The Other 95% and the Origins of a "Conspiracy"
APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE - This one is long and rambling. There should be a point in there somewhere:
When it comes to politics in Harris County (and perhaps any county), I've always considered the races affecting the Criminal Justice Center to be somewhat of an oddity. Let's face it, as a wise Homicide Investigator once told me, we deal with probably less than 5% of the population (if that much). The President, the Governor, or the Legislature can enact laws that affect us all, yet most citizens' involvement with the criminal justice system comes from jury duty.
For those of us regularly involved in the System, whether it be as a lawyer, a judge or a police officer, it can easily become 95% of our lives (if that little). We know each other. We work with each other. We socialize with each other. Sometimes, we even marry each other. Whether we like it or not, we know the way the cogs and wheels within the Harris County Criminal Justice turn and how the System works. Prosecutors know what defense attorneys are good and bad. Defense attorneys know what prosecutors are reasonable and which aren't. How a judge will react to certain sets of facts usually doesn't involve much guesswork.
And every election year, the path and direction of the Criminal Justice System can potentially get turned on its ear by the, well, the Other 95%. Well-meaning voters who diligently flock to the polls (as they should) are deciding something that they know so very little about. They vote for a candidate that perhaps they've met at a function or whose name sounds familiar to them, or maybe even just the person whose name comes first on the ballot. Even very politically active voters who work hard to inform themselves, such as my friend Dave Jennings (AKA Big Jolly) can end up getting mislead on some of the real issues involving the criminal justice system.
Those of us who are within the System try to do the best we can to inform our friends, neighbors, and family members about what we know and who we think are deserving of votes. Often, that's not enough.
I came to the Harris County District Attorney's Office in 1999 and had been there all of three months before longtime elected District Attorney Johnny Holmes announced he wasn't going to run for re-election. On the same day of his announcement, Chuck Rosenthal announced his candidacy. He was a controversial Division Chief from within the Office who was regarded by most of his co-workers as rather aloof and somewhat odd. But Chuck was politically active within the Republican Party and when he made his announcement, nobody else from the D.A.'s Office was going to run against him. Mr. Holmes wasn't particularly thrilled about Chuck's candidacy, but said he was staying out of it.
Mr. Holmes had to change his position when Judge Pat Lykos announced she too would be seeking the District Attorney's position in 2000. Lykos had been off the bench in Harris County for quite some time, but her memory lived on -- and not in a good way. She was known by the older lawyers as mean, crude, vindictive and dishonest. Almost any attorney who was practicing in the 1980s to 1990s has a Lykos horror story. Although Johnny Holmes was far from being a fan of Chuck Rosenthal's, he felt that was the better choice than Lykos.
Ironically, my group of friends at the Office at the time were all Baby Prosecutors. We had heard a lot of bad things about Chuck and all we really knew about Lykos at the time was that she had presided over the Karla Fay Tucker trial. We thought that was pretty cool and some of us (yes, I said "us") thought we should vote for Lykos. I had met her before and even smoked cigarettes with her when she was a visiting judge. I kind of thought she was cool. (NOTE: this is the blog equivalent of me doing a walk of shame).
But after hearing what other attorneys (both prosecutors and defense attorneys) had to say, Chuck became the choice as the Lesser of Two Evils. He won in 2000 and again in 2004. There wasn't much change or disruption at the Office. Chuck was kind of like a groundhog who would appear at infrequent occasions. He didn't get involved in how we tried out cases. He was kind of like a weird uncle that you keep in the basement. He would come out every once in awhile, do something dumb, and then go back to his Office.
Those of us who say we loved working for the Office loved the Elected-District Attorney's absence from our day-to-day dealings. Those of us in the trenches were supervised by others in the trenches and decisions that were made were made by people in the trenches. We fought hard. We played hard. We respected each other. Every once in awhile, that weird uncle would escape from the basement and do something that embarrassed the rest of the family, but up until 2007, it was usually not too terribly devastating.
In 2007, obviously, that changed with the e-mail scandals. The ADAs wanted to keep doing their jobs as best they could under the media circus that surrounded Rosenthal. We were all worried about what would happen. We were all grateful when our best and most famous prosecutor in the Office, Kelly Siegler, tried to salvage the ship. Unfortunately, we lost that battle, and ultimately we got Lykos on the bench.
I digress.
Obviously, many ADAs stayed on under the Lykos Administration. Some got promoted and have done well for themselves and for the Office. There are plenty of outstanding prosecutors still there to this very day. Others, however, who had gotten promoted abused that power. Which brings us to Rachel Palmer.
I had known Rachel in passing when I was at the D.A.'s Office. I didn't know her well enough to like her or dislike her, although I had heard about the cat fights that she was getting into with other prosecutors almost from the day she stepped in the door. She was controversial. She had a circle of friends that really liked her, but a larger contingency of those who didn't. The bottom line was that, much like Pat Lykos, she was just kind of mean. When Lykos promoted her to Deputy Division Chief, I didn't think it was a good idea, because she just doesn't get along with people. But, given all the other massive screw ups Lykos was committing at the time, the Palmer to Deputy Dawg one seemed minor in comparison.
