State Representative Borris Miles has been indicted on two counts of deadly conduct. The indictments stem from two different incidents on the same day back in December. The first incident happened during a Rockets/Mavericks game at Toyota Center. At a facility lounge, Miles allegedly pulled a gun on TSU regent Willard Jackson's wife. The second incident took place at a party thrown by businessman David Harris later that same night. At the party, Miles allegedly pulled a gun on Harris.
A month before complaints about problems at his apartments were disclosed publicly, state Rep. Hubert Vo used his government letterhead to complain to Houston police commanders about the department's scrutiny and accuse officers of harassment."What I am concerned with is the appearance that the NPC officers are using their authority to harass and issue tickets instead of working with the apartment managers to remedy any deficiencies," he wrote in the Feb. 25 letter to Assistant Chief Dorothy Edwards, who heads the Houston Police Department's Neighborhood Protection Corps.
"The word 'harass' is a very strong word and I use it very cautiously, but the conduct of the officers involved in this situation leads me to no other conclusion."
The three-page letter, which goes on to complain that the manager at the Villa De Matel apartments was not treated fairly and "taunted," was obtained from HPD by the Houston Chronicle late Friday under the Texas Public Information Act.
[...]
While it does not make any explicit threats or demands, the letter is on his state office stationery, which contains the state seal and a rendering of the Texas Capitol. It notes his position on the House Law Enforcement Committee last session.
Under his signature, Vo also indicated that he was sending a copy to Edwards' boss, Chief Harold Hurtt.
Now I don't know if this official-letterhead complaint by Rep. Vo violated any laws or House rules. His opponent is calling for an investigation - no surprise there - but that doesn't mean there's anything to investigate. If there is, then let the chips fall where they may. And let there be no more surprises to uncover related to this.
Commentary has noticed that local Dems have been eerily quiet on the not so good run that Harris County Dem State Rep Hubert Vo has received in the Chron. There is another Chron article today plus an E-Board special. It seems like on the internet yak-off lines, local Dems have a take on every thing. In fact, most go out of their way to let you know their opinion on all kinds of stuff. Commentary has not heard a single peep coming out of the local Dem camp on this matter - nada - silence. Then again, what can you say?
There's a lot that can be said about the possible political implications of all this, but I'll save that for another time. I don't expect politicians to be any more or less human than the rest of us. As with any group of people, there's a range for things like decency among them. Rep. Vo is one I'd have put towards the top end of that scale, so these revelations are as much a surprise as they are a shock and embarrassment. I hope that decency that I and many others perceived about Hubert Vo is enough to make this right, for his residents and for him.
I think the fact that this story about where Tom DeLay is now is front-page material is proof that we're in a slow news cycle. I mean, it's always nice to be re-acquainted with old friends and all, but there really wasn't much to the story substance-wise. Once you get past the usual DeLay bluster and the back and forth between his adversaries and his former staffers over his relevance, the main bit of news in the story appears to be this:
DeLay also co-founded a new conservative grass-roots organization last year, which he hopes can come to rival the influence of liberal groups like MoveOn.org. His group, the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, DeLay told the Houston Chronicle, is "a statement of where the conservatives are."[...]
As for the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, DeLay is working with chairman Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio secretary of state, to establish chapters of conservative leaders and members in all 50 states, focusing on nine media markets including Houston.
With annual dues of $52, the organization aims to coordinate and direct a range of grass-roots action: phone and e-mail campaigns, letters to the editor, blogs, and meeting requests with members of Congress.
Housed in a brick row house about 10 blocks from the Capitol, along with DeLay's First Principles firm, according to a sign next to the door, the group employs three full-time staff members, an executive director and consultants, spokeswoman Flaherty said. She did not provide details on the board, staff or the number of paid members.
And they won't tell us a thing about how far along they are towards accomplishing any of their goals. They won't tell us who's on their board, or even how many actual members they have. Which actually tells us quite a bit about where they are and how they're doing, I think.
Whatever. I look forward to the next update on this story in another year or so, or whenever the criminal case against DeLay finally makes it to the courtroom. Maybe they'll be willing to share some of that information by then. In the meantime, dream big, Tom.
I know, Abramoff/DeLay news seems so 2006, but still, I wanted to note this.
Greenberg Traurig is in hot water in the tropical U.S. territory of Guam.The ginormous firm - 1,750 lawyers and counting -- was indicted Tuesday in connection with alleged lobbying activities by former employee Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to a conspiracy to bribe public officials.
The indictment was reported [last week] by the ABA Journal, which links to the indictment.
According to the indictment, Abramoff and Greenberg Traurig received $324,000 in lobbying fees from a Guam court administrator in alleged circumvention of Guam procurement rules. Abramoff and the firm were charged with theft by deception, among other charges.
"This indictment involves rogue conducty by Jack Abramoff. We strongly deny these charges and are confident we will prevail when all the facts are known," the firm said in a statement, adding that that the charges will have no impact on its business.
Here's something to ponder: On the same day that they ran the story about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and his hooker problem, the Chronical also ran an editorial calling for his resignation. Nothing wrong with that, I'd say it's the consensus opinion, and likely to come true fairly quickly, though given that this was a late-in-the-day story, the speed by which the Chron responded editorially was remarkable to me. They must not have had anything else pressing to opine about today, I figure.
But contrast that to their response to the Chuck Rosenthal saga, which I think we can all agree is of more local interest than the foibles of a Northeastern governor. The story of Rosenthal's racist, sexist, and possibly illegal campaign-related emails hit the news on January 8. As far as I can tell from doing multiple archive searches, the first time the Chron ran an unsigned editorial on the subject was February 16, when they expressed their approval at his long-awaited decision to quit and called on Governor Perry to name a replacement (which he hasn't done yet, by the way). Before that, even as calls for him to step down came from folks like Kelly Siegler, a group of black ministers, various letter writers, and County Judge Ed Emmett, there was nothing from the Chron.
So I've got to ask: Why was it more important for the Chron to comment on the Spitzer situation than the Rosenthal situation? I'll stipulate that Spitzer is headed for an indictment, while Rosenthal may never face charges, but so what? Again, Spitzer is in New York. Rosenthal is here, and his saga dominated the local news for weeks, and is still having an effect on the political scene. Note that I'm not saying the Chron needed to call for Rosenthal to step down, though in the end they did approve of him doing just that. I'm just wondering why it took them so long to express any editorial opinion on the subject when they were lightning quick to judge Spitzer. I don't understand their priorities here.
So. Governor Spitzer of New York. Prostitution ring. Doesn't look very good, does it?
Now, I think Jane asks some pretty reasonable questions about this business. Given the extreme politicization of the Bush Justice Department, I'm inclined to view this kind of action on their part suspiciously. Not because I think the core facts are doubtful - Spitzer himself has basically copped to the allegations - but because the timing and the circumstances are curious. How is it that Spitzer's name got leaked to the press but David Vitter's didn't? That sort of thing. The Bush Administration has abused the public trust in a million different ways these past seven-plus years, and I see no reason to start taking their word for it on anything, let alone anything politically charged like this.
Having said that, Spitzer is a disgrace, to himself and to those who supported him. As a prosecutor himself, he of all people should know better. He needs to resign - morally and politically, it's the right thing to do.
I think this sums up how a lot of people feel about Gov. Spitzer right now. It's not safe for work, and it's not for those who are offended by strong language, but it's right on.
UPDATE: TPM has an answer to one of Jane's questions, about why the US Attorney was involved in a prostitution bust.
Remember this classic story from 2006?
Just three days after being sworn in, U.S. Rep. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs wants Congress to investigate the destruction of files in her office by former staff members of her predecessor, Tom DeLay.Seven staffers walked out of her office Tuesday, resigning en masse, reportedly because they didn't like the way she was treating them. They had served Sekula-Gibbs for about 24 hours.
Sekula-Gibbs said in a prepared statement today that seven employees in her Washington office and the district office in Stafford, "deleted records and files without my knowledge or permission" before quitting.
Spokeswoman Lisa Dimond told The Associated Press that the congresswoman had not yet gotten a response to her request for an investigation by the House's chief administrative officer.
Kevin Madden, a former DeLay spokesman who works for outgoing GOP Majority Leader John Boehner and was not among the seven, said the holdover staffers "felt like they were treated terribly." He would not elaborate.
Sekula-Gibbs, who is serving out the last seven weeks of DeLay's term, said the walkouts were "suspicious" in that the seven took the time to delete files before leaving without notice.
Dimond said other staffers discovered the work-related files were missing when they tried to access them.
