Fun with Kimbra (and the Hoopers)

Man, it has been a crazy day.  Where to begin?  I think I'll start with a certain tweet that I got mentioned in on Twitter (or X, or whatever they are calling it these days) by a certain disgruntled ex-District Attorney.

Now, before I give the backstory on this Tweet, I would like to be very clear that I found it to be absolutely hilarious.  I am keenly aware of how much I piss off certain people online and I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to the responses to things I say.  Kim calling me a cockroach, although not very inventive, was more than fair game.

That being said, in the space of one Tweet, our former District Attorney not only calls for my death, but, as per usual, she's trying to outsource the dirty work.

Do I think she was serious?  No.

Do I think she would be sad if I died?  Also no.

Do I think I would have had a bunch of cops at my door if I had posted anything remotely resembling a tweet like this about her? 100%

But there is a big difference between me and Kim.  The most profound one being that I'm not stupid.  I don't wish death on anyone and even if I did, I wouldn't put it in a tweet.  I don't care how frustrated I was with the person.  There are too many unstable people out there already to make pretending to be one of them seem like a good idea.  

The next difference between me and Kimbra is that I wouldn't try to waste the legal system's time and resources to help me satisfy a personal grudge.  It was suggested to me that I should file a police report.  That's not really my style.  Instead, I just responded to her tweet as follows:

Do I think that I'm funny?  Well, obviously.

But going back to that whole "not wasting legal system's time and resources to help me satisfy a personal grudge" thing, I think it is worth noting my original post that got Kim so riled up.   

Backstory time.

So, as many of you may remember during the Ogg Administration, Kim led a highly publicized "investigation" into Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo.  Although charges were never brought against Hidalgo, three staffers were ultimately charged with felonies.  Two of those staffers had their cases dismissed outright once the case was taken over by the Texas Attorney General's Office, and the third completed a very brief pre-trial diversion.   When all was said and done, Kim's "investigation" into Hidalgo cost Harris County hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more).

The recipient of lots of those thousands and thousands of dollar was none other than Kim's close personal friend and former-5th Amendment-invoking-prosecutor, Rachel Palmer Hooper, who had gone onto bigger and better things working for a big law firm and serving as General Counsel to the Texas GOP.  In her spare time, she was known for running the criminal history of black people she saw voting and other fun Right Wing activities.  Kim hired Rachel as a "special prosecutor" to investigate Hidalgo, but she did everything in her power to keep that a secret from the general public.  Since Kim was a Democrat trying to take out another Democrat, it wasn't a good idea to be using office funds to hire the general counsel for the Republicans to do the dirty work.   The story didn't end well for Kimbra.

Although Rachel blocks me on Twitter because I keep pointing out to the general public that I really don't feel that she is being the best version of herself that she can be, she has been very vocal lately.  That's probably because her beloved husband, Donald P. Hooper, is running to be the Party Chair for GOP in Harris County.  

Now, those of you who have followed this blog for a long time know that the Donner and I have a special relationship.  It's very much a love/hate relationship in the sense that he hates me and I love how much he hates me.  He would probably be very surprised to know that I think he would be perfect for the job of Harris County GOP Chair.  That's not a compliment.  It's just a testament to how badly the GOP has deteriorated.  If you are looking for a homophobic, shit talking, semi-literate, nimwit, Don is definitely the candidate for you.

But I digress . . . 

So, anyway, several days ago, Rachel posted on Twitter that she believed U.S. Senator John Cornyn needed to be investigated for something or other involving Senate Candidate Wesley Hunt's personal information.  Her solution to the problem?  They should just appoint Kim Ogg as the new, permanent U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas.

Now, I'm not entirely sure who the "Marxist DA" is that Rachel is referencing in this post, but I did find her advocating for Kim to be as predictable as it was shameless.  And I said so.

Little did I know that it would cause Kimbra's mind to turn to MURDER!

Obviously I don't feel particularly at risk after Kim's solicitation of murder upon me, but in all seriousness, what the hell?  

