Another Day, Another Grand Jury

Major kudos today for the Pat Lykos Administration for finding itself the subject of not one, but two Grand Jury investigations.

Today, Special Prosecutor Chris Downey was appointed to investigate yet another allegation of wrong-doing by the Harris County District Attorney's Office in the 232nd District Court's Grand Jury.  I'm not 100% certain of this, but I believe that this Grand Jury will be investigating allegations surrounding the departure of former Assistant District Attorney Shirley Cornelius that were outlined awhile back on this blog in this post.

For those die-hard Pat Lykos supporters conspiracy theorists who have been grumbling about the 185th Grand Jury's investigation being politically motivated, I think it is worth pointing out that the 232nd Grand Jury is selected by Judge Mary Lou Keel, who selects her Grand Jurors from an actual jury pool that is called to service at random.

Say what you want to about prior District Attorneys and their failings.  I can't remember a time when one was ever being investigated by a Grand Jury.

Certainly not two Grand Juries.


Anonymous said…
Man wheels within wheels
Anonymous said…
My, my Patsy. Your name is on Santa's naughty list this year. Actually, you've been on his naughty list for years and the voting public is finally getting a drift of your true self. It isn't rosy.
Anonymous said…
Bye Pat...err...I mean Judge. What a joke you are. You make the Chuckster look like a saint. Your downfall started the first month when you called the two prosecutors incompetent. Boy, that really made your "new" staff feel good. "My new boss will stand behind me." Are you kidding me? Good bye and good riddance. You should learn to keep your mouth shut because everytime you say something it's wrong.

I loved your letter to the "citizens" about suing the Houston Police Officers Union for slander. As a public official you can't sue anyone for slander, otherwise Obama could sue every Republican.

Goodbye to you and your "crony" bureau chiefs. Thank God! Not only were you, Chow, and Bridgewater were bad judges. You are bad administrators as well.

Your one term in office should be called, "What can you do for me." It's all about the me, isn't it? That's all you think about.

Go downstairs on your private elevator and smoke a pack of Camels and say "poor, poor, me." Look back on your one term and ask youself, "How many good people did I hurt?" You won't though because you're still thinking about the "me."

Too bad the real public doesn't know the "real" you. But you know Pat...err...I mean Judge, you've done so much evil in the past few years that the "word" is out about you and your cronies and you are "going down."

Mike Anderson will win and he's not an evil person.

Thanks Pat...err. I mean Judge for being your usual self. Now we all know....
Anonymous said…
I read the Shirley Cornelius post when it was originally posted. The mere mention of what happened to her at the hands of the current admin makes me sick. It sure would be nice if the Chron could share this story with the voters of Houston.
Anonymous said…
Old Dog - Dead Serious!

Part I:

This is a BIG one! This is about as serious as it gets and I'm NOT talking about Tampering with a Governmental Document. What a stupid, stupid "management" decision that could very well on its face violate the American's with Disability Act as amended in 1990. I wish Shirley had or has contacted a good employment lawyer: This is A #1 STUPID to the power of infinity: If Hanna Chow would like to learn something about the ADA before she gets to hire her own criminal lawyer here is some simply guidelines to keep employers out of trouble in dealing with caregivers of the disabled which BY DEFINITION Shirley's son is protected by:
It is a long read but worth it - especially if you read this in the way a federal ADA compliance Officer might read to see just how many ways Hanna Chow may have violated this law based on your previous post Murray:
Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities:
In 2007, EEOC issued guidance explaining the circumstances under which discrimination against workers with caregiving responsibilities might constitute discrimination based on sex, disability or other characteristics protected by federal employment discrimination laws.[1]
This document supplements the 2007 guidance by providing suggestions for best practices that employers may adopt to reduce the chance of EEO violations against caregivers, and to remove barriers to equal employment opportunity.[2] Best practices are proactive measures that go beyond federal non-discrimination requirements.
Currently, many workers juggle both work and caregiving responsibilities. Those responsibilities extend not only to spouses and children, but also to parents and other older family members, or relatives with disabilities.[3] While women, particularly women of color, remain disproportionately likely to exercise primary caregiving responsibilities, men have increasingly assumed caretaking duties for children, parents and relatives with disabilities.[4]
Employers adopting flexible workplace policies that help employees achieve a satisfactory work-life balance may not only experience decreased complaints of unlawful discrimination, but may also benefit their workers, their customer base, and their bottom line.[5] Numerous studies have found that flexible workplace policies enhance employee productivity, reduce absenteeism, reduce costs,[6] and appear to positively affect profits.[7] They also aid recruitment and retention efforts, allowing employers to retain a talented, knowledgeable workforce and save the money and time that would otherwise have been spent recruiting, interviewing, selecting and training new employees.[8] The benefits of these programs remain constant regardless of the economic climate, and some employers have implemented workplace flexibility programs as an alternative to workforce reductions.[9] Such programs not only enable employers to “go lean without being mean,” but they also can position organizations to rebound quickly as soon as business improves.[10]
The following are examples of best practices for employers that go beyond federal nondiscrimination requirements and that are designed to remove barriers to equal employment opportunity.

