Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

We're all criminals, how will Devon Anderson and Kim Ogg treat us?

by

We’re all criminals. Let that sink in a moment. All of us, we’re criminals. Ever driven 67 on the beltway? Criminal. Jaywalked? Criminal. Forgot to use your blinker before changing lanes? Criminal. Don’t have a license for your pet dog in the city? Criminal. Something else we all have in common is that we all want our criminal behavior excused, or at least not enforced upon.

I was being facetious about the examples of criminal behavior – except for the license to own a dog example. That is a needless ordinance, the purpose is served by the separate ordinance requiring rabies vaccinations. However, I was serious regarding we want our criminal behavior excused. The desire to have our criminal behavior excused isn’t unreasonable in and of itself. Should you really be given a citation for driving 67 on the beltway? But depending on what the behavior is the consequences of the behavior sometimes warrant criminal justice system involvement. Crack use or sex offences as an example.

Not all of these examples of criminal behavior should be taken off the books. Law enforcement needs the ability to engage in pretext stops to stop dangerous behavior, and that’s where the District Attorney’s office comes into play. Law enforcement officers refer charges to the DA’s office, and the elected DA sets policy on a) guidelines for accepting or rejecting charges b) plea bargains and c) cutting deals to catch the higher order offenders.

Are you happy with the way the city addresses criminal behavior? The DA’s office can’t require law enforcement to refer charges, but the elected DA can decide which type(s) of crime to have a near zero tolerance policy on. She also sets policy on when to cut deals to go after higher order criminals. The policy decisions the DA sets trickles down to law enforcement on which types of crime to crack down on and which types aren’t work the risks of a stop for enforcement purposes. Policy decisions lets the public know where the DA’s priorities are. Both candidates for DA need to be asked what their policies will be. And Devon’s answer needs to correspond to the current policies in force in her office.

Secret tribunal bill, aka runaway grand jury bill, goes down

by

As I noted here, SB834 by Estes would have protected and even increased the possibility of runaway grand juries, such as the one in Judge Susan Brown’s 185th District Court. Fortunately, the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee killed it by leaving it pending in committee. The only chance it has now of being revived is by attaching it as an amendment to another bill but several reps are carefully watching for this and will make certain that it doesn’t happen.

Several of those against the bill deserve special mention. The Denton Record-Chronicle’s editorial board came out against it. Also, Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe with the Denton Record-Chronicle kept a watchful eye on it throughout the session and made certain that people knew what was happening with it. Local Republican activist Don Hooper traveled to Austin to testify against it. Many of us sent notes to our state representatives about the dark side of this bill.

I doubt that anyone’s testimony had greater effect than that of former Harris County First Assistant District Attorney Jim Leitner. He simply destroyed the bill’s carrier in the House, Rep. Stefani Carter (R-102). It was apparent that Rep. Carter’s very limited experience as a misdemeanor prosecutor in the Dallas area didn’t prepare her well for arguing with someone of Mr. Leitner’s stature. He had to educate her on the difference between federal and state grand juries, the role judges have in picking commissioners for their grand juries, and even why it would be impossible to gather statistics if confidentiality was in place. Makes you wonder why Speaker Straus appointed her Vice-Chair of this committee.

Here is Mr. Leitner’s testimony before the committee:

Former District Attorney Pat Lykos exonerated yet again

by

Pat Lykos
Pat Lykos

The good ol’ boys club that wants the Harris County District Attorney’s office to go back to the good old days of injustice for all (but them and their friends) had another bad day yesterday. After a year of harassing former DA Pat Lykos with a THIRD grand jury, once again the verdict is – nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

But don’t worry. I’m sure the boys and girls consoled themselves with a few Jack and cokes. Maybe even a little clandestine parking lot sex. Probably popped the caps on a few six packs of Lone Star and popped off a few real caps down at the shooting range. After all, boys will be boys.