Kim Ogg is a vindictive child with the temperament of a slow-witted rattlesnake.  She abused her power as Harris County District Attorney and she doubtlessly would do so again if (God forbid) she were to become the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District.  She's as stupid as she is ruthless, and that's saying something.  

Regardless of whether or not her tweet was meant to be taken seriously, she has demonstrated yet again that she is not fit to hold public office.

Rachel Palmer's Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center

For those of you who keep up with the comments section of my posts, you may have noticed yesterday that someone brought up the fact that Assistant District Attorney Rachel Palmer had filed a DBA (Doing Business As) notice with the Harris County Clerk's Office sometime in January.  Now, keeping in mind that Rachel has a full-time job, it seems a little bit strange that she would be starting up her own business.

What is even more bizarre is the title of the business.

She apparently filed as "Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center."

Um, okay.

Most of you know that Rachel's beloved husband, Don Hooper, started a knock-off version of my blog a few months ago.  I'm not going to link to it, because it is grossly inaccurate to the point of being libelous and the spelling and grammar is mind-numbingly bad.  Seriously, I was going to sign him up for a Hooked on Phonics class as a peace offering.  That being said,  I have found that the best way to deal with an idiot is to ignore him.

Hooper had been making noises about "taking Murray's blog" for awhile.  I guess that he and Rachel decided to make it all official by getting the DBA.  I don't know what exactly their goal was.  Maybe Rachel just wanted to see if exercising her 1st Amendment Right felt as good as exercising her 5th?

Mark Bennett did a post this morning with his thoughts on Rachel's entrepreneurship.  Who knows what Rachel and Don are up to?

I sincerely doubt that Rachel is attempting to take credit for my blog.  We aren't exactly best friends, in case you haven't noticed.  She probably wouldn't want to explain to Pat Lykos why she would be so desperately trying to affiliate herself with a blog that is so critical of the Lykos' Administration.

More likely, she was just trying to pave the way for Don to create his knock-off blog.

What is interesting, however, is that Don's blog bashes not only me, but Rachel's fellow prosecutors and several sitting judges, as well.  It bashes them harshly.  It is my understanding that some of the half-assed attempts by the Upper-Administration of the D.A.'s Office to get Don to tone it down have been rebuffed by him.  He doesn't work for Pat Lykos, after all.

But the new business entity of "Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center" doesn't have Don Hooper's name on it.

It has the name of Harris County Assistant District Attorney Rachel Ann Palmer.

The Lykos Administration has been very clear that they don't like it when their prosecutors talk on blogs.  When Scott Pope was a prosecutor, he left a relatively innocent comment on Mark Bennett's blog that said nothing bad about the Administration.  He was called to the 6th Floor and admonished for daring to sign his name.  A few months ago, a prosecutor was disciplined for defending himself against a defense attorney's public criticisms on the Chronicle.  Even David Benzion was apparently told to stifle his comments on my blog after he posted something here a while back.

Yet here we have prosecutor Rachel Palmer affiliating herself with Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center in writing -- bashing judges and prosecutors with impunity.

Doesn't it seem like there is something wrong with this picture?

In Re: Donald Hooper [UPDATED]

UPDATE NOTE:  Several posters have put up different things about Don Hooper's financial and court dealings in the comments section since I put this article up yesterday.  I have allowed those that I have posted because I think they illustrate to potential voters who meet Hooper that he is not who he holds himself out to be.  In my opinion, given the trash that Hooper seems to feel so free about spewing out regarding others, this will allow those who meet him to consider the source.  

Yesterday, Brian Rogers ran a story in the Houston Chronicle regarding the District Attorney's race "heating up."  In the early morning hours, this relatively benign story suddenly got a flood of comments on it from a "group" of Chronicle commenters who mostly seemed to have generated their profiles the day before. The names such as "Dinkit", "KevinPadrick", "Tort_king", "LibelLuci", "Mike420" and (my personal favorite) "BaldUglyDefenseAttorney"all preached a very similar message to those spewed out over on Big Jolly's Blog under the name of "JJones", "Snapped", "Ted's Conscience", oh, and the name Don Hooper.