End of Part I.
Anonymous said…
Old Dog Part II: Cont.

ADA – General Guidelines on how employers can stay in compliance with the Caregiver aspects of the American’s with Disability Act:

Be aware of, and train managers about, the legal obligations that may impact decisions about treatment of cargiving workers with protected under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,

Develop, disseminate, and enforce a strong EEO policy that clearly addresses the types of conduct that might constitute unlawful discrimination against caregivers based on characteristics protected by federal anti-discrimination laws.[20]

An effective policy that addresses caregiver protections under the law should:

>Define relevant terms, including “caregiver” and “caregiving responsibilities.”[21]

>Provide an inclusive definition of “family” that extends beyond children and spouses and covers any individual for whom the applicant or employee has primary caretaking responsibilities.[22]

>Describe common stereotypes or biases about caregivers that may result in unlawful conduct, including:

>Assuming that female workers’ caretaking responsibilities will interfere with their ability to succeed in a fast-paced environment;[23]

>Assuming that female workers who work part-time or take advantage of flexible work arrangements are less committed to their jobs than full-time employees;[24]

>Assuming that male workers do not, or should not, have significant caregiving responsibilities;[25]

>Assuming that female workers prefer, or should prefer, to spend time with their families rather than time at work;[26]

>Assuming that female workers who are caregivers are less capable than other workers;[27] and
>>Assuming that pregnant workers are less reliable than other workers.[28]

>Provide examples of prohibited conduct related to workers’ caregiving responsibilities, such as:

>Asking female applicants and employees, but not male applicants and employees, about their child care responsibilities;[29]

>Treating female workers without caregiving responsibilities more favorably than female caregivers;[31]

>Steering women with caregiving responsibilities to less prestigious or lower-paid positions;[32]

>Prohibit retaliation against individuals who report discrimination or harassment based on caregiving responsibilities or who provide information related to such complaints.

>Identify an office or person that staff may contact if they have questions or need to file a complaint related to caregiver discrimination.

Ensure that managers at all levels are aware of, and comply with, the organization’s work-life policies. In particular, front-line supervisors, middle management and other managers who regularly interact with employees or who are responsible for assignments, leave approval, schedules, promotions and other employment terms, conditions and benefits should be familiar with the organization’s work-life policies and supportive of employees who take advantage of available programs.
Provide incentives for managers to ensure that their employees are aware of work-life balance programs and to support employees who choose to take advantage of such opportunities.
Assess supervisors’ willingness to assist employees who have caregiving responsibilities on supervisors’ performance evaluations.
Respond to complaints of caregiver discrimination efficiently and effectively. Investigate complaints promptly and thoroughly. Take corrective action and implement corrective and preventive measures as necessary to resolve the situation and prevent problems from arising in the future.

No room for cutesy snipe remarks here.
Anonymous said…
Who is teaching ethics at the DAs office? Young ADAs need to know that if they have Brady evidence about a bad breath test, the information must be disclosed. They can't simply not use the breath test in trial. The State seems to be dismissing more DWI breath test cases rather than disclose another problem.
Anonymous said…
Justice has been blind for a very long time concerning Lycos. Now, the blindfold comes off. What a blessing that people are finally seeing her for the incompetent, self-serving witch that she really is. I have read with dismay how this woman and her idiots have hurt many good people. What a nightmare the employee's have had to live. My heart goes out to the individuals that have been impacted by her actions. Perhaps, there is a light at the end of this particular tunnel.
Anonymous said…
While I fell for Shirely and it's bs how she was fired, can anyone say what she really did for the office? I mean, what did she work on?