Soon, the inevitable happened. Rachel took her new position of power and it went straight to her head. Her catty comments and criticisms of the baby prosecutors that she supervised were becoming widespread knowledge. Her troops hated her. I know that Rachel thinks that she was my "favorite topic on the blog", but if you go back and look at the old posts, you will see the origins of Rachel-bashing occurred in the comments section. I'm not passing the buck here, but the gripes about her came from within the D.A.'s Office. (And by the way, Rachel, if you think the comments that end up on the blog about you are bad, you should see the ones I refuse to publish).
When Rachel announced that she was running for Judge, well, that sounded to me to be about the worst damn idea in America. She was mean, petty, and vindictive, much like Pat Lykos. She treated her people like crap and God only knows what she would be like if she actually were to assume the bench. But Rachel, like Lykos, knew how to play to the Other 95%. She was buddies with Carolyn Farb, the Houston Socialite who grew up on the mean streets of River Oaks. Farb became one of Rachel's benefactors without knowing the first thing about criminal law.
And then came Don Hooper. Rachel's fiancee was an absolute loose cannon at play in Houston. His penchant for posting on blogs as other people, his rage issues at polling sites, and his liberal use of Rachel's badge were definitely not age appropriate actions for a 50-year-old. Yet, there seemed to be no consequence for him coming from the Lykos Administration, and that is frightening. A guy is out there doing all that Hooper was doing and yet because he was a Republican benefactor to Lykos, nothing was done to even get him to simply shut up? I hope that Big Jolly can see that those of us who didn't want Rachel being a judge had some pretty damn good reasons for that.
Don Hooper was incensed when Rachel lost to Don Smyth. The rest of us were just relieved. Then came the Danny Dexter/Marc Brown race for the 180th District Court. If Rachel Palmer and Don Hooper think that Judges Marc and Susan Brown have "bad blood" with them, I can assure you that it was not initiated (nor continued) by the Browns. Hooper did everything he could for Danny, including harassing Marc Brown supporters at polling locations (if you don't believe me, ask Edward Porter).
Danny was a former prosecutor who I had worked with when I was there. He was a really really nice guy. But he was a terrible prosecutor. I really didn't want to write anything bad against him as a person, but he had absolutely no business being on the bench. But, like Rachel and Lykos, he also played well to the Other 95%. He was wealthy and charming and had a lot of support.
Big Jolly mentions in his latest post that he thought it was below the belt when Danny's evaluations from his time at the D.A.'s Office hit the media. Really? How on Earth is that below the belt?
Unlike whether or not a Criminal Court Judge is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, an evaluation of one's performance within the criminal arena is RELEVANT. Very relevant, actually. If pictures of Danny taking out the trash in his boxer shorts or rumors of a love child with Lady GaGa had been leaked to the media, that would have been below the belt. But evaluations based on his job performance, work ethic, and knowledge of the law are probably those things that the Other 95% should be aware of.
I like Dave Jennings a lot, and I appreciate the fact that he works very hard to learn about the candidates, but he is just flat out wrong on that issue.
The whole reason I wrote this insanely lengthy post is because all of this talk of a "Conspiracy" to get the Lykos Administration and/or Rachel Palmer is something designed by Lykos supporters to play to the Other 95% -- Those who have met Pat and Rachel at a tea party and can sympathetically nod their heads with them when they speak of their persecution woes. There are people who do not like Pat Lykos and Rachel Palmer and Don Hooper to be sure, but they are disliked with reason. We aren't talking about Crips and Bloods and other silly partisan games here. We are talking about real tangible reasons that people feel they are doing a terrible job and will oppose them.
The 5% of us (or less) that continue to deal with the Criminal Justice System on a daily basis do tend to know what we are talking about. We know the good defense attorneys from the bad -- the reasonable prosecutors from the unreasonable -- the fair judges from the unfair. We really don't care if a Republican or a Democrat holds a bench or even the D.A.'s spot, as long as they are doing a good job.
We all wish that those races were non-partisan, actually.
Then maybe the Other 95% might not fall for those conspiracy theories so much.
When it comes to politics in Harris County (and perhaps any county), I've always considered the races affecting the Criminal Justice Center to be somewhat of an oddity. Let's face it, as a wise Homicide Investigator once told me, we deal with probably less than 5% of the population (if that much). The President, the Governor, or the Legislature can enact laws that affect us all, yet most citizens' involvement with the criminal justice system comes from jury duty.
For those of us regularly involved in the System, whether it be as a lawyer, a judge or a police officer, it can easily become 95% of our lives (if that little). We know each other. We work with each other. We socialize with each other. Sometimes, we even marry each other. Whether we like it or not, we know the way the cogs and wheels within the Harris County Criminal Justice turn and how the System works. Prosecutors know what defense attorneys are good and bad. Defense attorneys know what prosecutors are reasonable and which aren't. How a judge will react to certain sets of facts usually doesn't involve much guesswork.