Houston Chronicle reporter Brian Rogers couldn’t help himself, getting in yet another shot at the former DA by including a quote from gadfly Chip Lewis, a noted hater of Lykos and supporter of the guy that beat her in last year’s contentious primary, Mike “Hang ’em high” Anderson. Heck, if you believe Lewis, he’s the one that schooled Rogers on how bad the former DA’s DWI prosecution policy was, so it is no wonder or coincidence that Rogers ran to him for a quote. If you are expecting great investigative work  on the current DA from Mr. Rogers, I hope you aren’t holding your breath. But don’t worry, some of us folks that aren’t real reporters are doing the job reporters refuse to do. Texas Public Information Act requests really aren’t that hard to make.

Can anyone make sense of this sentence that Mr. Rogers wrote in his “report”? [EMPHASIS ADDED IN CAPS]

A Harris County grand jury scrutinizing former District Attorney Pat Lykos and her administration CLEARED Lykos Thursday of allegations of misuse of public resources stemming from an INVESTIGATION by the DA’s office into another grand jury last year.

Um… if the grand jury “cleared” her of that allegation, doesn’t that mean that they, the special prosecutor and the Texas Rangers determined that she DIDN’T “investigate” the prior grand jury?

Yeah, I think that is what it means. Which is probably why the article has been updated and that sentence changed – it no longer includes “stemming from an INVESTIGATION by the DA’s office into another grand jury last year.”. You’ll also notice that there is no longer a reference in that article about former Judge, now First Assistant DA Belinda Hill’s role in appointing the special prosecutor. Why? I’d suggest that deleting the reference is worse than leaving it in but then again, I’m not the one trying to protect the current DA.

And another thing. Apparently the official allegation they were looking at Lykos for was “MISUSE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES stemming from an investigation by the DA’s office into another grand jury last year.”

So it seems to me we’ve learned two things from the grand jury’s exoneration:

1. Lykos was telling the truth about the scope of her office’s activities, and over a year of rummaging around didn’t uncover anything to the contrary.

And perhaps more interestingly…

2. Whatever Lykos and McWilliams did–which again, has been detailed publicly–wasn’t considered by this grand jury, or the special prosecutors, or the Texas Rangers, to be a “misuse of public resources.”

So presumably it was a proper use of public resources.

In other words, they were justified in doing what they did.

Why would that be?

What did they know–that perhaps still hasn’t been revealed publicly–that would have made their actions a proper use of public resources?

Ponder that one awhile. Think hard. Go back to the make-up of the runaway grand jury.

A real reporter would start asking questions about that, and might even consider using sources that aren’t tied to the hip of the current district attorney and his henchmen.

But don’t worry – some non-reporter will someday put that information out there. That’s a guarantee.

Harris County DA race: Domestic Violence

by

As I’ve noted before, this race is too lopsided to even call a race. Mike Anderson will win hands down, easily, not break a sweat, etc., because he is clearly the most qualified candidate. But since it is on the ballot, he might as well pile on. I just received this press release from his campaign (click here if your browser ins’t compatible with Google Viewer):

Note that last line because it is important:I will make prosecution of domestic violence a priority.

Now, compare that to his opponent’s view of domestic violence, as Bob Price from TexasGOPVote points out:

But look what Democrat candidate for Harris County District Attorney, Lloyd Oliver, had to say about his position on prosecuting some cases of domestic violence. During a debate with his opponent, Republican Mike Anderson, on the Houston PBS Show “Red, White and Blue”, Oliver was asked by the show’s Democrat host, David Jones to clarify comments he made in a prior debate. Oliver had said you should let some people charged with domestic violence just go and “fight it out”. In an even more shocking response, Oliver doubles down on his statement explaining that for some people, “… part of their making love is to beat one another up first.”

Now, I’m not going to get as righteous as Bob does because I grew up in Pasadena and reckon that somewhere in that great city, there is probably a couple or two that fit Mr. Oliver’s description. That said, we don’t base policy on couples from Pasadena. I’m sure that Mr. Oliver was just trying to make a joke and lighten up the “race’ but…you just can’t do that if you want to be taken seriously as a candidate. And by now, it should be more than obvious to everyone involved that Mr. Oliver is not taking this “race” seriously; therefore, you should not consider voting for him. Seriously.

Look, I know that the Anderson camp is still attacking DA Lykos as if she were still in the race but that is no reason for her supporters to think for even a second about voting for Lloyd Oliver. Suck it up and take the insults and punches, the kids will eventually get bored with it and move on to sixth grade or something else, maybe even adolescence. It is more important to have a qualified Harris County District Attorney than it is to get revenge against a few punks by electing a goober.