There are a bunch of other ADAs that need to be shown the door who are just worthless and don't contribute to the office.
Anonymous said…
For the love of GOD, PL, if you have one strand of decency beneath your cold hard grinch heart....RESIGN already!
Anonymous said…
Impossible unless her ego is SERIOUSLY attacked. See orevious 101 post: @December 4, 2011 4:46 PM. Not her fault.
Anonymous said…
Did anyone see the Ch 2 piece on Haverstock last night? Isn't it interesting how Patsy continues to spin her political lasso to the media.

As I watched this piece I couldn't help think how Vollman and her own minions were falling over themselves trying to create a positive spin for patsy.

Vollman, you sure can't see through the cloud of despair you find yourself in. Can you?
Thomas Hobbes said…
Murray, I get the ethical implications and the potential for criminal conduct. But if this relates to your previous post and the employee signed and submitted her correct time record and it was approved and paid [setting aside for a moment anything related to FLSA or FMLA], what indictable state offense remains for consideration by the grand jury?
Anonymous said…

Hypothetically speaking, could the grand jury subpoena the IP address of your "anonymous" posts?

Thanks !
Anonymous said…
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horation, than are dreamt of in your philosophy...

Lots of public officials get investigated by grand juries. That DA's get it so rarely is probably a testament to the bias of the system in their favor.

Anonymous said…
I need to stick up for two people who've been unfairly trashed here in the comments. One is Shirley. She did some wonderful work in writs and appellate for many many years. If you don't know what she did for the office, YOU need to find that out. Two is Roger Bridgewater as "bad judge." I understand many don't like how he has behaved or carried out his responsibilities under Lykos. But he was an excellent judge and defense attorney. He was a fair judge in court (the first one to treat all attorneys the same regarding computer access). You can trash him all you want in his administrative function at the DA's office. (By the way, does anyone in the Lykos admin look good? I think they might look better if they weren't working for such a spiteful, vengeful, bully of a DA. Some of them were quite respectable people -- Bridgewater included -- until they started working for her. She's the common denominator here). But you cannot trash him as a defense attorney or judge. The only reason he lost in the last election is there was a Democrat sweep that rode the Obama wave. When he lost, I recall everyone in the courthouse being shocked and saddened by his defeat.

I used to be an ADA in Keel's court. She is as moderate as they come and Murray is right -- her grand jurors serve from the folks who report to jury duty. So if her GJ is investigating the DA's office, that is not at all political. Good for them! Not only does Lykos think she can pick and choose which criminal laws she wants to enforce, but she also seems to pick and choose what kind of employment law she wants to follow.
Murray Newman said…
Thomas Hobbes,
The potential charges that come to mind are Attempted Tampering with a Governmental Record or Official Oppression.

Anon 11:13 am,
I suppose somebody could subpoena IP addresses, but they would come up empty handed if they were relying on me to provide them. With a few rare exceptions, I have no idea what IP addresses attach to what comments. I usually have multiple people reading the blog at the same time, so if one leaves a comment, I couldn't tell you him from the others. Also, I'm a cheap ass and only use the free version of stat counter. It ages off everything but the last 500 hits on the blog. So, if 24 hours have passed, that data is lost to me.

Bottom line is you are safe to comment anonymously.
Anonymous said…
It was represented in a recent blog that grand jury terms will now apparently commence in Harris County in January and July as opposed to the current first Monday of February, May, August, and November. I find this strange since we have gone with four terms for years. Although I do not have access to the session laws a cursory check of the Texas Legislature Online on the Internet fails to reflect that the currently relevant courts under Section 24.365(c) TEX.Gov't Code (TGC) - 185th District Court and Section 24.409(c)(TGC) - 232nd District Court were amended and or repealed. Although these courts, as well as all the other criminal district courts of Harris County (other than 174, 176, 177, 178, 179 - the original five criminal district courts) were created under the District Court Act of 1969 which proscribes January and July terms of court (Section 24.302 TGC) all of the Harris County courts specifically statutorily have (or had?)the four terms. Thus, I would appreciate having a reference to the change. Assuming that a general statute has been enacted in the special session as asserted dealing with these grand jury terms without reference to 24.365 and 24.409 the specific statutes would still control over the general.
Calvin A. Hartmann
Anonymous said…
I think you will find the change in HB79.