And every election year, the path and direction of the Criminal Justice System can potentially get turned on its ear by the, well, the Other 95%. Well-meaning voters who diligently flock to the polls (as they should) are deciding something that they know so very little about. They vote for a candidate that perhaps they've met at a function or whose name sounds familiar to them, or maybe even just the person whose name comes first on the ballot. Even very politically active voters who work hard to inform themselves, such as my friend Dave Jennings (AKA Big Jolly) can end up getting mislead on some of the real issues involving the criminal justice system.
Those of us who are within the System try to do the best we can to inform our friends, neighbors, and family members about what we know and who we think are deserving of votes. Often, that's not enough.
I came to the Harris County District Attorney's Office in 1999 and had been there all of three months before longtime elected District Attorney Johnny Holmes announced he wasn't going to run for re-election. On the same day of his announcement, Chuck Rosenthal announced his candidacy. He was a controversial Division Chief from within the Office who was regarded by most of his co-workers as rather aloof and somewhat odd. But Chuck was politically active within the Republican Party and when he made his announcement, nobody else from the D.A.'s Office was going to run against him. Mr. Holmes wasn't particularly thrilled about Chuck's candidacy, but said he was staying out of it.
Mr. Holmes had to change his position when Judge Pat Lykos announced she too would be seeking the District Attorney's position in 2000. Lykos had been off the bench in Harris County for quite some time, but her memory lived on -- and not in a good way. She was known by the older lawyers as mean, crude, vindictive and dishonest. Almost any attorney who was practicing in the 1980s to 1990s has a Lykos horror story. Although Johnny Holmes was far from being a fan of Chuck Rosenthal's, he felt that was the better choice than Lykos.
Ironically, my group of friends at the Office at the time were all Baby Prosecutors. We had heard a lot of bad things about Chuck and all we really knew about Lykos at the time was that she had presided over the Karla Fay Tucker trial. We thought that was pretty cool and some of us (yes, I said "us") thought we should vote for Lykos. I had met her before and even smoked cigarettes with her when she was a visiting judge. I kind of thought she was cool. (NOTE: this is the blog equivalent of me doing a walk of shame).
But after hearing what other attorneys (both prosecutors and defense attorneys) had to say, Chuck became the choice as the Lesser of Two Evils. He won in 2000 and again in 2004. There wasn't much change or disruption at the Office. Chuck was kind of like a groundhog who would appear at infrequent occasions. He didn't get involved in how we tried out cases. He was kind of like a weird uncle that you keep in the basement. He would come out every once in awhile, do something dumb, and then go back to his Office.
Those of us who say we loved working for the Office loved the Elected-District Attorney's absence from our day-to-day dealings. Those of us in the trenches were supervised by others in the trenches and decisions that were made were made by people in the trenches. We fought hard. We played hard. We respected each other. Every once in awhile, that weird uncle would escape from the basement and do something that embarrassed the rest of the family, but up until 2007, it was usually not too terribly devastating.
In 2007, obviously, that changed with the e-mail scandals. The ADAs wanted to keep doing their jobs as best they could under the media circus that surrounded Rosenthal. We were all worried about what would happen. We were all grateful when our best and most famous prosecutor in the Office, Kelly Siegler, tried to salvage the ship. Unfortunately, we lost that battle, and ultimately we got Lykos on the bench.
I digress.
Obviously, many ADAs stayed on under the Lykos Administration. Some got promoted and have done well for themselves and for the Office. There are plenty of outstanding prosecutors still there to this very day. Others, however, who had gotten promoted abused that power. Which brings us to Rachel Palmer.
I had known Rachel in passing when I was at the D.A.'s Office. I didn't know her well enough to like her or dislike her, although I had heard about the cat fights that she was getting into with other prosecutors almost from the day she stepped in the door. She was controversial. She had a circle of friends that really liked her, but a larger contingency of those who didn't. The bottom line was that, much like Pat Lykos, she was just kind of mean. When Lykos promoted her to Deputy Division Chief, I didn't think it was a good idea, because she just doesn't get along with people. But, given all the other massive screw ups Lykos was committing at the time, the Palmer to Deputy Dawg one seemed minor in comparison.
Soon, the inevitable happened. Rachel took her new position of power and it went straight to her head. Her catty comments and criticisms of the baby prosecutors that she supervised were becoming widespread knowledge. Her troops hated her. I know that Rachel thinks that she was my "favorite topic on the blog", but if you go back and look at the old posts, you will see the origins of Rachel-bashing occurred in the comments section. I'm not passing the buck here, but the gripes about her came from within the D.A.'s Office. (And by the way, Rachel, if you think the comments that end up on the blog about you are bad, you should see the ones I refuse to publish).
When Rachel announced that she was running for Judge, well, that sounded to me to be about the worst damn idea in America. She was mean, petty, and vindictive, much like Pat Lykos. She treated her people like crap and God only knows what she would be like if she actually were to assume the bench. But Rachel, like Lykos, knew how to play to the Other 95%. She was buddies with Carolyn Farb, the Houston Socialite who grew up on the mean streets of River Oaks. Farb became one of Rachel's benefactors without knowing the first thing about criminal law.