Don Hooper, as you all know, is Rachel Palmer's husband, and he has had a very "interesting" storyline ever since he and Rachel first got together several years ago.  Per his recent testimony in Rachel's Motion to Recuse hearing against Judge Susan Brown, Don is a 50-year-old "energy trader" who is politically active along with his friend, Gary Polland, in the Republican Party.  As a matter of fact, he and Gary have been working very hard to find opponents to run against Judges Marc or Susan Brown.  (NOTE:  Gary, if it isn't really your policy to be rounding up opponents to run against incumbent Republicans, you might want to have a chat with Mr. Hooper.  He is throwing your name around.  Just FYI.)

Many people who work at or around the CJC are of the opinion that all of these different "identities" on the Chronicle blog, as well as those on Big Jolly's, all belong to the same poster -- Don Hooper.  The comments usually have the same trademarks that lead us to believe that.  They are usually crude and nasty, attacking those he perceives to be against Pat Lykos (and thus, by extension, Rachel Palmer).  The attacks are usually childish to the degree that he is openly accusing people of everything from alcoholism to adultery (which in the big scheme of things is kind of ironic).  The comments come in the mornings on the Chronicle blog and are usually deleted as soon soon as someone from the Chronicle reads them and sees how libelous they are.  His commenting identity is usually banned, and a new one or two springs up immediately thereafter.

All in all, it is a foolish and frustrating endeavor by the person doing it.

It is frustrating because there is probably no one more susceptible to some negative publicity than Don Hooper.  I know that he and Rachel think that I have attacked them both on a personal level, but I think if one were to go back and read what I have written about them, the themes have been based on things that are relevant to the jobs done.  Rachel's treatment of her subordinates and her lack of honesty and knowledge of the law are relevant in the job she does.  Don getting special treatment by the Pat Lykos Administration when he harasses his neighbors with Rachel's badge is very telling when one tries to figure out the abuses of power going on at the District Attorney's Office under this administration.

But, Don and Rachel (believe it or not) should be VERY thankful for those things that I don't put on this blog.

Trust me on this one.  I have been contacted by people who have known Don Hooper for a very long time.  I know things about him that would make Kitty Kelly blush.  Hell, I even had one person send me a copy of a booking photo.  My "Rejected Comments" box on the blog has many many things about both of them that I would never publish because they are truly personal and have nothing to do with the work at the CJC. I guess that is just my own definition of the Rules of Engagement when it comes to this blog and what I will or will not publish.

Sadly, Mr. Hooper seems to have no such rules.  The comments that were spewed on the Chronicle article yesterday were beyond vile and will not be repeated on this blog.  Suffice it to say that if you go to the Chronicle article and see where a comment has been removed or a commenter has been blocked, that was one of the many many things taken down by the staff at the Chronicle.  They were bad things with accusations of people who aren't even running for office but ones that Don and Rachel might perceive to be their enemies.

The author of those comments clearly had no Rules of Engagement, and in my opinion, no honor.

I give safe-harbor to commenters here who want to post their names anonymously, but I police the content of what is written.  It is true that sometimes the comments get more vulgar and more childish than I would prefer, but what happens in people's homes is off-limits.  Some may argue with my Rules, but I at least have some.

Hooper's methodology in campaigning either for or against someone is devoid of morals, ethics, and any semblance of integrity, in my opinion.  Not to mention the fact that this 50-year-old "man" seems to be doing so much damage to the causes he purports to support.

Do you really think that you are helping Pat Lykos' campaign with your multiple personalities on the Chronicle?  You insulted numerous Republican Party leaders and supporters?  Your very actions are disgraceful to the minimal presumptions of dignity that come along with a democratic election.

With your wife under such scrutiny for taking the 5th Amendment to the 185th Grand Jury, is it really to her benefit that you write posts as if you were the foreperson of the Grand Jury?  Do you really lack such a mental capacity that you think that your behavior is in anyway prudent?