SECTION 3.03. Subsection (a), Section 24.012, Government
Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) Notwithstanding any other law, each [Each] district
[and criminal district] court holds in each county in the judicial
district [at least two] terms that commence on the first Mondays in
January and July of [court] each year [in each county in the
district]. To the extent of a conflict between this subsection and
a specific provision relating to a particular judicial district,
this section controls.

Calvin, does this help? And good luck finding people to serve on a GJ for six months.
Naughty Girls, Inc. said…
Anon 10:20....Judge Pat being a naughty girl is a visual I can't imagine.
Anonymous said…
I was wondering again if Pat Lykos is related to Margaret Hamilton?
Anonymous said…
Paint her green, dye the hair black and you've got a match! Now let's get out there and make the house fall on her.
Anonymous said…
HB79 seems to override all other term-ofcourt statutes. A big county like yours might need to empanel more grand juries so that each meets once per week. We are carefully vetting ours on the need to be available 26 days over six months and we are doing fairly well.
Anonymous said…
Murray, forget the attempted tampering, the actual tampering that is allowed in this administration is staggering. This recent letter from the DA's office is a great example (if I can figure out how to post it).

Correct the date of arrest? Not... that's substantive. The Judge is statutorily required to consider the date of arrest at sentencing. A different date of arrest is a different event. Since the TRN is assigned to the defendant/charge at the point of arrest/booking, the prosecution segment is built on the arrest segment and the final disposition of the charge based on the TRN is reported to DPS based on the prosecution segment, this letter basically equates to a criminal admission of tampering. Apparently under Lycos, the DA no longer needs a judicial order to alter judgment records. Why bother the court or the defendants, they'll just complicate the issue.

You read the rest of the letter and its apparent that these folks were convicted on a number of charges they had nothing to do with.

And how does the DA's office handle it? They try their best to sweep it under the rug. I mean really, do these people's rights really matter in the grand scheme of things when its apparently so easy to just alter the records so that they read like we want them to?

What we need is a 3rd grand jury requesting an audit of changes to the DPS records and investigating the DA for criminal tampering based on that audit.
Anonymous said…
Bridgwater is a little preachy, but he's the hardest working person at that office. He truly believes, and he is more honest and hard-working than the whole rest of the floor combined.

I'd hate to see him go down with this ship.
Anonymous said…
Old Dog tired

To all outsider republican or otherwise primary voters please consider this:

In the daily grind of a prosecutor presenting a case to the Grand Jury they are 99% of the time simply reading to the members portions of a police offense report to see if THEY agree with the cop that the minimal amount of proof exists to simply arrest / charge someone on a felony case.

I this basic scenario it is very almost assembly line and it would be very out of the norm for the grand jury to unilaterally 1) Ask that the elected DA via her line troops assigned to this division be recused or taken off some case being presented before them; 2) Initiate a unilateral (no police agency) investigation and 3) ask that they get not only their own prosecutor but if needed their own investigative officers appointed by the judge whose court they were created and given authority to act to begin with.

What is different in this new case is that it appears to have been done so in a much cleaner structured manner. IE: Rather the regularly assigned prosecutors being surprised they were not welcome inside the grand jury and boundaries blurred slowly - Here - right up front everyone knows it's not the regular elected DA case because there exist an order appointing a special prosecutor. Objectively, after the last sort of confusing "huddle" and contempt issues the DA might have recused herself first.

After trying to get the Judge recused last time around maybe the elected DA thought it more prudent to be more careful (you know election primary opponent and all that was not present before).

However - let there be no mistake - in the 35 years I worked as a prosecutor and lawyer in Harris County - THIS is the first time to my knowledge a special prosecutor was appointed without some mere line Ada getting arrested for DWI or assault and some police agency doing all the investigative leg work. To have an INVESTIGATING SPECIAL PROSECUTOR APPOINTED TO HEAD UP NOT ONE BUT TWO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF AN ELECTED DA OFFICE IS STUNNINGLY HISTORIC!