And then came Don Hooper. Rachel's fiancee was an absolute loose cannon at play in Houston. His penchant for posting on blogs as other people, his rage issues at polling sites, and his liberal use of Rachel's badge were definitely not age appropriate actions for a 50-year-old. Yet, there seemed to be no consequence for him coming from the Lykos Administration, and that is frightening. A guy is out there doing all that Hooper was doing and yet because he was a Republican benefactor to Lykos, nothing was done to even get him to simply shut up? I hope that Big Jolly can see that those of us who didn't want Rachel being a judge had some pretty damn good reasons for that.
Don Hooper was incensed when Rachel lost to Don Smyth. The rest of us were just relieved. Then came the Danny Dexter/Marc Brown race for the 180th District Court. If Rachel Palmer and Don Hooper think that Judges Marc and Susan Brown have "bad blood" with them, I can assure you that it was not initiated (nor continued) by the Browns. Hooper did everything he could for Danny, including harassing Marc Brown supporters at polling locations (if you don't believe me, ask Edward Porter).
Danny was a former prosecutor who I had worked with when I was there. He was a really really nice guy. But he was a terrible prosecutor. I really didn't want to write anything bad against him as a person, but he had absolutely no business being on the bench. But, like Rachel and Lykos, he also played well to the Other 95%. He was wealthy and charming and had a lot of support.
Big Jolly mentions in his latest post that he thought it was below the belt when Danny's evaluations from his time at the D.A.'s Office hit the media. Really? How on Earth is that below the belt?
Unlike whether or not a Criminal Court Judge is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, an evaluation of one's performance within the criminal arena is RELEVANT. Very relevant, actually. If pictures of Danny taking out the trash in his boxer shorts or rumors of a love child with Lady GaGa had been leaked to the media, that would have been below the belt. But evaluations based on his job performance, work ethic, and knowledge of the law are probably those things that the Other 95% should be aware of.
I like Dave Jennings a lot, and I appreciate the fact that he works very hard to learn about the candidates, but he is just flat out wrong on that issue.
The whole reason I wrote this insanely lengthy post is because all of this talk of a "Conspiracy" to get the Lykos Administration and/or Rachel Palmer is something designed by Lykos supporters to play to the Other 95% -- Those who have met Pat and Rachel at a tea party and can sympathetically nod their heads with them when they speak of their persecution woes. There are people who do not like Pat Lykos and Rachel Palmer and Don Hooper to be sure, but they are disliked with reason. We aren't talking about Crips and Bloods and other silly partisan games here. We are talking about real tangible reasons that people feel they are doing a terrible job and will oppose them.
The 5% of us (or less) that continue to deal with the Criminal Justice System on a daily basis do tend to know what we are talking about. We know the good defense attorneys from the bad -- the reasonable prosecutors from the unreasonable -- the fair judges from the unfair. We really don't care if a Republican or a Democrat holds a bench or even the D.A.'s spot, as long as they are doing a good job.
We all wish that those races were non-partisan, actually.
Then maybe the Other 95% might not fall for those conspiracy theories so much.
Comments
Re: Previous Poster: Anon. December 21, 2011 11:58 PM
Anonymous said...
" Let's put an outsider in the DAs office. Many of us hoped for it when Rosenthal stepped down and haven't given up on the idea."
I think by now it is fair to say Mike Anderson IS an outsider. So few people work at the office now that did when he left in 1999.
Murray, spont on with this - actually well written and cohesive post that basically - to me - says: "Please votors - get out the vote based on the facts not just what somebody says".
As a young civil law intern long ago the lawyer I worked for had a favorite saying. Someone would go, on, and on, and on about this or that (another lawyer or firm staff member). He didn't interrupt to argue because it was apparent the person was very "convicted" in his views.
Afterward the Attorney would take a sip of coffee and reply: "Well, that's what you say".
If anything this Blog has done is give specifics of the true factual negatives of the current D.A.'s Office. No conclusitory statements. Other than some usual venting etc, pretty much people are telling what they know and backing these allegations up with how they know what they know to a level that surpases even Probable cause for a search warrant.
Why does the office need so many "SPIN" media types - working - "top heavy" - at the exspence of the line and grind troops in the trenches? If an organization is doing its job honestly and putting politics asside once the election is over - no "spin is needed". Just like proving intent in a criminal case: Look at how the person's ACTIONS to prove their intent and many times Motive.
Votors, please educate yourself. Seriously, for a prosecutor to take the 5th is UNPRESIDENTED. Google the topic. How many times has a prosecutor taken the 5th amendment (not as a charged defendant or target). Along with all the usual non relevant choices:
Palmer is the only name that comes up. Why is this so important even though it is her right?
Because prosecutors are NOT suppossed to "hide the ball" and play delay games with the lives of other people in their charge to seek Justice and not merely convict. As a prosecutor, you either have the evidence and confidence to seek a guilty or you don't. But if you have ANY evidence that might even remotely shed light that the person on trial might NOT be guilty you MUST turn that evidence over to the defense Attorney.
