whom she has given professional favors since she's been in office.
Regardless, wherever they dig, they're going to find loads of dirt on that woman!
anon 2:04 eeewwww
What would be nice is if Harris County had to extradite her from Hawaii...
Rule of Law: noun
The principle that all people are subject to and accountable to law that is farily applied and enforced.
How many times did this woman utter that statement on campaign trail?
Memo to you ma'am: This also applies to you and your duty to turn over all Brady evidence.
Anyone intending to file in the Harris County District Attorney race must do so between November 12and December 12, 2011 inclusive....so bring it on.
I understand that Kelly Siegler is getting her paperwork in order and WILL file to run for Harris County District Attorney.
So for all the Kelly haters you can start complaining and back stabbing her now......she's taken it before.
I was wondering if Pat is drinking Jack Daniels and coke again?
Rumor has it this may be spreading further than just the DUI issues, to other corruption in 1201 and the DA's PID...
This is now front page on the Chron website. I didn't think I'd see this day before the election. GO CHRON! This might just do it. That Nigerian oopsie couldn't do it, everyone quitting couldn't do it, but misdemeanor DWI could do it. Who knew?
I'd take Lord Voldemort over Patsy.
I understand no cases were presented to the 185th Grand Jury all of last week. So how long has this investigation been going on? If no cases were presented all of last week, then is this investigation the only thing this Grand Jury is dealing with? Why wouldn't Lykos continue presenting the straight forward cases to this Grand Jury? So many questions and hopefully we will get so many answers.
The ironic A-Z similarities shared by current Harris County DA Pat Lykos and the disgraced former Harris County DA, Charles "Chuck" Rosenthal are chilling:
-A scandal at the time of filing for re-election
-Blame others for personal misjudgement
-Cavalier above the law arrogance
-Drug and/or alcohol induced impaired behavior while in the course and scope of employment
-Ego precluded the ability to recognize the true gravity of inevitable consequences
-Failure to respond to allegations of inpropriety in a timely,appropriate and cohesive fashion
-Government corruption personified
-Have no respect for the support staff in time of personal strife
-Idiotic priorities
-Jeopardize the safety of Harris County citizens when it interferes with self interest
-Killed the respect of the Harris County District Attorney's Office
-Lie with impunity
-Make excuses for personal failure
-Never accept responsibility
-Omit any facts that would expose personal culpability
-Perjury rules do not apply to the sitting DA
-Quash the truth seekers at will
-Rule of Law is merely a campaign slogan
-Sucks to be a HCADA
-Take one for the team does not apply to the boss
-Under the bus is where friends, family and co-workers belong
-Vice is nice
-Whores
-XXX
-Yes we have no ADAs today
-Zee plane boss zee plane is crashing
And there we fucking have it boys and girls!!!
What is scary is that one elected official can whisper in the ear of another at Commissioners Court,and bammo! the contract is voted out.
How many other back room deals have been cut over at Preston Street?
It is safe to assume that Lykos will not be the next DA. It is also safe to assume that those who sacrificed the their integrtity to promote should be gone. I think it is fair to say that the following are in this group:
JIm Leitner, Hanna Chow, Clint Greenwood, Roger, Rachel Palmer, John Jordan, Lance Long, Joni Vollman, Michelle Hartman, the entire 6th floor, Steve Baldassano, Bill Exley, Colleen Barnett, Anna Emmons, etc. They all need to go, They were all smart enough to understand who they were associating with ,,
Someone needs to go look at the travel request that was pulled because Lykos is in Hawaii.
I thought you were not going to "publish names."
Does that only include people you like and/or approve?
She went to Hawaii. It was never taken off the CC docket: http://www.hctx.net/agenda/2011/10-25-11ag.pdf
Later bitches!!!!!!!!!!
Anon 6:56 a.m.,
I said that I wouldn't publish the names of the people who were subpoenaed, and I haven't and I won't. If you are referring to the list of names from Anon 12:53 a.m., none of them are on the subpoena lists that I am aware of. I don't agree with Anon 12:53 a.m.'s complete list of people that need to go, and I'm pretty sure that at least one person on the list doesn't even work for the District Attorney's Office. However, I've covered my rules on what I will and will not post on several occasions.