House officials now say their investigation of her charge found no wrongdoing by the six aides."Our computer security analysts did look into then-Rep. Sekula Gibbs' concerns around the integrity of computers in the office she briefly occupied and found no traces of purposeful erasure of data," Jeff Ventura, spokesman for the Office of the House Chief Administrative Officer, told the Houston Chronicle. "It was determined that any lost data may have been inadvertent or the result of standard methodology employed when any member of Congress transitions to another."
In response to that written statement, Sekula Gibbs, who is running for the seat again in the Republican primary, said this week that with the help of House technology experts, she was able to recover most of the material she had accused the staff of deleting on purpose.
She had no further comment about the House findings.
Could be. In the meantime, before that happens, the guy who actually runs the DA's email servers got himself grilled.
Gary Zallar answered technical questions from U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt for more than hour about the backup capabilities of the e-mail server in the district attorney's office.The hearing, in which plaintiff's attorney Lloyd Kelley has asked Hoyt to hold Chuck Rosenthal in contempt, relates to a federal civil rights case lodged by two brothers against the Harris County Sheriffs Office.
Kelley and Rosenthal's attorney, Ron Lewis, each had 45 minutes to question Zallar, who estimated that about 2,000 e-mails that Rosenthal deleted are unrecoverable.
Kelley's 45 minutes were marked by yelling and furious scribbling on a large pad of paper on an easel in front of Zallar, to do the math on how many e-mails remain unaccounted for.
"Is that a lie, or is there some process in your office that you haven't told us about?" Kelley shouted.
Lewis brought laughs from the gallery when he objected to Kelley, asking the judge to instruct Kelley to stop yelling his questions at Zallar.
Much more quietly, Lewis tried to nail down the differences between sent e-mails and received e-mails, Rosenthal's public e-mail box and his internal e-mail box.
"It's confusing, isn't it?" Lewis asked.
"Yes."
Although Kelley has subpoenaed Rosenthal's executive assistant Kerry Stevens; Republican district attorney candidate Kelly Siegler; her husband, Dr. Sam Siegler; his chief investigator, John Ray Harrison; his political consultant, Allen Blakemore; and prosecutor Mike Trent, the tenor of Hoyt's order suggests that he only wants to hear from those with direct knowledge about the e-mail deletions. In scheduling the hearing, Hoyt told attorneys not to even file briefs.
Elsewhere, KTRK did a story on the background of the case, which as we know started with a raid by the Sheriff's department that led to the arrest of two bystanders who were taking pictures of it. The wrongful-arrest lawsuit that stemmed from that is what ultimately led to the discovery of the deleted and embarrassing emails.
This is all about Chuck Rosenthal. The thing is Rosenthal didn't know about the raid beforehand six years ago, he certainly wasn't there six years ago, in fact his name doesn't even come up in this lawsuit. So then why is Chuck Rosenthal going to court facing jail time in the morning?"I think something should happen to him," said attorney Lloyd Kelley.
Lloyd Kelley is the Ibarra's lawyer. Kelley wanted Rosenthal to investigate the way sheriff's deputies behaved at the raid.
Kelley claims the DA's didn't conduct a proper investigation so he subpoenaed Rosenthal's emails to see what the DA was saying about the case.
Under court order, Rosenthal turned over hundreds of messages, but deleted 2,500 more. That's why Rosenthal has to face a federal judge.
"He destroyed evidence," Kelley said. "You can't do that in our system."
There wasn't anything in the recent emails about the Ibarras, but there sure was enough in there to cause Rosenthal a lot of trouble and help Lloyd Kelley's friend Clarence Bradford who happens to be running for DA.
Something Lloyd Kelly quickly dismisses.
"You would have to give me power of clairvoyance to know what he had," Kelley said. "I was looking for stuff about my case. What falls out is evidence of illegal activity, racism - sexism, all sorts of horrible stuff."
"I'd hate to see a political hit job ruin a guy's career, but Chuck Rosenthal has a lot to answer for here," said attorney Mark Bennett.
Houston defense lawyer Mark Bennett is the president elect of the Harris County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
Bennett believes Kelley had political, as well as legal motives, for exposing Rosenthal's email. In a federal contempt hearing, motive just doesn't matter.
"I don't know if he belongs there, but he's there and when you're in federal court and a federal judge tells you to do something, you do it," he said. "If I had a client who did the same thing, I would remind the client it was an exceptionally stupid thing to do. The question is was it contempt of court and was it a criminal violation?"
That's about the most succinct way I can think of to summarize this story about the court hearing next week in which Chuck Rosenthal has to explain his email deletions or risk facing contempt of court charges.
The hearing, which will take place Jan 31 in U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt's court, was sought by Lloyd Kelley, the attorney representing two brothers suing Harris County for wrongful arrest. Kelley filed a motion for sanctions against Rosenthal, alleging the district attorney deleted more than 2,500 e-mails after they had been subpoenaed and ordered produced by the court.In court papers filed Monday, Kelley gave a list of people he plans to call to the witness stand, including Rosenthal; prosecutor and Republican DA candidate Kelly Siegler; Siegler's husband, Dr. Sam Siegler; Rosenthal's executive assistant Kerry Stevens; his chief investigator John Ray Harrison; his political consultant Allen Blakemore; and prosecutor Mike Trent.
Kelly Siegler had informed Rosenthal's employees that the e-mails were improper and "possibly illegal," Kelley said, while Siegler's husband exchanged "racy" and off-color e-mails with Rosenthal.
Stevens was the recipient of romantic e-mails sent by the married Rosenthal through the county e-mail system.
Blakemore may be asked to testify on the use of county computers for election campaign purposes, while Trent may be asked in court about an e-mail he sent in 2003 that some have interpreted as racist -- an assertion that Trent denies.
Kelley also intends to summon as witnesses Sheriff Tommy Thomas, County Judge Ed Emmett, County Attorney Mike Stafford and Rosenthal's attorney, Ron Lewis.
Kelley said he hopes the Jan. 31 hearing will explore when and why Rosenthal deleted the e-mails; which e-mails were deleted; whether Rosenthal committed perjury about the e-mails; whether Rosenthal and his employees engaged in "illegal or unethical behavior" that motivated them to not comply with the court's order -- and what capabilities they had of recovering the deleted e-mails.
Kelley also hopes the hearing will explore whether Rosenthal and his staff "conspired to withhold documents" and to "hide the deletion of e-mails." He is asking the court what punishment should be imposed and what restitution or remedy should be awarded to his clients.
And it won't just be Lloyd Kelley bringing his rod and reel to the courtroom, either:
Lewis, in court papers, also said he intends to explore whether Kelley knowingly made confidential information in Rosenthal's e-mails public in violation of a Nov. 20, 2007 protective order. Lewis said he will call KHOU-TV reporter Jeremy Rogalski as a witness to testify whether he received "confidential documents" from Kelley on or about Jan. 8.Rogalski broke the story on Jan. 8 that Rosenthal's e-mails contained potentially racist and sexist content and sexually explicit bloopers.
Lewis also gave notice that he intends to call Kelley as a witness to testify about his compliance with the court's orders and his claims that his clients' legitimate discovery needs have been affected.
Now that he's back in Texas, you may be wondering what the current status is of the DeLay prosecution. The Observer's Cody Garrett has a nice summary:
The case is on the docket for March 7, but that may be just for show, since the trial judge is suggesting an appeal by Colyandro and Ellis will need to be disposed of before the case can move forward. According to Judge Pat Priest's homepage, Colyandro and Ellis filed their appeal based on rulings by Judge Bob Perkins, who was replaced by Judge Priest after they objected to donations made by Perkins to Democrats. The appeal is pending in the Third Court of Appeals:Certain indictments, you may remember, were thrown out by Judge Priest, including conspiracy to violate the election code. That decision was appealed all the way to Texas' Court of Criminal Appeals, where prosecutors lost, but there were some strongly worded dissents. Based upon these, a motion for rehearing was filed by Earle's office and denied by the top criminal court.
The indictments that are still alive and well include money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. For the background about where all these charges come from, it's always worthwhile to consult the Observer's repository on the DeLay/Abramoff 'Money Machine' scandal here.
Once the Third Court rules on the merits of the appeal by Colyandro and Ellis, sources within the DA's office suggest that decision will be appealed -- by whatever party loses. That issue would then be resolved by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Then the drama moves back to Priest's courtroom, assuming DeLay's attorney Dick DeGuerin is not in the middle of a case elsewhere.