In the past 2 weeks - whose ACTIONS have clearly shown to be hiding the ball and possibly protecting others? Now THAT is a conspiricy!
Are you effing serious? He w3as a freaking criminal court judge--a prosecutor with a robe.
You officially have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Rage
You post is eloquently written and weaves the historical to the present in a factually correct sequence. It captured the essence of Rosenthal's time in office. Although he was quirky and eccentric, he had the good sense not to tamper with the honor-based system that was the legacy of Johnny Holmes. Ken Magidson (current US Attorney for the Southern District) was appointed to replace Rosenthal as DA until the Lykos took office in Jan 2008. Magidson recognized the good qualities of the office and mostly left it in place. Once Lykos took office, she immediately began to fire quality prosecutors and reorganize the office solely for the sake of change. From day one, she ruled as a tyrant and has systematically destroyed the organization. She had not "mellowed" as she claimed she had. Her narcissistic personality and egomania drives all her decisions. This was so foreign to everyone in the office. Mr. Holmes knew what would happen, and it has, only it is worse than even he thought it would be. There is no conspiracy to bring down Lykos. There is a conspiracy by Lykos to hid her short-comings and to convince voters she is competent. Voters, please examine the record. Talk to people who know her or work for her besides a select few who she has brought in and given plum-positions to who have no more experience than she has.
You are absolutely correct. Mr. Fiscally conservative had a firm that is/was DEEP in the RED! Rumor has it that 3 Million $ at 14% interest was borrowed to keep the firm afloat and the loaner is now saying: "CALL".
Along these same lines I'm concerned that the other 95%ers don't fully grasp the magnitude of what is currently transpiring at the DA's Office with regards to the current grand jury investigations. With Rosenthal it was easy for the 95%ers to get. Everyone, no matter what line of work you are in, whether it be the trash collector to the President of the United States understands that it is not appropriate to send emails of a racial nature or with sexual suggestions to others, particularly your secretary. You don't have to be a lawyer to get this, everyone that sees something like this reported in the media understands it and really does not need explaining.
Fast forward to Pat Lykos, RP, Little Jimmy, and crew. The have DESTROYED the DA's Office in Lykos' time in office for all the reasons that everyone has posted about. The currently grand jury investigations have received spotty coverage at best by the media. I'm sure there are different reasons for it, including that the Chronicle and other media outlets have always been a little cozy with Patsy. Second, I believe that the current happenings with Lykos, RP, and the whole BAT Van issue is hard for people outside the CJC to grasp. It is complicated, easy for us to understand but difficult to explain to others outside of our field. If you haven't been keeping up with the BAT Van story from the beginning it is a little hard for the news to cover the story in 2-3 minutes so that the 95%ers that are watching it for the first time get it and understand the severity and magnitude of it all.
I have had a number of friends and family members ask me about what is happening "down there" and what it all really means. If my immediate family doesn't understand it and they know that it indirectly impacts me what do you think the other 95%ers understand? Probably not much other than something is going on down there.
So much of the current investigations are occurring behind the closed doors of Grand Juries and we only know bits and pieces, but being that most of us in the field are familiar with most aspects and lots of the details we are able to piece it together to come up with a pretty logical conclusion as to what happened and is continuing to happen in regards to Patsy and crew.
I have to hand it to Patsy (as much as it pains me) because from a political stand point she has done a really good job running everyone else out front. When was the last time anyone saw Patsy around the CJC let alone doing an interview on TV regarding all the happenings. Hmmm...you think maybe the out of sight, out of mind principle is at work here? Think the average citizens haven't seen Patsy to associate her with this mess. If I didn't know better I'd think Jimmy was the elected DA as much as I've seen him.
My whole point in all of this, is that as much we all post on this blog and bitch about Lykos and her inner circle we have an obligation to get out there and educate the 95%ers so that they get it and they in turn go and tell another 95%er. Everyone gets inappropriate emails, most don't get motion for this or that, or the invocation of this or that right.
1. It's as intellectually dishonest to refer to Anderson now as an outsider as it was to apply that term to Lykos in 2008. They didn't leave, they just moved to different offices.
2. I care little that Palmer took the 5th. It was the smart thing to do, and she's not the first and won't be the last. However, I care very much that there are circumstances that made her choice a prudent one. The grand jury needs a bigger shovel. Is there a reason why Lykos hasn't taken her turn?
To be factual: Check out this NY Times Articl where Woodfill's phot and comments are there in black and white to read how he views borrowing from this "hedge Fund" the only way he could basically stay in business. Problem is the amount was 3.5 million at 14% interest and that interest has been growing. The Chickens truly have come home to roost:
Fact: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/business/15lawsuit.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1323320927-2wktSu2yq+nU4MncRLGVOA
Well, that's what you say.
Yes
You save the best for last. If they intend to call her, it will be in order to make a big splash. Maybe right when they come back from the break so that it isn't forgotten by the holidays.
Of course, she will refuse and say that the grand jury has no authority past 12/31/11, which means there will have to be some sort of AG opinion on the matter.