This is a perfect example why we call this level jury GRAND!
Anonymous said…
Hardest working? Oh, you mean on his campaign. Right. Bridgewater does work hard on that. And CLE in various places around the country. He works very hard at those things.
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:39-
If you're not Mrs. Bridgwater, you need to be careful. You might get a ticket for possession of crack...

If Roger IS working, he's working on his Judicial (help me get off this sinkin' ship) Campaign. On County time.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous 7:59, Two different Grand Juries, each with appointed Special Prosecutors, and neither investigation being initiated by either the police nor the DA's Office, is indeed an unprecedented event in Harris County. Frankly it sounds more like something happening in Chicago. Apparently, however, the newest Grand Jury investigation is not even worthy of mention by the Houston Chronicle. Instead, the Chronicle ran two letters extolling Pat Lykos' position on enforcement of a felony statute. Shame on you Chronicle for filtering the news the same way communist governments do. Any opponent running against Lykos won't have to search very hard for campaign material against her. Just watch who is going into the two Grand Juries and watch Channel 13 or 11 for news updates.
Anonymous said…
Leitner was allegedly subpoenaed today for a visit with the 185th.

Wonder if he'll be yawning and closing his eyes the whole time he's in there?

Wake up and smell the roses Jim.
Anonymous said…
To Anonymous, 4:26, 12/14/11 - thank you very much for providing me with the answer to my question, namely HB79 - I can understand now why I could not find it in Texas Legislature Online. HB79 probably was not read by any of the legislators except for the caption which alerted them that it had to do with the judiciary budget (and a possible pay raise for legislators since they are tied together) - I suspect it was read though much like Obama's health care bill, that is by no one except the authors. The bill should have no effect on the current grand juries; the subsequent ones should be interesting though if the jurors are going to have to serve six months. I can think of at least three valid arguments for the current February, May, August, and November practice to continue in spite of 24.012 being amended but I will leave that for the judges and district attorney to worry about. Again, thank you Anonymous 4:26.
Calvin A. Hartmann
Anonymous said…
Leitner is a "Patsy" along with Bridgewater, Chow, and the rest of them. Do anything to keep her happy and out of their hair. That's no excuse to treat people the way they do, however.

I say sink the ship and let 'em swim....
Anonymous said…

Item: Sixth Floor very uptight about the whole dual investigation thing. Apparently some admin types are expecting to appear before one of the grand juries tomorrow.

Item: Six is more worried about the 185th Grand Jury than the 232nd.

Item: The brain trust still thinks that all Grand Juries expire at years end.

Item: The Throne Room was again off limits. Don't know if Pat wasn't here or was too busy campaigning to take care of her day job.

Item: Leitner becomes more like Captain Queeg every day as he fumes at his oversized pc scouring the blog. I expect him to ask "Who took the strawberries?" any day now. Haven't seen him playing solitaire in weeks.

End of line
Anonymous said…
Haven't you heard?

Patsy saved Haverstock! It's a Christmas miracle! Maybe they can get her a nice place out there.
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:39, Bridgwater is a sack of shit. Many of us remember the fateful staff meeting where he got his panties in a wad and ultimately caused Donna Goode to be forced out. Many of us at he office know that "his" DIVERT program is a bastardizaion of a plan put forth by someone other than Roger. He continues to be insufferable at the staff meetings, which by the way is the only time we see him at the office. Too bad he scared off all primary opponents. We won't miss him when he leaves the office, one way or another.
Mark W. Stephens said…
To Anonymous December 14, 2011 7:59 PM

Stunningly Historic, yes.

Historically tragic as well.
Anonymous said…
Ha ha ha. Ask shirleys brothers who gets the last word.
Anonymous said…
Questions for Murray or Anyone:

1) Out of all of Pat's hires for management positions, which ones had ever prosecuted a case themselves and how many years were they prosecutors?

2) Which ones had never prosecuted a case?

Interested Republican
Anonymous said…
Murray I watched channel 13 last night looks like patsy is doing a cover-up with victor trevino. Whats the latest on that????
Anonymous said…
Anony 5:13am

Of course Mr. Patsy is covering up Trevino's case. She truly believes that if she protects the other elected officials they will in turn scratch her back. As hairy as it may be.

What's interesting about all this is the Republican Party (which I am part of), isn't asking her to resign like it did of Chuck Rosenthal.