Once action resumes in Austin, at least two motions need to be resolved, including an allegation by the defendants of prosecutorial misconduct on Earle's part -- focusing on a documentary called The Big Buy, made by Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. The documentary allegedly features Earle giving the filmmakers lots of access while the case against DeLay and company was being put together. The defendants argue Earle was wrong to participate. The other motion is a request by the defendants for a change of venue -- arguing that an Austin jury may well have preconceived notions about DeLay, Colyandro, and Ellis. Surely after these several years, even Austinites, who were roundly disenfranchised by DeLay's efforts during redistricting, may have allowed their tempers to cool enough to give these fellows a fair trial, but, hey, there's a reason I'm not a lawyer.
Presumably, after all these things have come to pass, then, finally, the case against DeLay will begin to move. The question is, will that happen this year? It's hard to say, but probably not, which means, really, that Earle will watch this one from the comfort of his retirement. It seems justice isn't all that swift after all.
Today's Chron story provides a little more info about Attorney General Greg Abbott's impending investigation of DA Chuck Rosenthal.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott launched an investigation Thursday into whether Harris County's top prosecutor, Chuck Rosenthal, violated state laws by using a government computer for campaign activities.Abbott's office declined to discuss the investigation, which could lead to Rosenthal's ouster, referring questions to a short letter sent to the county's top civil attorney, Mike Stafford, who requested the inquiry.
"You asked the Office of the Attorney General to investigate allegations involving the Harris County District Attorney," wrote Deputy Attorney General Eric Nichols. "Pursuant to your request, this letter confirms that the Office of the Attorney General will open an investigation into this matter."
County commissioners last month set aside $50,000 for a private attorney to defend Rosenthal and two top assistants in their attempt to keep Rosenthal's e-mails private and defend Rosenthal against allegations that he illegally deleted e-mails. It wasn't clear Thursday whether county taxpayers might also pay for lawyers to defend Rosenthal in the attorney general's inquiry.
The new investigation, possible under a provision in state law that allows the removal of a district attorney for "official misconduct," is the latest development in an unfolding scandal over Rosenthal's e-mails, which included campaign fundraising invitations and discussions of his one-time political opponent, former Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford.
Asked Thursday whether he would comment on the controversy, Rosenthal replied, "No, sir. Thank you."
[...]
It was unclear Thursday how the state investigation might proceed. The law sets out a procedure in which the attorney general's office would have to determine whether to file a petition for removal. That would require a finding of "official misconduct," which includes unlawful behavior.
It's generally unlawful for public officials to use government resources for campaign activity, but prosecutors have discretion based on the degree of the activity and the intent of the official.
AG Abbott's letter is here (PDF). Meanwhile, Mark Bennett gives a view of what life is going to be like for some of Rosenthal's employees as long as he's still in charge:
Other unresolved questions: will the Assistant DAs continue to proudly declare in voir dire that they "work for the elected DA, Chuck Rosenthal"? No, probably not; more likely, we'll have to help them make that point. And will they tell our potential jurors who attend Lakewood Church (all 30 thousand of them) that the view of the DA's office is that members of that church are screwballs and nuts? No, we may have to handle that part of jury selection too. And the part where we discuss racist "jokes" and sexist videos making light of violence against women. And the part where we discuss hardcore pornography sent or received at taxpayer expense. You know, just to make sure they won't hold it against the State in this particular case.How long will it take Harris County juries to forget the glimpse they've had of the hidden sleaze of the Harris County DA's office? Kelly Siegler is a hell of a trial lawyer. As I've written before, she stands out as a prosecutor in part because she exhibits the kind of creativity in the courtroom that defenders use every day. (Of course, prosecutors aren't necessarily ethically permitted to exhibit the kind of creativity in the courtroom that defenders use every day, but that's what the voters like to see.)
Lakewood has a weekend attendance of about 45,000 members, led by Pastor Osteen.Don Iloff, a spokesman for the church, said "Lakewood's members are very forgiving. They probably won't vote for her, but they will forgive her."
[...]
Her opponents for the GOP nomination had guarded comments -- or none at all -- about her Lakewood remarks.
"I don't want to be hasty," former state District Judge Pat Lykos said. "I don't want to comment until I see her statements, and it may not be appropriate to comment even then."
After reading Siegler's courtroom comments and her later explanation of them, former prosecutor and GOP rival Jim Leitner said, "Obviously Kelly didn't like that juror and she was scrambling for reasons" to justify striking him.
Houston police Capt. Doug Perry said he felt Siegler was "only doing her job" and trying to select an effective jury, "but I also want voters to know that, if elected, I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind."
Thursday afternoon the 300-member Houston Area Pastor Council called for Rosenthal's resignation and blasted Siegler's Lakewood comments.
"The bottom line for us," said Dave Welch, the group's executive director, "is this is a matter of public trust in an office of critical authority that has great bearing on people's lives. The actions by the district attorney and apparently some of his staff are beyond troubling," said Dave Welch, the group's executive director. "They raise doubt about the character and ethics and law within the office."
While the ministers' group stopped short of demanding Siegler resign or withdraw from the race, Welch said, "She is part of that culture in the district attorney's office that needs to be cleansed."
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal will face a state investigation into whether campaign-related e-mails on his government computer warrant removal from office, officials said today.Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office informed county officials today that it would try to determine whether Rosenthal's actions were "official misconduct.'' The process could lead to Rosenthal's removal, and even criminal charges.
Sec.A87.018. TRIAL.(a) Officers may be removed only following a trial by jury.
(b) The trial for removal of an officer and the proceedings connected with the trial shall be conducted as much as possible in accordance with the rules and practice of the court in other civil cases, in the name of the State of Texas, and on the relation of the person filing the petition.
(c) In a removal case, the judge may not submit special issues to the jury. Under a proper charge applicable to the facts of the case, the judge shall instruct the jury to find from the evidence whether the grounds for removal alleged in the petition are true. If the petition alleges more than one ground for removal, the jury shall indicate in the verdict which grounds are sustained by the evidence and which are not sustained.
(d) The county attorney shall represent the state in a proceeding for the removal of an officer except as otherwise provided by Subsection (e) or (f).
And just when you thought things couldn't get any weirder, consider this.
Republican district attorney candidate Kelly Siegler told a judge last year that members of Houston's Lakewood Church are "screwballs and nuts" and that she works to keep them off of juries.Siegler made the comment while defending herself from a defense attorney's suggestion that she struck a man from the jury pool in a capital murder case because he is black. It wasn't the man's race that prompted Siegler to eliminate the man from the jury pool, she said. It was the fact that he attends Joel Osteen's megachurch.
"To start with, he's a member of Lakewood Church. And we have had a running agreement, my partner Luci Davidson and I have, since we started, that people who go to Lakewood are screwballs and nuts," Siegler said, according to the court transcript. "I'm very familiar with that church. We try our hardest not to put anybody who goes to Lakewood regularly on any jury, he's a pretty devout member of Lakewood Church. That's one reason that scared me about the man."
Siegler went on to give other reasons why she didn't want him to be on the jury including his membership in the NAACP, a group that opposes the death penalty.
Siegler confirmed today that she complained about Lakewood attendees on the record, but said the comment was taken out of context.
"I was talking to a juror who, in my opinion, was very weak on the death penalty," Siegler said. She said she was obligated to give her reasons for striking the juror, "weak or strong, good or bad," which indicated that he would be weak on the death penalty.
Siegler also said she had never been to Lakewood, and was talking about things she heard about the church.
"I understand that it probably hurt people's feelings but I said it in the context of trying to do my job," she said.
She added that she has purchased and read all of Joel Osteen's books.
"He's about as genuine a pastor as I've ever heard," Siegler said. "A lot of people of faith believe it's a great place to go."
Siegler attends Chapelwood Methodist church.
It is against the law to strike a juror because of skin color, and Siegler was challenged because of the strike, said Tyrone Moncriffe. Moncriffe was a defense attorney in the case against Howard Paul Guidry.
Another attorney in the case, Loretta Johnson Muldrow called the Lakewood argument "a move out of desperation," speculating that Siegler may have found it more acceptable than arguing that the potential juror was "too black."
"It's kind of like being caught in a vise. Which do you choose? Either way, it's ugly," Muldrow said.
Harris County government chief Ed Emmett today called for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's staff to conduct an independent investigation of local District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal in the wake of the disclosure of e-mails on Rosenthal's county government account containing racist jokes, campaign activity and sexually explicit videos.Such an investigation apparently could turn Rosenthal, who is in charge of prosecuting Harris County crimes ranging from capital murder to bicycle theft, into a criminal suspect.