And this investigation now proceeds only if permitted by one of the worst Attorneys General we have ever had. One who makes decisions based only on the political, not legal, will of his puppeteers. Y'all voted for him, so congratulations. It appears that the only judge/official in this whole mess who has no agenda at all was Democrat Al Bennett.
Rage
It is because you aren't an attorney that you would vote for Patsy. You don't understand all the issues, you don't understand the law that connects all the parts of the criminal justice system, and, clearly, you don't know a tyrant when you see one.
BUT
It's good to know what a non-criminal-justice-connected-person thinks of what's going on and how it's perceived so that we know what educating needs to be happening for the majority of the voters.
For that, thanks for posting
Go on...
Seaton
http://greg-abbott-is-a-hypocrite.blogspot.com/
You might consider that most people don't understand what's going on because they aren't involved in the system and don't plan to be, and they have not been struck by why it should be important to them. All politics are local, a maxim that has both geographical and psychological implications.
A nice comparison when you think the office is still short, and bleeding, and Lykos hires a political hack to be a media person..... Typical. She would think that is more important.
Calm
Signed,
A felony prosecutor.
First let me say I am in no way associated with the Criminal Justice Center. I get basic facts from this blog. However I don't stop there. I check it out for myself. Anyone can say anything. I have found that the majority of posters are telling the truth about what goes on at CJC.
Since you say you are an educated voter that must mean you can do a little research. So why don't you then, I mean do a little research on your own so that you can make an informed decision about who to vote for. You can find so many references to wrong doing on this site alone. It is an excellent place to start.
To be honest with you I did not know a dang thing about Lycos until I started reading this blog. Only when I read how she treated her people did I become involved. Of course, you must realize that the very people that post here do know what is going on. Listen, research, learn, and then vote.
Please tell me why you would vote for Lycos. A list of her accomplishments would be nice. What has she done for the citizens of Harris County. Has she made my community safer ? If so, inform me how she did that. Please tell me.
Really Jimmy? That's the sentiment you want the public to think is ok? Are you really suggesting that a prosecutors' office filled with folks who refuse to testify because their testimony might incriminate them is acceptable? Do you think that's the stance police agencies should take when dealing with officers who impede investigations?
Here's some more unsoliticed advice: STOP TALKING TO THE MEDIA. You've saddled the taxpayers with paying several media folks and everytime YOU get on camera you make it worse. Let the media folks do what you're paying them to do or quit paying them!
From a Judge who cares more about the statistical numbers of pending cases this is a big deal because if the person goes to State Jail they do the minimum of 180 days - FLAT. no 2 for 1 credit like County.
Objectively, to be fair, one could argue that this new policy would save the county money by not having to house the offenders once convicted because they would be sent off to the State facility.
Obviously this begs the question when talking about the person sitting in the harris County Jail - waiting for a trial and do they get credit in State jail for time spent in County waiting for their State Jail Felony case to be tried?
“Because the judges take her position with the crack pipe.” - Really? It’s those (gainfully employed..lol) people with crack pipes breaking into the hard working citizens of Harris County houses and vehicles so they can afford the crack to put into their crack pipe.
“I have to believe it is a rather good thing to have a little animosity between the district attorney and the police department.” - Huh? ADA’s and police officers should work together as checks and balances" over each other to make sure the truth is told, and justice is served. How would you like a member of your family to be a crime victim, and then have the DA’s office and the police fighting with each other about your family member’s case; or plead the “fifth” when they are in front of a grand jury answering questions about your case?
“The police in this city already believe they are above the law.” – Yawn……….I’m sure you would be the first person to dial 911 if your “behind” was hanging in the wind.
Why does the 95% not understand about Lykos?
1) First of all, the 95% is more like 99.5%, depending on who all you include.
In 2010, (a non-presidential year), 159,821 people voted in the Republican primary out of 1,882,154 registered voters. There will be far more primary voters this time.
What that means is that very few of us Republican activists are blessed to know any of you well enough to ever discuss the district attorney problem. Only a much smaller percentage of primary voters know any of you.
Talking among yourselves on this blog is very cathartic, and a few of the 99.5% (like me) do read it.
However, if you want a new district attorney, those of you who no longer work for Pat must get out of the CJC several times a month and attend Republican and Tea Party meetings where Republican activists meet. You will meet a lot of nice people and be able to tell your story as you mix with them.
Republicans there believe Pat Lykos because she comes and talks to them and you don't. Please stop blaming Republicans for not caring, when you didn't tell them there was a problem.
There are 3 contested primary races for felony district benches in the Republican primary. Don't blame Republicans for backing the wrong candidates, if you don't come to meetings and tell people which candidates are better.
Go to harriscountygop.com, pick "Our Party" at the top right, and choose "calendar" to find Republican events. You will have to google to find Tea Party groups.
Please make a New Year's Resolution to start attending events and getting the word out in January.
You can also do block walks and work polls (early voting and primary day) for Mike Anderson or a judicial candidate.
If you still work for Pat (my sympathies), find 10 friends and family members that you can talk to confidentially and make sure they get out and vote. Nag them till they do. You probably can also pick a judicial candidate and actively campaign for them.