My hope would be that Pat Lykos or Jim Leitner or somebody would sit down with Hooper and Palmer and tell them that this juvenile behavior needs to stop.  It does nothing more than fuel the fires against an Office whose reputation is already in the toilet.  If the fake identity attacks don't stop, then the Office should terminate all contact with the Hooper-Palmer family immediately.

The Republican Party, especially its leader, Jared Woodfill, should disavow everything done in such a juvenile and hateful manner.  Otherwise, you are condoning politics by intimidation, blackmail, and extortion.

The voters who vote in the Republican Primary should know what is being done by one of their own, and do everything in their power to stop him -- starting with voting against every candidate he supports.

We all feel passionately about those issues that affect us at the CJC.  We can disagree and even dislike each other, if need be.  What is happening on the Chronicle blogs takes things to a level that humiliates us all.  Sadly, it becomes the perfect example of that old saying about never wrestling with a pig.  You both get covered in mud.

The only difference is that the pig likes it.

Thoughts from Thursday's Events

Although the actual hearing for the Motion to Compel filed by Special Prosecutors Jim Mount and Stephen St. Martin was reset until Monday morning, December 19th, there were some interesting and noteworthy events that happened on Thursday.  Here are a couple of the highlights:

1.  Although Rachel Palmer was escorted from the Grand Jury room up to the 185th for the Motion to Compel, she wasn't in custody.  I heard that rumors were running rampant through the CJC that Rachel had been placed in handcuffs and brought to the 185th.  That was absolutely NOT the case.  At some point, her attorney Clay Rawlings, who was angry with Mount and St. Martin about the Motion to Compel, announced to the court that his client was being mistreated and brought up "in custody."  Rachel appeared mortified at her attorney's assertion and both Mount and St. Martin made a point of letting the court know that wasn't the case.

2.  Over the lunch hour, David Mitcham was apparently added to the Defense Team.  In the time between the original morning meeting on Thursday and when the Court reconvened at 1:00 p.m., I heard from several sources that Rachel was trying to hire new counsel (or at least additional counsel).  Sure enough, Mitcham showed up with everyone at 1:00.  Smart move by Rachel.  David is a great lawyer.

3.  Immunity is not on the table.  The basis for which St. Martin and Mount are asking the Court to compel Rachel to testify is that their questions are not incriminating.  The questions are sealed and nobody but the parties know what they are at the moment.  Under the Special Prosecutors' position, there is no need for immunity to be offered if the questions wouldn't require anything for there to be immunity from.  At some point during the hearing, Judge Brown made mention of the possibility of Immunity being offered to Rachel, and both Mount and St. Martin were seen shaking their heads in unison.

4.  If Immunity had actually been offered, would it be worthless, anyway?  This turns into an interesting legal question that Mark Bennett has touched on over at his blog with this post (specifically in the comments section).  Commenters Mike Trent, Mike Paar and Bennett aptly point out that Immunity covers everything EXCEPT perjury.  So, let's say in a hypothetical-theoretical situation that when Rachel testified before the Grand Jury last month she stated a set of facts that have now been contradicted by testimony from the other witnesses who were called after her (i.e., Ed Emmett, Steve Raddack, El Franco Lee).  Now the Grand Jury has called her, Leitner, and Bridgwater back to explain themselves for their earlier answers and they want to invoke their 5th Amendment rather than risk getting caught in a lie from their previous testimony.  Even if given Immunity, would it cover possible perjury from their previous testimony?  Mark seems to think it would.  Mike Trent points out that it isn't specifically spelled out.

5.  Will it all be pointless in 2012?  No, I'm not talking about the Mayan Calendar predicting that the world will end next year and that we will all be progressing into the next Astral Plane (known to some as a land called "Ho Ha.")  Recent legislation has indicated that the power of all existing Grand Juries across the State will cease at the end of the year and all new ones must be empaneled at the beginning of the New Year.  Word on the street is that Lykos and Crew are eagerly anticipating all this Grand Jury work to be for nothing, but there is disagreement amongst the legal scholars over whether or not a previously authorized hold-over Grand Jury can continue.  Either way, I think it is totally awesome of the Upper Admin to be relying on a technicality to bail their asses out of hot water.