Emmett, the county judge, announced that the Harris County attorney is making the request to the state's top law enforcement officer a few hours after Emmett's opponent in the March 4 Republican primary, former district clerk Charles Bacarisse, said Rosenthal should resign and that an independent investigation of him is needed.
"I believe we have a situation here where laws have been broken," by Rosenthal, Bacarisse said.
Emmett announced the letter to the attorney general at a press conference that was previewed in a notice to the media as a discussion about "reports of possible wrongdoing" at the district attorney's office.
Earlier, Emmett told KTRK Channel 13 he will seek to have Rosenthal removed from office if the DA can't give him an acceptable answer about how he and others in his office are spending time funded by the taxpayers.
[...]
County Attorney Mike Stafford's staff normally might conduct an independent investigation of the district attorney, Emmett said, but that agency already represents Rosenthal in the federal case that led to the disclosure of the e-mails. The lawsuit against the county was brought by two Houston brothers who were arrested in 2002 after one of them photographed sheriff's deputies carrying out a drug raid at a neighbor's home.
Rosenthal and Abbott were not immediately available for comment.
Rosenthal told top county officials Wednesday he would not resign despite admitted poor judgment."Thankfully stupidity is not a ground (for removal)," Rosenthal said in a Wednesday morning e-mail to Ed Emmett, the county's chief executive, who released the note to reporters.
Harris County Attorney Mike Stafford asked the Texas Attorney General's office to investigate Rosenthal's actions and pursue his removal if warranted.Under Texas law, district judges may remove district attorneys from office for incompetency, official misconduct or intoxication on or off the job. Official misconduct is defined as "intentional, unlawful behavior" relating to official duties.
Emmett, like Rosenthal a Republican, said the e-mails were disgusting and Rosenthal should step down to spare the county and his own staff the embarrassment of a lengthy investigation.
"If I had the ability to fire him ... yes, I would have," Emmett said.
Finally, in the Still Just Doesn't Get It department, here's Kelly Siegler explaining her husband.
"I told Sam, my husband, a long time ago to stop sending them, that he was stupid to send them and not to send them to me," said Siegler.She remains candid about her husband of 20 years and Wednesday she was perhaps a bit more contrite.
"He cusses horribly. He has very crude humor," she said. "I'm not his boss, much as I would like to be. He feels terrible about this. I wanted to knock him upside the head when I heard about it."
Siegler, a veteran prosecutor with a hard nose and hard edge reputation, says that she is also offended.
[...]
Siegler regrets that the scandal has upstaged her two decades of admirable performance inside the DA's office. "To put it real bluntly, Mr. Bradford, Judge Lykos, Mr. Lietner, they don't know where the bathrooms are."
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett is about to have a press conference in which he will discuss the DA's office.
WHO: Harris County Judge Ed EmmettWHAT: News Conference
WHEN: 2 p.m., Wednesday, January 9, 2008
WHERE: Fourth Floor Media Room
Harris County Administration Building
1001 Preston
Houston, TX 77002
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett will meet with the news media this afternoon to discuss the latest developments surrounding reports of possible wrongdoing at the Harris County District Attorney's Office.Emmett and other state and county leaders have been meeting throughout this morning to explore various options for responding to allegations of impropriety by Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal. Emmett will brief members on recent decisions and applicable state laws regarding these allegations.
I will say that so far, the response to this sordid little saga, from county officials as well as from other members of the Harris County Republican Party, has been very good. Yes, it's easy to kick a guy when he's down (Lord knows I'm doing it here), but one need only recall the response by Dennis Hastert and other members of the Republican Congressional leadership to the Mark Foley scandal of 2006 to see what I mean. I'll leave it to you to decide if this is a function of their character, or just the result of a hard lesson learned, but credit where it's due. As much fun as it is to make political hay, it's still vastly better to see the right thing be done.
Finally, I forgot to include a link to this Grits post in my previous entry about today's email revelations, so here it is now.
UPDATE: This Chron story answers some of my questions:
Emmett, the county judge, told KTRK Channel 13 today that he will seek to have Rosenthal removed from office if the DA can't give him an acceptable answer about how he and others in his office are spending time funded by the taxpayers.Emmett will speak to the media a few hours after his opponent in the March 4 Republican primary, former district clerk Charles Bacarisse, said there needed to be an independent investigation of Rosenthal.
"I believe we have a situation here where laws have been broken," by Rosenthal, Bacarisse said.
With all the focus on Chuck Rosenthal and his atrocious email habits and tastes, let's take a moment to consider the lawsuit, which was actually filed against Sheriff Tommy Thomas, that started it all when the first batch of don't-it-seem-so-innocent-now "kiss you behind your right ear" epistles were released. The Chron has a good story on the suit and the events that led to it.
The lawsuit, which U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt said Monday could go to trial next month, was filed by two brothers arrested in January 2002 after one of them photographed Harris County sheriff's deputies executing a drug raid at a neighbor's home.The brothers -- Erik Adam Ibarra, 27, and Sean Carlos Ibarra, 37 -- say the deputies stormed their home without probable cause, drew their guns, arrested them, seized their cameras and confiscated or destroyed their film.
Both men were eventually cleared of all criminal charges after their cases went to trial. They then sued Harris County, the sheriff's department, Sheriff Tommy Thomas and four deputies involved in their arrests -- Preston Foose, Dan Shattuck, John Palermo and Sgt. Alex Rocha.
A federal jury will consider the Ibarras' claims of wrongful arrests, excessive force and civil rights violations.
"There's no good reason that what happened that day should happen to anybody," Erik Ibarra said.
Thomas has denied in court papers that his officers did anything improper. The sheriff argued his deputies only used force to defend themselves because one of the Ibarras turned to hit and kick a deputy during the confrontation.
[...]
Rosenthal and Harris County prosecutor Sally Ring were deposed as witnesses in the civil case because one of the deputies claimed they acted on instructions from the District Attorney's Office when they arrested the Ibarras and destroyed their film, [the Ibarras' attorney Lloyd] Kelley said.
Ring has denied giving the deputies any such orders.
The deputies were never charged with any wrongdoing.
In a deposition taken in November, Rosenthal testified he forwarded a letter from Kelley complaining about the deputies to another prosecutor, Joe Owmby, chief of the district attorney's police integrity unit. After receiving that letter in 2003, Owmby said he investigated the incident, but that effort was hampered, he said, partly because the Ibarras never made an internal affairs complaint.
Kelley, however, said their attempts to file an internal affairs complaint were stonewalled by the sheriff's department.
[...]
In his order, Hoyt wrote there was "sufficient evidence" to conclude the deputies may have violated the Ibarras' Fourth Amendment rights to be free from arrest without probable cause.
"The act of taking photographs, in and of itself, is an innocent act protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution," Hoyt wrote.
Hoyt also said there is some evidence that the deputies "deliberately made false statements" to the District Attorney's Office to obtain criminal charges against the Ibarras.
Earlier this year, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Foose was not entitled to qualified immunity, which would have protected him from the Ibarras' claims of constitutional rights violations. The higher court dismissed the sheriff's and Shattuck's appeals because of contested facts in the case, so those claims remain against them as well.
But the 5th Circuit partially overruled Hoyt, finding Palermo and Rocha were entitled to qualified immunity. As a result, those claims against them were dismissed, though others remain.
Let's start with more from KHOU, since they were the first on the scene with this story.
[O]ther e-mails in the district attorney's office provide a glimpse of a possible ongoing attitude taken towards women.An e-mail from division chief Joe Owmby to general counsel Scott Durfee says, "we need to include some hot interns."
"Pornography is not illegal in this country. But for a district attorney, a law enforcement agent, to have that on his office machine, suggests to me that this is not only inappropriate, grossly insensitive and raises real questions as to whether or not he's fit to hold this office," said 11 News political expert Bob Stein.
But political and legal experts tell us the potentially most damaging e-mails deal with Rosenthal's political campaign activities on county equipment and time.
Take his campaign Web site. It's designed and run by a county employee, who also happens to run the district attorney office's IT department.
In an afternoon e-mail to that IT director, Rosenthal writes, "How much do I owe ya'all for keeping my campaign website up?"
Another example: An e-mailed note from Rosenthal meant to ask people if they "would be interested in purchasing "Re-Elect Chuck Rosenthal" children campaign T-shirts for those "little voters to be."
There are also numerous other exchanges with county employees about Rosenthal's re-election barbecue fundraiser. All were sent from county e-mail addresses and the vast majority, during normal county business hours.
All of which is a major no-no, said Stein.
"Clearly Rosenthal not only went across that line, he went across that line by a full football field, using personnel, using equipment," he said.