Harris County DA Race: Republicans should re-elect Pat Lykos

by

Pat Lykos

It is time to make a choice. Early voting starts Monday, here are the locations and times.  If you have not made up your mind about the Harris County District Attorney, perhaps I can help. I’m voting for Judge Pat Lykos and here is why.

Justice. First and foremost, that is the word that pushed, pulled, and shoved me from my position as an observer of the race to a fierce supporter of Judge Pat Lykos. Justice is more than allowing our law enforcement officers to arrest anyone at any time for any reason and locking them up and throwing away the key. I’m convinced, and the record supports me, that Judge Lykos understands what justice is and how, as the chief policy maker on justice in Harris County, she can affect how justice is achieved.

Her opponents disagree with me. Notice I said opponents because although only one person is on the ballot, former Judge Mike Anderson, most of her opponents are not supporters of Judge Anderson – they are haters of Judge Lykos. This second group is loud and vicious and they do not accept facts. They never gave her a chance in her first term, even as she made positive change after positive change. They would much rather throw back a six pack on duty, then head downstairs to fire off a few rounds at the gun range than they would acknowledge that the courthouse should not be a frathouse.

Judge Lykos has made many, many positive changes to make certain that a citizen in Harris County has a chance at justice. Her policy of not prosecuting “trace” evidence cases means that a defendant has an opportunity to have the evidence against her tested, while at the same time lowering the cost to taxpayers of incarcerating non-violent offenders. Judge Lykos’ innovative DIVERT program holds promise at reducing recidivism in DWI cases and lowering the death rate. Against much criticism from the crowd that wants to be back in control of the DA’s office, she is finding criminals that other administrations gave up on and bringing them to justice. She is partnering with other agencies around the county, establishing databases that reduce gang activity. She cleaned up a known gang infested, crime infested apartment complex that her predecessors allowed to run wild.

In short, she is keeping her campaign promises. When was the last time you saw an elected politician do that?

Her ballot opponent, Judge Mike Anderson, has not run an honorable race. I don’t know why that is because, as I said earlier, he seems to be a stand up guy. He has a good track record and was by all accounts a good prosecutor. The only reason that I can think of for his dishonorable campaign is his choice of campaign consultant but even then, he must accept responsibility for that low-life because he chose him. Even today, I heard radio ads designed to make it look like the DA’s office is currently a cesspool of corruption – a smear job not supported by ANY facts. Judge Anderson takes shots at the DIVERT program even as his friend, Judge Bill Harmon, allows his own friends to enter it but not ordinary citizens. In fact, rather than forcing people to take responsibility for their actions, Judge Harmon DISMISSES DWI cases and puts people back on the street because of his dislike for Judge Pat Lykos. And Judge Anderson publicly supports this.  I wonder what he will say when the word starts making the rounds about his role in the Hugh Foreman case?

And that dishonorable campaign goes to the heart of the matter. I truly believe that Judge Anderson believes that if you are investigated, you are guilty – how could I not believe that given his record in this race? That mentality is not what I want anywhere close to the courthouse. We are innocent until proven guilty – I truly do not think that Judge Anderson believes that, given his record.

The biggest charge against Judge Lykos is that the morale at the office is low. This circles right back to the fact that she broke the grip of the frathouse on the courthouse. Hey, you’d be mad too if you were used to three hour, three martini lunches and all of a sudden the new boss says no mas. Sucks to be you, I guess. But great to be a taxpayer, knowing that someone is watching out for your interests.

Here is what I have to say about the morale of these coddled juveniles we call ADAs (and ex-ADAs). Grow up. Take charge of your life. Stop acting like you are in seventh grade and stop following the crowd. It can only help you. As a taxpayer, I don’t give a rat’s rear end that you are sad because Judge Lykos took your beer bong away.

I hope you will join me in voting to re-elect Judge Pat Lykos as the Harris County District Attorney. Your life and the lives of your children may, quite literally, depend upon it.