Come on Emmett ! I am, as many republicans, losing faith in you and the leaders of our once proud party. You were subpoenaed to a grand jury because of that cobra.

Come on party leaders, ask her to resign. Then watch her spit in your face and bring down the whole party when she refuses to.

You will definitely know who she really is then. Merry F'ing Christmas
Anonymous said…
Anonymous at 11:13 AM ...

Why leave it to a GJ to do that? Dirty subpoenas go out all the time at the office and I am sure you have already done that; right leadership team?
Anonymous said…
Did you see Jolly's interview with Mike Anderson? Not a bad writeup but it looks even worse for Anderson. The grand jury lady has known him for a long time and they worked on a Habitat for Humanity project together before Anderson appointed her to two of his own grand juries. Smells bad.
Twilight Zoned said…
A pair of snippets for The Troll Who Stole Christmas:

Christmas is coming,
The troll is getting fat.

Please put some nitro,
In the old bitch's hat!


There once was a troll from Mykonos,
Who passed out in the claws of Pat Lykos.

With visions of Venus,
Her hand on his penis.....

The troll woke up in a freightner,
As Patsy gave birth to Jim Leitner.
Anonymous said…
Don Hooper posting under his own name on Big Jolly. Interesting that his comments mirror those of fakemurrynewman; Ppollard, etc. Who would have thought it?
Murray Newman said…
I was glad to see Hooper finally using his real name. When you have a problem, the first step is admitting that you are Don Hooper.
Anonymous said…
Anon 9:56: On July 31 2008, Rachel Ann Palmer stated on Murrays blog "I abhor blogs". I wonder how she feels now that she is married to a full time blogger with multiple blogging personalities?
Just Fold 'Em said…
I find it hilarious that this administration picked these kind of ridiculous fights over stupid, little issues. They really don't know when to fold 'em.

I mean, 1st time DWIs and $50 on a timesheet. Wow. Really keeping us safe there, buddy.

This crew couldn't run any kind of profit-making business.

- Business Owning Republican Who Now Cares
Anonymous said…
Don Hooper sure makes a lot of enemies for Rachel. Does he really think he's helping her?
wrong orifice said…

And all this time I thought Wee Man Leitner had his head up Patsy's ass...who knew?
Anonymous said…
Once Hooper posted on Big Jolly using his own name, David closed the comments. I guess that's one way to control a blogging addict.
Anonymous said…
Maybe someone who is older than I can recall details, but there were more than one runaway grand jury under DA's Briscoe and Walton in the 50's and 60's. Seems like at least one looked at the prosecution of the lunch counter sitters and bus riders during the civil rights movement. Not sure if they had the balls to investigate a sitting DA.
Anonymous said…
To comment blogger wanting prosecution & trial experience of Lykos high supervisors :

DA Lykos - Was never a prosecutor and never tried a case. Was HPD officer for a few yrs. then went to law school and was criminal defense atty. for a few yrs then ran and was felony judge for a few yrs then ran for Atty Gen and lost then was aide to a Commissioner for several yrs then became HCDA.

First Asst Leitner - good prosecutor & trial lawyer in '80' s for about 4 yrs at HCDA Office and about 4 yrs at Belton DA Office but then about 20 yrs as criminal defense atty.

Bureau Chief Hanna Chow - never a prosecutor & never tried a case. Was misdemeanor judge for about 4 yrs. and an aide to Commissioner Ct with Lykos for about 10 yrs.

Bureau Chief Bridgewater - Was a good young prosecutor in '80's for about 3 yrs at HCDA Office (never made Chief in felony court)but tried several jury trials like all new prosecutors do. Was a criminal defense attorney for about 20 years and then was felony judge for 1 term.

General Counsel John Barnhill - never a prosecutor. Was a good Asst County Attorney for many yrs (county atty in Harris County has only civil jurisdiction - no criminal jurisdiction). He became First Asst County Attorney for a few yrs under Mike Stafford and came to HCDA Office after Stafford lost to Ryan and Lykos took over HCDA.