From the political, to the racial: In an e-mail Rosenthal forwarded to his friend Dr. Siegler, it describes Bill Clinton as the closest thing to having a black man as president, because, "He played the sax...," "He smoked weed," and "He had his way with ugly white women."It also said he doesn't work, but still gets a government check every month.
And finally there is an e-mailed photo found on Rosenthal's county computer. It is of an African-American man lying on his back on a sidewalk and seemingly unconscious. He is surrounded on one side by watermelon, that has clearly been eaten, and an empty fried chicken bucket on the other. The photo's sender is unknown, but it does have a title with it: "Fatal Overdose."
More from the Chron, starting with a finalist in the Really, Really Doesn't Get It competition:
Kelly Siegler dismissed her husband's e-mails."He cusses like a sailor and his sense of humor is crude, to put it mildly," she said. "It's his computer and what he does at work is his business. He's the boss."
She declined to comment on whether Rosenthal should resign but said the revelations wouldn't affect her campaign.
"I would hope the voters are more concerned about qualifications of their DA than some inappropriate e-mails."
The calls for Rosenthal to resign have begun:
"I am asking the people of Harris County to join me in requesting Chuck Rosenthal's resignation effective immediately," said Charles Bacarisse. "(He) has lost both the public trust and the moral authority required to serve effectively as district attorney of Harris County."
And more on the campaign activities:
E-mails about a barbecue fundraiser for Rosenthal's planned re-election campaign also were sent to his employees, the documents reveal.It is widely considered illegal in Texas for public officials to campaign during work hours using government-owned equipment. Such instances in the past have led to charges of official misconduct, or theft by a public official.
"I'd like to kick off the 2008 re-election campaign with a barbecue in early October," Rosenthal wrote to his staff in one e-mail in August, as he announced a planning session for the event. "I appreciate your help, and I am looking forward to seeing you there."
Another e-mail announced Gail Hays, a captain investigator with the district attorney's office, would be at the credit union parking garage with barbecue tickets. It was unclear who sent that message. Hays did not appear at the garage because of bad weather, a follow-up e-mail states.
Dated through the middle of last year into the fall, the e-mails also contain campaigning strategies, including several references to the Democratic opponent, former Houston police Chief C.O. Bradford.
An investigator e-mailed Rosenthal in September to notify him of a Bradford fundraiser. In another e-mail Rosenthal writes of Bradford, "My Democratic opponent only managed to set HPD back 100 years."
Others contained data that could be considered opposition research for political purposes.
Rosenthal, for example, asked his political consultant, Allen Blakemore, about Bradford in a July e-mail:
"I have heard for years that Brad was not a regular officer for very long and that he climbed through the ranks in dispatch. Do you think I need an open records request to get his assignment?"
The e-mails contained exchanges between Rosenthal and employees with the consulting firm that was handling his re-election campaign, including one with a list of Republican precinct chairs, important grass-roots officials.
A follow-up e-mail had a draft copy of a proposed e-mail from Rosenthal's county account to those precinct chairs, inviting them to his barbecue fund-raiser.
"You do not need a ticket, simply go to the front of the line and let them know your name and that you are on my 'Friend of Chuck' List," it reads.
UPDATE: Cory and The Professors weigh in, with each noting Rosenthal's enthusiasm for the death penalty, which is of course disproportionately applied to African-American defendants.
Remember how I said it looked like things might get worse for Chuck Rosenthal? Well, they just did, and this time there's collateral damage.
11 News has obtained hundreds of other Chuck Rosenthal e-mails, some that are racially and sexually charged.Some of the most disturbing e-mails were exchanged between Rosenthal and his friend Sam Siegler.
Including one Aug. 16, titled "Slick Willy." The e-mail describes Bill Clinton as the closest thing to having a black man as president, because, "He played the sax..." "He smoked weed," and "He had his way with ugly white women."
It also said he doesn't work, but still gets a government check every month.
The very day after, Siegler e-mailed Rosenthal a video of unsuspecting women attacked on public streets. Men wearing hooded sweatshirts and sunglasses rip their clothes off, leaving them stunned and naked in public.
Rosenthal's office prosecutes sex crimes against women.
And who is Siegler?
Besides being Rosenthal's personal physician, Dr. Siegler is the husband of Assistant District Attorney and Republican Party District Attorney candidate Kelly Siegler.
His comments to us?
"I'm a private citizen. I'm a doctor, I'm his doctor, we're friends," Siegler said. "It's the United States of America, and I didn't think there was anything illegal about that particular e-mail.
"I didn't intend for it to be offensive. I didn't e-mail anybody that I thought would be offended by it."
Let's put aside the fact that many workplaces, presumably including Harris County workplaces, have restrictions on this kind of email, for which the sanctions can include termination. I'm actually willing to cut Chuck a bit of slack here if he was simply the recipient of these emails from his bozo friend. We all have someone in our lives who sends us emails we don't care for, right? As long as Rosenthal never forwarded them, or replied to them, that would mitigate his sins somewhat, at least from an HR perspective. It still speaks very poorly to his character, but it probably wouldn't get him fired.
But it turns out there are other problems:
Numerous messages deal with organizing his re-election barbecue fundraiser as well as finalizing his bio for his campaign website.All of the e-mails surfaced during a federal civil rights lawsuit, in which two brothers claimed they were beaten and arrested by sheriff's deputies.
The district attorney's office provided hundreds of documents and video attachments. But in many of the e-mails, it's unclear exactly who sent what.
Including several files of hardcore pornography, too graphic to show on TV or on KHOU.com.
So what's next? Remember, Chuck still has to face the judge on January 31 and explain why some 2000+ emails were deleted. Who knows what may come out between now and then? Stay tuned. Mark Bennett has more.
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay may not be in a leadership position on Capitol Hill anymore, but that doesn't mean he can't weigh in on the current GOP leadership.DeLay told Yeas & Nays that Republicans in Congress are "looking for something to believe in" and "they're not getting it out of this Republican leadership. ... The leadership just isn't getting it."
"They're looking for some backbone," said DeLay, who also chimed in on the 2008 election. He said the Republican party is "going to get our clocks cleaned in 2008" and unequivocally said that "Hillary [Clinton] will be the next president." Which ought to give DeLay's newest projects, the Coalition for a Conservative Majority and a consulting firm called First Principles, LLC, plenty to do.
DeLay gave us is his dour assessment at a book party for former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, which was held at the Georgetown home of former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman. The party was a virtual "who's who" of the conservative movement: Lynne Cheney, Liz Cheney Perry, Scooter Libby, David Keene, Vin Weber, Grover Norquist, Barbara Comstock, Armstrong Williams, Mary Matalin, Ramesh Ponnuru, John Fund, Byron York and Kate O'Beirne.
But, lest you think that The Hammer is about to start playing for the other team, he did poke fun at New York Times columnist -- and favorite conservative punching bag -- Paul Krugman: "I'd like to bitch-slap him."
DeLay also ruled out another stab at politics, even if GOP fortunes reverse: "I'm 60 years old, I'm through."
Now that there are no more appeals pending for Tom DeLay, and Travis County DA Ronnie Earle says he's ready to go to trial, when shall we see The Erstwhile Hammer in court? Not just yet, says the presiding judge.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has denied rehearing of the State's appeal. Still pending in the Austin Court of Appeals are appeals taken by Messrs Colyandro and Ellis on rulings by Judge Perkins before I got in the case on Applications for Pretrial Habeas relief based on alleged Unconstitutionality of certain of the statutes on which the prosecutions are based. Prudence may dictate awaiting the outcome of those appeals before proceeding.
After yesterday's CCA ruling refusing for the final time to reinstate the conspiracy indictment against Tom DeLay, Travis County DA Ronnie Earle says he's ready to go to trial.
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said Wednesday that his office is ready to go to trial on remaining charges against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay after the state's highest criminal court upheld its earlier dismissal of a separate charge."We're preparing for trial," Earle said.
But Houston attorney Dick DeGuerin, who represents DeLay, said he doesn't expect any trial until another Texas appeals court rules on a case involving accused co-conspirators John Colyandro and Jim Ellis.
DeGuerin said Colyandro and Ellis' case, which was argued to a panel of Austin's 3rd Court of Appeals more than a year ago, "has to do with the balance of the case" against DeLay.
Although DeLay is not directly involved in the case pending at the Austin appeals court, the outcome is likely to affect charges of money-laundering and conspiracy to launder money.