I can disagree with what a poster says, but I will still print it. I do it all the time.
I won't publish personal stuff such as:
-allegations of infidelity
-questions of sexual identity
-insinuations of crimes committed with no supporting evidence.
-personal information about people's children or other family members.
-home addresses
You may get pissed off at comments that get published that contain your name, but trust me, you should see some of the stuff I keep out.
A few comments in response to Anon. 12:53a.m. First, there is no Michelle Hartman at the DA's Office. Second, Steve Baldasano and Colleen Barnett--like them or not--are not sell outs to anybody. They are both tough, hard-working, career prosecutors. In fact, Baldasano stood up to Lykos and took the heat during the TaTa fiasco. He admitted his mistakes, and right or wrong, pointed out where others made mistakes, but he refused to be Lykos's lap dog and tow her party line. Colleen is Colleen. She does her job her way no matter who occupies the 6th floor. You may not like her, but she does the job. Finally, the others on your list are mostly right on. In fact, it's about time somebody called out Lance for being such a sell out to all things Lykos. HE knew better when Lykos made him one of her preffered pets and, HE knows better now. So do some of the others you list. Some on your list are just mean-spirited and self-interested. Period. Doesn't matter who the elected DA is, the mean-spirited folks you name simply need to go. At the same time, there are some very good prosecutors at that Office who have gone about doing their job, doing justice, and avoiding--as best they can--the 6th floor politics. God bless the good folks that are still there. Hopefully, Lykos will soon be gone and a housecleaning will take place so that the DA's Office can regain some respect and the good folks who remain can do justice under a qualified, fair-minded DA that is truly concerned about doing the right thing and supporting hard working folks that have dedicated their professional careers with that same interest in mind.
Anon 8:19 AM - The item, which was to be paid for with a mix of private and discretionary funds, was withdrawn. Withdrawal of an agenda item occurs, as one might expect, after the agenda is published but before the item is considered by the CC. And the DA may be in Hawaii, but, if county dollars are not being used at all, there is no issue with regard to the CC agenda. Whether the timing of the trip is prudent is in the eye of the beholder.
How can you tell if an item was withdrawn from the agenda?
Murray,be glad you are gone.Everyone here is afraid of this grand jury.The ones we know that have messed with their time off and over time are afraid of audit.Lots of shut doors.Whats next?
Anon 9:56 AM:
http://www.cclerk.hctx.net/Comm_Court/Exceptions.aspx
Select the date of interest . . .
The Guerra case (235 SW3d 392) cited by the District Court Judge to the prosecution (per one of the affidavits submitted in the appendix of the Motion for Leave to File Writ of Mandmus)is out of the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals from 2007 and is an interesting read. Perhaps it was foreshadowing?-- at least one might make that assumption based upon yesterday's Chronicle article about a 'special prosecutor' being requested by the grand jury.
While the Guerra case does not address whether a grand jury can exclude a representative of the state it does address the following issue: in a situation "where the grand jurors collectively approached the trial judge with a desire to investigate the district attorney for alleged misconduct directly involving the grand jury process...on it's own initiative" can the district court judge "appoint an attorney pro tem to assist a grand jury in investigating a district attorney's conduct when the district attorney has not sought recusal." The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals found that indeed an attorney pro tem (as opposed to a special prosecutor) could in fact be appointed. There is a discussion as well in Guerra about the significant distinction between a 'special prosecutor' vs. an appointed 'attorney pro tem' under art. 2.07, the latter of which was found to be appropriate in Guerra.
After reading the affidavits (referred to above) it was also curious to note the information that the foreman allegedly stepped out of the room to make a cell phone call and upon returning allegedly said she had been advised the grand jury could proceed with their intended course of action to keep th state out of the room. Does CCP 20.06 come into play??
Interesting questions, again, from an academic standpoint.