These I think are the main players in Lykos "leadership team".
Anonymous said…
Can anyone tell us what sanctions can the Feds do to the DA’s Office for violations of the American Disabilities Act? What penalties apply? Is it civil, criminal, or both? It doesn’t look good for Chow changing another employee’s time sheet and then changing the hours of the same employee who has a “special needs” child. I guess since both her and Lykos only supervised one employee they don’t know about the ADA or any other management issue that may arise. I know that Lykos fired every court coordinator that she had until the last one, only because there weren’t any more to pick from.

Lykos will never take responsibility or step up to anything that happened under her “watch.” Leitner, Chow and other will be blamed. Do you really think those “puppets” did anything without her knowing? Get the buses ready because they’re going to be rolling over some folks on the 6th floor of the CJC.

If you see someone selling popcorn during the next few weeks in front of the CJC, it’s a homeless guy I hired to sell it getting ready for the “show.”
Anonymous said…
Can anyone tell us what sanctions can the Feds do to the DA’s Office for violations of the American Disabilities Act? What penalties apply? Is it civil, criminal, or both? It doesn’t look good for Chow changing another employee’s time sheet and then changing the hours of the same employee who has a “special needs” child. I guess since both her and Lykos only supervised one employee they don’t know about the ADA or any other management issue that may arise. I know that Lykos fired every court coordinator that she had until the last one, only because there weren’t any more to pick from.

Lykos will never take responsibility or step up to anything that happened under her “watch.” Leitner, Chow and other will be blamed. Do you really think those “puppets” did anything without her knowing? Get the buses ready because they’re going to be rolling over some folks on the 6th floor of the CJC.

If you see someone selling popcorn during the next few weeks in front of the CJC, it’s a homeless guy I hired to sell it getting ready for the “show.”
Anonymous said…
To Anon 9:07,
Thanks for taking the time to list the work experience of Lykos and her leadership team. I am blown away to find out how little prosecution experience Lykos and her top 4 management people have--eleven years total when you add them all together. And 3 of the 5 have no prosecution experience at all! Amazing! No wonder they don't know what they are doing and can't stand to be questioned about anything.
Interested Republican
Anonymous said…
Dear Interested Repubican:

You should note the following statistics regarding Trials since Lykos taking office.

Cases Tried
Lykos: 0
Chow: 0
Bridgwater: 0
Leitner: 1
Palmer: 0

Both Vance and Holmes wanted their troops to know them as a trial lawyer first and an administrator second.

It was the way true leadership was supposed to lead - by example.
Anonymous said…
Based on Anon 7:05 post, Rachel Palmer wasn't
able to stop her husband - but Judge Brown possibly already knew that. It is time for the GJ to call him in as a witness - find out what he knows then indict him for tampering with a jury. Doubt Lykos can make a phone call that will save him this time

BTW 410 AM - although he claims to be a high-powered political consultant - it is all a figment of his imagination. He has and has NEVER had any clients - albeit a few that have allowed him to volunteer then subsequently FIRED him. Yes - candidates fire a volunteer when they figure out he's doing more harm then good
Anonymous said…
Since the judge doesn't want him to use PPollard and everyone on Murrays blog recognized dinkit (aka little dink), Mr Palmer name dugout for Dec 14th is ThirdTimeisaCharm.
Anonymous said…
8:28 - LOL ... Handling the media... "god is Great" "that's an Inapproprate question" I have never seen anyone so unprepared. I guess that move is permanently off!
Anonymous said…
Anon @ 7:23

While I agree with the point you are making, Ms. Palmer did try and win a DWI case against me during Lykos. She used 1 officer who pleaded the 5th during her direct, another Officer who perjured himself on direct and cross. Both of these Officers were under investigation for actions they took after one officer advised my client to not take a breath test. She used written testimonial evidence in violation of my clients 6th Amendment rights (admitted erroneously as business records. Unfortunately as is the case with most people charged with a misdemeanor, they cannot afford the experts they need to win their case and of course an appeal is beyond most of their resources. Ms. Palmer counts on that in addition to tendering bad evidence that should never be heard by a jury. No immunity for her. Investigate and let the chips fall where they may in the 185th investigation.
Anonymous said…
Was the state bar made aware of this. If not shame on you!!!

Now is the time for everyone to step up to the plate. Let's get this done.

Popular posts from this blog

Boss Ogg's Slate

Rent-A-Center & the Civil/Criminal Continuum

The 2022 Primary Elections