No story just yet, but thanks to Vince's news alert feeds, I can tell you that the Court of Criminal Appeals has denied the motions made by Travis County DA Ronnie Earle to reconsider its to let stand the dismissal of the conspiracy charge against Tom DeLay. Looks like my initial skepticism was accurate, despite Paul Burka's persuasive case otherwise. So at long last, we're at the point where the next step in the process is an actual trial for Tom DeLay. Better get him before the feds do, Ronnie. More later when this hits the wires.
UPDATE: Here's a Chron story. I expect we'll get more, with quotes, later.
A federal grand jury has subpoenaed payroll records from the House for Ed Buckham, former chief of staff to ex-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).The subpoena, issued by a grand jury in Washington, D.C., is the first formal notification that Buckham is the focus of a federal corruption probe by the Justice Department. The subpoena was sent to Daniel Beard, chief administrative officer for the House, and formally read into the Congressional Record this afternoon, although Buckham was not mentioned in the official notification.
Buckham served as DeLay's chief of staff before leaving to become a lobbyist. He had extensive dealings with now imprisoned GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and a former buiness associate Tony Rudy - also a former DeLay aide - has already pleaded guilty to accepting payments from Abramoff's clients while working for DeLay. The gifts, including payments to Rudy's wife, were in exchange for helping Abramoff and his clients with legislative matters, according to Rudy's plea agreement with DOJ.
Rudy also pleaded guilty to violating the one-year ban for former senior aides to approach their former bosses as lobbyists. It is unclear if the Justice Department is pursuing the same allegation against Buckham. Neil Volz, ex-chief of staff to imprisoned former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), pleaded guilty to same charge as well.
Buckham, an ordained minister, remained very close to DeLay after he left the Texas Republican's staff, advising DeLay on numerous political and legislative matters.
The second time is not a charm for Ronnie Earle.
A judge in Travis County, for a second time, has thrown out an indictment accusing the Texas Association of Business of breaking state election law during the 2002 legislative campaigns.State District Judge Mike Lynch's opinion Friday echoed his ruling last year that said the business group's corporate-funded ads did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates.
Lynch also dismissed prosecutors' attempts to sidestep the association's free-speech defense by arguing that the business group acted as a de facto political committee by coordinating its 2002 efforts with other political groups.
"You simply cannot make a silk purse out of this sow's ear," wrote Lynch, lifting a line from last year's ruling.
The ruling is a major setback for Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who said he would appeal.
Two similar indictments from the same events are pending, and Earle's appeal would ensure that the state's highest courts decide the matter.
"TAB broke the law, then bragged about it, and should have to answer like everyone else," Earle said.
Austin lawyer Roy Minton, who represents the business group, said enough is enough.
"I feel like it's gone on long enough," Minton said. "It's been very expensive for my client."
[...]
Although the judge wrote that most nonlawyers would consider that the 2002 mailers supported candidates, he said that is not the law.
And he wrote that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Federal Elections Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, continues a consistent theme: "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the ties goes to the speaker, not the censor."
When Lynch threw out a similar indictment last year, Earle asked a grand jury to re-indict the business association on a charge that it acted as a political committee by coordinating its efforts with other groups, particularly Texans for a Republican Majority, a political committee created by then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Lynch, however, ruled Friday that coordination is not a crime defined by state law.
"The District Attorney, as he eloquently stated at multiple hearings, fervently believes the Defendant has unfairly attempted to subvert the free electoral process," Lynch wrote.
The judge said he would make no judgment on Earle's view but concluded: "Even assuming he is correct, these statutes and this indictment aren't equipped to do the job. You simply cannot make a silk purse out of this sow's ear."
No matter what happens in the criminal cases, a civil lawsuit against the business association and Austin lobbyist Mike Toomey, arising from the same events in 2002, must be tried, a different judge ruled earlier this month.
Missed this from Friday.
Almost five years after the Texas Association of Business secretly rounded up $1.7 million from corporations to influence the 2002 elections, a judge ruled Friday that the group and three officials must face a civil suit for possibly violating state election laws, while the companies that gave the money were dismissed from the lawsuit.At issue is whether the association and its officials -- President Bill Hammond, board member Mike Toomey and staff lobbyist Jack Campbell -- acted as a political committee and are subject to state election laws, which prohibit the spending of corporate money in connection with campaigns.
But state District Judge Joe Hart ruled that the companies, including telecommunications giant AT&T and several insurance companies, were not part of a political action committee. Also, though Hart wrote that the state election law and court decisions on campaign finance are ambiguous, he concluded that the corporate-financed ads did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate.
[...]
Hart's three-page decision is a setback for the Democratic plaintiffs. The ruling effectively removes much of the potential monetary damages from the lawsuit by releasing the corporations as defendants.
Both sides, however, could take something positive from Hart's ruling.
On one hand, Hart said it is a question for a judge or jury to decide whether the business group was acting as a political action committee, a key element of the indictment against the business association pending before state District Judge Mike Lynch.
On the other hand, Hart wrote that he must assume an ad does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate unless it uses words such as "vote for" or "vote against," an argument that has been a cornerstone of the defense in both criminal cases and civil litigation.
Lynch reached a similar conclusion about express advocacy last year when he dismissed an indictment against the business association. But Earle was successful in securing another indictment against the group, adopting the civil litigation's legal theory that the group violated the law by operating as a political committee that should have disclosed its activities to state election officials.
Austin lawyer Joe Crews, who represents the Democratic candidates, said he was disappointed that the corporations were let out of the lawsuit.
"The law is so scrambled and bad that even a good, bright judge -- presented with compelling facts -- couldn't really find a way to hold the corporations responsible," Crews said.
But Austin lawyer Larry York, who represents Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., disagreed.
Corporations "gave money to be used in an issue ad campaign," he said. "They basically relied on TAB for what was permissible."
Austin lawyer Buck Wood, who has a similar lawsuit against some of the same defendants in front of a different judge, said Hart should have left the corporations in the lawsuit until it was determined at trial whether the business association was acting as a political committee.
"The corporations can't argue that they didn't know what they were doing," Wood said.
Hammond sent copies of the ads to some donors as they were being mailed to voters.
I don't really have anything to add to this, I'm just trying to keep track of it. Maybe we'll get a resolution before everyone involved has retired from politics. Judge Hart's ruling is here (PDF). Be sure also to check out these two sidebars that give a more visual explanation of where we are and what just happened.
This is very interesting:
In fallout from the Tom DeLay ARMPAC and Jack Abramoff scandals, an attorney claims the Washington, D.C., law office of Williams and Jensen libeled him and put his law license at risk by making repeated false statements about him in FEC filings, conceding, without his knowledge or consent, that he "had violated various federal election laws - some of which are felonies." Plaintiff Corwin Teltschik claims Christine DeLay recruited him in 1995 to be treasurer of ARMPAC, DeLay's political action committee. He says he protested his ignorance of federal campaign laws, but was assured that Williams and Jensen would handle that; they just needed a lawyer in Houston. In succeeding years, he says, Williams and Jensen repeatedly changed ARMPAC's organizational status in FEC filings, without his knowledge. He claims they conceded for him, without his knowledge or consent, that he may have committed felonies "acting in his official capacity as treasurer of ARMPAC," though he never had the power to sign checks for ARMPAC and did not even know he had been named in the FEC complaint. And he claims Williams and Jensen forged his electronic signature on legal documents. One of the ARMPAC accounts at issue was linked to Abramoff; Teltschick says he had no knowledge of it and could not sign checks for it. He demands punitive damages. He is represented in Federal Court by Reginald McKamie of Houston.
The most puzzling part of the lawsuit is paragraph 29 on pages 13-14:
Also contained within the documents that [Williams & Jenson Managing Partner Robert] Martinez faxed to Plaintiff [Corwin Teltschik] was an email that purports to be from James W. Ellis, "Executive Director Americans for a Republican Majority - ARMPAC", dated April 20, 2004 and directed to [former Williams & Jenson attorney and former ARMPAC assistant treasurer Barbara Wixon] Bonfiglio. By this email, Ellis requested Bonfiglio to adjust the payroll figures to reflect the following monthly amounts: Jim Ellis - $9,000; Chris Perkins - $5,500; and Dani DeLay Ferro - $4,500. Ellis also requested some retroactive payments to the same individuals, to be handled via a lump sum payment. Plaintiff was not aware of these payments until November, 2006, and might not have approved same in the first instance.