By the way, Brian Rogers incorrectly informed the Chronicle's reading public that a grand jury can "investigate anything". "A grand jury has no authority to investigate civil matters or to make any investigation into circumstances where no criminal offense is suspected or alleged." CCP 20.09; Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. M--1171 and as discussed in the Guerra case. This is stated as a correction to Mr. Roger's incorrect statement-it is NOT an observation or comment or opinion related to any actions current or intended by the Harris County grand jury.
And I am not an employee of the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
The Guerra case (235 SW3d 392) cited by the District Court Judge to the prosecution (per one of the affidavits submitted in the appendix of the Motion for Leave to File Writ of Mandmus)is out of the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals from 2007 and is an interesting read. Perhaps it was foreshadowing?-- at least one might make that assumption based upon yesterday's Chronicle article about a 'special prosecutor' being requested by the grand jury.
While the Guerra case does not address whether a grand jury can exclude a representative of the state it does address the following issue: in a situation "where the grand jurors collectively approached the trial judge with a desire to investigate the district attorney for alleged misconduct directly involving the grand jury process...on it's own initiative" can the district court judge "appoint an attorney pro tem to assist a grand jury in investigating a district attorney's conduct when the district attorney has not sought recusal." The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals found that indeed an attorney pro tem (as opposed to a special prosecutor) could in fact be appointed. There is a discussion as well in Guerra about the significant distinction between a 'special prosecutor' vs. an appointed 'attorney pro tem' under art. 2.07, the latter of which was found to be appropriate in Guerra.
After reading the affidavits (referred to above) it was also curious to note the information that the foreman allegedly stepped out of the room to make a cell phone call and upon returning allegedly said she had been advised the grand jury could proceed with their intended course of action to keep th state out of the room. Does CCP 20.06 come into play??
Interesting questions, again, from an academic standpoint.
By the way, Brian Rogers incorrectly informed the Chronicle's reading public that a grand jury can "investigate anything". "A grand jury has no authority to investigate civil matters or to make any investigation into circumstances where no criminal offense is suspected or alleged." CCP 20.09; Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. M--1171 and as discussed in the Guerra case. This is stated as a correction to Mr. Roger's incorrect statement-it is NOT an observation or comment or opinion related to any actions current or intended by the Harris County grand jury.
And I am not an employee of the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
The Guerra case (235 SW3d 392) cited by the District Court Judge to the prosecution (per one of the affidavits submitted in the appendix of the Motion for Leave to File Writ of Mandmus)is out of the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals from 2007 and is an interesting read. Perhaps it was foreshadowing?-- at least one might make that assumption based upon yesterday's Chronicle article about a 'special prosecutor' being requested by the grand jury.
While the Guerra case does not address whether a grand jury can exclude a representative of the state it does address the following issue: in a situation "where the grand jurors collectively approached the trial judge with a desire to investigate the district attorney for alleged misconduct directly involving the grand jury process...on it's own initiative" can the district court judge "appoint an attorney pro tem to assist a grand jury in investigating a district attorney's conduct when the district attorney has not sought recusal." The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals found that indeed an attorney pro tem (as opposed to a special prosecutor) could in fact be appointed. There is a discussion as well in Guerra about the significant distinction between a 'special prosecutor' vs. an appointed 'attorney pro tem' under art. 2.07, the latter of which was found to be appropriate in Guerra.
After reading the affidavits (referred to above) it was also curious to note the information that the foreman allegedly stepped out of the room to make a cell phone call and upon returning allegedly said she had been advised the grand jury could proceed with their intended course of action to keep th state out of the room. Does CCP 20.06 come into play??
Interesting questions, again, from an academic standpoint.
By the way, Brian Rogers incorrectly informed the Chronicle's reading public that a grand jury can "investigate anything". "A grand jury has no authority to investigate civil matters or to make any investigation into circumstances where no criminal offense is suspected or alleged." CCP 20.09; Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. M--1171 and as discussed in the Guerra case. This is stated as a correction to Mr. Roger's incorrect statement-it is NOT an observation or comment or opinion related to any actions current or intended by the Harris County grand jury.