Calling Republicans names may be fun, but you turn off the very people you desperately need to get on your side. Please stop blaming Republicans and get involved and get the word out!
Signed,
Republican Activist
I would be hard pressed to punish anyone who invoked their constitutional rights.. -- Jim Leitner
What an f-Ing crock, Jim.
What about the right to free speech, Jim!?! Do you include that?
What about Donna who was punished for invoking her right to free speech when she questioned Bridgwater?
What about the felony prosecutor placed on probation for invoking his right to free speech in writing a blog?
What about the misdemeanor prosecutor who was placed on probation and demoted 6 months for invoking her right to free speech in writing a blog?
What about the current felony prosecutor who is on 6 month demotion for invoking his right to free speech in responding to a personal attack on Chronicle?
All of these folks worked harder at their job than R.A.P. and were severely punished. Where we're you then to defend their constitutional rights? Where were you!!!!!!!
Mr. Oberg: please keep up your fine work. You have become our hero. Please stay the course. We are so appreciative of all your efforts.
1. 98% of the DA's office and the majority of the defense bar are laughing at you. Are you that scared of humping appointments again that you will do or say anything?
2. Everyone knows Lycos has your balls in a jar on her desk. And she still can't muster the courage to face the media.
3. Do you realize that Lycos is about to drop you in the grease? You and Palmer. The irony is that you are fighting so hard to save the sinking ship. Makes you look really stupid. Maybe it's a symptom of losing your, um, man-hood.
4. Your defense of Palmer and ur defense of the madam DA's decision not to fire or discipline Palmer makes you the biggest bitch in Harris County DA history. Every time you pass an assistant DA in the hallway, they are laughing at you. And the defense lawyers you see, laughing at you as well.
It's ok Jimmy Boy. The court appointed vouchers are still the same...
13??? Listening??? Thank you
Do you wear a tin foil hat to your tea party meetings?
Well said. Talk about the definition of hypocrisy.
Well...hello there, Patsy. I wondered where you had been. I'm glad to know you were not stranded in your car by a snow bank.
Regards,
-Confused employee looking for leadership to stand up and lead
P.S. Thanks for the carefully worded email (first one ever, I think) and the warm holiday wishes.
Your mind is closed to hear or believe the facts so there is nothing anyone could do to enlighten you. There is a huge amount of information and proof of how badly Lykos has been for the DA's Office. You just don't want to believe it.
You're a business owner"? What business, a comedy club? Posting anonymously after midnight isn't exactly "standing and delivering" is it? Neither is not making a single public appearance, or even issuing a statement, while the events of this week have played out. Stand? Where, in the corner with a dunce cap on? Maybe so. Deliver? What, a heap of shame? Probably so. May you get coal dust in your stocking to match what's between your ears, clown.
I also note you have failed to point out any accomplishments of this administration. I would suggest that is because they are far and few between.
You undercut your claim of "well educated" when you cannot spell -- it is "paid" not "payed." Not sure what your claims of being self-employed (a dig at prosecutors who work for the government, I guess) and "highly payed" (note incorrect spelling - and again an apparent dig at government workers) have to do with anything. But your note is much like Lykos - lots of soundbites and no substance. You say that she has "stood and delivered." Please give me some examples. It is like the crack pipe thing. She wants to go after cartels. Three years in office - which one has she brought down or attacked. Also, like you we are all also "supporters of law enforcement" - big part of the reason we took our jobs.
Would you please post all of the wonderful things that Pat Lycos has done while in office. You make so many references to how great she is that I would be negligent as a voter in Harris County if I did not know all of her "GOOD STUFF" so that I can make an informed decision.
I have asked several posters that very question and no one ever answers. WTF. So, here is your chance to tell it like it is, come on, I really want to know. No need to be ugly just post for the record all of the great things she has accomplished. I will be waiting for your reply. Perhaps I am just a misinformed 'HATER' that needs enlightened on the beautiful works of PL.
Sue
Here are your top signs for identifying a Don Hooper identity:
1. Always goes to great effort to act like a neutral part of the voting public who doesn't know any of the people involved.
2. Professes an earnest belief that Pat Lykos is doing a good job without citing any tangible examples.
3. Excessive use of punctation, especially exclamation points.
4. Excessive use of all caps. It's like the rage within him just can't be contained in his fingers.
5. Conspicuously fails to mention Rachel in any of his posts.
6. Bad spelling.
7. Refers to opposing candidates on a first name basis, while using formal terms with Lykos and Crew.
8. Depending on the forum, will try to point out that Newman got fired and/or is an alcoholic.
Also, look at the time when a post was made. If it is coming after 11 p.m., it's Don, who may be drunk and pouting because Rachel won't let him borrow her badge to go play Cops and Robbers with the neighbors again.
Why is it that NOT ONE OF YOU have been able to work the other Grand Jury investigation into your paranoid delusions amidst your quest to be the next Dan Brown?
Let me answer that for you. Because there is NO conspiracy.
Put that in yout stocking for Xmas along with the coal and turds from Santa Lykos.