My question from yesterday has been answered. Barbara Wixon Bonfiglio wrote checks for ARMPAC. I also find it highly unusual that Corwin Teltschik specifically mentions very few checks in his lawsuit. But Mr. Teltschik specifically refers to a check from ARMPAC to Dani DeLay Ferro and immediately suggests that he might not have approved the check if he had known about it. That tells me that Mr. Teltschik believes the check to Dani DeLay Ferro was improper in some way. Could the "retroactive" "payroll" payments have been a way to convert ARMPAC assets into the personal assets of Jim Ellis, Chris Perkins and Dani DeLay Ferro? Trust me, this isn't the last we've heard of this matter.Also notice the timing of Mr. Teltschik's discovery of the check to Dani DeLay Ferro. It was November 2006, just nine months ago. The investigation into suspicious payments from ARMPAC to DeLay family members including Dani DeLay Ferro was well underway by then. I'm betting that Mr. Teltschik learned of the check to Dani DeLay Ferro when the Justice Department asked him about it. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that Mr. Teltschik is unhappy about that check. Mr. Teltschik is obviously disgruntled, and if he's telling the truth, his disgruntlement is justified. I just wonder how cooperative he's been with the Justice Department -- if he knows anything at all.
All this raises two obvious questions. For one, who was Williams & Jensen protecting when they pinned the blame for these FEC complaints on Teltschik? I've never heard of Barbara Wixon Bonfiglio, so I'm assuming that one way or another, there's a bigger fish out there whose interests were served by this alleged deception. And two, what might the FEC have learned had they been given the correct facts in this case? Methinks this will bear watching.
Finally, on a moderately trivial note, Reginald McKamie was the Democratic opponent to Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal in 2004. This case seems a bit out of his firm's normal areas of practice, but I could be wrong about that. Just thought I'd mention it since I recognized the name.
After more than six years of the Bush Administration's Justice Department, can anyone honestly say they're surprised by this?
For four years, U.S. Justice Department attorneys heard the horror stories: Inmates in Texas juvenile prisons were being beaten and molested by the people who were supposed to protect them.Federal watchdogs discreetly collected information and discussed fine legal points as the assaults piled up. More than 2,000 allegations of staff abusing inmates were confirmed by the Texas Youth Commission from January 2003 to December 2006.
The Justice Department ultimately declined to prosecute anyone at TYC or do anything to compel agency-wide reforms.
Attorneys said they were constrained by narrowly drawn laws and insufficient evidence. But there was also a political climate at Justice that discouraged prosecution of official misconduct cases, former department attorneys said.
The tone set by the political leadership prodded career attorneys to think strategically about which cases they pushed, said Albert Moskowitz, chief of the Criminal Section from 1999 to 2005.He said his supervisor, Bradley Schlozman, left no doubt about his distaste for abuse of authority cases. Mr. Schlozman, a former deputy assistant attorney general, has emerged as a key figure in Congress' investigation of Justice Department politics.
"He sort of made that clear, and that had a sort of self-censoring effect on people," Mr. Moskowitz said. "People got awards not for doing police cases but for doing [human] trafficking cases."
And two, Jeff Blackburn:
However, Jeff Blackburn, a leading civil rights attorney from Amarillo, said federal civil rights prosecutions under Mr. Bush's two attorneys general, John Ashcroft and Mr. Gonzales, were "a complete joke.""On the surface, it just appears they're making case-by-case decisions, and they always have an excuse to not take one. But when you start piecing all those case-by-case decisions together, you see a sweeping decision," Mr. Blackburn said. "The decision to prosecute on these cases is totally political and always discretionary."
Enough said. Read it and weep.
I've expressed before my skepticism that Travis county DA Ronnie Earle's request that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reconsider its decision to let stand the dismissal of the conspiracy charge against Tom DeLay would come to anything, but Paul Burka just about has me convinced that there is a fighting chance.
Motions for rehearing are always longshots. But the Court's reasoning in the original Moore and Baker cases was so flawed, and the potential policy repercussions of tying the state's hands in conspiracy prosecutions are so serious, and the argument that the change of law in the Lomax case did not violate the defendant's right to fair notice is so sound, and the margin in the first case was so narrow, that the motion for rehearing has a better chance than most of being granted.
When last we checked, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle had asked the Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider its ruling to uphold the dismissal of the conspiracy indictment against Tom DeLay. Yesterday, Earle got an assist from an unexpected source.
State Prosecuting Attorney Jeffrey Van Horn filed a friend of the court brief saying the court erred in not upholding a conspiracy indictment against DeLay. Van Horn is appointed by the Court of Criminal Appeals and usually represents the state in appeals brought from counties with understaffed district attorney's offices.But Van Horn said it is unusual for the appeals court to grant rehearings once it has decided a case.
"It's a matter that they've considered and made a record over, so it's naturally difficult to get the court to grant a rehearing," Van Horn said.
[...]
After considering the case for 13 months, the all-Republican Court of Criminal Appeals shot Earle down on the narrow vote. But two of the judges who ruled against Earle said they did so because the earlier case law was what existed at the time of DeLay's alleged crime.
Van Horn told the court that should not matter in this case because conspiracy requires the people involved to commit a felony, not just a conspiracy. If DeLay and two co-defendants knew their actions violated the felony code, Van Horn said, then the conspiracy statute should also apply.
In an interview, Van Horn said he gave the court a brief in support of Earle's request for a rehearing because the ruling would affect many areas of criminal law. He said under the court's ruling, the conspiracy statute will only apply to crimes that have been specifically designated by the Legislature as having a conspiracy element.
Back in June, when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the lower courts' dismissal of the conspiracy to violate the election code indictment, Travis County DA Ronnie Earle said he would ask the court to reconsider its ruling. He made that request official on Friday.
Earle said the court is creating a schism between blue collar and white collar crimes."The effect of this decision is to create a separate class of felonies that are indeed 'puny, half-pint' felonies, somewhat different, perhaps less serious and less worthy of diligent enforcement, than the felonies defined in the penal code," Earle said. "Do these other felonies inherently possess a lesser status ... such that a separate -- but not necessarily equal -- system of justice must be created for them?"
DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin of Houston, said Earle's argument was "outrageous."
DeGuerin said violations of the election code are regulatory and are crimes only because the law says they are.
"They are not inherently evil in themselves such as crimes against another person or theft or robbery or fraud," DeGuerin said. "It really is an effort to draw attention away from the fact they got it so wrong that they were embarrassed."
Two charges -- money laundering and conspiring to launder money -- remain against the former Republican congressman and the two consultants. Lawyers are arguing about those charges in an appeals court, and no trial date has been set.
I was pretty sure that this would be the ultimate outcome.
Houston Community College Trustee Jay Aiyer pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of tampering with a governmental record Thursday and received a year of probation.Aiyer, one-time candidate for Houston City Council, also must fulfill 160 hours of community service and pay a $750 fine. He also is prohibited from working on any political campaigns during his probation.
Aiyer, 38, a lawyer and former chief of staff for former Mayor Lee Brown, has served as an HCC trustee since 2001.
"I'm glad we were able to resolve this quickly. I look forward to practicing law and spending time with my family," Aiyer said.
He said he had not given any thought to whether he will keep his seat on the HCC board.
Aiyer originally was charged with a state jail felony, but pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor to avoid a trial.
"It made sense to make peace," Aiyer's lawyer, Dennis Cain, said. "It could have had a massive impact on his future had he pleaded to a felony. It doesn't make sense to risk that kind of exposure. He wanted to put it behind him."
Couple points that I feel need to be mentioned.
The Harris County District Attorney's Office accused Aiyer of committing the offense by removing and destroying a portion of his campaign finance report and putting another document in its place in March 2005.The charge stemmed from a complaint filed with the Texas Ethics Commission more than two years ago. The complaint accused Aiyer of trying to hide expenditures from his HCC campaign account, failing to report payments to political consultants and failing to itemize credit card payments.
The commission referred the complaint to the district attorney's office in April 2006.
There may be nothing to that line of thinking - again, we don't know that much about the actual case. But this is pretty egregious:
"This isn't the end of his problems," said Donna Goode, the division chief over the district attorney's public integrity unit. "He still has to deal with the State Bar, he still has issues with the Texas Ethics Commission and a decision has to be made by trustees about whether this disqualifies him from serving."Aiyer did not attend Thursday's monthly HCC board meeting. Christopher Oliver, chairman of the board, said it was not clear how Aiyer's plea would affect his service on the board.
Aiyer's term is up at the end of this year. HCC often is viewed as a political springboard and Aiyer's political future once seemed limitless.
Under state law, a person convicted of a felony is barred from public office, unless he or she since had been pardoned.
"I don't know if it's a disqualification," Goode said of Aiyer's sentence. "It's certainly something an opponent wouldn't have to go very far to dredge up and use against you."
Here's the basic reasoning behind the Court of Criminal Appeals' refusal to reinstate the conspiracy charge against Tom DeLay and two of his co-defendants.