6.  Bridgwater and Leitner did not testify in Grand Jury on Thursday.  Although the 1st Assistant and Bureau Chief did receive subpoenas to come back to the 185th Grand Jury, they weren't actually called in on Thursday, most likely because they were having to deal with Rachel pleading the 5th.  I'm curious as to whether or not they will be pleading the 5th, as well.

7.  Bridgwater has Campaign Implications.  Unlike Leitner and Palmer, Roger Bridgwater is running for Judge in 2012.  Currently, he is unopposed in the Republican Primary.  If he pleads the 5th and creates the debacle that Rachel has, or if any of these folks end up indicted, is the Republican Party going to be running a candidate who is under indictment?  Or would they ask him to withdraw and just cede the race?  If Jared Woodfill was smart (don't worry, Roger, he isn't), he would be getting a back-up candidate in that race by the end of Monday's filing deadline.

8.  Jim Leitner is starting to fall apart at the seams.  We had a preview of how the 1st Assistant reacts when he doesn't know the answer to the tough questions back in 2009.  On Thursday, in the hallway immediately after the hearing, Leitner really lost his composure when pressed by Ted Oberg as to whether or not he found it "offensive" that an Assistant District Attorney had taken her 5th Amendment right.  Instead of doing the smart thing and saying, "This is an on-going Grand Jury investigation and our Office has no comment," he ended up shrieking at the crowd of cameras that what he found offensive was being backed up against the wall and forced to answer questions.  However, his response was probably more understandable than Rachel's dismissive "God is good" statements to the media.

9.  Don Hooper is out of control.
Hooper has been very busy during this Grand Jury investigation.  There have been a variety of posts on the Chronicle comments section that he has been accused of authoring under pseudonyms.  Those comments typically attack Mike and Devon Anderson for their positions on the DIVERT program.  Although my favorite pseudonym used was "Fake Murray Newman" (which I actually thought was pretty funny), another comment bore the name of the 185th Grand Jury's foreperson.  That one isn't quite as amusing.
Last week, Hooper signed his name to a blog comment on David Jenning's Big Jolly blog, a comment that oozed the exact same bilge that these pseudonym commenters have been using on the Chron blog.

Can I prove that Hooper is posting as Fake Murray Newman and as the foreperson of the Grand Jury?  Nope.  Would I be willing to bet my lunch money that he is?  In a heartbeat.

I don't know why this knucklehead thinks that he is helping out his wife with this type of behavior.  I further don't understand why members of the Republican Party seem to think he has some sort of influence with them.

10.  Where in the World is Patricia Lykos?  With all of this going down, there has been no sign of the elected D.A.  There are complaints of personnel moves and promotions being put on hold because Lykos won't sign off on them.  She sure as hell hasn't stood with her people in court.  Even her proposed move to make Rachel Palmer the public spokesperson for the Office hasn't been approved.  I can't imagine why.

Also notably absent from the 185th courtroom on Thursday were any other prosecutors outside of the Upper Administration.  No rank and file prosecutor in their right mind would have showed up to watch the fireworks.  If they were perceived as coming to gawk at Palmer in the hugely embarrassing situation, they would have been labeled as enemies of Lykos on the spot.  Not to mention Hooper would have been snapping photographs of them, as well.

So, that's why I started doing the live tweeting from the hearing.

And I'll be back doing it again on Monday.

The Ghost of Bernstein Lingers

Okay, so apparently the offense report regarding Rachel Palmer's fiancee, Don Hooper, and Rachel's badge is out and about, now. The question now becomes is the media going to ask Lykos and crew why something wasn't done about Hooper and/or Palmer following the incident. Is it because Hooper is a big Republican backer and buddy of Lykos?

I'm hoping that one of the journalists (hint, hint Brian Rogers) is going to step up with the story and not follow in the footsteps of journalistic hack Alan Bernstein who hid from the Pat Lykos yarmulke story like a scared kitten for months and months.

At least we can't blame Bernstein for not doing this story -- he finally stepped down from pretending to be a journalist so that he could go work for the HCSO as Chief Apologist.