And I am not an employee of the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
District Court Judge to the prosecution (per one of the affidavits submitted in the appendix of the Motion for Leave to File Writ of Mandmus)is out of the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals from 2007 and is an interesting read. Perhaps it was foreshadowing?-- at least one might make that assumption based upon yesterday's Chronicle article about a 'special prosecutor' being requested by the grand jury.
While the Guerra case does not address whether a grand jury can exclude a representative of the state it does address the following issue: in a situation "where the grand jurors collectively approached the trial judge with a desire to investigate the district attorney for alleged misconduct directly involving the grand jury process...on it's own initiative" can the district court judge "appoint an attorney pro tem to assist a grand jury in investigating a district attorney's conduct when the district attorney has not sought recusal." The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals found that indeed an attorney pro tem (as opposed to a special prosecutor) could in fact be appointed. There is a discussion as well in Guerra about the significant distinction between a 'special prosecutor' vs. an appointed 'attorney pro tem' under art. 2.07, the latter of which was found to be appropriate in Guerra.
After reading the affidavits (referred to above) it was also curious to note the information that the foreman allegedly stepped out of the room to make a cell phone call and upon returning allegedly said she had been advised the grand jury could proceed with their intended course of action to keep th state out of the room. Does CCP 20.06 come into play??
Interesting questions, again, from an academic standpoint.
By the way, Brian Rogers incorrectly informed the Chronicle's reading public that a grand jury can "investigate anything". "A grand jury has no authority to investigate civil matters or to make any investigation into circumstances where no criminal offense is suspected or alleged." CCP 20.09; Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. M--1171 and as discussed in the Guerra case. This is stated as a correction to Mr. Roger's incorrect statement-it is NOT an observation or comment or opinion related to any actions current or intended by the Harris County grand jury.
And I am not an employee of the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
It appears the beginning of my comment may have disappeared somehow so here it is...
The Guerra case (235 SW3d 392) out of the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals from 2007 that was cited by the District Court Judge...
Anon 9:05,
How do you explain Steve "Trial Dodger" Baldasano's handling of the Jessica Tata case thus far?
Chicken Little needs to shit or get off the pot......if an ADA is afraid to file charges how do you expect him to try the damn case?
Maybe the DA can hire a special prosecutor to sit second chair?
Heard that the three subpeoned employees of the DAs office were commanded to meet with Little Jimmy and Barnhart before testifying....wouldn't this be interference with an investigation?
Keep 'em coming Patty! Let's see how deep the hole can get before you fall in head first!
Seems like Hawaii would be a pretty good place to go to avoid a grand jury subpoena...or at least buy some time to figure out your official story.
Anon 2:13 - it would be fun to take up a collection to send Ted Oberg to Hawaii. He could meander up to the Hyatt Waikiki bar tomorrow night around 10pm and ask Lykos to clarify her statement regarding what she doesn't know about the Grand jury back in Houston.
Suspiciously absent: Rage.
Oh boy, I hope that grand jury brings in the ones who quit. What I'd give to hear that dirt...
I thought Lykosites wore drawers around their heads.
What ever happened to Lykos hand picked investigator that couldn't log on to JIMS?
Still can't log on?
Suspiciously absent: Rage.
BOO!
Thats great! You have ruined and/or allowed good people to be ruined on this blog thru the comment section. And now you decide to not allow people to name others. Guess that makes up for everything.
Anon 9:34 p.m.,
Ruined your life, did I? How did that happen exactly? Did you develop a fatal disease because your name was on a blog comments section?
Hi,
I brought information to the public integrity division in 2008 regarding a $100,000 theft case, because the defendent's lawyers were publically appointed and continued to change. The defendent was subsquently convicted, put in jail for 11 years, and still claims his innonence to date. The information I have supports the claim another group was setting him up - not the DA, but the real guilty party. I am not a lawyer, but am intelligent, and know right from wrong, and what good evidence looks like. Can I present my information to this grand jury, or the "special prosecutor." I even spoke to this Barnhill guy about PID's involvement, after I complained that PID wasn't taking me serious... he just shooed me away. I am just a normal citizen, but the corruption over there is horrible and blantant even to us normal citizens. Can I present my case to this special prosecutor, and would he be interested if it is not a DUI case?
Post a Comment