I did not have relations with that man, Mr. Hooper.
/Clinton voice, off
Rage
80 former prosecutors--and none of them will run against Roger Bridgwater?
Come on, somebody step up to the plate! Filing will reopen and you will have till Feb. 1st to get signatures.
That's grassroots campaigning for you.
You really think I only told 10 people!? HA!
The sour taste of politics has gotten the better of me lately......but you're welcome to read my blog and associated comments any time; my last post was yesterday.
I hope Christmas brings some class and integrity to an office I once admired......I'm not optimistic.
Merry Christmas
Pat Lykos may be "indendent" of anyone else. That's true. If that's your sole criteria for DA, then vote for her. But understand she is independent of EVERYONE else; she cares ONLY about herself. She cares only about how good she can make herself appear; to hell with the people who work with her, the victiims of crimes, the defendants, law enforcement, or anyone else. She doesn't give a crap about anyone else. Maybe that appeals to you. But if that's what you want in a DA, beware. While she's busy trying to concoct positive news stories for herself, in reality, her heart and her soul are as nasty as her two tar-filled, smokey brown-black lungs. She is mean, vindictive, retributive, and full of self-preservation at the cost of anything and anyone else. Why? Because she's needs to boss people, demean people, and have power over people, the more people the better. Her dream job: nation dictator. That has to be what she dreams about at night!
Don't believe us who post? Then do some research and see what kind of judge she was years ago. The Chronicle wrote some pretty nasty stuff long before the advent of this blog. Why? Because, as Judge (by the way, she hasn't been a judge in a long time, but she REQUIRES Asst. DAs to address her as "Judge Lykos") she was nasty to her staff (couldn't keep them), nasty to people who worked in her court, and many others. So how does she get elected? She's good at putting on a show to voters promising everything they want to hear but delivering none of it. I don't need to go through all of the promises she made during the last campaign, but those who watched and listened know everything she said was a lie.
I think what is funny about this whole debacle is that it started with Pat's vindictiveness and need for retribution. That may be her downfall. It should be. She was mad that someone else was saying something that might negatively affect her. Instead of seeking truth, she covered things up and not so secretly tried to ruin that person's career. It wasn't enough that the person gracefully and quietly left her employer over it. No, Pat wanted to make sure that woman was out of a job for good. So she went the extra mile and tried to sabotage that woman's career. Why? Because what she said might make Pat look bad. Who cares if it was truthful? What's funny is that instead of addressing it honestly and openly, when it didn't even blight the DA's office in the first place, she covered it up and threatened this woman quite publicly. As a result of Pat's actions, she made herself look as nasty as she truly is.
Our DA should be seeking justice and truth, not shutting people up who might say something she doesn't want to hear. Not threatening the attorneys who work for her with fear and humiliation. Not growing her PR division whilst her trench DAs are overworked and understaffed, exhausted and humiliated. And she shouldn't be wasting taxpayer funds in this economic crisis on paying her buddies four times a normal salary, when they do nothing.
She is a hot mess who doesn't listen to anyone. And if that's who you want to elect, then go ahead and do it. That's your right.
One of the last times I saw Bert Graham was at an HBA-sponsored CLE. I asked him, "Have any of the candidates come to see you and ask how to run this office?" He said, "Not a one." Then he said something I won't ever forget: "Everyday there are decisions that need to be made that prevent everything from going wrong. If you make one wrong decision, you end up as a news headline. Not one of these candidates has even bothered to figure out how to do things here. One wrong decision and they'll be in the news and it won't be good." It looks like Bert's prophecy has come true.
They knew enough of the recusal facts to spout them off. They said choosing St. Martin, among others, to prosecute told them Judge Brown is playing politics.
And they say that while they may not mind politics in the DA's office outside the office and job, they don't want to see it on the bench. All said they were sorely disappointed in her judgement.
Husband and wife judge tag teams give me the willies. I don't trust them and hell, who's raising the kids?
What was Brown thinking? With so many notable attorneys in Houston with impeccable reputations who have either never worked for the DA's office or who worked for that office under Vance or Briscoe, you have to wonder about her choice of prosecutors for the BAT GJ. Special Prosecutors? You bet. If it looks like a vendetta...
The Republican ladies could not be convinced otherwise as to a political witch hunt against Lycos.
There were huge turnovers under Holmes. I recall a huge slew of resignations back in the Spring/Summer of 1990 at the DA's office. I can't remember if it was more than 80 lawyers but it was a significant amount and they were in a hiring frenzy.
Bert's a great guy but he's got his own baggage and could use a bit of a personality boost.
Believe it or not, there are some hard core law enforcement types in Houston who have worked in the business for as long if not longer than many of the veteran DA posters here who don't think that Johnny Holmes was the be all, end all of district attorneys.
I don't know who Stealth is but I once saw a post by him on an unrelated forum and I have to say I admire the guy for his choice in concealed handgun carry weapons: A S&W 357 Model 340PD or 360PD, I can't recall which at the moment.
I wouldn't work for Lycos but would for Anderson, fwiw.