Harris County DA debate recap: Pat Lykos v Mike Anderson

by

Mike Anderson
Pat Lykos

Have you ever had an idea for something and then pulled it off exactly as planned? You know that feeling you get when that happens? That is how I feel about the Harris County District Attorney’s debate that was held at the King Street Patriots’ headquarters last night. If you missed it, well, you missed a heck of an opportunity to clearly see the differences between these two candidates and not just on personality but on substantive issues. This race isn’t a beauty contest, it truly is about the future policies of the HCDAO’s office and thus, justice in Harris County.

The Setup

First off, kudos once again to Catherine Engelbrecht and the King Street Patriots. What an awesome group they are and they put on a first class event. Their volunteers are second to none – a special thanks to Erin Anderson for being the timekeeper. That isn’t a fun job when you have two candidates with strong personalities. There were times when I thought she was going to have to duck to avoid the blows when she held up the ‘Time Expired’ card. Also a special thanks to Dave Welch of the Houston Area Pastor Council for opening the meeting with prayer and the pledges. He reminded us that it was the National Day of Prayer and that our country desperately needs prayer.

Second, the moderators were tough but fair, exactly as we envisioned it. Scott Braddock and Paul Bettencourt challenged the candidates answers’ on several occasions, they allowed lengthy answers when they thought it was necessary and cut the candidates off when they started drifting away from the subject at hand. I’ve been to hundreds of smaller debates like this and most of the time the questions are softballs and there is no followup from the moderators. In fact, moderator is usually an incorrect term, questioner would be better. But in this case, Scott and Paul turned in a professional performance and elicited clear information from the candidates.

Third, the crowd. Excellent, if not standing room only. I’d put the crowd at between 225 and 240. There were a fair number of supporters for each candidate and a good group of undecided. One of the goals of this debate was to expose new people to King Street Patriots in an effort to break the media stereotype of this fantastic group. It irks me to no end to see them characterized as a bunch of racists – as done by this supposed Republican blogger in the Houston Chronicle this week. I’ve asked him to attend a meeting or two but it turns out that he lives in…get this…Chicago. Go figure. I think that we met that goal as Catherine noted that she saw a lot of new faces, i.e., people that normally do not attend. I do hope that these new attendees will help knock down that idiotic portrayal of these hard working volunteers.

Great attendance for the debate!

Okay, on to the debate. As you know, I don’t pick winners and losers of debates, I grade the candidates on what they need to do to move their campaigns forward. And this one is really easy, both candidates get a A. I know, you were hoping for one A and one F but it just didn’t happen. There was a wide range of questions and the candidates disagreed on many of them. Here are some thoughts on each.

Pat Lykos

I thought that she started off a little hesitant but finished the night strong. The first question was directed to both candidates, giving each two minutes to tell the audience why they were running. She stated that she wanted to continue the progress that she has made in reforming the office and making it into a state of the art, leading district attorney’s office. She reminded people that when she took over the office, it was a laughingstock, racist emails, porn on computers, and alcohol was common.

She easily got off the best line of the night when she said that the “courthouse was no longer a frathouse”. She was able to repeat that line several times throughout the evening and Judge Anderson had no counter to it. On a question about morale, she chastised the “good ol’ days” by saying that they should not be celebrating ‘victories’ in the courtroom with coolers of alcohol but instead  should have a ‘quiet satisfaction with a job well done’.  She was passionate in her defense of the office, stating that she was tired of people attacking the hardworking ADA’s and should keep their attacks focused on her.

I thought that she handled her defense of the ‘trace’ policy about as well as she could. It is unusual for a Republican, especially in a primary, to be for anything other than lock ’em up and throw away the key when it comes to ANY type of crime, no matter how big or small. This issue, as with the DIVERT program, will be a turnoff for many Republicans, regardless of their effectiveness in reducing crime and saving taxpayer money because they are tailor made for the 5 second negative soundbite.

She deftly handled the accusation that she was “soft” on the death penalty and I thought her strongest moment of the entire debate was in her defense of the “cold case” initiative that she has instituted. To me, she is absolutely correct when she says that even if a court lets a murderer go because previous administrations did not pursue them diligently, the right thing to do for the victim’s family is to try.

So she gets an A. If you supported her walking into the building, you supported her when you left. And clearly, her job is to hold the lead that she has.