In Wednesday's decision, the Court of Criminal Appeals had to decide whether a conspiracy charge could be applied to all felonies or only those specified by the Legislature. To side with prosecutors, the court would have had to either reverse or limit its decisions from the 1970s that the Legislature must specify that the conspiracy statute applies to felonies outside the penal code.The court's majority noted that the Legislature had not reacted to the rulings. Instead, lawmakers applied the conspiracy law piecemeal to various felonies.
The dissent said not applying conspiracy to all felonies defies common sense.
Fort Bend Now has Travis County DA Ronnie Earle's response to the CCA's ruling:
"Criminal conspiracy means three things. It means a person intends to commit a felony. It means that the person agrees that he or his co-conspirators will engage in conduct that would constitute the crime. And it means one of them performs some act in pursuit of the crime," he said in a prepared statement."Under the rationale of today's majority opinion, the Legislature has blessed these criminal conspiracies as long as the felony they agree to commit is not in the Penal Code. There are many felony crimes that are contained in parts of the law other than the Penal Code.
"Of course, it is illegal for them to actually commit the crime, but they can legally conspire to do it all they want," Earle said. "This is a tortured result."
The public policy considerations surrounding this decision are larger than this one case. Criminal conspiracy prosecutions "allow for the prevention of crime before it occurs," Earle said. "Under the court's opinion today, law enforcement is powerless to intercept certain felonies before they are actually committed."
Something to watch out for longer term is an attempt by the Lege to clean up this loophole in some fashion. That could make for some interesting legislation, if it were to happen. I'm just speculating here, as so far there's no obvious crusader for this cause. But the prosecutors in this state carry a fair amount of weight, and if they think this may let some bad guys get off the hook, I'll bet they'll ask for the matter to be addressed in 2009.
Finally, a matter I've noted before but just can't let go without noting it one last time:
One of the judges in the majority said he might have ruled differently "were we writing on the proverbial pristine slate." Another in the majority concluded that the court would be denying DeLay due process if it retroactively changed course now.
The Court of Criminal Appeals, which is not known for being friendly to defendants, has refused to reinstate the conspiracy charge against Tom DeLay.
DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and political consultants Jim Ellis and John Colyandro were accused of conspiring to violate state election laws in the 2002 elections for the Texas House. But lower courts threw out the indictment on grounds that conspiracy to violate the election code was not a crime until 2003.A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed.
DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro were charged with plotting to funnel illegal corporate campaign contributions to several Republican House candidates in 2002, when the GOP gained its first House majority of modern times.
The three also were charged with money laundering, but a trial on those charges has been held up pending a resolution of the conspiracy charges.
It pains me greatly to see stories like this.
Houston Community College Trustee and one-time City Council candidate Jay Aiyer is facing a charge of tampering with a governmental record, a felony that could cost him his law license, authorities said Monday.The Harris County District Attorney's Office accused Aiyer of committing the offense in March 2005, by "unlawfully removing, destroying, and concealing, the original filing" of a portion of his campaign finance report and substituting it with another document.
The charges were filed in the 184th criminal court last Thursday. Aiyer posted a $2,000 bond the following day.
Aiyer, reached Monday, said he could not talk about the charges in detail.
"We will be able to work this thing out in a couple of days," he said. "I think it's going to be resolved."
Poor Tom DeLay. He's just a little ol' citizen-journalist now, but those nasty ol' Feds won't leave him alone.
DeLay said he has given the FBI documents exonerating his wife, but an associate of the former lawmaker said that agents have followed up with a fresh round of subpoenas.The inquiry appears to be focused on determining whether DeLay's wife, Christine, earned her pay from two organizations controlled by Ed Buckham, a lobbyist once closely affiliated with the former Republican leader, according to sources interviewed by federal investigators. Several former employees of the groups have received subpoenas for documents, some in the past few weeks.
DeLay told The Hill that he gave the FBI documents and computer records proving his wife was a legitimate employee of ARMPAC, a fundraising committee, and Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying firm once controlled by Buckham.
The Justice Department's persistence shows it has run amok, DeLay says, echoing a charge leveled last week by Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) in response to reports that he is under federal investigation.
"They're not going after me," DeLay said of the FBI. "They're going after other people and they're questioning the other people about whether they know anything I may have done. And we've given them all the records and that's the problem they're having."
DeLay said the evidence shows that his wife did not accept improper payments: "She did her work and she was underpaid for the work she did and they can't make the case. It's a Justice Department that is running amok. Fish or cut bait. Do something."
DeLay said neither he nor his wife is the target of the investigation. But sources contacted by the FBI or familiar with the probe say Christine seems very much in the agency's sights. The FBI has asked former ARMPAC and Alexander Strategy Group employees what work Christine DeLay did."They were really focused on Christine DeLay and whether she was doing anything that would warrant her salary," said one person contacted by agents.
The Washington Post reported that Buckham's lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group, paid Christine DeLay a monthly salary of about $3,300 between 1998 and 2002.
ARMPAC, DeLay's leadership political action committee (PAC), which was also tied to Buckham, paid her and her daughter, Dani DeLay Ferro, about $350,000 in consulting fees and expenses between 2001 and 2006, according to the Post.
Buckham employed ARMPAC's executive director, Jim Ellis, as a consultant at Alexander, and staff of the two organizations shared an office building in Georgetown. Former DeLay associates described Buckham as a leader at ARMPAC.
The FBI has subpoenaed Ferro and investigators have questioned former DeLay associates about her work for ARMPAC. But the focus is mostly on Christine, sources say. Ferro refused to comment.
One source familiar with the investigation said federal officials have given immunity to at least one senior member of DeLay's political circle who may now be cooperating with investigators. Former associates of the majority leader say investigators are apparently attempting to indict DeLay for corruption by proving that Buckham sought to influence him with unearned payments to his wife.
I've not been keeping up with the latest developments at the Texas Youth Commission these days, but fortunately Grits for Breakfast has been. To sum up:
- The TYC is losing lots of staff members in the wake of the scandals. Remember when I said that their new policy of releasing the kids whose sentences had been unfairly extended was a good way to help bring some balance to the staff/inmate ratio? This will more than offset that, and that's not a good thing.
- Worse, the TYC is looking to fire staffers with misdemeanor convictions on their record. If you thought it was hard to adequately staff these locations before, it'll be a lot harder now. I can't see what purpose this new policy serves.
- On the other hand, not everybody who's leaving deserves sympathy. Case in point, Lydia Bernard.
Barnard, who rose quickly through the managerial ranks during her 20-year career, failed to substantiate and act on allegations that Ray Brookins, an assistant superintendent at the Pyote lockup in West Texas, was meeting alone at night with youths in his custody during 2004 and 2005, the commission reported.
Another chapter in the book of Tom DeLay has come to a close.
The political action committee for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was quietly closed last week after a decade-long run as one of the most influential - and infamous - PACs run by members of Congress.With a final $1,400 payment to the Federal Election Commission last month settling an audit dispute, Americans for a Republican Majority then filed its termination papers with the commission April 24.
[...]
ARMPAC also helped precipitate DeLay's fall. In the late 1990s, the PAC was run out of a Capitol Hill townhouse that housed a lobbying firm and a questionable non-profit, both of which were run by lobbyist Edwin Buckham, a former chief of staff to DeLay. For several years Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, paying her more than $100,000 for what has been widely considered undefined work.
Several years later, the FBI and Justice Department began investigating DeLay's connections to now imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. To date, the investigation has yielded guilty pleas by Abramoff, two former aides to DeLay, ex-Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), two former Ney aides and a former Interior Department official, among others. Abramoff's and Buckham's clients became major donors to ARMPAC in the late 1990s as well as to non-profits run by the two lobbyists, sometimes with fund-raising help from DeLay. The investigation, which won multiple awards for The Post's investigative team, is considered ongoing.
With Jack Abramoff back in the news, here's one more item to file away.
The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Livingston has settled a lawsuit with the former employer of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff for an undisclosed amount of money.The lawsuit was settled with the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, whom Abramoff worked for while representing Indian tribes on casino issues before Congress. The settlement ends the case against Abramoff and two other Greenberg Traurig employees.
The tribe dropped its complaint against media consultant Michael Scanlon, who had been the press secretary for former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, before going to work with Abramoff. It also dropped a complaint against Ralph Reed.
"We are satisfied with the settlement, and we are pleased to have the Abramoff matter resolved," said tribal Chairwoman Jo Ann Battise. "We are now focused on restoring our right to game so that we may create employment and business opportunities for us and our neighbors."