Mike Anderson

Mike treats these debates as if the crowd is a jury. He has an awful lot of experience in front of juries and if you are in the audience, you can see why he was an effective prosecutor. He is passionate and knowledgeable, rarely stands behind the podium, and is forceful with his arguments. I thought that he was the opposite of Judge Lykos, starting strong and ending a bit weak.

A challenger has to land a knockout blow to win a debate and he was unable to do that. He got in plenty of hard punches, which might have drawn undecided voters his way. As usual, his best argument is on the DIVERT program, where he states that someone on the program could finish it, have their record expunged, then go out and kill someone and their punishment would be less. He brought out some statistics that seemed to show DIVERT wasn’t working (I’ll post separately on that) and scored a very hard blow when Judge Lykos said that you can do anything with statistics. He responded that they might just be numbers to some people, but for the victims family there is real pain.

He struggled with a question about judicial bypass. If you don’t know, judicial bypass is a law that allows a minor to go to a judge seeking an abortion without parental knowledge or permission. Obviously this is controversial in Republican circles and Judge Anderson continues to say that the law says that he cannot mention anything at all about judicial bypass, including whether or not he has ever a judicial bypass request. He said that a Texas Supreme Court supported his interpretation about that – Judge Lykos said that there was no such decision. I don’t think this has anything to do with the duties of the DA but like I said, it is a potent issue in Republican circles.

In response to a question about the low morale of the office, he joked that if there was ever a time that an employee of that office needed a drink, it was now. He got a few laughs and chuckles from the audience. On the death penalty, he asked if Judge Lykos was tough on it, why she was allowing Mr. Buck to sit in jail without a date for death when all she had to do was walk over and give the 208th Court an execution date. I don’t think I heard an answer on that. I assume that he is talking about this case but for whatever reason, I didn’t hear if Judge Lykos responded or not. Maybe someone could help me out here.

So I’l give Judge Anderson an A as well. If you supported him walking in, you supported him walking out. If you were undecided and favor the long arm of the law, he possibly picked up your vote.

Odd occurrence

I hesitate to tell this story because the Anderson supporters will be upset. But, it happened, and it is very, very odd to me. You may or may not think so. It has to do with the “runaway grand jury” and the jury foreperson, Patricia Pollard. During the debate, this subject came up and Judge Anderson was very forceful in thanking the people on the grand jury for their public service and attacked Judge Lykos for investigating these good servants, as he pointed to someone in the front. I thought, does he have the members of the grand jury here supporting him? How odd. Wouldn’t that just reinforce the thought that the grand jury was biased and politically motivated? It would for me.

So after the debate, I’m waiting up front for people to fill out their ballot cards. This guy comes up to me and says, “you’re full of $#{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}$”. Now, I first met this guy at a forum in Pasadena when he was with a candidate from another race. He cornered me that night and talked to me for 20 minutes or so about how I was completely wrong about that grand jury being politically motivated and said that I was “full of $#{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}$”. I’ve seen him at several other functions since then and he always tells me that, I figure it is good natured and laugh about it, telling him back that he’s full of $#{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}$.

So last night, I’m standing there talking to Becky Bowyer and just as I finish talking, along comes my “friend” with his little saying. Right at that moment, this tall blonde woman standing next to me laughs and says, “yeah, you’re full of $#{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}$”. So I laugh back, not knowing who she is and say, yeah, a lot of people say that about me, that’s fine. So then she sticks out her hand to introduce herself and says, “I’m Trisha Pollard and you are full of $#{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}$”. It finally dawns on me who this woman is.

None other than the runaway, Wyatt Earp wannabe Patricia Pollard, 185th grand jury foreperson her grand self.

How’s about them apples, boy?

A kind reader sent this photo in of Trisha Pollard and Mike Anderson talking about ???

Mike Anderson whispers to Patricia Pollard

Ballot results

Everyone attending was offered a chance to fill out a ballot. There were a total of 102 ballots returned, with two of them blank on the DA race. I wish more ballots had been turned in but I suppose some people didn’t have time or haven’t made up their minds just yet. But, having 100 votes sure does make the math easy. Without further ado:

  • Mike Anderson – 56{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}
  • Pat Lykos – 44{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}

And that, my friends, is a wrap.